Course Name: Organizational

Behaviour
Module 1: Introduction

INTRODUCTION
The study of Organizational Behaviour (OB) is very interesting and challenging too. It is related
to individuals, group of people working together in teams. The study becomes more challenging
when situational factors interact. The study of organizational behaviour relates to the expected
behaviour of an individual in the organization. No two individuals are likely to behave in the
same manner in a particular work situation. It is the predictability of a manager about the
expected behaviour of an individual. There are no absolutes in human behaviour. It is the human
factor that contributes to the productivity hence the study of human behaviour is important. Great
importance therefore must be attached to the study of human behaviour. Researchers,
management practitioners, psychologists, and social scientists must understand the very
credentials of an individual, his background, social framework, educational update, impact of
social groups and other situational factors on behaviour. Managers under whom an individual is
working should be able to explain, predict, evaluate and modify human behaviour that will
largely depend upon the knowledge, skill and experience of the manager in handling large
groups of people in diverse situations. Pre- emptive actions need to be taken for human
behaviour forecasting. The value system, emotional intelligence, organizational culture, job
design and the work environment are important causal agents in determining human behaviour.
Cause and effect relationship plays an important role in how an individual is likely to behave in a
particular situation and its impact on productivity.

DEFINITIONS

• “Organizational behaviour is a field of study that investigates the impact that individuals,
groups and organizational structure have on behaviour within the organization, for the
purpose of applying such knowledge towards improving an organizational effectiveness”.

The above definition has three main elements; first organizational behaviour is an investigative
study of individuals and groups, second, the impact of organizational structure on human
behaviour and the third, the application of knowledge to achieve organizational effectiveness.
These factors are interactive in nature and the impact of such behaviour is applied to various
systems so that the goals are achieved. The nature of study of organizational behaviour is
investigative to establish cause and effect relationship.

Organizational behaviour involves integration of studies undertaken relating to behavioural

sciences like psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, social psychology and political
science. Therefore, organizational behaviour is a comprehensive field of study in which
individual, group and organizational structure is studied in relation to organizational growth and
organizational culture, in an environment where impact of modern technology is great. The aim
of the study is to ensure that the human behaviour contributes towards growth of the organization
and greater efficiency is achieved.

• Organizational behaviour can be defined as – “the study and application of knowledge

about human behaviour related to other elements of an organization such as
structure, technology and social systems (LM Prasad).

• Stephen P Robins defines “Organizational behaviour as a systematic study of the

actions and attitudes that people exhibit within organizations.”

It has been observed that we generally form our opinion based on the symptoms of an issue and
do not really go to the root cause of the happening. Science of organizational behaviour is
applied in nature. Disciplines like psychology, anthropology and political science have
contributed in terms of various studies and theories to the field of organizational behaviour. A
leader should be able to communicate with his subordinates and keep them in picture so as to
know about the happenings in the organization. People promote organizational culture for mutual
benefit.

 Organizational behaviour is directly concerned with the understanding, prediction, and

control of human behaviour in organizations.” — Fred Luthans.
 According to Keith Davis “Organizational Behaviour is the study and application of
knowledge about how people act within organizations. It is a human tool for the human
benefit. It applies broadly to behaviour of people in all type of organizations such as
businesses, government, schools, etc. It helps people, structure, technology, and the
external environment to blend in together into an effective operative system”

Scope of Organisational Behaviour

• Impact of culture on organizational behaviour

• Management of change

• Management of conflict and stress

 • Organizational development

• Organizational culture

• Transactional analysis

• Group behaviour, power and politics

• Job design

• Study of emotions

The field of the organizational behaviour does not depend upon deductions based on gut feelings
but attempts to gather information regarding an issue in a scientific manner under controlled
conditions. It uses information and interprets the findings so that the behaviour of an individual
and group can be channelized as desired. Large numbers of psychologists, social scientists and
academicians have carried out researches on various issues related to organizational behaviour.
Employee performance and job satisfaction are determinants of accomplishment of individual
and organizational goals.

Organizations have been set up to fulfil needs of the people. In today’s competitive world,
organizations have to be growth-oriented. This is possible when productivity is ensured with
respect to quantity of product to be produced with zero errors. Employee absenteeism and
turnover has a negative impact on productivity. Employees who do not turn up for work
frequently cannot contribute towards the productivity and growth of the organization. In the
same manner, better employee turnover causes increased cost of production. Job satisfaction is a
major factor for analyzing the performance of an individual towards his work. Satisfied workers
are productive workers who contribute towards building an appropriate work culture in an
organization. Organizations are composed of number of individuals working independently or
collectively in teams, and number of such teams makes a department and that in turn creates a
whole organization.

It is a formal structure and all departments have to function in a coordinated manner to achieve
organizational objectives. It is therefore important for all employees to have a positive attitude
towards work. They need to function in a friendly atmosphere and accomplish assigned goals. It
is also important for managers to develop an appropriate work culture. Use of authority,
delegation of certain powers to subordinates, division of labour, efficient communication,
benchmarking, re-engineering, job re-design and empowerment are some of the important factors
with which an organization can function like a well-oiled machine. This is not only applicable to
manufacturing organizations but also to service and social organizations.
Contributing Fields to Organizational Behaviour

• Psychology: Psychology is an applied science, which attempts to explain human

behaviour in a particular situation and predicts actions of individuals. Psychologists have
been able to modify individual behaviour largely with the help of various studies. It has
contributed towards various theories on learning, motivation, personality, training and
development, theories on individual decision making, leadership, job satisfaction,
performance appraisal, attitude, job design, work stress and conflict management. Studies
of these theories can improve personal skills, bring change in attitude and develop
positive attitude in organizational systems. Various psychological tests are conducted in
the organizations for the selection of employees which measure personality attributes and
aptitude. Various other dimensions of human personality are also measured. These
instruments are scientific in nature and have been finalized after a great deal of research.
Field of psychology continues to explore new areas applicable to the field of
organizational behaviour. Contribution of psychology has enriched the field of
organizational behaviour.

• Sociology: The science of sociology studies the impact of culture on group behaviour and
has contributed to a large extent to the field of group-dynamics, roles that an individual
plays in the organization, communication, norms, status, power, conflict management,
formal organization theory, group processes and group decision-making.

• Political science: Political science has contributed to the field of organizational

behaviour. Stability of government at national level is one major factor for the promotion
of international business, financial investments, expansion and employment. Various
government rules and regulations play a very decisive role in growth of an organization.
All organizations have to abide by the rules of the government in a particular place.

• Social psychology: Working organizations are a formal assembly of people who are
assigned specific jobs and play a vital role in formulating human behaviour. It is a subject
 where concept of psychology and sociology are combined together to achieve better
human behaviour in organization. The field has contributed to manage change, group
decision-making, communication and ability of people in the organization to maintain
social norms.

• Anthropology: It is a field of study related to human activities in various cultural and

environmental frameworks. It understands difference in behaviour based on value system
of different cultures in various countries. The study is more relevant to organizational
behaviour today due to globalization, mergers and acquisitions of various industries.
Managers will have to deal with individuals and groups belonging to different ethnic
cultures and exercise adequate control or even channelize behaviour in the desired
direction by appropriately communicating various cultural factors. Environment studies
conducted by the field of anthropology aims to understand organizational human
behaviour so that acquisitions and mergers are smooth. Organizations are bound by its
culture that is formed by human beings.

BEHAVIOUR MODEL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY

• Organizational behaviour is a study and application of managerial skills and knowledge

to people in the organization to investigate individual and group behaviour. Various
concepts and models in the field of organizational behaviour attempt to identify, not only
the human behaviour but also modify their attitude and promote skills so that they can act
more effectively. This is done scientifically; therefore, organizational behaviour field is a
scientific discipline. The knowledge and models are practically applied to workers,
groups and organizational structure that provide tools for improved behaviour and
dynamics of relationship. The field of organizational behaviour also provides various
systems and models for international relationship that are applied to organizations.

• Leaders must look for indicators (effects) of individual behaviour and of groups in any
organization. Indicators have a root cause beneath. As a leader, it is that symptom, which
must be evaluated, and cause of human behaviour established so that if the behaviour is
good, the manager can establish the norms of behaviour. If the behaviour is not
conducive to achieving the organizational objective then suitable alternative model can
be applied to channelize individual behaviour towards an appropriate organizational
value system and thus individual behaviour can be modified. An organization has three
basic elements namely, people, structure and technology. An organization must have
suitable organizational structure, with appropriate number of tier and reporting system
properly explained. Principle of unity of command, delegation of authority and
responsibility, formulation of objectives and its allotment to various groups is very
important so that workers achieve a required level of job satisfaction. They must be
trained to handle sophisticated machines and equipment. It is the people, their value
 system, and faith in the leadership that make an organization. Leader must be able to
describe, understand, predict and control individual behaviour in the organization. This is
explained in the succeeding paragraphs.

• Describe: Study of organizational behaviour is based on scientific methods, which have

been applied on human beings. It is a science, that analyses as to how people behave in
different situations in the organization. A manager should be able describe the behaviour
of each person under his command, identify attitude, and be able to pinpoint his
behaviour so that the situation in the organization is under control.

• Understand: Leaders must understand human behaviour as to why people behave in a

particular manner and try to identify reasons so that corrective action can be taken.

• Predict: By frequent closer interaction, a leader is in a position to identify the nature of

workers. Some are more productive while the others are tardy and disruptive. In such
situation, a leader should be able to handle each individual differently so that his or her
actions can be channelized to higher productivity.

• Control: Managers in the organizations should train their subordinates continuously; aim
being development of skills, promotion of productivity and improvement of individual
behaviour. It is a continuous process on the part of the manager. He must lay down
control measures so that the energy of workers is diverted towards organizational
objectives. Communication should be used to ensure that the behaviour of individual is
controlled. Environment has a great impact on human behaviour. Appropriate internal
environment would help organizations to build favourable work environment that will
help individuals and groups within organizations to work effectively towards higher
productivity.

Individual and Cultural Differences

To this point, we have focused on how the appearance, behaviours, and traits of the people we
encounter influence our understanding of them. It makes sense that this would be our focus
because of the emphasis within social psychology on the social situation—in this case, the
people we are judging. But the person is also important, so let’s consider some of the personal
variables that influence how we judge other people.
Perceiver Characteristics

So far, we have assumed that different perceivers will all form pretty much the same impression
of the same person. For instance, if you and I are both thinking about our friend Janetta, or
describing her to someone else, we should each think about or describe her in pretty much the
same way—after all, Janetta is Janetta, and she should have a personality that you and I can both
see. But this is not always the case—you and I may form different impressions of Janetta, and for
a variety of reasons. For one, my experience with Janetta is somewhat different than yours. I see
her in different places and talk to her about different things than you do, and thus I will have a
different sample of behaviour on which to base my impressions on.

But you and I might even form different impressions of Janetta if we see her performing exactly
the same behaviour. To every experience, each of us brings our own schemas, attitudes, and
expectations. In fact, the process of interpretation guarantees that we will not all form exactly the
same impression of the people that we see. This, of course, reflects a basic principle that we have
discussed throughout this book—our prior experiences colour our current perceptions.

One perceiver factor that influences how we perceive others is the current cognitive
accessibility of a given person characteristic—that is, the extent to which a person’s
characteristic quickly and easily comes to mind for the perceiver. Differences in accessibility
will lead different people to attend different aspects of the other person. Some people first notice
how attractive someone is because they care a lot about physical appearance—for them,
appearance is a highly accessible characteristic. Others pay more attention to a person’s race or
religion, and still others attend to a person’s height or weight. If you are interested in style and
fashion, you would probably first notice a person’s clothes, whereas another person might be
more likely to notice one’s athletic skills.
You can see that these differences in accessibility will influence the kind of impressions we form
about others because they influence what we focus on and how we think about them. In fact,
when people are asked to describe others, there is often more overlap in the descriptions
provided by the same perceiver about different people than there is in those provided by different
perceivers about the same target person. If you care a lot about fashion, you will describe all
your friends on that dimension, whereas if I care about athletic skills, I will tend to describe all
my friends on the basis of their athletic qualities. These differences reflect the differing emphasis
that we as observers place on the characteristics of others rather than the real differences between
those people.

People also differ in terms of how carefully they process information about others. Some people
have a strong need to think and understand about others. I’m sure you know people like this—
they want to know why something went wrong or right, or just to know more about anyone with
whom they interact. Need for cognition refers to the tendency to think carefully and fully about
social situations. People with a strong need for cognition tend to process information more
thoughtfully and therefore may make more causal attributions overall. In contrast, people without
a strong need for cognition tend to be more impulsive and impatient and may make attributions
more quickly and spontaneously. Although the need for cognition refers to a tendency to think
carefully and fully about any topic, there are also individual differences in the tendency to be
interested in people more specifically. For instance, Fletcher, Danilovics, Fernandez, Peterson,
and Reeder found that psychology majors were more curious about people than were natural
science majors.

Individual differences exist not only in the depth of our attributions but also in the types of
attributions we tend to make about both ourselves and others. Some people tend to believe that
people’s traits are fundamentally stable and incapable of change. We call these people entity
theorists. Entity theorists tend to focus on the traits of other people and tend to make a lot of
personal attributions. On the other hand, incremental theorists are those who believe that
personalities change a lot over time and who therefore are more likely to make situational
attributions for events. Incremental theorists are more focused on the dynamic psychological
processes that arise from individuals’ changing mental states in different situations.

In one relevant study, Molden, Plaks, and Dweck (2006) found that when forced to make
judgments quickly, people who had been classified as entity theorists were nevertheless still able
to make personal attributions about others but were not able to easily encode the situational
causes of someone’s behaviour. On the other hand, when forced to make judgments quickly, the
people who were classified as incremental theorists were better able to make use of the
situational aspects of the scene rather than the personalities of the characters.

Individual differences in attributional styles can also influence our own behaviour. Entity
theorists are more likely to have difficulty when they move on to new tasks because they don’t
think that they will be able to adapt to the new challenges. Incremental theorists, on the other
hand, are more optimistic and do better in such challenging environments because they believe
that their personality can adapt to the new situation. You can see that these differences in how
people make attributions can help us understand both how we think about ourselves and others
and how we respond to our own social contexts.

Cultural Differences in Person Perception

The culture that we live in has a significant impact on the way we think about and perceive the
world. And thus it is not surprising that people in different cultures would tend to think about
people at least somewhat differently. One difference is between people from Western cultures
(e.g., the United States, Canada, and Australia) and people from East Asian cultures (e.g., Japan,
China, Taiwan, Korea, and India). People from Western cultures tend to be primarily oriented
toward individualism, tending to think about themselves as different from (and often better than)
the other people in their environment and believing that other people make their own decisions
and are responsible for their own actions. In contrast, people in many East Asian cultures take a
more collective view of people that emphasizes not so much about the individual but rather the
relationship between individuals and the other people and things that surround them. The
outcome of these differences is that on average, people from individualistic cultures tend to focus
more on the individual person, whereas, again on average, people from collectivistic cultures
tend to focus more on the situation.

Michael Morris and his colleagues (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000) investigated
the role of culture on person perception in a different way, by focusing on people who are
bicultural (i.e., who have knowledge about two different cultures). In their research, they used
high school students living in Hong Kong. Although traditional Chinese values are emphasized
in Hong Kong, because Hong Kong was a British-administrated territory for more than a century,
the students there are also acculturated with Western social beliefs and values.

Morris and his colleagues first randomly assigned the students to one of three priming
conditions. Participants in the American culture priming condition saw pictures of American
icons (such as the U.S. Capitol building and the American flag) and then wrote 10 sentences
about American culture. Participants in the Chinese culture priming condition saw eight Chinese
icons (such as a Chinese dragon and the Great Wall of China) and then wrote 10 sentences about
Chinese culture. Finally, participants in the control condition saw pictures of natural landscapes
and wrote 10 sentences about the landscapes.

Then participants in all conditions read a story about an overweight boy who was advised by a
physician not to eat food with high sugar content. One day, he and his friends went to a buffet
dinner where a delicious-looking cake was offered. Despite its high sugar content, he ate it.
After reading the story, the participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the boy’s
weight problem was caused by his personality (personal attribution) or by the situation
(situational attribution). The students who had been primed with symbols about American
culture gave relatively less weight to situational (rather than personal) factors in comparison with
students who had been primed with symbols of Chinese culture.

In still another test of cultural differences in person perception, Kim and Markus (1999) analyzed
the statements made by athletes and by the news media regarding the winners of medals in the
2000 and 2002 Olympic Games. They found that athletes in China described themselves more in
terms of the situation (they talked about the importance of their coaches, their managers, and the
spectators in helping them to do well), whereas American athletes (can you guess?) focused on
themselves, emphasizing their own strength, determination, and focus.

Taken together then, we can see that cultural and individual differences play a similar role in
person perception as they do in other social psychological areas. Although most people tend to
use the same basic person-perception processes, and although we can understand these processes
by observing the communalities among people, the outcomes of person perception will also be
determined—at least in part—by the characteristics of the person himself or herself. And these
differences are often created by the culture in which the person lives.

Attributional Styles and Mental Health

How we make attributions about other people has a big influence on our reactions to them. But
we also make attributions for our own behaviours. Social psychologists have discovered that
there are important individual differences in the attributions that people make to the negative
events that they experience and that these attributions can have a big influence on how they
respond to them. The same negative event can create anxiety and depression in one individual
but have virtually no effect on someone else. And still another person may see the negative event
as a challenge to try even harder to overcome the difficulty.

• A major determinant of how we react to perceived threats is the attributions that we make
to them. Attributional style refers to the type of attributions that we tend to make for the
events that occur to us. These attributions can be to our own characteristics (internal) or
to the situation (external), but attributions can also be made on other dimensions,
including stable versus unstable, and global versus specific. Stable attributions are those
that we think will be relatively permanent, whereas unstable attributions are expected to
change over time. Global attributions are those that we feel apply broadly,
whereas specific attributions are those causes that we see as more unique to specific
events.
• You may know some people who tend to make negative or pessimistic attributions to
negative events that they experience—we say that these people have a negative
attributional style. These people explain negative events by referring to their own
internal, stable, and global qualities. People with negative attributional styles say things
such as the following:

• “I failed because I am no good” (an internal attribution).

• “I always fail” (a stable attribution).

• “I fail in everything” (a global attribution).

• You might well imagine that the result of these negative attributional styles is a sense of
hopelessness and despair (Metalsky, Joiner, Hardin, & Abramson, 1993). Indeed, Alloy,
Abramson, and Francis (1999) found that college students who indicated that they had
negative attributional styles when they first came to college were more likely than those
who had a more positive style to experience an episode of depression within the next few
months.

• People who have extremely negative attributional styles, in which they continually make
external, stable, and global attributions for their behaviour, are said to be
experiencing learned helplessness (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Seligman,
1975). Learned helplessness was first demonstrated in research that found that some dogs
that were strapped into a harness and exposed to painful electric shocks became passive
and gave up trying to escape from the shock, even in new situations in which the harness
had been removed and escape was therefore possible. Similarly, some people who were
exposed to bursts of noise later failed to stop the noise when they were actually able to do
so. In short, learned helplessness is the tendency to make external, rather than internal,
attributions for our behaviours. Those who experience learned helplessness do not feel
that they have any control over their own outcomes and are more likely to have a variety
of negative health outcomes (Henry, 2005; Peterson & Seligman, 1984).

• Another type of attributional technique that people sometimes use to help them feel better
about themselves is known as self-handicapping. Self-handicapping occurs when we
make statements or engage in behaviours that help us create a convenient external
attribution for potential failure. For instance, in research by Berglas and Jones (1978),
participants first performed an intelligence test on which they did very well.

• The participants were then given a choice—they could take a pill that was supposed to
facilitate performance on the intelligence task (making it easier for them to perform) or a
pill that was supposed to inhibit performance on the intelligence task, thereby making the
task harder to perform (no drugs were actually administered). Berglas found that men—
 but not women—engaged in self-handicapping: They preferred to take the performance-
inhibiting rather than the performance-enhancing drug, choosing the drug that provided a
convenient external attribution for potential failure.

• Although women may also self-handicap, particularly by indicating that they are unable
to perform well due to stress or time constraints, men seem to do it more frequently. This
is consistent with the general gender differences we have talked about in many places in
this book—on average, men are more concerned about maintaining their self-esteem and
social status in the eyes of themselves and others than are women.

• You can see that there are some benefits (but also, of course, some costs) of self-
handicapping. If we fail after we self-handicap, we simply blame the failure on the
external factor. But if we succeed despite the handicap that we have created for ourselves,
we can make clear internal attributions for our success. But engaging in behaviours that
create self-handicapping can be costly because they make it harder for us to succeed. In
fact, research has found that people who report that they self-handicap regularly show
lower life satisfaction, less competence, poorer moods, less interest in their jobs, and
even more substance abuse. Although self-handicapping would seem to be useful for
insulating our feelings from failure, it is not a good tack to take in the long run.

• Fortunately, not all people have such negative attributional styles. In fact, most people
tend to have more positive ones—styles that are related to high positive self-esteem and a
tendency to explain the negative events they experience by referring to external, unstable,
and specific qualities. Thus people with positive attributional styles are likely to say
things such as the following:

• “I failed because the task is very difficult” (an external attribution).

• “I will do better next time” (an unstable attribution).

• “I failed in this domain, but I’m good in other things” (a specific attribution).

• In sum, we can say that people who make more positive attributions toward the negative
events that they experience will persist longer at tasks and that this persistence can help
them. But there are limits to the effectiveness of these strategies. We cannot control
everything, and trying to do so can be stressful. We can change some things but not
others; thus sometimes the important thing is to know when it’s better to give up, stop
worrying, and just let things happen. Having a positive outlook is healthy, but we cannot
be unrealistic about what we can and cannot do. Unrealistic optimism is the tendency to
be overly positive about the likelihood that negative things will occur to us and that we
will be able to effectively cope with them if they do. When we are too optimistic, we may
set ourselves up for failure and depression when things do not work out as we had hoped.
 We may think that we are immune to the potential negative outcomes of driving while
intoxicated or practicing unsafe sex, but these optimistic beliefs are not healthy.
Fortunately, most people have a reasonable balance between optimism and realism. They
tend to set goals that they believe they can attain, and they regularly make some progress
toward reaching them. Research has found that setting reasonable goals and feeling that
we are moving toward them makes us happy, even if we may not in fact attain the goals
themselves.

Perception and Job Attitudes

What Causes Positive Work Attitudes?

What makes you satisfied with your job and develop commitment to your company? Research
shows that people pay attention to several aspects of their work environment, including how they
are treated, the relationships they form with colleagues and managers, and the actual work they
perform. We will now summarize the factors that show consistent relations with job satisfaction
and organizational commitment.

Personality

Can assessing the work environment fully explain how satisfied we are about the job?
Interestingly, some experts have shown that job satisfaction is not purely environmental and is
partially due to our personality. Some people have a disposition to be happy in life and at work
regardless of environmental factors.

It seems that people who have a positive affective disposition (those who have a tendency to
experience positive moods more often than negative moods) tend to be more satisfied with their
jobs and more committed to their companies, while those who have a negative disposition tend to
be less satisfied and less committed. This is not surprising, as people who are determined to see
the glass as half full will notice the good things in their work environment, while those with the
opposite character will find more things to complain about. In addition to our affective
disposition, people who have a neurotic personality (those who are moody, temperamental,
critical of themselves and others) are less satisfied with their job, while those who are
emotionally more stable tend to be more satisfied. Other traits such as conscientiousness, self-
esteem, locus of control, and extraversion are also related to positive work attitudes. Either these
people are more successful in finding jobs and companies that will make them happy and build
better relationships at work, which would increase their satisfaction and commitment, or they
simply see their environment as more positive—whichever the case, it seems that personality is
related to work attitudes.

Person–Environment Fit

The fit between what we bring to our work environment and the environmental demands
influences our work attitudes. Therefore, person–job fit and person–organization fit are
positively related to job satisfaction and commitment. When our abilities match job demands and
our values match company values, we tend to be more satisfied with our job and more committed
to the company we work for.

Job Characteristics

The presence of certain characteristics on the job seems to make employees more satisfied and
more committed. Using a variety of skills, having autonomy at work, receiving feedback on the
job, and performing a significant task are some job characteristics that are related to satisfaction
and commitment. However, the presence of these factors is not important for everyone. Some
people have a high growth need. They expect their jobs to help them build new skills and
improve as an employee. These people tend to be more satisfied when their jobs have these
characteristics.

Psychological Contract

After accepting a job, people come to work with a set of expectations. They have an
understanding of their responsibilities and rights. In other words, they have a psychological
contract with the company. A psychological contract is an unwritten understanding about what
the employee will bring to the work environment and what the company will provide in
exchange. When people do not get what they expect, they experience a psychological contract
breach, which leads to low job satisfaction and commitment. Imagine that you were told before
being hired that the company was family friendly and collegial. However, after a while, you
realize that they expect employees to work 70 hours a week, and employees are aggressive
toward each other. You are likely to experience a breach in your psychological contract and be
dissatisfied. One way of preventing such problems is for companies to provide realistic job
previews to their employees.

Organizational Justice

The kind of treatment we receive influences our satisfaction level. People pay attention to the
fairness of company policies and procedures, treatment from supervisors, and pay and other
rewards they receive from the company.

Relationships at Work

Two strong predictors of our happiness at work and commitment to the company are our
relationships with co-workers and managers. The people we interact with, their degree of
compassion, our level of social acceptance in our work group, and whether we are treated with
respect are all important factors deciding the positivity at work. Research also shows that our
relationship with our manager, how considerate the manager is, and whether we build a trust-
based relationship with our manager are critically important to our job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. When our manager and upper management listen to us, care about
us, and value our opinions, we tend to feel good at work. Even small actions may show
employees that the management cares about them. For example, Hotel Carlton in San Francisco
was recently taken over by a new management group. One of the small things the new
management did created dramatic results. In response to an employee attitude survey, they
replaced the old vacuum cleaners housekeepers were using and established a policy of replacing
them every year. This simple act of listening to employee problems and taking action went a
long way to making employees feel that the management cares about them.

Stress

Not surprisingly, the amount of stress present in our job is related to our satisfaction and
commitment. For example, experiencing role ambiguity (vagueness in relation to what our
responsibilities are), role conflict (facing contradictory demands at work), organizational politics,
and worrying about the security of our job are all stressors that make people dissatisfied. On the
other hand, not all stress is bad. Some stressors actually make us happier! For example, working
under time pressure and having a high degree of responsibility are stressful, but they can also be
perceived as challenges and tend to be related to high levels of satisfaction.

Work–Life Balance

In the 1950s, work was all-consuming. Employees went to work, worked long hours, and the rest
of the family accepted that work came first. As society changed, the concept of always putting
work first became outdated. In modern times, more employees expect to lead balanced lives,
pursue hobbies, and spend more time with their children while at the same time continuing to
succeed at work. The notion of work–family conflict is one cause of job dissatisfaction. This
conflict can be particularly strong for women because of the time necessary for pregnancy and
giving birth, but men struggle with it as well. When work life interferes with family life, we are
more stressed and unhappy with our jobs. Research shows that policies that help employees
achieve a balance between their work and personal lives, such as allowing telecommuting, are
related to higher job satisfaction. For example, the medical resources group of the
pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca International does not have fixed working hours, and
employees can work any hours they choose. Motorola’s technological acceleration group also
has flexible hours and can work from anywhere (home, office, or a coffee shop) at anytime.

Consequences of Positive Work Attitudes

Why do we care about the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employees? What
behaviours would you expect to see from someone who has more positive work attitude?

• If you say “higher performance,” you have stumbled upon one of the most controversial
subjects in organizational behaviour. Many studies have been devoted to understanding
whether happy employees are more productive. Some studies show weak correlations
between satisfaction and performance while others show higher correlations (what
researchers would call “medium-sized” correlations of 0.30)

• It seems that happy workers have an inclination to be more engaged at work. They
may want to perform better. They may be more motivated. But there are also exceptions.
Think about this: Just because you want to perform, will you actually be a higher
performer? Chances are that your skill level in performing the job will matter. There are
also some jobs where performance depends on factors beyond an employee’s control,
such as the pace of the machine they are working on. Because of this reason, in
professional jobs such as engineering and research, we see a higher link between work
attitudes and performance, as opposed to manual jobs such as assembly line work. Also,
think about the alternative possibility: If you don’t like your job, does this mean that you
will reduce your performance? Maybe up to a certain point, but there will be factors that
prevent you from reducing your performance: the fear of getting fired, the desire to get a
promotion so that you can get out of the job that you dislike so much, or your
professional work ethic. As a result, we should not expect a one-to-one relationship
between satisfaction and performance. Still, the observed correlation between work
attitudes and performance is important and has practical value.

Assessing Attitudes in the Workplace

Given that work attitudes may give us clues as to who will leave or stay, who will perform better,
and who will be more engaged, tracking satisfaction and commitment levels is a helpful step for
companies. If there are companywide issues that make employees unhappy and disengaged, then
these issues need to be resolved. There are at least two systematic ways in which companies can
track work attitudes: through attitude surveys and exit interviews. Companies such as KFC
Corporation and Long John Silver’s Inc. restaurants, the SAS Institute, Google, and others give
periodic surveys to employees to track their work attitudes. Companies can get more out of these
surveys if responses are held confidential. If employees become concerned that their individual
responses will be shared with their immediate manager, they are less likely to respond honestly.
Moreover, the success of these surveys depends on the credibility of management in the eyes of
employees. If management periodically collects these surveys but no action comes out of them,
employees may adopt a more cynical attitude and start ignoring these surveys, hampering the
success of future efforts.

Learning and Reinforcement

Learning can be defined as the permanent change in behaviour due to direct and indirect
experience. It means change in behaviour, attitude due to education and training, practice and
experience. It is completed by acquisition of knowledge and skills, which are relatively
permanent.

Nature of Learning

Nature of learning means the characteristic features of learning. Learning involves change; it
may or may not guarantee improvement. It should be permanent in nature, that is learning is for
lifelong.

The change in behaviour is the result of experience, practice and training. Learning is reflected
through behaviour.

Factors Affecting Learning

Learning is based upon some key factors that decide what changes will be caused by this
experience. The key elements or the major factors that affect learning are motivation, practice,
environment, and mental group.

Coming back to them let us have a look on these factors −

Motivation − The encouragement, the support one gets to complete a task, to achieve a goal is
known as motivation. It is a very important aspect of learning as it acts gives us the positive
energy to complete a task. Example − The coach motivated the players to win the match.
Practice – We all know that practice makes us perfect. In order to be a perfectionist or at least
complete the task, it is very important to practice what we have learnt. Example − We can be a
programmer only when we execute the codes we have written.

Environment − We learn from our surroundings, we learn from the people around us. There are
two types of environment – internal and external. Example − A child learns from the family at
home which is an internal environment, but learns from the school which is an external
environment.

Mental group − It describes our thinking by the group of people we choose to hang out with. In
simple words, we make a group of those people with whom we connect. It can be for a social
cause where people with the same mentality work in the same direction. Example − A group of
readers, travelers, etc.

These are the main factors that influence what a person learns, the cause for our behaviour and
everything we do is connected to what we learn.

How Learning Occurs?

Learning can be understood clearly with the help of some theories that will explain our
behaviour. Some of the remarkable theories are −

 Classical Conditioning Theory

 Operant Conditioning Theory
 Social Learning Theory
 Cognitive Learning Theory

Classical Conditioning Theory

The classical conditioning occurs when a conditioned stimulus is coupled with an unconditioned
stimulus. Usually, the conditioned stimulus (CS) is an impartial stimulus like the sound of a
tuning fork, the unconditioned stimulus (US) is like the taste of food and the unconditioned
response (UR) to the unconditioned stimulus is an unlearned reflex response like salivation or
sweating.

After this coupling process is repeated (for example, some learning may already occur after a
single coupling), an individual shows a conditioned response (CR) to the conditioned stimulus,
when the conditioned stimulus is presented alone. The conditioned response is mostly similar to
the unconditioned response, but unlike the unconditioned response, it must be acquired through
experience and is nearly impermanent.
Operant Conditioning Theory

Operant conditioning theory is also known as instrumental conditioning. This theory is a learning
process in which behaviour is sensitive to, or controlled by its outcomes.

Let’s take an example of a child. A child may learn to open a box to get the candy inside, or
learn to avoid touching a hot stove. In comparison, the classical conditioning develops a
relationship between a stimulus and behaviour. The example can be further elaborated as the
child may learn to salivate at the sight of candy, or to tremble at the sight of an angry parent.

In the 20th century, the study of animal learning was commanded by the analysis of these two
sorts of learning, and they are still at the core of behaviour analysis.
Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory or SLT is the theory that people learn new behaviour through overt
reinforcement or punishment, or via observational learning of the social factors in their
environment. If people observe positive, desired outcomes in the behaviour, then they are more
likely to model, imitate and adopt the behaviour themselves. Modern theory is closely associated
with Julian Rotter and Albert Bandura.

Social learning theory is derived from the work of Cornell Montgomery (1843-1904) which
proposed that social learning occurred through four main stages of imitation:

• close contact,

• imitation of superiors,

• understanding of concepts,

• role model behaviour

It consists of three parts observing, imitating and reinforcements.

Julian Rotter moved away from theories based on psychosis and behaviourism and developed a
learning theory. In Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (1954), Rotter suggests that the
effect of behaviour has an impact on the motivation of people to engage in that specific
behaviour. People wish to avoid negative consequences, while desiring positive results or effects.
If one expects a positive outcome from a behaviour, or thinks there is a high probability of a
positive outcome, then they will be more likely to engage in that behaviour. The behaviour is
reinforced, with positive outcomes, leading a person to repeat the behaviour. This social learning
theory suggests that behaviour is influenced by these environmental factors or stimulus and not
psychological factors alone.

Social learning theory outlines three requirements for people to learn and model behaviour
include attention: retention (remembering what one observed), reproduction (ability to reproduce
the behaviour) and motivation (good reason) to want to adopt the behaviour.

Cognitive Learning Theory

Cognition defines a person’s ideas, thoughts, knowledge, interpretation, understanding about

himself and environment.

This theory considers learning as the outcome of deliberate thinking on a problem or situation
based upon known facts and responding in an objective and more oriented manner. It perceives
that a person learns the meaning of various objects and events and also learns the response
depending upon the meaning assigned to the stimuli.

This theory debates that the learner forms a cognitive structure in memory which stores
organized information about the various events that occur.

Learning & Organizational Behaviour

An individual’s behaviour in an organization is directly or indirectly affected by learning.

Example − Employee skill, manager’s attitude are all learned.

Behaviour can be improved by following the listed tips −

 Reducing absenteeism by rewarding employees for their fair attendance.

 Improving employee discipline by dealing with employee’s undesirable behaviour,
drinking at workplace, stealing, coming late, etc. by taking appropriate actions like oral
reprimands, written warnings and suspension.
 Developing training programs more often so as to grab the trainees’ attention provide
required motivational properties etc.

Reinforcement

Reinforcement is the attempt to develop or strengthen desirable behaviour. There are two types
of reinforcement in organizational behaviour: positive and negative.
Positive reinforcement strengthens and enhances behaviour by the presentation of positive
reinforcers. There are primary reinforcers and secondary reinforcers. Primary reinforcers satisfy
basic biological needs and include food and water. However, primary reinforcers do not always
reinforce. For instance, food may not be a reinforcer to someone who has just completed a five
course meal. Most behaviours in organizations are influenced by secondary reinforcers. These
include such benefits as money, status, grades, trophies and praise from others. These include
such benefits as money, status, grades, trophies and praise from others. These become positive
reinforcers because of their associations with the primary reinforcers and hence are often called
conditioned reinforcers.

It should be noted that an event that functions as a positive reinforce at one time or in one
context may have a different effect at another time or in another place. For example, food may
serve as a positive reinforcer for a person who is hungry, but not when the person, as stated
above, has already a large meal. Clearly, a stimulus that functions as a positive reinforcer for one
person may fail to operate in a similar manner for another person.

Within itself, positive reinforcement has several principles.

The principle of contingent reinforcement states that the reinforcer must be administered only if
the desired behaviour has occurred. A reinforcer administered when the desired behaviour has
not been performed becomes ineffective.

The principle of immediate reinforcement states that the reinforcer will be most effective if
administered immediately after the desired behaviour has occurred. The more time that elapses
after the behaviour occurs, the less effective the reinforcer will be.

The principle of reinforcement size stated that the larger the amount of reinforcement delivered
after the desired behaviour, the more effect the reinforcer will have on the frequency of the
desired behaviour. The amount or size of reinforcer is relative. A reinforcer that may be
insignificant to one person may be significant to another person. Thus, the size of the reinforcer
must be determined in relation both to the behaviour and the individual.

The principle of reinforcement deprivation states that the more a person is deprived of the
reinforcer, the greater effect it will have on the future occurrence of the desired behaviour.
However, if an individual recently has had enough of a reinforcer and is satisfied the reinforcer
will have less effect.

In negative reinforcement, an unpleasant event that precedes behaviour is removed when the
desired behaviour occurs. This procedure increases the likelihood that the desired behaviour will
occur. Just as there are positive reinforcers, there are the stimuli that strengthen responses that
permit an organism to avoid or escape from their presence. Thus, when we perform an action that
allows us to escape from a negative reinforcer that is already present or to avoid the threatened
application of one, our tendency to perform this action in the future increases. Some negative
reinforcers such as intense heat, extreme cold, or electric shock, exert their effects the first time
they are encountered, whereas others acquire their impact through repeated association.

We see negative reinforcement in organizations and in personal life. Supervisors apply negative
reinforcement when they stop criticizing employees whose poor performance has improved. By
withholding the criticism, employees are more likely to repeat behaviours that enhance their
performance. Negative reinforcement also occurs when parents give in to their children’s
tantrums- especially in public places, such as restaurants and shopping malls. Over time, the
parent’s tendency to give in may increase, because doing so stops screaming.

Thus, both positive and negative reinforcement are procedures that strengthen or increase
behaviour. Positive reinforcement strengthens and increase behaviour by the presentation of
desirable consequences. Negative reinforcement strengthens and increases behaviour by the
threat of and the use of an undesirable consequence or the termination or withdrawal of an
undesirable consequence.

Negative reinforcement is sometimes confused with punishment, because both use unpleasant
stimuli to influence behaviour. However, negative reinforcement is used to increase the
frequency of a desired behaviour, whereas punishment is used to decrease the frequency of an
undesired behaviour.

Schedules of Reinforcement

Reinforcement, positive or negative, needs to be properly scheduled. Schedules of reinforcement

determine when reinforcers are supposed to be applied. Psychologists have identified several
different schedules of reinforcement. When reinforcement is administered uninterruptedly, it is
called continuous reinforcement. Instead, in organizations, reinforcers are administered
following partial reinforcement schedules. Four varieties of partial reinforcement schedules have
great relevance to organizations. They are

 Fixed interval schedule: It means providing reinforcement on a predetermined, constant

schedule. The first desired behaviour to occur after the interval has elapsed is reinforced.
Eg. monthly pay cheque.
 Variable interval schedule: It also uses time as the basis for applying reinforcement, but it
varies the intervals between reinforcements.
 Fixed ratio schedule: Reinforcement is administered after the desired behaviour occurs a
specified number of times. Eg. Piece rating.
 Variable ratio schedule: In this a certain number of desired behaviours must occur before
the reinforcer is delivered, but the number of behaviours varies around some average.
This type of reinforcement schedule provokes most interest and is preferred by
employees for some tasks. It tends to be the most powerful of all the reinforcement
schedules. Slot machines and a number of gambling devices operate on a variable ratio
schedule. Most of the time when people put a coin into the slot, they lose. But, after some
unknown number of plays, the machine will pay off.