Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial Organizational Psychology

ISSUES, THEORY, AND RESEARCH IN INDUSTRIAL /ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

ADVANCES IN PSYCHOLOGY 82 Editors:

G . E. STELMACH

P. A. VROON

NORTH-HOLLAND AMSTERDAM LONDON NEW YORK * TOKYO

ISSUES, THEORY, AND RESEARCH IN

INDUSTRIAL/ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Edited by

Kathryn KELLEY Department of Psychology University at Albany State University of New York Albany, New York, U . S . A .

1992

NORTH-HOLLAND AMSTERDAM LONDON NEW YORK TOKYO

NORTH-HOLLAND ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V. Sara Burgerhartstraat 25 P.O. Box 21 1, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Distributors for the United States and Canada: ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. 655 Avenue of the Americas New York, N.Y. 10010. U.S.A.

Ltbrary o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

I s s u e s , t h e o r y , a n d r s s e a r c h in i n d u s t r i a l / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y / e d i t e d by K a t h r y n K e l l e y . p. c m . -- ( A d v a n c e s in p s y c h o l o g y ; 82) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0-444-88777-6 1 . P s y c h o l o g y , I n d u s t r i a l . 2. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r . I. K e l l e y . K a t h r y n . 11. S e r i e s : A d v a n c e s in p s y c h o l o g y ( A m s t e r d a m . N e t h e r l a n d s ) ; 82. HF5548.8.178 1992 302.3'5--dc20

9 1-38439

CIP

ISBN: 0 444 88777 6 1992 ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS B.V. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Permissions Department, P.O. Box 521, 1000 A M Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Special regulations for readers in the U.S.A. - This publication has been registered with the Copyright Clearance Center Inc. (CCC), Salem, Massachusetts. Information can be obtained from the CCC about conditions under which photocopies of parts of this publication may be made in the U.S.A. All other copyright questions, including photocopying outside of the U.S.A., should be referred to the copyright owner. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., unless otherwise specified. No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability. negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Printed in The Netherlands

V

PREFACE Industrial/Organizational psychologists are a rather diverse group of people bound together, simply, by a common interest in applying psychology to work settings. This is the conclusion reached by George Alliger in the opening chapter of this edited volume, and it sets the tone for the rest of the book, for this book does surely attempt to expand our view of what can be considered I/O psychology. The authors of the individual chapters come from a variety of backgrounds, not all of them associated with I/O psychology, and they discuss topics that range from more traditional I/O topics such as managerial success and training, to topics much more on the edge of I/O such as team-building and organizational theory. Thus, this volume makes an important statement about the potential diversity of our field and what it is becoming. At the same time, this volume will help move us towards that diversity by providing insights and information in areas that should be, and are becoming part of the realm of 110 psychology. These insights into non-traditional topics, as well as particularly interesting approaches to more traditional areas, make this volume of worthwhile and useful to almost anyone concerned with I/O psychology. As noted above, the volume opens with a chapter by George Alliger, which deals with the role of theory in I/O psychology. In it he notes that I/O psychology cannot be characterized by a "grand theory", but is instead, characterized by many smaller theories that apply to specific aspects of behavior. He neither condemns I/O psychologists for this, nor does he apologize. Instead, he simply notes that the field has always been characterized by diversity and that is quite healthy. Of course, this is exactly the proper opening note to sound because diversity is the hallmark of this volume. Alliger's chapter is followed by a chapter, by Byrne and Neuman, that discusses (within the clever framework of the development and breakup of a relationship) how attraction research can contribute to research in such areas as selection, socialization, performance appraisal, and turnover. The richly developed theoretical framework of interpersonal attraction should go far to further empirical work in those domains. The next chapter, by Richard Hall, presents a critical analysis of emergent institutional theory, a topic more typically considered by organizational theorists. But here, the author suggests that I/O psychologists who work in organizations to improve effectiveness may propose changes that unintentionally violate deeper, and more symbolic function of organizations. Such proposals, then, are bound

vi

Preface

to be met with resistance. Since I/O psychologists are typically not attuned to more macro-level topics, there is much here that we should be thinking about as we study and "tinker with" organizations. Again, this chapter provides a rich theory base that can aid researchers interested in workers' reactions to different structures at work. The book then moves to more traditional areas of concern for I/O psychologists, although here too there are new twists and ideas. The first chapter in this section, by Lillibridge and Williams, deals with the role of self-competence in behavior on the job. The authors point out that this construct has been receiving attention lately in the literature, but they adopt a more integrative perspective. Specifically, they note that a broader definition of self competence - one which includes self-efficacy - would allow us to integrate research from such areas as charismatic leadership and goal setting to the process of sustaining and reinforcing individuals' feeling of competence. Such attempts at integration are always worthwhile, and tend to enrich the questions researchers ask. The next chapter, by Tannenbaum, Beard, the Salas, deals with team building which, although it has been a hot topic i n the management area, has not received much attention from I/O psychologists. This is somewhat ironic, given that I/O psychologists have areas of expertise that should come to bear on the study of teams. I n fact, this chapter helps outline some of ways in which I/O psychologists can and should get involved in this area, especially through their expertise on groups and group processes. A chapter by Williams and Lillibridge, on personality and managerial effectiveness follows, and here they present a theoretical model as well as some data relating the personali ty constructs of surgency, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and intellectual interests to various measures of managerial success. Debates over the role of trait-based models of leadership will probably go on as long as we study leadership, but this chapter makes a clear contribution to the debate by presenting a well-reasoned approach to the study of individual difference variables and leadership. This is followed by a chapter, by Racicot and Hall, dealing with managerial training - an area where I/O psychologists have presumably felt comfortable for some time. The chapter is more of a review of techniques and models of training, and deals less with implications for research, but the emphasis here on considering both the internal and external environments when designing and executing managerial training programs is an interesting and useful one. Finally, the section ends with a chapter by Caska, Kelley, and Christensen dealing with organizational needs assessment. These authors make the point that the success of any organi-

Preface

vii

zational intervention depends on the validity of the data obtained from the initial needs assessment. The authors then go on and provide guidelines and thoughts on how to select the approach that will yield the most useful data. The third and final section of the book deals with issues that concern individuals in organizations. The first chapter in this section, by Donna Ashcraft, deals with health issues in the workplace. The emphasis here is clearly on ways to control the health-care costs in organizations, but the author also raises important issues concerning the role of workplace environments in determining the health and well-being of employees. The next chapter in this section is by Kelley and Streeter, and deals with gender issues in the workplace. These authors present a rather comprehensive view of the potential causes, as well as the effects of sex segregation in the workplace. Included here are discussions of sex differences in performance and attitudes, work-family conflict, and sexual harassment. Overall, the chapter provides a large body of interesting material for both researchers and practitioners who must deal with an increasingly female workforce. Although there have been a number of other reviews dealing with some of these issues, none have been as comprehensive in integrating the different areas where sex segregation may play a role at work. The next chapter, by Bernard0 Ferdman, which deals with diversity in the workplace continues on a similar note. The author approaches the topic from the perspective of managing intergroup relations and, after reviewing two major (and quite relevant) streams of research in this area, concludes that ethnic diversity and interethnic differences are neither intrinsically good nor bad. He then concludes that the key for management in the future is to manage, rather than eliminate or strengthen these differences. The section, and the book, closes with a chapter by Stone, Stone, and Dipboye, that deals with the problems of stigmas in the workplace. This chapter really takes the theme of managing diversity a step further by discussing the problems that arise from treating "atypical" persons differently. Specifically, the authors review the literature on treatment based on race, handicap and physical attractiveness, and then suggest ways of trying to deal with the resulting bias. The material on differentia1 treatment based on physical attractiveness (and to a lesser extent handicap) is especially useful because here we are dealing with a bias that we all know exists, and yet is not illegal. This chapter has the potential to make a real contribution in its call for research and theory in these areas where stigmas affect a person's treatment at work.

...

Vlll

Preface

Clearly then, this volume is rather eclectic. Some might argue that all of these topics do not belong in a book about I/O psychology. Even those critics, however, would be hard pressed to argue that any one of these chapters does not deal with a topic that I/O psychologists are either familiar with, or should be familiar with. Perhaps it is in the latter area that this book will make its greatest contribution by informing I/O psychologists of different theories, models and perspectives that relate to the very topics we call our domain. By making I/O psychologists aware of these alternative views, the authors have the potential of enriching I/O psychology, and for showing I/O psychologists how their work should and does fit into the larger framework of organizational studies. Thus, whether scholar or practitioner, I am confident that every I/O psychologists will find something here that stimulates new thoughts and new ideas, and will come away with a broader perspective on the domain of I/O psychology.

Angelo DeNisi New Brunswick, NJ 1991

ix

About the Contributors George M. Alliger, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York. His research focuses on personnel selection, job analysis, training evaluation, and psychometrics. Donna M. Ashcraft, Ph.D., is currently an Assistant Professor at Clarion University of Pennsylvania. She is an active researcher in the areas of health psychology and psychology of women. Rebecca L. Beard, Ph.D., is a Senior Consultant with the Executive Consulting Group, Inc. She provides organizational, team, and management development services to a wide range of organizations. Donn Byrne, Ph.D., holds the position of Distinguished Research Professor of Psychology at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and is the Director of the SocialPersonality Program. His research interests focus on attraction theory and its application to a variety of areas including organizational, sexual, and political behavior. Barbara A. Cash, M.A., is an Instructor and doctoral student in the Department of Psychology at the University at Albany, State University of New York. Her research interests include the process of organizational development, concerns for older employees, and issues of unemployment. Edward W. Christensen, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Counseling Psychology at the University at Albany, State University of New York. He is active i n organizational consultation. Angelo DeNisi, Ph.D., is Professor of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University. His research interests include: job analysis; cognitive approaches to performance appraisal; realistic job previews (and the role of met expectations); and work values.

X

Contributors

Robert L. Dipboye, Ph.D.! is Professor of Psychology and Administrative Science at Rice University. He conducts research on such topics as the effects of physical attractiveness on personnel decision-making, interviewing, performance appraisal, and performance feedback. Bemardo M. Ferdman, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the Departments of Psychology and of Latin American and Caribbean Studies at the University at Albany, State University of New York. His professional interests focus on multiculturalism and ethnic diversity in organizations and on ethnic identity; currently he is engaged i n research studies of multiculturalism in multinational businesses and in multiethnic schools. Richard H. Hall, Ph.D., is Distinguished Service Professor of Sociology and Interim Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at t h e University at Albany, State University of New York. He is currently examining the applicability of Western organizational theory for East Asia, particularly China. Rosalie J. Hall is Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Akron. Her research interests include: training, technology and innovation; and work motivation. Kathryn Kelley, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University at Albany, State University of New York. Her research interests focus on gender issues and risk behaviors. John R. Lillibridge, Ph.D., is Associate Psychologist at the Wilton Development Center in Wilton, N.Y. His research interests include leadership effectiveness, group processes, organizational development, the role of information systems in organizational change, and career development. Joel H. Neuman, Ph.D., holds the position of Assistant Professor of Management at the State University of New York College at New Paltz. His research interests include the application of work on interpersonal attraction to organizational issues. Bernadette M. Racicot, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Psychology at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Her research interests include work motivation, organizational theory, and training.

Contributors

xi

Eduardo Salas, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Psychologist with the Naval Training Systems Center, where he conducts research on team training and performance. Dianna L. Stone, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Management, Psychology, and Organizational Studies at the University at Albany, State University of New York. She conducts research on a variety of topics, including information privacy, drug testing, honesty testing, performance appraisal, performance feedback, and the stigmatizing effects of handicaps on personnel decision making. Eugene F. Stone, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and of Organizatinal Studies at the University at Albany, State University of New York. He conducts research on a number of topics including biases in performance ratings, reactions to appraisal feedback, privacy in work organizations, job design, and attachment to organizations. Deborah Streeter, M.A., is an Instructor and doctoral student in the Department of Psychology at the University at Albany, State University of New York. Her research interests include gender-related topics and fairness issues in organizations. Scott I. Tannenbaum, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Management Department at the University at Albany, State University of New York. His primary interests are in training effectiveness, team performance, and human resource information systems. Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University at Albany, State University of New York. His research interests include performance evaluation, work-family linkages, job satisfaction, occupational stress, and the role of self-referent beliefs in human performance.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

xiii

Acknowledgements Quotation on p. 16 reprinted from Cluster Analysis for Researchers by H. C. Romesburg by permission of Wadsworth Publishing. Copyright 1984 by Van Nostrand Reinhold. Quotation on p. 17 reprinted from "Scientific Method" by P. Caws. Used with permission of MacMillan Publishing Company from Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, Editor in Chief. Vol. 7, p. 343, Copyright 1967 by MacMillan, Inc. Quotation on p. 19 reprinted from Personal Knowledge by M. Polanyi by permission of University of Chicago Press. Copyright 1958 by The University of Chicago Press. Quotation on p. 23 reprinted from "Psychology" by R. S. Peters and C. A. Mace. Used with permission of MacMillan Publishing Company from Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, Editor in Chief, Vol. 7, p.26. Copyright 1967 by MacMillan, Inc. Quotation on p. 24 reprinted from "Five Parables" by I. Hacking published in Philosophy in History by permission of Cambridge University Press. Copyright 1984 by Cambridge University Press. Quotation on pp. 7 1-72 reprinted from "Organizational theory: Current controversies, issues, and directions" by A. G. Bedeian published in G. L. Cooper and I. T. Roberts (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Copyright 1987, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Quotations on p. 76, 77 and 78 reprinted from "The adolescence of institutional theory" by W. R. Scott published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 32, by permission of Administrative Science Quarterly. Copyright 1987 by Cornell University. Quotation on p. 77 reprinted from "Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony by J. W. Meyer and B. Rowan published in American Journal of Sociology, Volume 83, by permission of University of Chicago Press. Copyright 1977 by The University of Chicago.

xiv

Acknowledgements

Quotation on pp. 80-81 reprinted from "Review essay: Overboard with myth and symbols" by C. Perrow published in American Journal of Sociology, Volume 9 1 , by permission of University of Chicago Press. Copyright 1985 by The University of Chicago Press. Quotation on p . 82 reprinted from " T h e development and institutionalization of subunit power in organizations" by W. Boeker published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 34, by permission of Administrative Science Quarterly. Copyright 1989 by Cornell University. Quotation on p. 83 reprinted from "In search of rationality: The purposes behind the use of formal analysis in organizations" by A. Langley published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 34, by permission of Administrative Science Quarterly. Copyright 1989 by Cornell University. Quotation on p. 84 reprinted from "Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test" by J. Galaskiewicz and S . Wasserman published i n Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 34, by permission of Administrative Science Quarterly. Copyright 1989 by Cornell University. Quotation on p. 174 reprinted from "Socialization tactics, selfefficacy and newcomers' adjustment to organizations" by G . R. Jones published in Academy of Management Journal, Volume 29, by permission of Academy of Management. Quotation on p. 349 reprinted from In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation by M. Sherif by permission of A. Sherif. Copyright 1966 by Houghton Mifflin. Quotation on p. 350 reprinted from "The role of cooperation in reducing intergroup conflict" by S . Worchel published in S . Worchel and W. G . Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.) by permission of Dorothy J. Anderson, Nelson-Hall Co. Copyright 1986 by Nelson-Hall Co.

xv

Contents Preface Written by Angelo DeNisi v About the Contributors xi Acknowledgements xiii Theoretical Approaches to the Industrial/OrganizationalField

I.

1.

The Theory and Structure of

Industrial/Organizational Psychology George M,Alliger 3 Introduction 3 Structure of the Field 4 Theory 11 Conclusion 2 1 References 25

2.

The Implications of Attraction Research for Organizational Issues Donn Byrne and Joel H. Neuman 29 The Role of Affect in Interpersonal Attraction 30 Attraction: Interpersonal and Organizational 32 Personnel Selection: The First Date 36 Organizational Entry and Beyond: For Better or Worse? 44 Organizational Exit: Separation and Divorce 53 Concluding Comments 57 References 58

Contents

xvi

3.

Taking Things a Bit Too Far: Some Problems with Emergent Institutional Theory Richard H. Hall 71 ITandOT 71 What is IT and Where Did It Come From 72 Some Problems with XT 79 Some Signs of Hope 83 References 85

11. 4.

Traditional Areas Of Research in Organizations Another Look at Personality and Managerial Potential: Application of the Five-factor Model John R. Lillibridge and Kevin J. Williams 91 The Williams and Lillibridge Model 92 Robust Dimensions of Personality: The Big Five 96 Exploring the Relation between Personality and Managerial Talent: A Preliminary Investigation 99 Conclusion 112 References 112

5.

Team Building and Its Influence on Team Effectiveness: An Examination of Conceptual and Empirical Developments Scott I. Tannenbaum,R. L. Beard, and Eduardo Sales 117 Teams and Team Building: Definitions 118 Factors that Influence Team Effectiveness 120 Team Building: Previous Reviews 128 Team Building Research since 1980 131 References 147

6.

Perceived Self-competence and Organizational Behavior Kevin J . Williams and John R. Lillibridge 155 Introduction 155 Conceptualization of Perceived Self-competence 156 Organizational Outcomes of Perceived Self-competence 159 Antecedents and Development of Perceived Competence in Organizations 166 Recent Developments 174 General Conclusion 177 References 178

xvii

Contents

7.

Current Trends in Managerial Training Bernadette M.Racicot and Rosalie J. Hall 185 Leadership versus Management: An Open Systems Viewpoint 186 Current Approaches to Managerial Training 198 Other Managerial Training Techniques 205 Current Trends in Managerial Training 209 Summary 218 References 2 19

8.

Organizational Needs Assessment: Technology and Use Barbara A. Caska,Kathryn Kelley, andEdward W. Christensen 229 Introduction 229 The Role of Need Assessment in Organizational Diagnosis 230 Organizational Needs Assessment and Scientific Research 233 Components of an Effective Needs Assessment 235 Influences on Technique Selection 236 Evaluation of Techniques 238 Techniques and Their Characteristics 241 Examples of Organizational Needs Assessments 247 Conclusions 253 References 255

111.

9.

Issues of Concern to the Individual in Organizations Health in the Workplace Donna Musialowski Ashcraft 259 Stress 261 Work Environment 261 The Impact of Changes in Technology 265 The Individual 267 The Aging Workforce 276 References 279

Contents

xviij

10.

The Role of Gender in Organizations Kathryn Kelley and Deborah Streeter 285 Trends in Work Patterns 285 Dynamics of Career Choice 289 Organizational Effects on Sex Segregation 292 Gender Effects on Career Development 294 Gender Differences in Compensation 296 Explanations for Gender-related Inequalities 299 Performance, Attitudes, and Perceptions 304 Work and Family 313 Health, Stress, and Working Women 318 Sexual Harassment 320 Conclusion 323 References 324

11.

The Dynamics of Ethnic Diversity in Organizations: Toward Integrative Models Bemardo M . Ferdman 339 Ethnicity and Organizational Psychology 34 1 Concepts of Ethnicity and Ethnic Diversity 342 Current Approaches 248 Toward More Integrated and Complex Approaches 363 Conclusion 366 References 368

12.

Stigmas in Organizations: Race, Handicaps, and Physical Unattractiveness Eugene F. Stone, Dianm L. Stone, and Robert L. Dipboye 385 Introduction 385 Stigmas and the Stigmatizing Process 388 Race as a Stigma in Organizations 400 Physical Unattractiveness as a Stigma in Organizations 412 Handicaps as a Stigma in Organizations 425 Dealing with Stigmas in Organizational Contexts 438 Needed Research on Stigmas of Various Types 442 Summary and Conclusions 443 References 444 Name Index

459

Subject Index 485

Part I: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO THE

INDUSTRIAL/ORGANIZATIONALFIELD

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial1 Organizational Psychology - K . Kelley (Editor) 0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

3

CHAPTER 1 THE THEORY AND STRUCTURE OF

INDUSTRIAL/ORGANIZATIONALPSYCHOLOGY George M.Alliger

INTRODUCTION The generation and use of theory in Industrial/Organizational psychology has been often characterized as problematic. This chapter considers first the pedagogical and professional view of the structure of the field. I first show that although grand theory is not reflected in the structure of the field (consonant with the view of some critics), this does not contradict the original direction of the field. Next, I attempt to show that inductive approaches to research cannot be divorced from deduction. This is in line with what I term "modified positivism," which I argue to be the emerginig understanding of the scientific approach to reality which characterizes the field. One of the important features of this approach is the identification of previously implicit asssumptions; the work of authors in the field who attempt to help us identify such assumptions is discussed. Industrial/Organizationalpsychology has existed as an identifiable subdiscipline within the larger discipline of modern psychology long enough to generate substantial internal debate on its research approaches and practices. Appearing in diverse times and places, critiques of the field have argued that there are shortcomings in the science and practice of IndustriaUOrganizational psychology and that these shortcomings are generally unrecognized. These critiques sound several recurring themes or strains. Gordon, Kleiman, & Hanie (1978), in fact, suggest that critiques of the theory and praxis of Industrial/Organizational psychology tend to fall into four broad categories. Gordon et al. ' s first category subsumes those critiques which argue that the field is typified by problem with theory. Specifically, unlike many disciplines, Industrial/Organizational psychology tends

Alliger

4

to generate discrete studies on topics which are themselves peculiarly un-unified by over-arching theoretical frameworks. The second category of critiques contains those that suggest the field is preoccupied with methods -- that is, with issues of statistics and experimental design. The third category has as its members those critiques that suggest that Industrial/Organizational psychology as a field may not adequately train its future representatives -- included here are issues in the selection and training of Industrial/Organizationalpsychologists. Finally, the fourth category contains those critiques which attack the "publish or perish" system prevalent in academic circles. This system, of course, is identified as injurious to the development of profound research. A fifth category could be added to Gordon et al.'s taxonomy of critiques: one that would consist of those arguments that portray Industrial/Organizational psychologists as the uncritical assistants, if not actually tools or lackeys, of management (Shore, 1979; Stagner, 1982). Since some display of self-critical faculties is probably a sign of health for a field of study just as it is for an individual, written works evincing the action of such faculties can be expected from some minority of researchers within any vibrant discipline. To say that critiques are to be expected, of course, is not the same as saying that they should simply be catalogued or dismissed. Some of them, certainly, will be relevant and interesting, even challenging, and could be considered important reading for those being trained in the field. This chapter takes up the discussion of the first category: the nature and role of theory in Industrial/Organizational psychology. This is done through the consideration of two interrelated issues: the structure of the field of IndustriaVOrganizational psychology, and the role of theory within the field. The first section of the chapter, which serves to set the stage for the second, examines which of many areas within IndustriallOrganizational psychology, taken together, can be said to constitute the field, and how these areas may be organized into a greater whole. The second section then discusses the nature of theory within the field, taking its structure as the starting point. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the future integration of theory into those areas of study which comprise Industrial/Organizational psychology.

STRUCTURE OF THE FIELD IndustriallOrganizationalPsychology: Context-Centered Industrial/Organizational psychology is one of a number of psychological fields which could be considered context-centered.

Theory in IndutriaUOrganizational

5

That is, it is primarily characterized by theplace of application: in this case, the human workplace. Such a focus on context cannot easily be said to typify most other disciplines of psychology. Social psychology, for example, considers personal perceptions and interactions, wherever such occur; cognitive psychology examines, broadly, human rationation, where context again is interesting only as another independent variable; bio-psychology studies, generally, the complicated relationships between body and behavior; clinical psychology addresses problematic human behavior as the target of interest and study, in a general sense and across situations. These disciplines may be termed zopiccentered. IndustriaVOrganizationd psychology, however, pursues psychology in a different way. It does not so much study a topic as it does any topic that appears to pertain to the workplace. The rationale for its approach might be: "Everyday most people go to work. In the context of this broad activity known as work, people spend a large portion of their waking time. Psychology has lots of interesting observations to make about people. Therefore, a psychology of people at work is reasonable and should be useful. J oi n in g In d u stria 1/ 0r gan i z at i o n a1 psych olog y in t h i s cantextcentered approach are other psychological disciplines such as military and marketing psychology. In the first of these, military personnel and their activities are the major focus, or context; in the second, the context is the marketplace. This distinction between topic-centered psychology and psychology that centers on a context is not new; the rubric of basic versus applied psychology is a more common and somewhat similar categorization. In this scheme of things, Industrial/Organizational psychology usually comes under the applied grouping. However, since any of the basic findings of the other psychological fields may also become applied, a certain fuzziness is inherent in the basic/applied dichotomy. Moreover, much of the research in Industrial/Organizationat psychology is performed in the laboratory, and is justly termed basic. Such IndustriaVOrganizational laboratory research, however, whatever its particular focus (topic), still has as its ultimate focus human performance in the workplace (context). Some of the implications of having a context-centered rather than a topic-centered discipline are obvious only on examination of the discipline in some detail. One obvious problem is that there may appear to be little interlinking among different approaches to the context (the activity of work). That is, IndustrWOrganizationalcan appear to be an agglomeration of techniques and topics, each appearing in the field due to their relevance to the context of human work, I'

6

Alliger

but bearing among themselves no compelling interrelationships. Any linking that does occur may be only functional -- job analysis, for example, becomes a sort of linking pin or central concept in industrial psychology but this is largely due to its functional relationship to other areas of study, not because it represents a broad theoretical undergirding. This lack of a central concept is noted, for example, by Stagner (1982), who argued that Industrial/Organizational psychology today is without perspective or unity. Stagner drew the parralled between jobs which are fragmented into many seemingly unconnected tasks, and the field of Industrial/Organizational psychology which is fragmented into many seemingly unconnected specialities. There is thus a connection between the structure of the field and Gordon et al. 's first category of critiques -- the lack of a strong presence of theory in Industrial/Organizationalpsychology. Whether a lack of theory is prior to the structure, or whether the reign of "specific specialties" itself resists theory development, or whether the two exist in a relation of reciprocal causality, is not so clear. In any case, to the extent that one accepts the premise that the field exists in a state of disconnection, it may be reasonable to argue that to that extent theory is lacking, If there were grand, connecting theories in Industrial/Organizational, these would be obvious to most everyone, and the field could not be perceived as a group of discontinuous or discrete areas. However, before we accept the characterization of Industrial/Organizationalpsychology as a fragmented discipline, it might be worthwhile to consider whether this is in fact the case. What are the topics that supposedly exist in disarray? One way to examine the field with an eye toward answering this question is to consider what might be called the current pedagogical structure of the field.

The Current Pedagogical Structure When I speak about how a field of study is structured, or organized, I mean to convey how sub-areas of study within the larger field relate to each other, which sub-areas are closely identified with others, and so forth. It is as if one were to attempt to create a mental map or topography of a field: some sub-areas are geographically close to others because they address the same or similar questions, they use a similar vocabulary, a similar method or design, or fall under a single larger category of study. Therefore, for example, in Industrial/Organizational psychology recruitment and selection of personnel are closely linked; leadership and group behavior in organ-

Theory in Industrial/Organizational

7

izations are related. One way to begin to understand this geography is to consider how the field is taught. Organization for pedagogical purposes reflects an organization which those who have undertaken to teach the field believe will be best for teaching. This is certainly a primary, though not the only, source of information on how experts understand the field to be structured. In order to uncover the pedagogical structure of the field, I consider how four popular and recent Industrial/Organizational textbooks have organized the field. The four textbooks are Jewel1 and Seigall (1990), Schultz and Schultz (1990), Muchinsky (1990), and Seigel and Lane (1987). Each book was examined for chapter content. In cases of questions about whether a particular text covered a topic or not, subject indices were consulted. A list of covered subject areas by textbook was created. No attempt was made to match these areas to guidelines put out by Division 14 of the APA; instead, a listing of the subjects representing the field was "recreated" through textbook examination without any conscious pre-existing structure in mind. Table 1 shows subject areas arrived at, and the proportion of texts covering each area. These scores could be seen as "membership scores," showing to what extent each area "participates" in the field. An examination of Table 1 provides some interesting indications about the pedagogical approach to the field. Consumer and health psychology, for example, are each included only in a single text. This may make sense: both areas are often seen as disciplines in their own right. In addition, while they are applied, they are not specifically or solely strongly related to the general topic of work. More surprising is the low representation placed on job design and job evaluation, which many Industrial/Organizationalpsychologists would consider core topics. Perhaps the explanation for these and other questions which Table 1 may raise in the mind of the reader lies precisely in the pedagogical nature of the sources: what academics tell undergraduates a field looks like may to some extent diverge from the actual everyday conception of the field held by those academics. Textbooks, of course, often tend to have direct conceptual links with other textbooks in the field, since publishers require "market surveys" of competing texts, and fear leaving out any topic the survey indicates is important. This may create a somewhat artificial agreement among texts in the delineation of a field, and also retard somewhat the relaying of the image of the field as it is represented in the minds of researchers to the pages of a textbook.

Alliger

8

Thble 1 Area of Industr,,.'Organizational Psychology Covered in Four Undergraduate Texts

Employee selection History of IndustriallOrganizational Job analysis Leadership Motivation Organizational development Perfornance appraisal Psychological testing Statistics/research metholology Training Working conditions Group processes Human factors Job commitrnent/ernployee attitudes Labor relations Absenteeism Employee development Criteria Job evaluation Job design Consumer psychology Stresdhealth psychology

Membership Score

1.o 1.o 1.o 1.o 1.o 1.o 1.o 1.o 1.o 1.o 1.o .75 .75 .75 .75 .50 SO .50 .50 .50 .25 .25

Theory in Industrial/Organizational

9

The Professional Structure Howard (1990) presents not a pedagogical but a professional view of the field: about 2,000 members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology responded to a questionnaire which asked members, among other things, to identify which of 56 subareas of specialty "best described their current interests and involvement." After elimination of some of the very infrequently responded to specialties, the remaining 4 1 were clustered via the average linking method. The five clusters which resulted were: 1) Individual Evaluation (the "personnel psychology" specialty, including areas of selection, testing, job analysis, equal employment, legal issues, performance appraisal, statistics, research methods, and individual differences); 2) Training (engineering psychology, military psychology, training, and program evaluation); 3) Organizational Behavior (attitudes and surveys, job satisfaction, turnover, labor relations, quality of work life, job design, organizational behavior, work motivation, productivity, reward systems); 4) Organizational Development (Culture and climate, organizational development, leadership, management, decision making, problem solving, group processes, intergroup relations, conflict resolution, power, communication); and 5 ) Employee Development (career development, employment counseling, gender issues, work and family, stress, ethics). The results reported in Howard (1990) show a somewhat greater complexity than the pedagogical list in Table 1, but otherwise the two analyses do not sharply disagree. The only topic in n b l e 1 not reported in the cluster analysis results is consumer psychology: a topic only included in one of the four textbooks. Also of interest in the Howard (1990) cluster analysis results, not noted in the text of the report but obvious from examining the cluster dendrogram (p. 19), is that while Howard chose to stop at a five cluster solution, if one had proceeded to a two cluster solution then clusters one and two (Individual Evaluation and Training) would have been joined into a single cluster, as would have clusters three, four and five (Organizational Behavior, Organizational Development, and Employee Development). This would correspond roughly to the traditional division between Industrial psychology and Organizational psychology. Most importantly for our purposes, both Table 1 and Howard (1990) show a truly wide range of topics included within the purview of Industrial/Organizational psychology. It is in fact difficult to identify any theory which connects all these topics, or to say that the topics are theoretically dependent on one another. The use of cluster analysis by Howard (1990) may thus be particularly appropriate: we

A lliger

10

ask not how subareas relate theoretically, but how relations among them occur within the perceptions of Industrial/Organizational psychologists themselves. That is, we choose a pragmatic, databased approach to the very organization of the field. Thus, we reaffirm the view of Industrial/Organizational psychology as a context-centered discipline. The primary organizing force, which draws many disparate areas of study together, is to varying degrees the target or context of each of those areas: work.

Has Industrial/OrganizationalPsychology Diverged From Its Original Mission? The question might well be raised as to whether this apparent lack of theory, this apparent pragmatic grouping of subareas into a larger psychological identity, is recent: did Industrial/Organizational psychology at some point diverge from its original agenda? Or has it always been purely a context-centered field? The obvious way to answer this question is to consider the history of the role of theory in Industrial/Organizationalpsychology. Of course, this is not a simple thing to do in the course of a single chapter. Consequently, in order to examine this question, I choose a simple but illustrative test: how the topics outlined in Tmble 1 or the areas identified by Howard (1990) (or, for that matter, the courses typically listed in any Industrial/Organizational psychology program catalogue, or the list of areas of expertise identified by Division 14) compare with the original editorial statement of IndustriaVOrganizational's flagship journal, Journal of Applied Psychology. The first issue of this journal appeared in 1917 --a substantial time after Tmylor's first time-and-motion studies (188O's), the founding of the American Psychological Association (1892), and even Munsterberg's text Psychology and Industrial Eflciency (1913). That is, by the time the Journal of Applied Psychology appeared there was some sense of an identity surrounding the process of applying psychology to work. It was this sense of identity, presumably, which precipitated the journal's founding. For its debut in 1917, the Journal of Applied Psychology had on its editorial board G. Stanley Hall, John Wallace Baird, and L.R. Geissler. The editorial policy which these three men constructed (or at least to which they put their imprimatur) was succinct. It stated that the journal would contain articles addressing: a) the application of psychology to vocational activities such as law, art, public speaking, industrial and commercial work, and problems of business appeal, b) studies of individual mentalities, such as types of character, special talents, genius, and individual

Theory in Industrial/Organizational

11

and individual differences, including the problems o f mental diagnosis and vocational prognosis, c) the influence of general environmental conditions, such as climate, weather, humidity, temperature, also such conditions as nutrition, fatigue, etc., and d) the psychology of everyday activities such as reading, writing, speaking, singing, playing games or musical instruments, sports, and the like. @p. 1-2)

This editorial mandate is intriguing, and a little thought makes one realize that the identity of Industrial/Organizationd psychology as an empirical, context-centered discipline is not new. Indeed, the initial task the editors have set the field is explicitly contextual: "the application of psychology to vocational activities. 'I On the other hand, this context was not understood as strictly as it is currently. For example, section d), "everyday activities, would probably not be recognized as part of the research agenda of Industrial/Organiz.ational psychology today. Why? Because "everyday activities, 'I as stated in the above policy, are distinguishable from work and the workplace -- the editorial board would have us, I think, interpret these precisely as activities which characterize a context different than work, namely those activities carried out in leisure time.' The statement of the Journal of Applied Psychology editorial board also fails to show that Industrial/Organizational psychology was initially more theoretically driven than is the case today, in contradiction to Stagner (1982) cited previously, who speaks as if there were once a unified viewpoint in Industrial/Organizational psychology which has been lost. The areas of study listed in the original JAP policy are hardly less disparate or more connected than those in Table 1 or Howard (1990). The tendency has been for Industrial/Organizational psychology to become, not more theoretical, but simply more purely centered in the context of work. We can, I think, expect this trend to continue. Thus, Industrial/Organizational may end up completely spinning off most of military, consumer, and human factors psychology. These have in any case over the years developed into fields in their own right, and the central focus of each (the military, the marketplace, and machine-person interfaces, respectively) is substantially different than work in and of itself.

THEORY The Relation Between Structure and Theory I have suggested that the structure of a field and the role that theory plays within a field are inextricably linked. I have noted that

12

Alliger

Stagner (1982) argued that the field of Industrial/Organizational psychology appears to be disjointed and fragmented, even to the extent that "students of psychology are likely to perceive the industriaUorganizationa1 field as a set of specific specialties having no ineluctable interconnections." Thus, it appears to some that there is a dearth of theory (the first category of Gordon et al.'s taxonomy of criticisms). However, as we have also seen, a perception of "specific specialties" may be precisely what one would expect, given the initial trajectory of Industrial/Organizational psychology and its context-centered nature. Although, therefore, the structure of the field reflects a certain lack of theory, whether this should be bemoaned as a serious weakness is another question. It is probably true that for "ineluctable interconnections" between the topics of a field to exist, theory is required. This is the case because theory acts to bridge gaps and connect concepts, predictions, and outcomes. Theory predicts how variables should interrelate, and consequently serves to show something of the underlying unity of a field of study. This is true whether a theory is developed inductively (generalized from observed data) or deductively (specific interrelations are assumed to exist as part of a larger presumed structure). But, I think it may be fairly said, not that Industrial/Organizational psychology does not have theory, but that it does not have a system of grand theory, where such a system is a unifying vision that addresses and offers predictions for all or most subareas of a discipline. Physics, or even chemistry, can be seen as disciplines that are candidates for the label "unified." Thus, for example, the set of theories that describe intra-atomic and interatomic attraction are universally applied throughout the subfields of chemistry. Industrial/Organizational psychology, on the other hand, has small t theory (Winter, 1990): theories which operate within specific subareas, which may surface at surprising times in diverse places, and which are extremely useful for making specific predictions within a subarea.* Thus, we find many theories of leadership, of work motivation, of decision making, and so forth. Few of these are large theories, covering more than one of area of study. This forces textbooks simply to walk through one theory after another in succession, presenting pros and cons of each. For example, in the area of job satisfaction, students typically are exposed to expectancy theory, equity theory, need fulfillment theories, the opponent process theory, and so forth. The very way such small t theories are listed one after another indicates that they are not expected to "unify" a field. In fact, an awareness of the list of theories and the results of pertinent studies is taken precisely as that which constitutes knowledge of the field, as a perusal of the content of most undergraduate Industrial/Organizational courses will show.

Theory in Iru€wtrial/Organizational

13

I do not wish to suggest that small t theories are not important, although one assumes that they cannot all be simultaneously correct, assuming as they do competing explanations of causalities of human behavior. Nor do I mean to oversimplify by suggesting that theory in Industrial/Organizationalis never integrative: some researchers have attempted to unify large pieces of the field by theory. A largely unheralded entrant in this regard is Path-Goal theory (House, 1971), which attempts to link leadership, job satisfaction, and motivation. Similarly, systems theory is a broad attempt at combining most if not all typical psychological variables into a single framework.3

Inductive or Deductive meory-Building ? Having established this limited (small t ) nature of theory in Industrial/Organizationalpsychology (and reiterating that limited is descriptive and not pejorative), it is still left to us to consider the particular approach or approaches to theory taken by the field. One common dimension on which theory and theory-building is discussed is anchored on either end by the terms "deductive" and "inductive." Induction, it may be recalled, is defined as the process of reasoning from the level of the particular and individual to the level of the general and universal. Deduction, on the other hand, is, specifically, the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning about general principles; such a conclusion could then be tested by examination of particular effects. Dubin (1976) suggests that, for Industrial/Organizational psychology, an inductive approach is to be preferred, since It is exceedingly difficult to say something meaningful about the real world without starting in the real world. Observation and description of the real world are the essential points of origin for theories in applied psychology... Work is a human activity and any student of working behavior is simply forced to start with reality. @. 18) Dubin offers the example of a researcher who discovers that job autonomy and job satisfaction are related. Following an inductive process, the researcher begins to posit reasons for this observed relationship: perhaps workers expend energy fighting to obtain autonomy if they have less than some optimal amount, and hence have lower satisfaction than workers with more autonomy. The inductive development of a theory is thus initiated precisely through

14

Alliger

the observation of data. Dubin's example is a reasonable one and, I think, portrays how researchers often think. But, as far as providing a convincing argument for the primacy of induction in theorybuilding, both Dubin's discussion and example fall short. First, consider Dubin's contention that one must start in the "real world" in order to say something meaningful about it. Undoubtedly: but, of course, deductive theory is not in any way divorced from reality: its reality is simply in thecfirst instance the reality of the mind of the theorist. That is, all that is required to understand how deductive theory can be appropriate to a practical, context-centered discipline like Industrial/Organizational psychology is to recognize that people make theories, and people are part of the "real world". Any argument to the contrary harkens back to unmodified logical positivism, where the scientist adopts the (rather awkward) fiction that he or she does not exist: only "facts" exist. But, as shall be discussed in the next section, this brand of strict positivism no longer carries its former weight in the scientific community. Incidentally, I do not accuse Dubin himself of such a positivist stance. The point is that it is very easy to fail to realize that the "real world" includes everything: even our constructions of or theories about it. Second, the very existence of data presupposes a priori deduction. Consider again Dubin's example of the researcher who noted the relation between job satisfaction and autonomy. Curious about this observed relation, the researcher begins to think inductively, to attempt to generalize and explain. However, this example need not be seen only as a characterization of an inductive process. If, for example, we consider why the data were collected in the first place, we see that someone, either the researcher of our example or some other researcher, must have obtained and analyzed these data for some purpose. That is, it is likely that someone's theory (however ill-defined or vague) suggested that it would be reasonable to collect these data at the same time on the same group of workers. Even if it is argued that the data collection was purely fortuitous in this particular case, this certainly cannot be the case the majority of the time. Otherwise, we would be reduced to firing off questionnaires or collecting measures in a random fashion, later to detect patterns. This is not the primary method in which psychologists operate, although Gordon et al. (1978) would seem to disagree, for they suggest that the main concern of Industrial/Organizational psychologists has been simply to observe and record how behaviors at work COVW.~

My premise, then, is that deduction and induction are only artificially separated. If one starts deductively on a particular question,

Theory in Indmtrial/Organizational

15

that is, with a statement of a general nature, this does not rule out inductive, re-generalizing processes once relevant data are available on the question. On the other hand, if one begins inductively in a specific case, it may well be necessary to make new or revised predictions (that is, to operate deductively) once one has arrived at the level of theory. Viewed in this way, deduction and induction exist in a dynamic, reciprocating relationship, like the pistons in an internal combustion engine: you think inductively in order to be able to think deductively. Alternatively, you think deductively in order to think inductively. Neither approach has a primary claim on the "real world". In a sense, induction and deduction then exist together as a chicken-and-egg issue: neither can be definitively said to come first, either chronologically or in terms of importance for Industrial/Organizational psychology. Understanding science in this way should have a freeing effect for researchers: there is no "one best way" to develop theory. Having stated this, however, I should also state that I suspect that researchers differ in their predilections regarding theory, whether or not these predilections affect how they actually approach it. One is tempted to suggest that some are more Platonic (deductively-oriented) in their approach to psychological science, while others are more Aristotelian (inductively-oriented) in theirs.

Positivism and Modified Positivism The preceding discussion on the relation between inductive and deductive theory building can be understood in the light of Kuhn's paradigm model of scientific advance.' I have already mentioned one general scientific paradigm: positivism. Industrial/Organizational psychology, certainly, has primarily identified with positivism as a method. This identification would explain, for example, a preference for inductive as opposed to deductive science (Dubin, 1976). Sometimes called logical positivism, logical empiricism, objectivism, or functionalism, a modified version of this approach to research and reality typifies many scientists today. Briefly, positivism can be characterized as a belief that "all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment" (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1963). As suggested earlier, adherents of pure logical positivism, as a breed, are just about extinct. Pure logical positivists could be characterized as scientists who in no way concede that their assumptions or predilections in any way whatsoever influence their work, that facts are absolutely knowable in the most objective sense, that the act of scientific per-

A lliger

16

ception is unbiasing and hence irrelevant in and of itself. But, on the contrary, most psychological research now is done with a more or less explicit awareness that scientists are humans engaged in a human act, That act is simply the attempt to better understand the world, where a nonrigidly defined scientific method is the method guiding that act. In psychology, Rosenthal's (1963)concept of "experimenter demand effects," which outlines the effect of observation on the measurement of the observed, has been pretty well assimilated, despite contrary discussions of possible problems with Rosenthal's work (e.g. Barber & Silver, 1968). And, although one may still see attacks aganst a pure logical positivist position, that position must be set up like a "straw man," where the scientist is portrayed as an individual ignorant of himself as a determining force in scientific research (cf. Kukla, 1984). This portrayal of science and scientists cannot really be considered as representative of current psychological science. Instead, social science today, including psychology, could better be characterized as utilizing a modified positivistic approach to science. That is, the attempt to characterize reality in some objective way has not been abandoned, but the contingent nature of any attempt to do so is, at least to some extent, recognized. Thus, for example, while it is possible to say in some way that an objective body of knowledge is being built, it also has to be said that this occurs only in the crucible of the entire community of scientists, where individual commitment to theory (Mitroff, 1972), necessary as it is for the pursuit of science by individuals, is in some sense and at some point in time purged or canceled out (Alliger & Hanges, 1984). As Romesburg (1984)points out within a discussion about the use of subjective skill in proper use of cluster analysis, When a group of professionals follows these less rigid rules, a consensus may result, but usually there will be differences of opinion as to which guides are best. The guiding rules for subjective decisions are the norms that professional fields sanction. The norms map out a range of what is and is not acceptable, rather than constraining the decision to one possibility., . What comes after the equal sign in 'Let X is properly a subjective decision. The researcher risks being wrong, but this is not worrisome because, in the end ... the researcher will gain feedback indicating whether he was right or wrong. (p. ...,I

241-242)

Theory in Industn'al/Organizational

17

That is, the community of scientists recognizes the important and proper role of subjectivity, though each discipline will attempt to set up rules within which that subjectivity should operate. And, in the end, the community will provide "feedback," that is, judgments, about the acceptability of a particular scientist's subjectively determined work. We have then in operation a modified positivism, which recognizes an objective reality, but defines this in terms of the perceptions, rules, norms, and decisions of the scientific community. However, to say that we have to some extent modified the purely positivist paradigm is not to say that we have resolved exactly how we are to do science. In fact, in place of the logical positivist's desire to lay down a specific definition of science which all must follow to the letter, there is a wideranging debate on the precise character science is to take within each discipline. As Caws (1967) notes:

...the search for a unique scientific method seems less urgent than it once did, because by now it is clear that in general it has already been discovered, while in detail there is no such thing. The general conclusion is that the method of science is a mixture -- the proportions of which vary from one science to another -of logical construction and empirical observation, these components standing in a roughly dialectical relation. The details, on either side of this division, remain the object of a range of inquiries from the study of laboratory techniques to pure axiomatics. (p. 342, italics added). That is, there is really no single scientific method, although it may be suspected that the average graduate student of psychology might be surprised to hear this. Thus we find that our conclusion of the previous section, that there is no one best way to approach theorybuilding, is somewhat broadened into: there is no one best way to do science. Certainly there are methodologies, approaches, and ways of structuring research which may be particularly fruitful in providing findings and ideas which help us to structure our world. And, it is true that it is precisely widely-shared agreement on such approaches that permit the existence of a scientific community of psychologists. Modified positivism can then be said to have three broad characteristics. First, there is a recognition of the subjective element in experimentation. Modified positivism does not require that the scientist hide him or herself, or otherwise pretend not to exist.6

18

Alliger

Second, there is no single best way to "do science". For any given study, the induction-deduction cycle can be entered at any point. Researchers in different areas of study are free to develop methods and approaches appropriate for their own area. To be sure, any such development must be justified as appropriate, or the researcher risks a degradation in credibilit Third, the entire community of scientists, and their scrutiny o results presented to them, comprise the "objective" nature of science. The public nature of experimental results, and replicability, are important.' Every discipline will have, to varying degrees, remnants of unmodified positivism. Indeed, if one of the problems that we have in Industrial/Organizationalpsychology is a dearth of linking theories, this may in fact be due precisely to an incomplete adoption of what I have called the modified positivist approach to science.

y.

Identijjdn Underlying Assumptions in Industria /Organizational Psychology

f

One theme that has underlain our discussion of modified positivism is that scientists, like everyone else, have presuppositions and assumptions guiding their thinking, perceptions, and actions. On one level this can be a relatively trivial observation -- of course we have these assumptions, but the idea is not to let them affect one's scientific work. But if we accept Mitroff's (1972) or Polanyi's (1958) concept of the importance of commitment in science, then we see that it is precisely assumptions that give power and direction to research. The continuing struggle to understand and attain modified positivism is then naturally to a certain extent the attempt to understand how subjectivity operates in research, and to uncover the assumptions guiding research. So, we have writers who seem to do one of two things. First, they may actively encourage subjectivity in research. Second, they may attempt to identify (and sometimes condemn) underlying research assumption s. An example of the first group is Gergen, who pointed out in a 1978 article entitled Toward Generative Theory, that an emphasis on objectivity, contemporary knowledge and views, and uninvolved observation may retard the promulgation or adoption of new, fresh viewpoints in psychological research. That is, our positivistic inheritance can thwart theorizing.8 Sampson (1978) argues that since our theorizing cannot be part of a completely "objective" science, we might as well recognize this and direct our science by conscious commitments, rather than unconscious ones. Polanyi, in his justly famous Personal Knowledge (1958), antici-

Theory in Industrial/Organizational

19

pated Gergen and Sampson by suggesting that instead of emphasis on the objectivity of the scientist, the commitment of the scientist, or the scientist's "heuristic passion" is key. Such a passion interacts with scientific training and knowledge in the scientist him or herself to produce original research. As Polanyi (1958) puts it:

To accept commitment as the only relation in which we can believe something to be true, is to abandon all efforts to find strict criteria of truth and strict procedures for arriving at truth. A result obtained by applying strict rules mechanically, without committing anyone personally, can mean nothing to anybody. Desisting henceforth from the vain pursuit of a formalized scientific method, commitment accepts i n its place the person of the scientist as the agent responsible for conducting and accrediting scientific discoveries. The scientist's method is of course methodical. But his methods are but the maxims of an art which he applies in his own original way to the problem of his own choice. (p. 311-312) In Polanyi's words we again see the delineation of science as a real examination of the real world, and yet only real in process, that is, as it is instantiated in the living person and actions of the scientist. Indeed, that is why some writers have argued that forays into Artificial Intelligence will never result in true intelligent thinking: the lack of any ability to feel commitment means that computers will of necessity see the landscape of facts i n monocolor, as it were. Computers necessarily lack the ability to specify, through commitment, the world in a certain way prior to exploring it. The second approach to subjectivity in research has this agenda: identify and discuss the appropriateness of underlying research assumptions. I started this chapter by pointing out that in Gordon et al. 's critique taxonomy, the first category included those writers who argue that IndustriaUOrganizational has a lack of theory. Having discussed modified positivism, however, I am now in a position to picture these critiques in part as constructive attempts to identify underlying assumptions in guiding research in the field. I examine a few of these critiques briefly. Argyris (1976) argues, for example, that IndustriaVOrganizational psychologists use an implicit organizational theory in their work: namely, a) that organizations are structured in a hierarchical way and such a structure is appropriate, and b) that the goals of the organiza-

20

Alliger

tion as articulated by management must necessarily be optimal. For this reason, indices such as turnover, absenteeism, or volume of sales are seen as accurate indexes of an effective organization. The "steady-state" of the existing organization is favored. Acting on this implicit "steady-state" theory, Argyris argues, is likely to be dysfunctional. Organizations have to change to stay viable. In an intriguing twist, Argyris (1976) goes on to argue not that the Industrial/Organizationalpsychologist is being too mercenary in simply accepting management's status-quo without question, but that this acceptance may place him/her out of touch with management: "the result may be that industrial psychologists could become, unintentionally, to the field of human behavior, what the shiny-pants, green-shade bookkeeper is to finance" (p. 167). Thus, failing to adopt a modified positivism that sees the world as dynamic and constructed could lead Industrial/Organizationalpsychologists to be "left out". Stagner (1982) identifies a different implicit assumption held by Industrial/Organizational psychologists. He says that mylor, like Marx, accepted and preached the idea that motivation to work can be boiled down to basic economic motives. The acceptance of such a concept of motivation promotes, in turn, a mechanistic and ultimately cynical concept of workers. Nord (1982) quite explicitly argues that residual metaphors of logical positivistic science, namely quantification and objectivity and rationality, are not politically neutral tools. Their use can legitimate certain elite groups. Ignoring the political dimensions of these tools may cause Industrial/Organizationalpsychologists to underplay the role of conflict in the workplace. Unions, for example, may tend to be marginalized. Organizations, in short, are not economic entities with no political identity. An unmodified positivism would tend to rely on an objective (and hence, after Argyris, status-quo) approach to organizations, and fail to perceive this. Shore (1979), in a brief article entitled "Servants of Power," presented yet another twist on the don't-accept-the-organizationalstatus-quo theme; his article most clearly falls in the additional fifth category of critiques mentioned in the introduction of this chapter. That fifth category includes those critiques which argue that psychologists can too easily be the unwitting tools of management. Shore argued that Industrial/Organizationalpsychologists tell people to adapt to and accept stressful conditions in the workplace. That is, the solution is seen in self-management techniques rather than an attempt to change the organization to eliminate stressors. There are several purposes to be achieved by bringing our assumptions as psychologists to the fore. First, this is more honest

Theory in Indmtrial/Organizational

21

and reflective of the way real research is done than is the pretense of complete objectivity. Second, in addition to recognizing our a priori stances, we can avoid, to some extent, the influences of these in our research. The field does not always agree with this second point. There are proponents of some organizational theorizing, for example, who argue that a specific political agenda should inform research (see, for example, the discussion of Gioia & Pitre, 1990). But if we are aware of certain biases or predilections, it would seem axiomatic that it is our duty to see through them, however uncomfortable this may be. This is because modified positivism is still to some extent positivism: there is a reality which we attempt to describe. Third, recognition of assumptions can be a powerful heuristic. This seems to be what Mitroff (1972) and Polanyi (1958) are arguing. When we are able to explicate our deep seated beliefs concretely, we will be able to generate "tests" of these. More importantly, they will provide us with the critical edge we need to understand and judge the current state of the field. Theory-based research should not be a revered but opaque process, but instead the relatively straightforward application of beliefs to the observable world, testing, and reevaluation of beliefs.

CONCLUSION In this chapter I have considered several points. First, I asked whether it is true, as some internal criticism suggests,that the field of Industrial/Organizational psychology is i n fact a field comprised of theoretically unconnected topics. The answer as formulated here, from an examination of the structure and content of the field, is a very qualified yes. Industrial/Organizational psychology is contextcentered: it applies psychology to a major human context: work. In this, however, it neither deviates from its original direction nor does it renounce theory. Rather, it uses small t theory: theory about a given area that does not purport to be grand, overarching Theory. There are some possible candidates for grand Theory, however, emerging in the field. Systems theory was mentioned as one of the most prominent of these. In addition, I used the discussion of theory as a setting in which to argue that the approach by the field to theory should not be, indeed, it cannot be, simply inductive in nature. We all may have predilections in the type of theory-building and testing we employ, of course, which is as it should be. But induction and deduction exist together in ineluctable interdependence. Second, I proposed that what I have called "modified positivism" appropriately typifies t h e science occurring in t h e field of Industrial/Organizational psychology, and probably science in gener-

22

Alliger

a1 today. Modified positivism accepts the subjectivity of the researcher, posits no single way in which the scientific method must be operationalized, and sees objectivity of knowledge as being created, or discovered, by the community of scholars. However, while I have argued that unmitigated objectivism fails to be persuasive precisely because, ironically, of its exclusive emphasis on "facts," it should be noted that I have not abandoned the scientific enterprise to simple relativity. The latter can lead only to the endorsement of a type of "private knowledge" which will be detrimental to the real interests of the scientific community. That such relativity is actually promulgated by some as a the proper approach to science in the social sciences should not be doubted (cf. Kukla, 1982). Third, the first characteristic of modified positivism, namely the recognition of scientific subjectivity, was discussed r e IndustriaVOrganizational psychology using the concept of "heuristic passion". How some Industrial/Organizational psychologists have identified the status-quo subjectivity of the field through examination of some of its underlying assumptions was also discussed. Vis-a-vis this last point, it might not be fair to end this chapter without some discussion of just how the act of identifying the assumptions which guide our approaches to psychology of work is to be pursued. I think the short answer to this is that this is where science meets philosophy, history, literature, and even religion. That is, the act of identification of the assumptions guiding research involves the totality of the person, and perhaps a characteristic such as risk-taking, as well as, presumably, some actual perspicacity and learning. But practical steps in this direction are possible as well: the reading of what other disciplines have to say about work, for example, is of obvious benefit. Work as a human activity really is very interesting, and psychologists represent a small minority of people who have written and thought deeply and well about it. It is through such reading that we discover our own historical boundedness and why we were taught to pursue psychology in a certain way. I think that when we get this sense of perspective that not only do we see the limitations of our field, but begin to appreciate its contributions to the theoretical understanding of work.

NOTES 1 . Leisure or every-day non-working activities have, it is true, shown signs of coming to the fore as a topic of importance to Industrial/Organizationalpsychology, but only and precisely because i t is non-work, and as such has influences on work. Williams, Suls, Alliger, Learner & Wan (in press), for example, discuss the importance of understanding how workers "juggle"work and non-work tasks.

Theory in Indwtrial/Organizational

23

2. It is interesting to note that some writers outside of the discipline of psychology regard all of psychology as either atheoretical or what we might call "aphilosophical". This latter term would mean that, after all, psychology avoids the "basic" questions. A relatively extreme statement in this regard is made by Peters and Mace (1967): Psychology has always been, and may always remain, a parasitic discipline. F o r twenty centuries i t was j u s t a branch of philosophy. To gain emancipation, it entered into willing bondage to the established natural sciences. Increasingly it has claimed to be, and has been increasingly accepted as, a biological science.. . In the twentieth century psychologists and biologists have found a common approach, frame of reference, and interest in such new special studies as ethology, cybernetics, and information theory and a common lack of interest or only a peripheral interest in problems of the philosophy of the mind. (p. 26) Needless to say, this view may be taken with a grain of salt. However, it is not only other disciplines that consider psychology as a whole as lacking in unity or theory (e.g., Wapner, 1988; Yamamoto, 1988). 3. It can be noted that when a very broad theory is proposed it may be resisted by researchers, in part, apparently, for its very breadth. For example, Locke (1989) used the word "imperialist" in describing systems theory. The very characteristics of systems theory that suggest that it may be able to unify disparate areas of motivational psychology, one of which is goalsetting theory, prompted Locke to reject it. Here we may be up against the scientist's "heuristic passion" or "heuristic commitment" which we discuss, in a wholly favorable light, later in this chapter. However, it may be that this passion can act, not only as an important driving force in scientific research, but as a retardant to the acceptance of overarching theory within a field, as the above example shows. 4. One of the incorrect presumptions about the inductive method is that the data are determinative of theory. Actually, there will be many theories that could be induced from data. As Mulaik (1987) points out in the context of one of the limitations of factor analysis, namely that factors derived from a set of data can not be definitively named:

Factor indeterminacy is just a special case of a more general form of indeterminacy commonly encountered in science, known to philosophers of science as the empirical underdetermination of theory -- Data by themselves are never sufficient to determine uniquely theories for generalizing inductively beyond the data. (p. 298)

Alliger

24

A belief that one can make inductive inferences uniquely from data without a priori assumptions has been termed the "inductivist fallacy. "

5. Paradigm, for our purposes, can be thought of as a general accepted approach to the study of behavioral phenomena. This is how it appears generally to be used in the psychological literature (e.g., Gioia & Pitre, 1990). It may be that any such definition of the word should be amended to include "with apologies to Thomas Kuhn." Kuhn (1970), of course, is responsible for the ground-breaking examination of how "normal" science is periodically stressed to the breaking point by one or more experimental anomalies, and the concomitant appearance of a new "paradigm" or way to approach science. Less well known is the fact that while the social sciences have wholeheartedly accepted Kuhn's view of the way science works, natural science has proven much more resistant to it. This occurred despite Kuhn's intention to address only natural science, and to explicitly avoid addressing the social sciences. As Hacking (1984) musingly notes, however, the natural sciences have largely ignored Kuhn's work, while ...[i]t is quite the opposite in the social and psychological sciences. Kuhn's Structure had hardly appeared in print when presidential addresses to annual meetings of the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association avowed their need for paradigms. It has always seemed to me that Kuhn was a good deal clearer about his use of his famous word than most of his readers, including presidents of learned societies.. . it may be that the impact of Kuhn on social sciences is a sign of their lack of self-understanding. " (p. 115)

6. One manifestation of this element of modified positivism in psychological research is editorial policy. Compare, for example, the explicit recognition of subjectivity in the most recent Publication Manual of the APA (1983):

Inappropriately or illogically attributing action in the name of objectivity can be misleading. For example, writing "the experimenter instructed the subjects" when "the experimenter" refers to yourself is at best ambiguous and may even give the impression that you disavow your own study. (p. 35) 7. The requirement of replicability in particular could be said to place limits on our second point, namely that there is no "one best way" to do science. To the extent a psychologist wishes to obtain results that are replicable by other psychologists in other situations, he or she is not free to pursue science in any way whatsoever. Even if it is agreed that the scientific method is not a unitary, fully developed, unalterable method, it is still a body of method and a coherent philosophy, and the hope of obtaining results that may be replicable depends on participation in that method and philosophy.

Theory in ZndustriallOrganizational

25

8. It may well be that a legacy of positivism and Gordon et al.'s second category of critiques of I/O psychology (too much emphasis on methods) are related. That is, the emphasis on research based on objectivity and noninvolvement to some extent requires an undisputed body of methods and statistics. An observation is objective if and only if it is carried out in a certain way. Relationships are only understandable if data are analyzed in a certain way. In this light, it is fascinating to read the work of Gigerenzer and colleagues (Gigerenzer & Murray 1987; Sedlmeier & Gigerenzer 1989). They suggest that it is only because psychology needed a single and undisputed set of methods and statistics that such a body was developed and taught. Out of the sharp theoretical disagreements between Fisher on the one hand and Neyman and Pearson on the other regarding significance testing and design psychologists forged a single statistical method. This has then been taught and passed down as the method.

REFERENCES Alliger, G.M., & Hanges, P.J. (1984). Objectivity and science: Reply to Kukla. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 676-679. American Psychological Association. (1983). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (3rd ed .). Washington, DC: Author. Argyris, C. (1976). Problems and new directions for industrial psychology. I n M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Barber, T.X., & Silver, M.J. (1968). Pitfalls in data analysis and interpretation: A reply to Rosenthal. Psychological Bulletin: Monograph Supplement, 70, 48-62. Caws, P. (1967). Scientific Method. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy, New York: Collin MacMillan. Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Gergen, K.J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1344-1360. Gigerenzer, G., & Murray, D.Y. (1987). Cognition as Intuitive Statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gioia, D.A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15, 584602. Gordon, M.E., Kleiman, L.S., & Hanie, C.A. (1978). IndustrialOrganizational Psychology: Open thy ears 0 house of Israel. American Psychologist, 33, 893-905.

26

Alliger

Hacking, I. (1984). Five parables. In R. Rorty, J.B. Schneewind, & Q. Skinner (Ed.), Philosophy in history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, G. S., Baird, J. W., & Geissler, L. R. (1917). Introduction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 , 1-4. House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338. Howard, A. (1990). The multiple facets of industrial-organizational psychology: Membership survey results. Arlington Heights, IL: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. Jewell, L. N. & Siegall, M. (1990). Contermprary industrial/organizational psychology (2nd 4.).St. Paul, MN: West. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientijk revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kukla, A. (1982). Logical incoherence of value-free science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1014-1017. Locke, E.A. (1989, April). In. H.J. Klein (Chair), Debate: Control theory and understanding motivated behavior. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Boston. Mitroff, I. (1972). The myth of objectivity. Management Science, 19, b613-b618. Muchinsky, P. M. (1990). Psychology applied to work (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Mulaik, S.A. (1987). A brief history of the philosophical foundations of exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 267-305. Munsterberg, H. (19 13). Psychology and industrial efficiency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Nord, W.R. (1982). Continuity and change in Industrial/Organizational psychology: Learning from previous mistakes. Professional Psychology, 13, 942-952. Peters, R.S., & Mace, C.A. (1967). Psychology. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy. New York: Collin MacMillan. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Romesburg, H.C. (1984). Cluster anulysis for researchers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc. Rosenthal, R. (1963). The experimental hypothesis as unintended determinant of experimental results. American Scientist, 51 , 268-283. Royce, J.R. (1982). Philosophic issues, Division 24, and the future. American Psychologist, 37, 258-266.

Theory in IndustriallOrganizational

27

Sampson, E.E. (1978). Scientific paradigms and social values: Wanted -- A scientific revolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1332-1343. Schultz, D.P., & Schultz, S.E. (1990). Psychology and industry today. New York: MacMillan. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1989). Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 309-3 16. Siegel, L., & Lane, I.M. (1987). Personnel and organizational psychology. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Shore, R. (1979). Servants of power. APA Monitor, 10, 2. Stagner, R. (1982). Past and future of Industrial/Organizational psychology. Professional Psychology, 13, 892-902. Wapner, S. (1988). Unifying psychology: Strategies from a holistic, developmental, systems theory. Hiroshima Forum for PsycholO ~ Y ,13, 1-15. Wbster's new collegiate dictionmy. (1963). (7th ed.). Springfield, MA: Meniam Webster Winter, S.L. (1990). Bull Durham and the uses of theory. Stanford Law Review, 42, 640-693. Williams, K.J., Suls, J:, Alliger, G.M., Learner, S.M. & Wan C.K. (in press). Multiple role juggling and daily mood states in working mothers: An experience sampling study. Manuscript submitted for publication. Journal of Applied Psychology. Yamamoto, T. (1988). How far can we go towards unifying psychology? -- Comments on Prof. Wapner's paper. Hiroshima Forum for Psychology, 13, 17-18.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial/ Organizational Psychology - K . Kelley (Editor) 0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

29

CHAPTER 2 THE IMPLICATIONS OF ATTRACTION RESEARCH FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES

Donn Byrne and Joel H. Neuman

...in many decisions affect plays a more important role than we are willing to admit. We sometimes delude ourselves that we proceed in a rational manner and weigh all the pros and cons of the various alternatives. But this is probably seldom the actual case. Quite often 'I decided in favor of X' is no more than ' I liked X.' Most of the time, information collected about alternatives serves us less for making a decision than for justifying it afterward... We buy the cars we 'like,' choose the jobs and houses that we find ' attractive, ' and then justify those choices by various reasons that might appear convincing to others who never fail to ask us, 'Why this car?' or 'Why this house?' We need not convince ourselves. We know what we like. (Zajonc, 1980, p.155) Zajonc's analysis could easily be extended to include why this wife? Why this husband? Why this career? Why this job candidate? One could also add countless other whys. In some situations emotional decisions seem very appropriate and not in need of justification. In purchasing a work of art, selecting a wardrobe, decorating a house, or choosing a friend, affective responses are ordinarily considered sensible and even desirable. People are not, however, generally inclined to admit that emotional forces determine behavior in the "dollars-and-cents" world of business. Most people would agree that an individual's decision about an academic major, career and, eventually, occupation are critically important decisions. So, too, are the decisions that managers continually face: personnel selection, performance appraisals, worker compensation, task and

Byme and Neuman

30

plant design, and incentive programs, to name just a few. Poor decisions can result in substantial costs to individuals and to organizations. For this reason, decision making in these areas is presumably a rational process, devoid of emotionality. It is true that these are extremely important issues, but 'it-is probably not true that they are resolved with emotionless dispassion.

THE ROLE OF AFFECT IN INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION We believe, as does Zajonc (1980), that "affect plays a more important role than we are willing to admit."

me Reinforcement-affect Model of Attraction One formulation of the attraction process stresses the role of affect as the primary determinant of evaluative responses (Byme, 1971; Byme & Clore, 1970; Clore & Byme, 1974).

Associated AfSect. The reinforcement-affect model of interpersonal attraction is based on a classical conditioning paradigm in which affect plays a czntral role: stimuli that evoke positive affect are liked while stimuli that evoke negative affect are disliked. Attraction to another person is based on the extent to which that person elicits positive affect or is merely associated with another stimulus that elicits positive affect. As an example, the effect of associated affect on interpersonal attraction was demonstrated by Griffitt (1970) in an experiment where subjects were required to evaluate a target stranger. Griffitt exposed one group of experimental subjects to unpleasant combinations of temperature and humidity while another group of subjects was exposed to pleasant levels of these environmental variables. Subjects i n the "pleasant" condition evaluated target strangers more positively than subjects in the "unpleasant" condition. In this instance, affect induced by temperature and humidity was associated with the target stranger and influenced the evaluation of the target accordingly. In another study, Gouaux (1971) induced both positive and negative affect by means of the Velten (1967) procedure. With this technique, the appropriate affective state is induced by having subjects read 60 self-referent statements which become increasingly more positive or negative, depending on the desired mood state the experimenter wishes to induce. Following mood-induction, subjects were then asked to evaluate a target stranger. As predicted, positive affect resulted in relatively positive

Implications of Attraction Research

31

evaluations of a target stranger and negative affect in relatively negative evaluations.

Attitude Similarity. Another procedure which induces affect involves exposing subjects to "simple" attitude statements. In one popular technique, known as the bogus stranger paradigm (Byrne, 1961), subjects are asked to complete an attitude questionnaire and indicate to what extent they agree or disagree with several attitude statements. At a later time (often several weeks later), subjects are presented with an attitude questionnaire purportedly filled out by a stranger unknown to the subject. Subjects are told that the study in which they are participating is designed to investigate interpersonal judgment. Participants are then asked to review the stranger's questionnaire and indicate how much they like that person and to what extent they would like working with him or her. In reality, no actual stranger exists. The "stranger's" questionnaire is created by the experimenter based on the subject's attitudes that were obtained at the beginning of the study. In this way, the experimenter is able to manipulate the amount of similarity or dissimilarity between the subject and the bogus stranger. Extensive research using this paradigm has demonstrated that as the proportion of similar attitudes increases, attraction toward a target person increases in a linear function (Byrne & Nelson, 1965). This relationship is mediated by an implicit affective response. Specifically, similar attitude statements elicit positive affect which, in turn, elicits positive evaluative responses. Support for this hypothesis was supplied in an experiment designed by Byrne and Clore (1970) in which subjects completed a semantic differential scale as part of a typical attraction study. Similar attitude statements elicited responses indicating positive affect, and dissimilar statements elicited responses indicative of negative affect. Dissimilar attitude statements also result in physiological arousal, as measured by changes in skin conductance (Clore & Gormly, 1969). The power of associated affect is not restricted to our evaluations of others but also to the evaluation of other discriminable stimulus objects in the situation. For example, within the context of a typical attraction experiment, Meadow (1971) demonstrated that perceived attitude similarity resulted in subjects rating the experiment as being more enjoyable than those in the dissimilar condition, and perceiving that time passed more quickly -- showing once more that "time flies when you're having fun." f i e Attraction Response Dimension. Although much of the research on attraction has focused on interpersonal relationships, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are referring to a much more general

Byme and Neuman

32

evaluative process. This model can be applied to any situation involving likes and dislikes leading to approach versus avoidance behavior. Rather than being restricted to interpersonal relationships, the same conceptualization applies equally well in evaluations of all manner of stimuli. The attraction response dimension depicted in Figure 1 can easily be applied to employees, supervisors, managers, books, movies, sports events, geographical settings, products, political candidates, careers, job offers, salaries, training, corporate cultures, workplace environment, shopping malls, or any other stimuli we are called on to evaluate. Implicit in the scale depicted in Figure 1 is the fact that attraction is not an all or nothing response. In fact, attraction is found to be a linear function of the amount of positive affect in relation to the combined total of positive and negative affect elicited (Byrne & Nelson, 1965). The implications of attraction research for organizational issues will be examined at two levels of analysis: First, we will draw a parallel between marital relationships (initial attraction, marriage, learning about one another, long-term maintenance of the relationship, and possible dissolution) and occupational relationships (career and job choice, organizational entry, on-the-job performance, and turnover). Second, we will present evidence that factors that mediate interpersonal attraction, such as attitude similarity, overt stimulus characteristics, and propinquity, are also operative in the highly "objective" world of business.

ATTRACTION: INTERPERSONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL The evaluationsone makes of anotherperson areconceptuallyparallel to the evaluations made of an occupation, career, or organization.

Selecting a Mate and Selecting an Organization Considering the long-term (at least theoretically) implicationsof a marriage and an occupation, we find it useful to point out the factors common to each selection process.

Propinquity. With no opportunity for interaction there can be no opportunity for attraction. Although self-evident, most of us proba-

bly underestimate the importance of propinquity in shaping our lives. Our proximity to a particular stimulus provides an opportunity for interaction and the level and quality of exposure results in a specific

Implications of Attraction Research

I

Hate

I

Strong Dislike

I

I

Mild Neutral Disliking

33

I

Mild Liking

I

Strong Liking

Figure 1: The attraction response dimension

I

Love

34

Byme and Neuman

affective response. A classic example of this fact involves the selection of a mate. It is unlikely that most people believe that their choice of a mate is influenced, to a major extent, by their physical proximity to that other individual prior to acquaintanceship. It may, therefore, be surprising to find that 34% of the first 5000 matriage licenses issued in Philadelphia, in 1931, were issued to men and women who lived within five blocks of each other (Bossard, 1932). In that investigator's words, "cupid may have wings, but apparently they are not adapted for long flights" (Bossard, 1932, p. 222). Both physical proximity (the physical distance between individuals) and functional proximity (the ease with which contact can take place) have been shown to facilitate friendship formation. For example, Caplow and Foreman (1950) found that close physical proximity between apartments, in a married student housing unit, predicted the likelihood of friendship formation. In a similar field study, Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) found that individuals who lived on the ground floor of an apartment building were more likely to have friends on the second floor if their apartments were located next to a stairway than was true for other ground floor residents. Students sitting in close proximity (side-by-side seating) to each other in a classroom are more likely to become friends than any other pairs of students in the room (Byrne & Buehler, 1955; Segal, 1974), and people are more likely to become friendly with their immediate next-door neighbors, especially when driveways are sideby-side, than with other neighbors (Whyte, 1956).

Repeated Exposure. Physical and functional proximity not only provide an opportunity for initial contact but also an opportunity for repeated exposure. In a series of experiments, Zajonc (1968) demonstrated that repeated exposure to a stimulus can result in a more positive (or less negative) evaluation of that stimulus. This tendency to feel better about familiar stimuli probably has survival value, in an evolutionary sense. Any novel person or object is potentially dangerous and hence threatening, whereas familiar objects are predictably safe because they caused no harm previously. Regardless of the underlying mechanism, however, research consistently indicates a preference for the familiar. Clearly, close physical and functional proximity facilitate repeated exposure and, hence, increasingly positive evaluations. People who come in contact with each other on multiple occasions are more likely to interact and more likely to become friendly -- assuming that the interactions are of a positive nature. Regardless of the nature of the interaction, a relationship is most likely to begin with an environmentally-guidedopportunity.

Implications of Attraction Research

35

Just as propinquity can influence one's evaluation of others and the selection of a mate, it can influence one's evaluation and selection of a career. Bandura (1969) stresses the importance and the ubiquity of vicarious learning that occurs when we observe what others do and the consequences of their acts. In choosing a career path, it is probably not the case that the average young person sits down and browses through more than 47,000 different occupations listed in me Dictionary of Occupational Titles. In place of this kind of systematic exposure to relevant information, most of us are more likely to respond to such unsystematic influences as our parents, school counselors, accidental exposure to specific occupations, and the job choices of our friends (Conger & Petersen, 1984). For example, even when controlling for social-class, sons of physicians, lawyers, and scientists are more likely to enter these occupations than young men whose fathers are not involved in these occupations (Mortimer, 1976; Werts, 1966; Werts, 1968). Young girls are more likely to express positive attitudes toward working both within and outside the home if their mothers have successfully balanced these roles (Baruch, 1972). Stagner (198 1) describes a situation that is quite possibly representative of the way most people wind up pursuing a particular career. In attempting to trace the development of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Stagner (1981) solicited autobiographical material from 13 past presidents of Division 14 of APA (Division of Industrial and Organizational Psychology). The autobiographies supplied information about the participants' childhoods, graduate training, and early work experiences. Stagner reported that "one of the most striking observations from these autobiographical essays is the extent to which chance determined a person's entry into the field" @. 497). In fact, one of the respondents, Ray Katzell said, "If I had to name a single most important factor that shaped my career, I would have to say Circumstance. Or call it, if you prefer, Opportunity, Luck, Chance or God's Will" @. 497). When you consider the enormous impact that careers have in shaping our lives, including the way we perceive ourselves and how we are perceived by others, it is unsettling to believe that the choice of a career could be the result of a random process. Are our identity, prestige, purpose, and status merely "roles" of the dice? The revelation that 13 past presidents of Division 14 just "happened" upon their occupations may be startling but, on the basis of a great deal of past psychological research, it is scarcely a cause for surprise.

Byme and Newnan

36

Attitude Similarity. As discussed previously, perceived attitude similarity is one factor that can lead to interpersonal attraction. This effect is not restricted to relationships with another individual. Good and Good (1974) investigated the effect of perceived attitude similarity on attraction to a social organization. In this study, 65 college students received surveys supposedly filled out by members of a college fraternity. Subjects evaluated the fraternity on several measures and indicated their desire to belong to that group. Just as in the interpersonal attraction studies outlined earlier, attraction to the fraternity was a function of perceived attitude similarity to the group. In a similar vein, Good, Good, and Golden (1974) hypothesized that perceived similarity between job candidates and employees in a company would result in attraction to a company. The authors tested this hypothesis by presenting subjects with a set of heterogeneous attitudes supposedly obtained from employees in a business organization. As predicted, attraction to the company was a function of perceived attitude similarity to the employees. If attitude similarity and propinquity play such a significant role in both interpersonal and organizational attraction, ou would expect them to be equally important within the context o personnel selection, as they are ubiquitous to this process. Your faith in this assumption would not go unrewarded.

Y

PERSONNEL SELECTION: THE FIRST DATE When the representative of an organization first becomes aware of a job applicant, the decision to follow this up with face-toface contact resembles the decision to go on a first date with someone described by a friend, relative, or co-worker.

Applications, Resumes, and Letters of Recommendation In the early stages of the selection process, job applicants provide the prospective employer with a heterogeneous array of information, hoping to demonstrate their value to the organization. Although the intent is to provide job-relevant information, application blanks, resumes, and letters of recommendation provide many kinds of information which may not be directly related to future success on the job.

Stereotypical Assumptions about Names and Occupations. To begin, applications and resumes contain the applicant's name and address. Does the applicant have a "foreign sounding" name? Is this a minor-

Implications of Attraction Research

37

ity candidate? Is the candidate male or female? In response to preexisting biases, a personnel officer may respond in either a positive or negative way to each informational segment. For example, within the context of a public opinion poll, administered before an actual Canadian parliamentary election, Kamin (1958) asked voters to choose among fictitious candidates for a fictitious office. Results indicated that within each of two ethnic groups polled (either an English group in the city of Kingston or a French group in the city of Cornwall), respondents were significantly less likely to vote for a candidate whose name suggested an ethnic affiliation opposite to that of the respondent. Similarly, Byrne and Pueschel (1974) collected data on 3,600 candidates in 500 central committee elections in the state of California between 1948 and 1970. These researchers found that candidates with Scandinavian surnames had a 24 percent advantage over candidates with other ethnic names. Conversely, Spanish, Jewish, and Italian surnames resulted in an 11, 14, and 29 percent disadvantage, respectively. In another study, Lawson and Roeder (1986) had subjects rate women's first names on a 7-point semantic differential scale. Further, the investigators observed that positive and negative biases toward particular names could often be traced to television programs on which the names were used. For example, One Day at a Time was a popular television program at the time. The character of Ann, on the program, was portrayed as an iron-willed, women's liberation type, and this perception was attributed to the name Ann by some subjects in the study. In a similar vein, Paunonen, Jackson, and Oberman (1987) found that people possess preconceptions about ideal personality traits associated with certain occupations. Subjects who are perceived as possessing these particular attributes are more likely to be hired for these positions. Given our penchant for stereotyping in response to names, persons, and occupations, who do you suppose would have a better chance at landing a job as a construction worker: Clarence or Butch? And which of these two job applicants would be perceived as the better accountant?

Gender. If a "trivial" attribute such as one's name can affect the personnel selection process, what of a major stimulus characteristic such as gender? Some research has indicated that females often receive lower evaluations than their male counterparts (Cohen & Bunker, 1975; Dipboye, Fromkin, & Wiback, 1975; Ferris & Gilmore, 1977). This differential response to male and female applicants is particularly true in the case of personnel officers who are high in authoritarianism. A study by Simas and McCarrey (1979)

Byrne and Neuman

38

revealed that "high authoritarian" personnel officers of both sexes rated male applicants more favorably than female applicants. Recent research seems to indicate that gender related effects are most likely to occur with respect to jobs that are traditionally dominated by one sex over the other. That is, if jobs are typically dominated b males, then females will receive lower evaluations; conversely, i an occupation is generally dominated by females, then males are likely to receive lower evaluations (Cash, Gillen, & Bums, 1977; Cohen & Bunker, 1975; Heilman, 1980; Shaw, 1972). The perception of whether a job is "masculine" or "feminine" tends to be based on preconceptions associated with the job title and task composition. Cleveland and Smith (1989) had subjects rate various job titles and job descriptions in terms of probable job incumbents. The job of Warehouse Manager was clearly viewed as masculine while Health Care Services Coordinator was viewed as feminine. Additionally, subjects rated various tasks as being either masculine or feminine. Both job title and job content significantly affected perceptions of typical incumbents, the gender type of the job, and expectations about the probable success of the applicant. The chapter in this volume by Kelley and Streeter also addresses gender issues.

Y

Employment History. Application blanks also solicit information about employment and salary history. Obviously, personnel officers are looking for stability in a potential employee as well as signs of professional growth within and across jobs. Gaps in employment history and unimpressive promotions or salary increases are red flags to personnel officers. But there can be a more subtle factor in operation -- what is your present salary? Because women continue to earn less than their male counterparts, Mitchell and Henning (1987) decided that it would be important to look at the potential effects of this disparity in the hiring process. Undergraduate business students rated resumes from both male and female applicants who had either a high or low present salary. Compared to high present-salary applicants, low present-salary applicants were offered a lower starting salary for all jobs and were perceived as being less qualified for some jobs. Perceived Similarity. As previously discussed, perceived similarity is strongly associated with interpersonal attraction. Employment applications and resumes provide personnel officers with information relevant to the degree of similarity between themselves and the applicant. Some of the information that a job candidate includes may relate to personal interests, religious affiliations, hobbies, marital

Implications of Attraction Research

39

status, political preferences, number of children, and military history. Rand and Wexely (1975) found that personnel officers perceive job candidates who are biographically similar to themselves as being better suited to the job, more intelligent, and better liked. Aside from the content of supporting documents, there is the question of how the documents are prepared. Are they hand-written or typed? Are they visually striking in their appearance, or do they resemble a prescription prepared by a busy physician on his or her way to the golf course? Research has not examined such effects, but our theoretical model clearly predicts that evaluations of the applicant would be influenced by the quality of these materials.

Letters of Recommendation. Can you be "damned by faint praise?" Most letters of recommendation are written on behalf of the most gifted, honest, creative, intelligent, forthright, and dependable human beings to have ever graced this good earth. Against this background, it is possible that the slightest criticism will prove quite damaging to the applicant. Paradoxically, there is a possibility that because of the lack of variation in letters of recommendation (Muchinsky, 1979) a small amount of criticism may actually help. Knouse (1983) found that a small amount of negative information in a letter may improve the candidate's chances because the writer is viewed as being more honest in his or her evaluation.

Inte wiews Those job candidates who survive the evaluation process involving their resumes and application forms typically constitute a pool eligible for further scrutiny in a face-to-face interview, where additional and usually irrelevant attraction related variables can operate.

Foreign Accents. Stimulus characteristics which are not obvious in written communication may be extremely obvious within the context of a person-to-person meeting. For example, a candidate may not have a "foreign-sounding" name but a strong foreign accent. Aside from the potential difficulty in being able to communicate, foreign accents can elicit stereotypical images and pre-existing biases. In one study, Kalin and Rayko (1978) found that candidates with foreign accents received lower ratings for high status jobs and higher ratings for low status jobs. Of potential importance, but as yet unstudied, are the effects of regional accents within a society such as (for the United States) New England, Southern, or New York speech styles.

40

Byme and Neuman

Race, Discrimination in hiring, on the basis of race, has been the focus of a great deal of civil rights legislation. There is, however, comparatively little empirical research in this area and what does exist is rather inconclusive. In one study where fictitious resumes were mailed to actual employers, McIntyre, Moberg, and Posner (1980) found that black applicants received preferential treatment over white applicants. However, Newman and Krzystofiak (1979) found that when managers are aware of their role in a research study they are more likely to treat all applicants equally; in contrast, when unobtrusive measures are used, personnel managers are more likely to base decisions on the race of the job applicant. There also is an indication that an interaction exists between the job and the candidate in that black applicants receive lower evaluations for "white" jobs than equally qualified white applicants. Conversely, blacks receive higher evaluations when applying for "black" jobs (Schmitt & Hill, 1972; Terpstra & Larsen, 1980). Perceived Similarity. Just as with resumes and job applications, similarity variables operate in the interview process. A preponderance of both verbal and nonverbal stimuli contribute to perceptions of either similarity or dissimilarity with predictable results. In experimental research, Baskett (1973) found job applicants perceived as similar to the interviewer were viewed as more competent than dissimilar applicants and received recommendations for higher starting salaries. Similarly, Peters and Terborg (1975) found that similarity resulted in a greater perception of liking for the applicant, higher salary recommendations, and greater likelihood that the interview would culminate in a decision to hire the candidate. In a situation where students were supposedly being hired for positions as research assistants in a major university, Griffitt and Jackson (1970) found that attitude similarity correlated significantly with hiring recommendations ( r = S 3 ) and with salary recommendations ( r = .41). These investigators also found that attitude similarity related to perceptions of reliability, attractiveness, cooperativeness, goodness, and flexibility. Within the context of an actual job interview situation, Orpen (1984) had interviewers complete attitude questionnaires as they believed the interviewee would fill them out. Later, these questionnaires were compared with attitude questionnaires the interviewers themselves had completed. The outcome measure of interest was whether or not the applicant was actually hired. Orpen found that perceived similarity was strongly related to both attraction and hiring decisions.

Implications of Attraction Research

41

Agective Congruence. In addition to the effects of attitude similarity, Alliger and Williams (in press) point to the operation of what they have termed "affective congruence" (similarity of affect between the interviewer and interviewee). In a recent study, they assessed interviews conducted by 10 trained interviewers on 120 applicants for a university based early management potential program. Their results indicated that affective congruence, as opposed to interviewer or interviewee affect alone, was significantly associated with the decision to hire as well as with psychometric ratings of the applicants' management potential. It seems that both misery and joy love congruent company. Physical Appearance. Attitudes are not always readily apparent and emotions can be rather complex. There are, however, many other attraction relevant variables which are much less subtle in their operation -- physical attractiveness is one such variable. An examination of our culture's movies, television, advertising, and literature reveals that physical attractiveness is viewed as a highly desirable attribute. Because an endless array of health and fitness products and services are available to improve many aspects of appearance, few are "doomed" to an aesthetically unappealing future. Unattractive features, which cannot be sweated off or toned up, can be tucked, lifted, reduced, enlarged, reshaped, or removed by means of cosmetic surgery. Research has found that physically attractive people are liked better than unattractive individuals (Byrne, Ervin, & Lamberth, 1970; Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1968; Perrin, 1921; Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966) and are associated with higher levels of social status (Thylor, 1956). There are also differential expectations about personali ty characteristics. Specifically, physically attractive individuals, as opposed to unattractive ones, are expected to be perceptive, confident, assertive, happy, active, amenable, humorous, and outspoken. They are also viewed as complex rather than simple, and flexible as opposed to rigid (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Miller, 1970). "Not only are physically attractive persons assumed to possess more socially desirable personalities than those of lesser attractiveness, but it is presumed that their lives will be happier and more successful" (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972, p. 290). Physical attractiveness research also has been conducted in the area of organizational behavior. It was hypothesized that perceptions of goodness associated with beauty would influence personnel selection. Dipboye, Fromkin, and Wiback (1975) found that male college recruiters and business students both preferred physically attractive

42

Byme and Neuman

candidates to unattractive candidates and made their hiring decisions accordingly. In a follow-up study, Dipboye, Arvey, and Terpstra (1977), found that regardless of interviewer sex, highly qualified applicants were selected over unqualified applicants but, again, attractive candidates were preferred over unattractive candidates. Attractive candidates were also more likely to get higher starting salaries than unattractive candidates. Additionally, physical attractiveness has been shown to result in higher evaluations of job related qualifications (Cash, Gillen, & Burns, 1977). In this volume the chapter by Stone, Stone, and Dipboye discusses unattractiveness as a stigma, and the Kelley and Streeter chapter reviews research on gender in relation to this topic. Gillen (1981) has noted that there may be two types of "goodness" associated with physical attractiveness: a general goodness and a sex-typed goodness. Physically attractive females may be viewed as more feminine while physically attractive males are perceived as more masculine. Along these lines, it is possible that physical attractiveness may be more relevant to "sex-typed" jobs. Cash et al. (1977), tested this hypothesis by having subjects review resumes of male and female applicants for jobs previously rated as stereotypically masculine (automobile salesperson or wholesale hardware shipping and receiving clerk), stereotypically feminine (telephone operator or office receptionist), or neuter (motel desk clerk or photographic darkroom assistant). Results of this study indicated that males applying for masculine positions were rated as more qualified, were expected to be more successful, and received stronger hiring recommendations than equally qualified females. Conversely, females received significantly higher ratings than males with respect to perceived qualifications and expectations of success as well as hiring recommendations for stereotypically female jobs. Cohen and Bunker (1975) also found that interviewers were biased against male applicants applying for traditionally female positions just as they were for females applying for traditionally male jobs.

Cosmetic Use. For the reasons just stated, factors that affect the perception of masculinity and femininity can influence personnel decisions. Cox and Glick (1986) found that cosmetic use enhances female stereotypes and that women using cosmetics, as opposed to women depicted without cosmetics, received lower evaluations of expected performance in a secretarial position. Presumably, this provoked the sexist stereotype of the attractive secretary who was not hired as a result of her typing ability.

Implications of Attraction Research

43

Dress. Forsythe, Drake, and Cox (1985) investigated the effect of female applicants' dress on selection decisions. Personnel administrators viewed videotaped interviews of female applicants in either masculine or feminine attire. In this particular situation, women applying for management positions were more likely to be hired if they were dressed in masculine, as opposed to feminine, clothing. In similar research, Davis (1987) found that those dressed in masculine attire are viewed as more successful in their occupations than persons wearing feminine attire. Davis found this to be true in both traditionally masculine and feminine occupations. Obesity. At the beginning of this section, we alluded to a link between physical fitness and the perception of physical attractiveness. Obese individuals are not perceived as attractive. There is an obvious bias in our culture favoring slim as opposed to stout. In fact, Venes, Krupka, and Gerard (1982) found that students ranked embezzlers, cocaine users, shoplifters, and blind persons ahead of obese persons as a potential spouse. Within an organizational context, Larkin and Pines (1979) found that obese individuals are not considered good workers, and Rothblum, Miller, and Garbutt (1988) found that existing stereotypes of obese individuals included having poor personal hygiene, being lazy, and lacking discipline. Fortunately, obese individuals were also perceived as having a good sense of humor and of being friendly -- a decided advantage for those spending time on an unemployment line. Research seems to indicate that it is primarily the impact of obesity on physical attractiveness that generates negative affect and not obesity itself. When physical attractiveness is held constant, the effects of obesity are mitigated (Rothblum et al., 1988). Mrbal and Nonverbal Communication. Some other important attraction variables that have been studied i n an organizational setting include verbal cues, gestures, and propinquity. Because the ostensible purpose of an interview is to obtain information, what an applicant says to an interviewer should have a significant impact on that interviewer's evaluation of the applicant. This, in fact, does appear to be the case. In a study employing college campus recruiters, Hollandsworth, Kazelskis, Stevens, and Dressel (1979) found that the judged qualifications of an applicant were most affected by the appropriateness of verbal content. There is, however, more to the story. Hollandsworth et al. found that fluency of speech was second in importance, after speech content, in evaluating applicants. In actual interviews for positions at a large amusement park, Parsons and Liden (1984) found that verbal articulation accounted for 66% of

Byme and Newnan

44

the variance in interviewers' ratings of applicants' qualifications, and McGovern and Howard (1978) found that voice modulation and speech hesitations (urn's and ah's) affect the evaluation process. In face-to-faceinteractions, much that remains unspoken does not necessarily remain unsaid. A wide variety of nonverbal communications pervade the employment interview. One such factor has to do with functional propinquity and has been referred to as immediacy -"the degree of directness and intensity of interaction between two entities, such as two people" (Mehrabian, 1967, p. 325). Interactions between interviewer and interviewee marked by greater amounts of eye contact, smiling, closer physical proximit direct body orientation, and gesturing can convey a perception o increased availability. In a laboratory study conducted by Imada and Hakel (1977), job applicants who engaged in behaviors categorized as promoting immediacy were judged to be warmer and more enthusiastic. In addition, when compared to subjects who demonstrated low immediacy behaviors, the subjects in the "immediate" condition were better liked by the interviewer, perceived as more qualified, and judged to have a greater likelihood of success on the job. In fact, 86% of the subjects in the immediate condition were recommended for the job whereas only 19% of the subjects in the non-immediate condition were so evaluated. Amalfitano and Kalt (1977) have also found that direct eye contact results in rating applicants as more alert, assertive, dependable, confident, responsible, and possessing greater initiative. Altogether, eye contact, smiling, and gesturing have been shown repeatedly to result in more favorable interviewer evaluations (Amalfitano & Kalt, 1977; Imada & Hakel, 1977; Washburn & Hakel, 1973; Young & Beier, 1977). Hopefully we have demonstrated that we were not engaging in hyperbole at the beginning of this section when we described the personnel selection process as a first date. During both the initial attraction period and the selection phase, affect plays a central role in both types of interaction. Attraction variables are very much in evidence at every level of the evaluation process.

?

ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY AND BEYOND: FOR BETTER OR WORSE? The roller-coaster of emotion that is present in the early stages of an interpersonal relationship is very much in evidence at the early stages of an organizational relationship. Having negotiated the hurdles present during the early stages of an interpersonal relationship, strong attraction may result in marriage. Having

Implications of Attraction Research

45

negotiated the analogous hurdles in the early stages of the organizational relationship, strong attraction also leads to marriage -"we now pronounce you employee and employer. 'I

Organizational Entry In the beginning, marriages and jobs are bathed in the rosy glow of positive emotions and expectations.

The Honeymoon. The beginning of an interpersonal relationship is usually an exciting period. It is generally marked by a substantial amount of positive affect which flows from a seemingly endless supply of smiles, hand-holding, longing gazes, verbal praises, and physical closeness. To some degree this is true for those newly hired in an organizational setting as well. Immediate superiors are likely to praise every occurrence of successful behavior and check to see that the new employee is comfortable and happy in his or her new environment. Colleagues are typically cordial and supportive and a good deal of attention is forthcoming from individuals charged with the responsibility of training the new employee. Unfortunately, "all good things must come to an end." Over a period of time (frequently, all too brief), the personal attention and positive reinforcement wane, and what was novel becomes routine. At this point, individuals must begin to deal with the more mundane, but extremely important, day-to-day aspects of the relationship. The Honeymoon Is Over. During the recruiting period (the courting stage), many promises are made or implied. Individuals enter into relationships with certain expectations which may, or may not, be fulfilled. In some cases, we are intentionally deceived by others. At other times, the deception may be unintentional or self-induced. For example, in interpersonal interactions we are motivated to say and do the things that are most appropriate in each situation and project the most favorable image possible (Baumeister, 1982; Goffman, 1959, 1963, 1967; Riess, Rosenfeld, Melburg, & Tedeschi, 1981). Analogous to this, organizations have traditionally engaged in a similar form of self-presentation, or impression management. In an attempt to attract a large pool of qualified applicants, organizations have typically engaged in "selling" themselves to potential employees by communicating information that is primarily favorable and flattering to themselves. In these instances, expectations are formed on the basis of information which was either intentionally distorted or withheld. At the same time, applicants are busily engaged in their own deceptions. Needless to say, this does not characterize a free

46

Bym and Neuman

and honest exchange of information. Apart from managing information meant for public consumption, human beings are quite adept at distorting information without conscious effort or external justification. Research indicates that in the absence of information to the contrary, human beings exhibit a general tendency to assume that others believe as they do and maintain similar attitudes (Byrne & Blaylock, 1963; Hensley & Duval, 1976; Levinger & Breedlove, 1966; Newcomb, 1978; Ross,. Greene, & House, 1977; Zuckerman, Mann, & Bernieri, 1982). Additionally, individuals are inclined to overestimate the probability of future success while underestimating the probability of future failure (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1978; Neuman, 1990). "Very few of us harbor dreams of a future consisting of a dull job, a drab home, an unhappy spouse, and unappreciative kids" (Byrne & Kelley, 1981, p. 515). To the extent that our expectations are overly optimistic or our attitudes and beliefs are incongruent with organizational realities, the stage is set for disappointment and dissatisfaction. This, in turn, can translate into substantial hardships for both individuals and organizations. Research has demonstrated an association between dissatisfaction and voluntary worker turnover (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Muchinsky & Tuttle, 1979; Porter & Steers, 1973) and absenteeism (Muchinsky, 1977; Porter & St'eers, 1973). Both of these behaviors can result in substantial financial loss to organizations (Mirvis & Lawler, 1977). On a more personal level, a 15-year longitudinal study of the aging process found that the single greatest predictor of longevity was work satisfaction (MIT, 1973) -- the ultimate dependent measure!

Satisfaction and Perj4ormance Though satisfaction is a worthwhile goal for its own sake and though job satisfaction is associated with less turnover, another question is obviously important: are satisfied employees more productive than dissatisfied ones?

Affect and Productivity. A good deal of empirical research has tended to contradict the popular notion that "a happy worker is a productive worker" (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). It is clear that the relationship between satisfaction and worker productivity is not a simple one. Satisfaction in the absence of motivation or ability will not result in high performance. Rather than satisfaction leading to productivity, there has been more empirical support for the hypothesis that productivity leads to satisfaction (Locke, 1965, 1966, 1967; Porter & Lawler, 1968). Although the view of satisfaction as an

Implications of Attraction Research

47

antecedent to performance has been somewhat tarnished, the question is far from settled. In addition to determining evaluative responses, the elicitation of affect mediates cognitive processes and behavioral responses (Isen, 1984).

Aflect and Cognition. The creative process has been described as one in which diverse associations are formed into new combinations (Mednick, 1962) and problem solving results in solutions that are unusual and useful (Murray, 1959). Within these parameters, recent research has uncovered an association between positive affect and creativity. Persons in whom positive affect has been induced, by receiving a gift, a bag of candy, a compliment, or as a result of viewing a few minutes of a comedy film, tend to categorize stimuli more inclusively than subjects in a control condition (Isen & Daubman, 1984), give more unusual and diverse first-associates to neutral words (Isen, Johnson, Mertz, & Robinson, 1985), and demonstrate improved performance on tasks designed to assess creativity -- such as Duncker's (1945) candle task and M. T. Mednick, S.A. Mednick, and E.V. Mednick's (1964) Remote Associates Test (Greene & Noice, 1988; Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987). Positive affect also serves as a retrieval cue for positive material in memory (Isen, Shalker, Clark, & Karp, 1978; Laird, Wagener, Halal, & Szegda, 1982; Nasby & Yando, 1982; Teasdale & Fogarty, 1979). Conversely, subjects in whom negative affect has been induced tend to view ambiguous stimuli as less pleasant (Forest, Clark, Mills, & Isen, 1979; Isen & Shalker, 1982) and demonstrate lower tachistoscopic thresholds for failure-related words than subjects in a control condition (Postman & Brown, 1952). Emotional states also play a role in mediating "rational" decision making processes. Kahneman and Tversky (1983) demonstrated that preferences for specific decision alternatives change as a result of the manner in which alternatives are framed -- human beings demonstrate a general tendency toward risk-aversive behavior when considering potential gains and risk-seeking behavior when presented with a potential loss. This framing effect was demonstrated experimentally by Huber, Neale, and Northcraft (1987) within the context of a simulated personnel selection task. Subjects were presented with application material for 20 job applicants and asked to review this information. One group of subjects was instructed to select applicants they would accept for an interview while another group of subjects was asked to indicate which applicants they would reject for an interview. When cost salience of interviewing was high (subjects were explicitly advised that interviewing candidates was a very expensive process) subjects in the "gain" condition (those using

48

Byme and Neuman

an acceptance strategy) selected significantly fewer applicants to be interviewed than those in the "loss" condition (using a rejection strategy). From a purely "rational" decision-making perspective, the context in which the decision was being made should have had no bearing on the outcome of the selection process because all subjects were reviewing the same "objective" information. With respect to affect and risk-seeking, losses seem worse to people who are feeling happy -- they show a more negative subjective utility for losses than controls (Isen, Nygren, & Ashby, 1988).

Afect and Behavior. A considerable body of evidence suggests that positive affect is associated with helping behavior (Aderman, 1972; Berkowitz, 1987; Isen, 1970; Isen & Levin, 1972; Isen, Clark, & Schwartz, 1976). Generally, people are more willing to engage in helping behavior when they are in a positive, as opposed to negative, mood state. At the same time, people who are feeling happy prefer to remain in that state and are disinclined to engage in behaviors that will jeopardize this desirable condition. As previously mentioned, positive affect is strongly associated with interpersonal attraction. It is also associated with an increased willingness to initiate conversations with others (Batson, Coke, Chard, Smith, & Taliaferro, 1979; Isen, 1970) and an increased level of receptiveness to persuasive communication (Galizio & Hendrick, 1972; Janis, Kaye, & Kirschner, 1965). The relationship between positive and negative affect is not symmetrical; that is, the effects associated with negative affect are not always opposite to those associated with positive affect. For example, in a study by George (1989), positive affect was significantly and negatively associated with worker absenteeism while no significant relationship was demonstrated with respect to negative affect. In much of the research on emotional states, the effects associated with positive affect are fairly consistent and predictable while those associated with negative affect are rather inconsistent and unpredictable (Isen, 1984). On these grounds alone, positive affect has our vote. To summarize, positive affect is associated with increased levels of creativity, optimism, helping behavior, liking for others, and decreased levels of absenteeism. It impacts decision-making, risktaking, interpersonal communications, receptivity to persuasion, and approach-avoidance behavior. Satisfaction-pe~ormanceRevisited. We propose that affect plays a more important role in worker productivity than has been documented to date. The weak relationship between satisfaction and performance may be based on methodological problems associated with the

Implications of Attraction Research

49

measurement of satisfaction (refer to footnote 3) and the evaluation of performance. If worker productivity is primarily measured in terms of products manufactured, lines of computer code generated, management tasks completed, or services rendered, our assessment will be incomplete. What about inventions not invented, options not considered, chances never taken, assistance never rendered, and extra effort not invested? Whether measuring productivity in terms of quantity or quality, we are constrained to measure what is and not what might have been. The question may not be whether positive affect leads to performance but, rather, when does it lead to increased performance, under what circumstances, and in what manner. There are times when positive affect may prove detrimental -- being risk-averse is not a virtue in all situations nor is being more receptive to persuasive communications (assuming that you are the target of the persuasion attempt). The skill, knowledge, and ability required for successful completion of a particular task varies considerably from job to job. Consequently, the degree to which positive affect facilitates or inhibits performance will vary accordingly. We now turn our attention to the relationships among attraction variables, resultant affect, and worker productivity.

Interpersonal Attraction and Wrker Pe formance In a work setting, does it matter whether an individual likes, dislikes, or is indifferent to his or her fellow workers?

Attitude Similarity. Krivonos, Byrne, and Friedrich (1976) hypothesized that an educational setting which fosters an affectively positive atmosphere should facilitate performance on various intellectual tasks. Because attitude similarity is strongly associated with positive affect, it was hypothesized that subjects paired with similar others would perform significantly better on various cognitive tasks than subjects paired with dissimilar others. Results indicated that subjects paired with similar others felt affectively more positive and performed significantly better on tasks that required analysis, synthesis, integration, and recall of textual material as well as an evaluative task that required judgment and decision making. Analogous to this, high interpersonal attraction has been shown to result in increased levels of performance on a conditioning task (Sapolsky, 1960), learning Spanish equivalents of English words (Lott & Lott, 1966), and simple mechanical tasks (Nelson & Meadow, 1971). Attitude similarity also impacts worker performance by mediating group dynamics. Inter-member liking, resulting from attitude

50

Bym and Newnan

similarity, leads to a more cohesive work group. Depending upon the task, cohesiveness can lead to higher levels of performance. Within the context of a longitudinal field experiment, Terborg, Castore, and DeNinno (1976) were unable to confirm a relationship between attitude similarity and performance but they did find that, over time, attitude similarity leads to group cohesiveness. Other research has demonstrated that group cohesiveness is associated with increased levels of innovation (West & Farr, 1989), increased quality of communication among group members and lower levels of absenteeism and turnover (Lott & Lott, 1966; Stogdill, 1972). Additionally, because group membership is highly valued and communications are unrestrained, within cohesive work groups, individual members are more likely to respond to group norms. Therefore, cohesive groups are likely to perform better than noncohesive groups when performance standards a r e high (Berkowitz, 1954; Schachter, Ellertson, McBride, & Gregory, 1951). Another outcome associated with interpersonal attraction is that of cooperation and participation, as opposed to conflict and competition. In an experiment examining productivity as a function of intergroup cooperation/competition and intra-group cooperation/competition, Workie (1974) found that cooperation was significantly more productive than competition. Analogous to this, in a meta-analysis reviewing 122 studies comparing the effectiveness of cooperation and competition, Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon (1981) found that cooperation is superior to competition in promoting achievement and productivity. Perceived similarity has also been found to be associated with worker motivation. Within the context of equity theory (Adams, 1963), individuals seek to maximize equity in relationship to a comparison other. Whether being overpayed or underpayed, individuals are motivated to restore equity. Griffeth, Vecchio, and Logan (1989) investigated the relationship between interpersonal attraction (attitude similarity-dissimilaritybetween subjects and a comparison other) and three levels of equity (underpayment, overpayment, and equitable payment). Results indicated a significant interaction between level of equity and interpersonal attraction on several measures. Subjects in the high attraction condition (similar attitudes), indicated that they would work significantly more hours if given the opportunity, but this effect was only noted for subjects in the underpayment or equitable payment conditions. Those in the low attraction condition (dissimilar attitudes) would only agree to additional participation if they were in the overpayment condition. High attractiveness also accounted for more variance across equity conditions for

Implications of Attraction Research

51

subjective and objective measures of performance quality. Because attitude similarity can determine evaluative responses, it should come as no surprise that it can impact the performance appraisal process. Pulakos and Wexley (1983) found that perceived similarity between managers and their subordinates led each to give higher performance ratings to the other. Turban and Jones (1988) found that superiors who perceived subordinates as being similar to themselves recommended significantly higher merit increases than those they perceived as being dissimilar. According to Landy and Farr (1980), judgmental measurements of performance are in wide use -- we suspect that attitude similarity is in wide use as well when appraisals are made.

Propinquity. Both physical and functional propinquity play a role in worker productivity. The size of a work group, and its physical setting, will dictate the nature, quality, and frequency of worker interaction. Employees working together in a small and open work area are more likely to form a cohesive unit than workers separated by partitions, offices, or great distances. Even the way furniture is arranged in a room can serve to facilitate or inhibit productivity. As an example, arranging work stations in such a way as to reduce interaction (unnecessary socializing on the job) can actually decrease, rather than increase, productivity (Baskin & Aronoff, 1980). Other research demonstrates that placing a desk or table between individuals results in a less friendly and more formal atmosphere (McCaskey, 1979). Propinquity can also involve inappropriately close (or distant) interpersonal space. Muchinsky (1990) gives an example of the subtle, but significant, impact of cultural differences on preferred interpersonal distances in describing an interaction between two diplomats. One diplomat was from a northern European country and the other was from a country in the Middle East. As Hall (1959) has reported, people from northern Europe prefer greater physical distance when interacting with others than individuals from the Middle East. Throughout their conversation, the diplomat from the Middle East would attempt to move closer while the European diplomat worked to regain what he considered to be an appropriate physical distance. After returning to their respective embassies, the diplomat from Northern Europe described the representative from the Middle East as "incessantly pushy," while the Middle Eastern diplomat felt that he had been dealing with someone "cold and standoffish" (Muchinsky, 1990). Neither of the diplomats thought the meeting went particularly well. The effects of functional propinquity are clearly evidenced during

52

Byrne and Neuman

interactions between superiors and subordinates. To the extent that a superior maintains a functional distance from the subordinate by asserting his or her status and power, the interaction is marked by a high degree of formality and guarded communications. This is not conducive to an honest and open exchange of ideas.

Overt Stimulus Characteristics. We have identified numerous ways in which a wide variety of stimulus characteristics, such as gender, age, physical attractiveness, verbal and nonverbal communications affect interpersonal processes. These variables are always present in the day-to-day operation of business and impact the process in more ways than we can imagine, let alone recount. We will, therefore, confine our discussion to just a few examples. Leadership can be defined as 'la process whereby an individual influences the group toward the attainment of desired group or organizational goals" (Mitchell & Larson, 1987, p. 434). Although leaders should be chosen for their ability to lead groups in the right direction, very often leaders are chosen on the basis of physical attributes and not leadership ability. For example, regardless of their sex, individuals are more likely to emerge as group ieaders if they possess masculine, as opposed to feminine or androgynous, gender role characteristics (Goktepe & Schneier, 1989) and are physically attractive (Stogdill, 1974). Additionally, Americans like to "look up" to their leaders. Trml individuals are more likely to obtain positions of leadership and authority; for example, Americans have overwhelmingly preferred the taller of the two major predidential candidates in each election since 1900 (Feldman, 1975). To the extent that leader emergence is based on the aforementioned physical attributes, as opposed to leadership ability, group performance may be adversely affected. Environmental stimuli also can affect worker productivity. Beyond the obvious considerations, such as sufficient space, efficient office and equipment layouts, appropriate safety considerations, and properly designed and maintained equipment, there are more import considerations; such as, who gets the office with the window and who gets the office with the carpeting? Is your desk made of metal or mahogany? In fact, do you even have a desk or an office? In a recent field experiment, Greenberg (1988) demonstrated that office space constitutes an important job reward. In this study, life insurance underwriters were moved to new offices because their own offices were being refurbished. Some of these individuals were moved to offices of higher-status persons (spacious and well decorated), others were moved to offices of lower-status workers (more cramped and stark in appearance), and still others were moved to

Implications of Attraction Research

53

offices of equal-status persons. Finally, a control group of underwriters continued working in their own offices. Results revealed that subjects moved into higher-status offices demonstrated significantly increased levels of productivity, and subjects moved into lower status offices demonstrated significantly reduced levels of productivity. Performance levels for the control group and equalstatus group remained unchanged during the study. At the conclusion of this study, all subjects were returned to their original offices and their performance returned to pre-experimental levels. Assuming that you are fortunate enough to choose the right career, be selected by the right organization, land the right job, occupy the right office, work for the right boss and with the right kind of people, you might view your prospects in rather optimistic terms. Let us further suppose that these conditions remain constant over an extended period of time. At this point, you might be prepared to predict a storybook ending; however, you're not out of the woods just yet.

ORGANIZATIONAL EXIT: SEPARATION AND DIVORCE I cannot love as I have loved, And yet I know not why; It is the one great woe of life To feel all feeling die. [Philip James Bailey: Festus]

Habituation, Evaluation, and Acffect Robert Bums' observation that the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray is certainly operative within the context of any relationship, especially one of a long-term nature. Relationships can fail for many reasons and certainly poor planning is one of them. But there are other causative factors that have less to do with wisdom and more to with the physiology of the organism and the dynamics of the situation. Although repeated exposure to a stimulus tends to result in a more positive, or less negative, evaluative response to that stimulus (Zajonc, 1968), one can get too much of a good thing -- familiarity can breed contempt.

Habituation. The capacity of a stimulus to elicit positive affect can diminish over time. This may result in mere indifference toward that

54

Byme and Newan

stimulus (boredom) or, in the extreme, a highly negative evaluative response (hate). In long-term romantic relationships, this may manifest itself in the form of declining interest in one's sexual partner (Griffitt, 1981). The brisk rentals of sexually explicit videotapes, and numerous advertisements for marital aids, support the observation that people are looking for ways to heighten (or revitalize) their sexual experiences. The diminished capacity of a familiar stimulus to result in sexual arousal is not restricted to human beings. Habituation to sexual stimuli also has been demonstrated in laboratory studies involving animals (Clemens, 1967; Krames, Costanzo, & Carr, 1967). The impact of habituation on both interpersonal and organizational relationships can be substantial. For example, Hill, Rubin, and Peplau (1976) found that for both males and females, the most frequently cited cause of a failed relationship was "boredom.I' The effects of habituation have been noted in an organizational context, as well. Workers involved in highly specialized or routine jobs become bored and dissatisfied (Dunham, 1979). In an effort to combat this problem , organizations have instituted job enlargement programs to add variety and job enrichment programs to add responsibility and autonomy (Lawler, 1969). The research evidence on the effectiveness of these programs is mixed. Although some research suggests that these programs can result in increased levels of job satisfaction and reduced levels of turnover (Ford, 1969; Paul, Robertson, & Herzberg, 1969), other research suggests that these gains may be short-lived (Maher & Overbagh, 1971). It has been suggested that these short-term gains may be due, in part, to a Hawthorne effect (Muchinsky, 1990, p. 454). Possibly, workers are only responding, for a period of time, to the novelty of the situation and the attention they receive from individuals running the program. In short, this is performance in response to a novel stimulus -- sound familiar? Landy (1978), in noting that an individual's level of satisfaction will change over time (even if all aspects of the job remain constant) provides a physiological explanation for the habituation effect. He proposes that an "opponent process" works against both highly negative or positive emotions in such a way as to maintain a state of equilibrium in the central nervous system. According to this theory, the nervous system produces a response in opposition to that of the emotional stimulus. Each time this opponent process is activated it becomes stronger, which explains the reduction in affect over time. Fortunately, in attempting to explain habituation, we are not constrained to a static environment. There are a sufficient number of environmental explanations for the variability in worker satisfaction.

Implications of Attraction Research

55

Evaluation. As indicated in the previous section pertaining to organizational entry, the continual support and reinforcement that is present upon entry into an organization dissipates over time and the ratio of positive to negative interactions may become decidedly more negative in nature. In a study conducted by Birchler, Weiss, and Vincent (1975), comparing distressed and nondistressed married couples, observations were made when the couples interacted with each other and also when they interacted with strangers. In the case of distressed couples, there was a tendency to agree and express approval when interacting with strangers. However, when interacting with each other, distressed couples were more likely to engage in negative forms of communication -- marked by complaints and criticism (Levinger & Senn, 1967). In the workplace, complaints, criticism, and coercive communications may occur in the course of daily interpersonal interaction or they may manifest themselves within more formal contexts. Structurally, large organizations are departmentalized and this, in turn, leads to natural conflict. For example, in the clothing industry, the sales and marketing departments may dream of unlimited inventories containing a diverse assortment of stock -- clothing to suit every size and taste, available on demand. For the people in production, this constitutes their worst nightmare. Production dreams of a single product manufactured to a single specification and the finance department's fantasy involves the prospect of zero overhead. There are, to be sure, diverse interests to be satisfied in any organization. If these interests are not integrated properly, conflict will be the rule and not the exception. The formal structure of business also involves hierarchies, promotions, salary increases, merit pay, bonuses, and performance appraisal systems. These items are most often associated with employee dissatisfaction or, at best, indifference (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Regardless of how it occurs, over a period of time, the level of rewards an employee derives from employmen t may decline while costs attributed to continued employment may increase. This can result in serious consequences to all concerned. Fanell and Rusbult (1981) noted that employees who exited an organization, as opposed to those who remained, experienced a greater decline in the level of rewards and an increase in the level of costs.

Inter ersonal Attraction and Emp oyee-Organizational Linkages

P

Fortunately for the institutions of marriage and business, many relationships not only endure but actually flourish. However, in

56

Byme and Newnan

those instances where negative affect predominates, employee-organizational linkages may become severely strained and, eventually, broken.

Satisfaction and Withdrawal. As previously discussed, attraction is a linear function of the amount of positive and negative affect elicited. Given a decrease in positive affect, due to habituation, or an increase in negative affect, in response to various environmental stimuli, the attraction response is affected accordingly. Initial evaluations of love or strong liking may degenerate to mere indifference, mild dislike, strong dislike, or hate. As the attraction response deteriorates, so does the linkage between the organization and the employee. Up to this point, we have only considered worker absenteeism and voluntary turnover in terms of their costs to an organization. There are instances where this is not necessarily the case. Dissatisfied workers who remain on the job can engage in activities that are very costly to an organization. For example, employees who are dissatisfied about compensation have been known to engage in sabotage, damaging important production equipment (Stagner & Rosen, 1965). Or, at the very least, dissatisfied workers may engage in a pattern of neglect, passively allowing the situation to deteriorate (Farrell, 1983). Under these circumstances, turnover can be desirable for both employee and employer. What causes a dissatisfied employee to engage in sabotage or neglect, as opposed to organizational exit? Or, in more general terms, what causes a dissatisfied person to leave any relationship? Within the context of romantic relationships, Rusbult, Zembrodt, and Gunn (1982) investigated the relationship among three variables and the decision to engage in four behaviors: exit (leaving the relationship), voice (active, constructive, behavior), loyulty (passive support for the relationship), and neglect (passive, destructive behavior). The three predictor variables involved: (1) prior satisfaction with the relationship; (2) the amount of resources an individual has invested in the relationship, and; (3) the presence and quality of alternatives to the relationship. Prior levels of high satisfaction with the relationship, and high levels of investment, were associated with voice and loyalty and the decreased likelihood of neglect and exit. Conversely, lower levels of satisfaction and investment, as well as the presence of attractive alternatives, was associated with an increased likelihood of exit. These results have been supported within the context of romantic relationships (Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986) and organizational relationships (Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988). Within the attraction paradigm, this can be conceptualized as the

Implications of Attraction Research

57

number and intensity of reciprocal rewards exchanged within a relationship as compared to the number and intensity of reciprocal punishments (Byrne & Blaylock, 1963). This ratio is then compared to a ratio of the rewards and punishments associated with leaving the organization.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS Human beings with their attitudes, judgments, beliefs, expectations, values, and fantasies are the organization. Organizations have no life apart from people and process. It is human decision-making that is centralized or decentralized, not some inanimate organizational structure. It is people w h o are departmentalized, not buildings, plants, and divisions. It is the work that people accomplish that must be integrated, not merely systems and functions. And so, for good or ill, attitude similarity, physical attractiveness, gender, race, firm handshakes, foreign accents, tallness, shortness, offices with windows, and large mahogany desks influence our attitudes, color our judgment, and affect our behavior. They can be blatantly obvious or extremely subtle in operation. Regardless of their intensity, they pervade every aspect of our daily lives. We began this chapter by suggesting that people are generally disinclined to admit the influence of affect in the dollars-and-cents world of business while quite willing to acknowledge its influence in other domains. We hope that we have accomplished our two objectives: (1) demonstrated that the evolution of romantic relationships parallels that of organizational relationships and (2) provided a considerable amount of empirical evidence to support our contention that affect plays an important role in both business and pleasure. We trust that after you have had an opportunity to digest all of the information provided, and carefully consider all of the evidence presented, you will be in a position to make an informed judgment about the merits of our case. More likely, by the time you reached the second page of this chapter, you either liked it or you didn't. Of course, we don't know that for sure, it's just a feeling.

NOTES 1. Rosenbaum has suggested that rather than similarity leading to attraction it is actually dissimilarity which leads to repulsion. For a discussion of this "repulsion hypothesis," and a presentation of disconfirming data, the reader is directed to Byme, Clore, & Smeaton (1986), Rosenbaum (1986a; 1986b), and Smeaton, Byme, & Mumen (1989).

Byme and Neuman

58

2. Contrary to this traditional approach of "selling" the organization to potential job candidates, many organizations now employ realistic recruiting procedures which attempt to convey information which more accurately reflects the conditions employees are likely to encouter. Refer to Wanous (1980) for a thorough treatment of this topic.

3. George (1989) points out that much of the theorizing and research related to job satisfaction has focused on cognition rather than affect. To the extent that these variables may operate independently of each other (Zajonc, 1980, 1984), the observed relationship between satisfaction and performance will be weakened.

REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. Aderman, D. (1972). Elation, depression and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 91-101. Alliger, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (in press). Affective congruence and the employ men t interview. Advances in Information Processing. Amalfitano, J. G.? & Kalt, N. C. (1977). Effects of eye contact on the evaluation of job applicants. Journal of Employment Counseling, 14, 46-48. Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modijication. New York: Holt , Baruch, G. K. (1972). Maternal influences upon college women's attitudes toward women and work. Developmental Psychology, 6, 32-37. Baskett, G. D. (1973). Interview decisions as determined by competency and attitude similarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 343-345. Baskin, 0. W., & Aronoff, C. E. (1980). Interpersonal communication in organizations. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Forseman. Batson, C. D., Coke, J. S . , Chard, F., Smith, D., & 'Pdliaferro, A. (1979). Generality of the "Glow of goodwill": Effects of mood on helping and information acquisition. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 176-179. Baumeister, R . F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26. Becker, F. D., Gield, B., Foggatt, C. C. (1983). Seating position and impression formation in an office setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 253-261.

Implications of Attraction Research

59

Berkowitz, L. (1954). Groups standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations, 7, 509-519. Berkowitz, L. (1987). Mood, self-awareness, and willingness to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 721729. Birchler, G. R.., Weiss, R. L., & Vincent, J. P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between maritally distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 349-360. Bossard, J. H. S. (1932). Residential propinquity as a factor in marriage selection. American Journal of Sociology, 38, 2 19224. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 7 13-715. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Byrne, D., & Blaylock, B. (1963). Similarity and assumed similarity of attitudes between husbands and wives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 636-640. Byrne, D.? & Buehler, J. A. (1955). A note on the influence of propinquity upon acquaintanceships. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 147-148. Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. (1970). A reinforcement model of evaluative responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1 , 103-128. Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167-1170. Byrne, D., London, O., & Reeves, K. (1968). The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 36, 259-271. Byrne, D., & Nelson, D. (1965). Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive reinforcements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 , 659-663. Byrne, D., Ervin, C. R., & Lamberth, J. (1970). Continuity between the experimental study of attraction and real life computer dating .-Journal of Pehonality and Social Psychology, 16, 157-165. Byrne, D., & Kelley, K. (1981). An introduction to personality (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Byrne, G. C., & Pueschel, J. K. (1974). But who should I vote for for county coroner? Journal of Politics, 36, 778-784.

60

Byrne and Neuman

Caplow, T., & Foreman, R. (1950). Neighborhood interaction in a homogeneous community. American Sociological Review, 15, 357-366. Cash, T. F.,. Gillen, B., & Burns, D. S. (1977). Sexism and "beautyism" in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301-310. Clemens, L. G. (1967). Effects of stimulus female variation on sexual performance of the male deermouse. Peromyscus Maniculatus. Proceedings, 75th Annual Convention of the APA, 119120. Cleveland, J. N., & Smith, L. A. (1989). The effects of job title and task composition on job and incumbent perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 744-757. Clore, G. L:,& Byrne, D. (1974). A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction @p. 143-170). New York: Academic Press. Clore, G. L., & Gormly, J. B. (1969, November). Attraction and physiological arousal in response to agreements and disagreements. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, MO. Cohen, S. L., & Bunker, K. A. (1975). Subtle effects on sex role stereotypes on recruiters' hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 566-572. Conger, J. J., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Adolescence and youth: Psychological development in a changing world (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Cox, C. L., & Glick, W. H. (1986). Resume evaluations and cosmetics use: When more is not better. Sex Roles, 14, 51-58. Davis, L. L. (1987). Effect of sex, inferred sex-role and occupational sex-linkage on perceptions of occupational success. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 887-898. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290. Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness, of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 288-294. Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 39-43. Duncker, K . (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (5, Whole no. 270).

Implications of Attraction Research

61

Dunham, R. B. (1979). Job design and redesign. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395-416. Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596-606. Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Perjormance, 27, 78-95. Feldman, S. D. (1975). The presentation of shortness in everyday life -- height and heightism in American society: Toward a sociology of stature. In S. D. Feldman & G. W. Theilbar (Eds.), Life styles: Diversity in American society. Boston: Little, Brown. Fems, G. R., & Gilmore, D. C. (1977). Effects of mode of information presentation, sex of applicant, and sex of interviewer on simulated interview decisions. Psychological Reports, 40, 566. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of a housing community. New York: Harper. Ford, R. N. (1969). Motivation through the work itself. New York: American Management Association. Forest, D., Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Isen, A. M. (1979). Helping as a function of feeling state and nature of the helping behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 161- 169. Forsythe, S . , Drake, M. F., & Cox, C. E. (1985). Influence of applicant's dress on interviewer's selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 374-378. Galizio, M., & Hendrick, C. (1972). Effect of musical accompaniment on attitude: The guitar as a prop for persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2 , 350-359. George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317-324. Gillen, B. (1981). Physical attractiveness: A determinant of two types of goodness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 277-281. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

62

Byme and Neuman

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays onface-to-face behavior. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Goktepe, J. R., & Schneier, C. E. (1989). Role of sex, gender roles, and attraction in predicting emergent leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 165-167. Good, L. R., & Good, K. C. (1974). Similarity of attitudes and attraction to a social organization. Psychological Reports, 34, 1071-1073. Good, L. R., Good, K. C., & Golden, S. B. (1974). Attitude similarity and attraction to a company. Psychology, 11, 52-55. Gouaux, C. (1971). Induced affective states and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 37-43. Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 606-613. Greene, T. R., & Noice, H. (1988). Influence of positive affect upon creative thinking and problem solving in children. Psychological Reports, 63, 895-898. Griffeth, R. W., Vecchio, R. P., & Logan, Jr., J. W. (1989). Equity theory and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 394-401. Griffitt, W. (1970). Environmental effects on interpersonal affective behavior: Ambient effective temperature and attraction. Journal oJ”Persona1ityand Social Psychology, 15, 240-244. Griffitt, W. (1981). Sexual intimacy in aging marital partners. In J. Marsh & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Aging: Stability and change in the family @p. 301-315). New York: Academic Press. Griffitt, W., & Jackson, T. (1970). The influence of ability and nonability information on personnel selection decisions. Psychological Reports, 27, 959-962. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY Doubleday. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S . (1986). Mirror, mirror.. . n e importance of look in everyday life. Albany: SUNY Press. Hensley, V.? & Duval, S. (1976). Some perceptual determinants of perceived similarity, liking, and correctness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 159-168. Heilman, M. E. (1980). The impact of situational factors on personnel decisions concerning women: Varying the sex composition of the applicant pool. Organizational Behavior and Human Peformance, 26, 386-396. Herzberg, E., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.

Implications of Attraction Research

63

Hill, C. T.., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A., (1976). Breakups before mamage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147-168. Hollandsworth, J. G., Kazelskis, A., Stevens, J., & Dressel, M. E. (1979). Relative contributions of verbal, articulative, and nonverbal communication to employment decisions in the job interview setting. Personnel Psychology, 32, 359-367. Huber, V. L., Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1987). Decision bias and personnel selection strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 136-147. Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251-273. Imada, A. S . & Hakel, M. D. (1977). Influence of nonverbal communication and rater proximity on impressions and decisions in simulated employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 295-300. Isen, A. M. (1970). Success, failure, attention and reactions to others: The warm glow of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 294-301. Isen, A. M. (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3., pp. 179-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1206-1217. Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. E. (1972). The effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 384-388. Isen, A. M., & Shalker, T. E. (1982). The influence of mood state on evaluation of positive, neutral, and negative stimuli: When you "accentuate the positive, 'I do you "eliminate the negative"? Social Psychology Quarterly, 4.5, 58-63. Isen, A. M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1976). Duration of the effect of good mood on helping: "Footprints on the sands of time." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 385393. Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Rrsonality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122-1131.

64

Byme and Neuman

Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M. S.,.Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1-14. Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: It is just not worth the risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 710-717. Isen, A. M., Shalker, T., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in memory and behavior: A cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1-12. Janis, I. L., Kaye, D., & Kirschner, P. (1965). Facilitating effects of "eating while reading" on responsiveness to persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 181-186. Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D..,& Skon, I,. (1 98 1). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1983). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 34 1-350. Kalin, R., & Rayko, D. S . (1978). Discrimination in evaluative judgments against foreign-accented job candidates. Psychological Reports, 43, 1203-1209. Kamin, L. J. (1958). Ethnic and party affiliations of candidates as determinants of voting. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 12, 205-2 12. Knouse, S . B. (1983). The letter of recommendation: Specificity and favorability of information. Personnel Psychology, 36, 331341. Krames, L., Costanzo, D. J., & Carr, W. J. (1967). Responses of rats to odors from novel versus original sex partners. Proceedings, 75th Annual Convention of the APA, 117-118. Krivonos, P. D., Byrne, D., & Friedrich, G. W. (1976). The effect of attitude similarity on task performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6 , 307-313. Laird, J. D., Wagener, J. J., Halal, M . , & Szegda, M. (1982). Remembering what you feel: The effects of emotion on memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 646-657. Landy, F. J. (1978). An opponent process theory of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 533-547. Landy, F. J., & Fan, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.

Implications of Attraction Research

65

Larkin, J. C., & Pines, H. A. (1979). No fat persons need apply. Sociology of Mrk and Occupations, 6, 312-327. Lawler, E. E. (1969). Job design and employee motivation. Personnel psycho lo^, 22,426-435. Lawson, E. D., & Roeder, L. M. (1986). Women's full first names, short names, and affectionate names: A semantic differential analysis. Names, 34,175-184. Levinger, G., & Breedlove, J. (1966). Interpersonal attraction and agreement: A study of marriage partners. Journal of Personalit y and Social Psychology, 3, 367-372. Levinger, G., & Senn, D. J. (1967). Disclosure of feelings in marriage. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 13, 237-249, Locke, E. A. (1965). The relationship of task success to task liking and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 379-385. Locke, E. A. (1966). Relationship of task success to task liking: A replication. Psychological Reports, 18, 552-554. Locke, E. A. (1967). Relationship of success and expectation to affect on goal-seeking tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7,125-134. Lott, A. J.! & Lott, B. E. (1966). Group cohesiveness and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57,61-73. Maher, J. R., & Overbagh, W. B. (1971). Better inspection performance through job enrichment. In J. R. Maher (Ed.), New perspectives in j o b enrichment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. McCaskey, M. 3. (1979, November-December). The hidden messages managers send. Harvard Business Review, 57,135-158. McGovern, T. V., & Howard, E. A. (1978). Interviewer evaluations of interviewee nonverbal behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 163-171. McIntyre, S., Moberg, D. J., & Posner, B. Z. (1980). Preferential treatment in preselection decisions according to sex and race. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 738-749. Meadow, B. L. (1971). m e efects of attitude similarity-dissimilarity and enjoyment on the perception of time. Unpublished master's thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Mednick, S . A. (1962). The associative basis of creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220-232. Mednick, M. T., Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, E. V. (1964). Incubation of creative performance and specific associative priming. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 84-88. Mehrabian, A. (1967). Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. Journal of Communication, 17, 324-332.

66

Byme and Neuman

Miller, A. G. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 19, 24 1-243. Mitchell, T. R.,.& Larson, Jr., J. R. (1987). People in organizations: An introduction to organizational behavior(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). Measuring the financial impact of employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 1-8. MIT (1973). Ubrk in America: Report of a special task force to the secretary of health, education, and welfare. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mitchell, T., & Henning, J, (1987, March). Eflects ofpresent salary on resume evaluations: Sex discrimination? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA. Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522. Mortimer, J. T. (1976). Social class, work, and the family: Some implications of the father's occupation for familial relationships and sons' career decisions. Journal of Marriage and the Fmily, 38, 241-256. Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). Employee absenteeism: A review of the literature. Journal of Bcutionul Behavior, 10, 3 16-340. Muchinsky, P. M. (1979). The use of reference reports in personnel selection: A review and evaluation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 287-297. Muchinsky, P. M. (1990). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Muchinsky, P. M., & Tuttle, M. L. (1979). Employee turnover: An empirical and methodological assessment. Journal of Mcationa1 Behavior, 14, 43-77. Murray, H. A. (1959). Vicissitudes of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation. New York: Harper & Row. Nasby, W., & Yando, R. (1982). Selective encoding and retrieval of affectively valent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1244-1255. Nelson, D., & Meadow, B. L. (1971, September). Attitude similarity, interpersonal attraction, actual success and the evaluative perception of that success. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C.

Implications of Attraction Research

67

Neuman, J. H. (1990). Realistic job previews: The role of decision framing, job offer attractiveness, and message elaboration in job offer acceptance (Doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 2099B. Newcomb, T. M. (1978). The acquaintance process: Looking mainly backward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1075-1083. Newman, J., & Krzystofiak, F. (1979). Self-reports versus unobtrusive measures: Balancing method variance and ethical concerns in employment discrimination research. Journal of Applied psycho lo^, 64, 82-85. Orpen, C. (1984). Attitude similarity, attraction, and decisionmaking in the employment interview. Journal of Psychology, I1 7, 111-120. Parsons, P. C., & Liden, R. C. (1984). Interviewer perceptions of applicant qualifications: A multivariate field study of demographic characteristics and nonverbal cues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 557-568. Paul, W. J., Robertson, K. B., & Herzberg, F. (1969). Job enrichment pays off. Harvard Business Review, 41, 61-78. Paunonen, S . V., Jackson, D. N., & Oberman, S. M. (1987). Personnel selection decisions: Effects of applicant personality and the letter of reference. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 96-1 14. Perrin, F. A . C. (1921). Physical attractiveness and repulsion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4 , 203-217. Peters, L. R., & Terborg, J. R. (1975). The effects of temporal placement of unfavorable information and of attitude similarity on personnel selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 279-293. Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. 111 (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176, Postman, L., & Brown, D. R. (1952). Perceptual consequences of success and failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 213-221. Pulakos, L. H . , & Wexley, K. N. (1983). The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 129-139.

Byrne and Neuman

68

Rand, T. M., & Wexley, K. M. (1975). Demonstration of the effect, "similar to me, in simulated employment interviews. Psychological Reports, 36, 535-544. Riess, M., Rosenfeld, P., Melburg, V. & Tedeschi, J. T. (1981). Self-serving attributions: Biased private perceptions and distorted public descriptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 224-23 1. Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986a). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1 156-1 166. Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986b). Comment on a proposed two-stage theory of relationship formation: First repulsion; then, attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11711172. Ross, L., Green, D., & House, P. (1977). The "false consensus effect": An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279301. Rothblum, E. D., Miller, C. T., & Garbutt, B. (1988). Stereotypes of obese female job applicants. International Jouml of Eating Disorders, 7, 277-283. Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429-438. Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D, Rogers, G. & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599-627. Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Predicting satisfaction and commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the investment model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 8 1-89. Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1230-1242. Sapolsky, A. (1960). Effects of interpersonal relationship upon verbal conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 241-246. Schachter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4 , 229-238. I'

Implications of Attraction Research

69

Schmitt, N., & Hill, T. E. (1977). Sex and race composition of assessment center groups as a determinant of peer and assessor ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 261-264. Segal, M. W. (1974). Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive measure of the effect of propinquity in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 654-657. Shaw, E. A. (1972). Differential impact of negative stress-typing in employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 25, 333-338. Simas, K., & McCarrey, M. (1979). Impact of recruiter authoritarianism and applicant sex on evaluation and selection decisions in a recruitment interview analogue study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 483-49 1. Smeaton, G., Byrne, D., & Murnen, S. K. (1989). The repulsion hypothesis revisited: Similarity irrelevance or dissimilarity bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 54-59. Stagner, R. (1981). Training and experiences of some distinguished industrial psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 497-505. Stagner, R., & Rosen, H. (1965). Psychology of union-management relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Staw, B. M. (1980). Rationality and justification in organizational life. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 45-80). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Pei$ormance, 8, 26-43. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press. Taylor, M. J. (1956). Some objective criteria of social class membership. Unpublished manuscript. Teasdale, J. D., & Fogarty, S. J. (1979). Differential effects of induced mood on the recall of pleasant and unpleasant events from episodic memory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 248-257. Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal field investigation of the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 782-790. Terpstra, D. E . , & Larsen, J. M. (1980). A note on job type and applicant race as determinants of hiring decisions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 117-119. Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor- subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 228-234.

70

Byrne and Neuman

Velten, E. (1967). l?~?induction of elation and depression through the reading of structured sets of mood-statements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Venes, A. M., & Krupka, L. R., & Gerard, R. J. (1982). Overweightiobese patients: An overview. The Practitioner, 226, 1102-1109. Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley Publishing Company. Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508-516. Washburn, P. V.,, & Hakel, M. D. (1973). Visual cues and verbal content as influences on impressions formed after simulated employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 137-141. Werts, C. E. (1966). Social class and initial career choice of college freshmen. Sociology of Education, 39, 74-85. Werts, C. E. (1968). Paternal influence on career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 48-52. West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4, 15-30. Workie, A. (1974). The relative productivity of cooperation and competition. Journal of Social Psychology, 92, 225-230. Whyte, W. W. (1956). The organization man. New York: Simon and Schuster. Young, D. M., & Beier, E. G. (1977). The role of applicant nonverbal communication in the employment interview. Journal of Employment Counseling, 14, 154-165. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs Supplement, 9,1-27. Zajonc, R . B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151- 175. Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-123. Zuckerman, M., Mann, R. W., & Bernieri, F. J. (1982). Determinates of consensus estimates: Attribution, salience, and representativeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 839-852.

Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial1 Organizational Psychology - K. Kelley (Editor) 0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

71

CHAPTER 3 TAKING THINGS A BIT TOO FAR: SOME PROBLEMS WITH EMERGENT INSTITUTIONAL THEORY

Richard H. Hall Institutional theory has rapidly emerged to a place of prominence within organizational theory (hereinafter OT). The purpose of this paper is to examine and critically evaluate the major characteristics of institutional theory (hereinafter IT). IT will first be located within OT. Then, a brief historical review will be presented. Some major problems of IT will then be considered. The paper will conclude with some very hopeful signs that IT can in fact make major contributions to OT.

IT AND OT IT was hardly a dot on the horizon a short time ago. In 1987, Bedeian reviewed OT for the industrial and organizational psychology audience. He focused on effectiveness studies, the organizational environment interface, organizational learning, and organizational decline. These were major topics of the time. There is no mention of IT at all, even though one of the major IT papers (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) is mentioned in passing. Bedeian (1987) did make a most prescient observation, however, when he commented:

...the popularity of research themes has either grown or declined in direct proportion to their market-ability rather than the degree to which basic issues have been resolved and critical phenomena understood. One consequence of this tendency to focus on 'hot' topics is what some see as an extreme iconoclasm

Hall

72

resulting in an unhealthy fragmentation of the field.. ..instead of building on previous findings, a vogue seems to exist in some quarters that encourages a preoccupation with "fad" and "fashion. .this would seem to explain why a measure of OT research seems to be "literature driven" rather than problem driven. One possible consequence is that much organization research is non-cumulative and non-communicable across quarters. (p. 23) 'I..

IT is now hot. If Bedeian were to write his article in 1990-91 I am sure that IT would have a prominent position. IT has come rushing to the fore. This rush was aided by an American Sociological Association grant to Lynne Zucker. The grant helped sponsor a conference at UCLA in 1985 which resulted in a major book on IT (Zucker, 1988). IT places a lot of emphasis on symbolism. When the December 1987 issue of Administrative Science Quarterly arrived (in 1988), the lead article (Scott, 1987) was overview of IT. This was a clear symbol of IT's arrival as a theoretical perspective to be reckoned with. IT advocates would claim that their approach is in fact problem driven. At the same time, the rapid emergence of IT contains the danger that it could go in the direction of "fad" or "fashion." It would be easy to see some of Aldrich's (1988) dreaded "paradigm warriors" championing IT's cause. Fortunately, this danger appears to be being averted. The applications of IT have tended to be temperate. As a preliminary example of this temperateness, in an examination of the financial reporting practices of the Fortune 200 firms, Mezias (1990) reports that "institutional variables" explain more of the variance in such practices than do approaches from applied economics. This is not an argument that the economics factors were not operating, but rather that the understanding of their operation is enhanced by the use of IT. The application of theories in combination has been typical of the use of IT in OT. This aspect of IT will be developed more fully at a later point.

WHAT IS IT AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM? Scott (1987) identifies four strands of IT. The first strand is identified with the work of Phillip Selznick and his students and stems from Selznick's classic TVA and the Grass Roots (1949). The focus is on the wavs in which organizational practices come to be

Institutional Theory

73

instilled with values. The fourth strand is almost classically sociological and is concerned with "spheres of life," such as family, religion, and the state, and the value systems and actions developed between these spheres. Scott's second and third strands are the most crucial for contemporary OT and will be the focus here. For the sake of simplicity, these will be labeled (1) the DiMaggio and Powell strand and (2) the Meyer and Rowan and Zucker strand. At one time the labels might have been East Coast and West Coast respectively, but geographical mobility and the dispersion of second-generation IT advocates have blurred these regional identities. In the sections that follow, the key features of these forms of IT will be identified.

DiMaggio and Powell Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell's strand of IT can perhaps best be appreciated in terms of the ways in which it seeks to explain why organizations take the forms that they do. Much of the research here has been carried out in not-for-profit organizations with rather indeterminant technologies. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that "institutional isomorphism" is now the dominant reason why such organizations assume the forms that they have. According to DiMaggio and Powell, Weber's original (1952, 1968) analysis of the driving force behind the move toward rationalization and bureaucratization was based on a capitalist market economy, with bureaucratization an "iron cage" in which humanity was bound since the process of bureaucratization was irreversible. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) believe that major social changes have altered this situation to such a large extent that an alternative explanation is needed. Their analysis is based around the assumption that organizations exist in "fields" of other, similar organizations. They define an organizational field as follows:

By organizational field, we mean those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies and other organizations that produce similar services and products. The virtue of this u n i t of analysis is that i t directs our attention not simply to competing firms, as does the population approach of Hannan and Freeman (1977), or to networks of organizations that actually interact, as does the interorganizational network approach of Laumann et al. (1978), but to the totality of relevant actors. (p. 148)

Hall

74

According to this perspective, organizations are increasingly homogeneous within fields. Thus, public universities acquire a sameness, as do department stores, airlines, professional football teams, motor vehicle bureaus, and so on. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) cite three reasons for this isomorphism among organizations in a field. First, there are coercive forces from the environment, such as government regulations and cultural expectations which can impose standardization on organizations. Government regulations, for example, force restaurants (hopefully) to maintain minimum health standards. As Meyer and Rowan (1977) have suggested, organizations take forms that are institutionalized and legitimated by the state. DiMaggio and Powell also note that organizations mimic or model each other. This occurs as organizations face uncertainty and look for answers to their uncertainty in the ways in which other organizations in their field have faced similar uncertainties. Rowan (1982) argues, for example, that public schools add and subtract administrative positions in order to come into isomorphism with prevailing norms, values, and technical lore in their institutional environment. DiMaggio and Powell argue that large organizations tend to use a rather small number of consulting firms which "like Johnny Appleseeds, spread a few organizational models throughout the land" (p. 152). A very concrete example, noted by DiMaggio and Powell is the fact that Japan consciously modelled its courts, postal system, military, banking, and art education programs after Western models in the late nineteenth century. As DiMaggio and Powell (1983) note: American corporations are now returning the compliment by implementing (their perceptions of) Japanese models to cope with thorny productivity and personnel problems in their own firms. The rapid proliferation of quality circles and quality-of-work issues in American firms is, at least in part, an attempt to model Japanese and European successes. @. 151) A third source of institutional isomorphism comes from normative pressures as the workforce, and especially management, becomes more professionalized. Both professional training and the growth and elaboration of professional networks within organizational fields leads to a situation in which the managerial personnel in organizations in the same field are barely indistinguishable from one another. As people participate in trade and professional associations, their ideas

Institutional Theory

75

tend to homogenize. The institutional perspective thus views organizational design not as a rational process based around goals, but rather one of both external and internal pressures which lead organizations in a field to resemble each other over time. In this perspective strategic choices or attempts at member control would be viewed as coming from the institutional order in which an organization is embedded. DiMaggio (1988) clearly identifies limitations on the scope of IT. There are five conditions in which IT is most appropriately used. First, "institutional theory bears on those aspects of organizational life that are so exteriorized and intersubjective that no actor is likely to question them" @. 6). Instances here would be the age-grading of schools or an already negotiated contract. The second appropriate condition is in certain kinds of fields that are highly institutionalized and have weak technical bases, or that play a trivial role in the allocation of resources. Examples of the first type here would be banks, but not computer software designers. The second type here attracts little political attention and would be exemplified by funeral parlors, but not long-distance trucking companies. Thirdly, IT is appropriate in situations that are already well institutionalized (this sounds tautological, as will be specified later). DiMaggio uses the well-documented evidence regarding the diffusion of innovations in which the technical and political explanations of the development of an innovation have less predictive power regarding diffusion, once the innovation has been accepted. The fourth condition is the explanation of long term change, particularly where interests are stable. IT thus is useful in situations that are not politically charged. Finally, IT is useful in explaining variations across nation-states. Thus Crozier's (1964) French bureaucracies are the result of characteristics of the French state and its history. The differences of French bureaucracies from other bureaucracies can thus be explained in institutional terms. In his 1988 paper, DiMaggio specifically urges that OT must bring the issues of agency and interest into situations in which IT is not appropriate. This argument for limitation of scope is most welcome, but not particularly heeded by the other contributors to Zucker's (1988) anthology.

Meyer and Rowan and Zucker The second major strand of IT is most clearly identified with

Hall

76

the work of John Meyer and Brian Rowan and Lynne Zucker. It is worth noting that this strand has a home institution, Stanford University, as does the DiMaggio and Powell version at Yale University. As noted earlier, these genealogical distinctions have become blurred as geographical mobility has taken place and new generations of scholars grapple with IT issues. In summarizing this strand of IT, I will borrow heavily from Scott's (1987) discussion of it. Scott, also a Stanford scholar, is himself closely identified with IT (Meyer & Scott, 1983). Scott (1987) notes:

The argument is that social order is based fundamentally on a shared social reality which, in turn, is a human construction, being created in social interaction. It is recognized that man or woman as a biological organism confronts few limits or constraints in the form of instinctaul patterns, yet constraints develop in the form of a social order. Berger and Luckman (1967) argued that this order "is a human product, or, more precisely, an ongoing human production. It is produced by man in the course of.. .. on-going externalization.. ..Social order exists only as a product of human activity" (p. 52). Social order comes into being as individuals take action, interpret that action, and share with others their interpretation. These interpretations of "typifications"are attempts to classify.. ..behavior into categories that will enable.. .. actors to respond to it in a similar fashion. The process by which actions become repeated over time and are assigned similar meanings by self and others is defined as institu tionalization. "Institutionalization occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of actors" (Berger & Luckman, 1967, p. 54). Both actions and actors are typed; actions come to be associated with certain classes of actors; e.g., supervisors give orders, workers follow them. (p. 495) Scott goes on to note that this strand of IT places a great deal of emphasis on the shared history of organizations. Shared history, of course, is an ongoing process so that reality is constantly being produced. This type of formulation is prominent in the early (1977) works of both Zucker and Meyer and Rowan. For example, Zucker (1977)

Institutional Theory

77

notes that institutionalized acts are both objective and exterior. They are objective in the sense that they are interpreted as having a reality separate from the actor involved. They are exterior in that they are in fact acts. Meyer and Rowan's (1977) approach is slightly different. They focus on the ways in which "social processes, obligations, or actualities come to take on a rulelike status in social thought and action" @. 341). This is the core premise around which Meyer and Rowan's well known ideas of "rationalized institutional elements" and "rational myths" are based. According to Scott (1987): The common feature in all of these definitions is that institutionalization is viewed as the social process by which individuals come to accept a shared definition of social reality -- a conception whose validity is seen as independent of the actor's own views or actions but is taken for granted as defining the "way things are" and/or "way things are to be done." @. 496) One application of this approach was Tolbert and Zucker's (1983) study of the diffusion of civil service reforms in municipal governments from 1880-1935. Early adopters were found to be acting in rational self interest, since city characteristics predicted adoption. Later adopters were characterized as responding to the established legitimacy of such practices. There are two important aspects of the Tolbert and Zucker research. First, they used the IT explanation in conjunction with another explanation--they did not test explanations against each other. The second aspect is that this research comes awfully close to a conceptualization that is like that of t h e DiMaggio and Powell strand in the sense that the organizational forms are based on mimicry. Despite this apparent convergence of the two strands of IT, Zucker (1988) maintains that there are important differences. The major difference is the degree of stability of institutionalized forms. According to Zucker, the DiMaggio and Powell version suggests that institutionalized forms are stable, whereas her approach, with its emphasis on ongoing institutionalization, has stability as its major problem. Also, DiMaggio and Powell examine organizations within institutional fields, while Zucker attempts to incorporate the entire social system into her formulation.

Hall

78

Combining the Strands Zucker has correctly identified differences between the major strands of IT. At the same time there is a strong conceptual core to IT. Scott (1987) captures this when he notes: The institutional features of environments are receiving increasing attention, in ways I have tried to document, as important determinants of the structure and functioning of organizations. Until the introduction of the institutional conceptions, organizations were viewed primarily as production systems and/or exchange systems, and their structures were viewed as being shaped largely by their technologies, their transactions, or the power-dependency relations growing out of such interdependencies. Environments were conceived of as task environments: as stocks of resources, sources of information, or loci of competitors and exchange partners. While such views are not wrong, they are clearly incomplete. Institutional theorists have directed attention to the importance of symbolic aspects of organizations and their environments. They reflect and advance a growing awareness that no organization is just a technical system and that many organizations are not primarily technical systems. All social systems--hence, all organizations--exist in an institutional environment that defines and delimits social reality. And just as with technical environments, institutional environments are multiple, enormously diverse, and variable over time. To

neglect their presence and power is to ignore signiflcant causal factors shaping organizational structures and practices: to overlook these variables is to misspecifi our causal models. (italics added; pp. 507508)

Scott goes on to conclude that institutional arguments ought not to be formulated in opposition to rational or efficiency arguments but that they are better seen as complementing and contextualizing them. Fortunately, this appears to be taking place in a number of pieces of research, as will be documented later in this paper. First, though, some problems with IT will be considered.

79

Institutional Theory

SOME PROBLEMS WITH IT The first problem is potential tautological reasoning. This form of reasoning was a major contributor to the demise of functional theory within sociology. A tautology is circular reasoning in which variables are defined in terms of each other, thus making causes and effects obscure and difficult to assess" (Turner & Maryanski, 1979, p. 124; see also Turner, 1979). This problem appears to creep into DiMaggio's (1988) analysis when he notes: 'I

Put simply, the argument of this section is that institutionalization is a product of the political efforts of actors to accomplish their ends and that the success of an institutionalization project and the form that the resulting institution takes depend on the relative power of actors who support, oppose, or otherwise strive to influence it. I refer to the politics of institutionalization as structural because they follow an internal logic of contradiction, such that the success of an institutionalization process creates new sets of legitimated actors who, in the course of pursuing distinct interests, tend to delegitimate and deinstitutionalize aspects of the organizational form to which they owe their own autonomy and legitimacy. Central to this line of argument is an apparent paradox rooted in the two senses in which the term institutionalization is used. Institutionalization as an outcurne places organizational structures and practices beyond the reach of interest and politics. By contrast, institutionalization as aprocess is profoundly political and reflects the relative power of organized interests and the actors who mobilize around them. (italics in original; P- 18) If this is not tautological reasoning, it is uncomfortably close to it. This quotation also contains the seeds of a problem which will be noted later--the tendency to bring all organizational phenomena under the institutional label. This problem also plagued the functionalists. The second problem is that institutional theory has paid almost no attention to what is institutionalized and what is not. This can be indirectly seen in the weirdly ironic case of Talcott Parsons. Parsons wrote fairly extensively about organizations and even specified the institutional level of analysis (Parsons, 1960). This is not even

Hall

80

mentioned in Scott's (1987), DiMaggio's (1988) or Zucker's (1988) works. This is not a call to go back to Parsons, but rather empirical evidence that not everything that says institutional is institutionalized. DiMaggio and Powell (forthcoming) have clearly recognized the Parsonian theoretical legacy and its contribution to contemporary IT, but the major earlier interpretation did not. This is a critical problem. There is a tendency to apply institutional theory in an ex post facto manner. This can be done in an almost mystical manner. Ideas and practices come and go for no reason other than institutionalization. It would appear that in reality, some performance criteria are applied in assessing the success of a practice. DiMaggio (1988) has made a move in the right direction here, with his emphasis on the importance in interest and agent in IT, Nonetheless, the basic question remains unanswered--why are some practices institutionalized and others not? I will later argue that the adoption of structures or practices is much more than institutionalized whim. The third problem is essentially ontological. The prime interest rate and changes in it are very real to borrowing and lending organizations; the number of 18-year-olds in a given year is very real to college administrators; and the number of 21-year-olds is very real for brewers. I am in the very preliminary stages of analyzing data from over 500 small businesses. When the owners of these businesses were asked what was the major disadvantage in running their own businesses, the most common response was: "the buck stops here. These men and women saw their problems as very real and not as legends or myths. Institutional theory can be very useful at this point. Individual and collective organizational myths and legends do develop about the meanings of these realities. This point has been very well demonstrated. The danger, however, is in making the reality that was the source of the myth or legend into the myth itself. Perrow (1985) made this point in a slightly different manner in his review of Meyer and Scott's (1983) book. Perrow suggests that IT can go "overboard with myths and symbols." Perrow (1985) notes: 'I

What happens .......is that the reaction of some community groups and the federal government to the discrepancy between goals and actual behavior in the schools is treated with disdain, as yet another meaningless bit of symbolic behavior. In actual fact, what seems to have happened is that the federal government was pushed by civil rights groups and parts of the

Institutional Theory

federal bureaucracy to pursue quality education and especially social equity in schools. The federal government mandated more and more programs to raise standards and, more specifically, to help the poor, minorities, and the handicapped. It sent bundles of money along with the mandates. The failure of the schools to help the disadvantaged was exposed, and reforms were encouraged. The schools took the money--it was not much, for only 10% of their budgets come from federal monies--but complained bitterly about the intrusion and the paper work. They hoped to continue with mere sorting and certification. But neither Meyer nor Scott is willing to see group interests and the misuse of resources as the issue; instead, a cultural interpretation in terms of empty symbols is advanced. Meyer and Scott assert that myths explain the growth of rules and other intrusions; that in itself may be a myth, if the rules are attempts to control subversions of the mandates and funds. It is quite possible that the schools simply lied about the way they spent the earmarked funds, and the federal government responded with more restrictions. The complexity of regulation of hospitals arises not because of a rational myth but because hospitals keep trying to find a way to get around a regulation; this only means that another regulation has to be issued to close off that loophole. The nursing home industry, almost totally financed by the government, is buried under forms because it is so corrupt that forms at least provide grounds for legal actions. Scott argues that nursing homes fit the model of institutionalized organizations; the nursing home "turns its back on its technical core in order to concentrate on conformity to its institutional environment'' (p. 125). That is not what dozens of investigations show. Actually the industry hides its corruption as it pretends to conform; there is a large difference in interpretation here. This infatuation with cultural myths and symbols to the neglect of power and group interest leads to some distressing examples of blaming the victims and of cynicism about the motives of reformers, especially in the Meyer chapters. (pp. 153-154)

81

82

Hall

Perrow's criticism of Meyer in particular should not be applied to all institutional theorists. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) were careful to hypothesize that institutional.effects were more likely in situations of indeterminant technology and ambiguous goals. DiMaggio's most recent (1988) paper pays direct attention to the political process. Nonetheless, the distressing tendency to try to turn everything into myth and legend does exist. This tendency is enhanced by the fact that Meyer's influential writings have themselves become institutionalized. The fourth problem with IT is seemingly similar to the one just discussed--seeing everything as myth or legend. This particular problem involves the application of IT itself to situations in which the supporting evidence is weak or non-existent. The problem is that IT can be given as the explanation for all unexplained variance. This situation exists when other theoretical explanations have been tested and shown to explain the usual limited amount of variance. Researchers then can say that the remainder of the variance is due to institutional factors. They also can simply assert that institutiondization has taken place. This problem can be illustrated by Boeker's (1989) research on firms in the semiconductor industry. Boeker examined the power of research and development, sales and marketing, and manufacturing and production subunits over time in a set of Silicon Valley firms. Boeker found that environmental and technological conditions at the time of founding and characteristics of the entrepreneur (such as occupational specialty) were critical in establishing the "functional importance" of the subunits. He then argues that inertial and institutional constraints operate to maintain original subunit power even in the face of environmental and technological shifts and thus the ..."current importance of functions in the organization can be viewed in part as a product of earlier-established patterns of functional importance that have become institutionalized" (Boeker, 1989, p. 407). Unfortunately, there is not a shred of evidence in regard to institutionalization. It is simply assumed to have taken place. The more parsimonious explanation would be that powerful subunits maintained their power because they retained possession of key resources. This explanation was not considered. We cannot be sure if Boeker's institutional explanation is right or wrong or somewhere in between. Finally, IT has suffered from inconsistent operationalization of some major concepts. For example, the key idea offield has suffered from being operationalized in a variety of ways. Galaskiewicz and Wasserman (1989) consider interorganizational networks as the equivalent of a field, but this is not how DiMaggio and Powell (1983) specified the term. Other analysts have implied that indus-

Institutional neory

83

tries or populations are the equivalent of fields. Inconsistent operationalization will slow the development of IT. When viewed as a totality, these problems suggest that IT has the potential to go the route of psychoanalytic theory in that everything can be explained, but nothing is explained. Fortunately, there are strong signs of hope.

SOME SIGNS OF HOPE Boeker's (1989) research, although flawed by the absence of data to support the institutional claims, contains an approach that appears to be crucial for the maturation and growth of organizational theory. Theoretical explanations are used in combination and theories are not tested against one another. Boeker considers environmental, technological, and strategic contingencies, along with ecological considerations and the institutional explanation. In the paragraphs that follow I will provide a sampling of this approach to theory development. Lmgley (1989) examined the manner in which formal analysis is used in organizations. In addition to the rational purposes served, such as information, communication, and direction and control, such analysis was also used for symbolic purposes. More importantly for the purposes here, Langley concludes that these processes .must be viewed as being closely intertwined rather than as mutually incompatible" @. 626). Hamilton and Biggart (1988) examined the growth and structure of organizations in the Far East. They found that market and cultural factors were the best explanations of organizational growth and that authority patterns and legitimation (Institutional) strategies best explained organizational structure. Further support for the use of multiple theories can be found in the work of Mezias (1990) which was noted earlier, Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1987), and Singh, Tucker, and House (1986). Even the staunchest advocates of population ecological approaches, Michael Hannan and John Freeman (Freeman & Hannan, 1989; Hannan & Freeman, 1989) are bringing institutional explanations into their work. An example of this form of theory construction can be found in the work of Galaskiewicz and Wasserman (1989). They examined patterns of charitable giving among a set of organizations in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. They found that mimetic processes operated in decision-making situations characterized by uncertainty. They suggest: 'I..

Hall

84

.....we believe that our findings add to the literature on strategic decision making in several ways. First, our results strongly suggest that so-called institutional processes are critical in explaining organizational behavior, as suggested by DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Our research suggests that when faced with uncertainty, decision makers will mimic the behavior of other actors in their environment. If clear criteria do not exist, decision makers will try what others have done and have found to work. Second, social networks are important in determining which actors decision makers will imitate. There are several possible options that decision makers can pursue under conditions of uncertainty; there are several models they can adapt. We have argued and shown that decision makers will mimic the behavior of those in their networks, those whom they know and trust. ('p. 472-473) By implication, Galaskiewicz and Wasserman are saying that under more certain conditions, factors other than institutional ones will be operative. It is this type of reasoning that appears to be the hope for OT. In 1985 Fligstein concluded:

...each school of thought has tended to view its theory as a total causal explanation of organizational phenomena. This suggests that one of the central tasks in organizational theory is to reorient the field in such a way as to view competing theories as contributing to an understanding of organizational phenomena. (p. 377) If recent major publications are any indication, Fligstein's plea is being answered. OT is developing as IT is being incorporated along with other theoretical perspectives. IT, when appropriately employed, has become a powerful tool for the organizational theorist. The danger is that IT can be taken too far, as some of its advocates have done in the past.

NOTE 1 . I am grateful for Julio Sanchez' comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Institutional Theory

85

REFERENCES Aldrich, H. E. (1988). Paradigm warriors: Donaldson versus the critics of organization theory. Organization Studies, 9, 18-25. Bedian, A. G. (1987) Organizational theory: Current controversies, issues, and directions. In G. L. Cooper and I. T. Roberts (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1-33). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday. Boeker, W. (1989). The development and institutionalization of subunit power in in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 388-410. Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L.G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147160. DiMaggio. P. J., & Powell, W. W. (forthcoming) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fligstein, N. (1985). The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms. American Sociological Review, 50, 377-39 1. Freeman, J., & Hannan, M. T. (1989). Setting the record straight on organizational ecology: Rebuttal to young. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 425-438. Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 454-479. Hamilton, G. G., & Biggart, N. W. (1988). Market, culture, and authority: A comparative analysis of management and organization in the Far East. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S52-S94. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. P. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-64. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. P. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Langley, A. (1989). In search of rationality: The purposes behind the use of formal analysis i n organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 598-631.

86

Hall

Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J., & Marsden, P. (1978). Community structure as interorganizational linkage. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 455-484. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363. Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mezias, S. J. (1990). An institutional model of organizational practice: Financial reporting at the Fortune 200. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,431-457. Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern society. New York: The Free Press. Perrow, C. (1985). Review essay: Overboard with myth and symbols. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 151-155. Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blaker, A. (1987). The effect of the proportion of women on salaries: The case of college administrators. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 1-24. Rowan, B. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 259-279. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493-5 11. Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 44-58. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of Civil Service reforms, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22-39. Turner, J. H. (1979). The structure of social theory, Revised Edition. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Turner, J. H., & Maryanski, A. (1979). Functionalism. Menlo Park,CA: BenjaminKumming. Weber, M. (1952). The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology(Vo1. 1-3). New York: Bedminster. Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726-743.

Institutional Theory

87

Zucker, L. G. (1988). Where do institutional patterns come from? Organizations as actors in social systems. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Part 11: TRADITIONAL AREAS OF RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONS

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial1 Organizational Psychology - K. Kelley (Editor) 0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

91

CHAPTER 4 ANOTHER LOOK AT PERSONALITY AND MANAGERIAL PmENTIAL: APPLICATION OF THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL

John R. Lillibridge and &vin J. Williams Managerial talent is a critical organizational resource. Although managerial leadership has long been a subject of investigation in organizational psychology, interest in identifying and developing managerial talent is increasing as the nature of both work and the workplace continue to undergo dramatic changes (Cleveland & Thorton, 1990; Howard & Bray, 1988; Offermann & Gowing, 1990; Thorton & Cleveland, 1990). Compared to their contemporaries, managers of the future may need a broader range of skills to function effectively in rapidly changing work environments. An increase in the skills and behavioral repertoire required for success as a manager will make the already formidable task of predicting managerial effectiveness even more difficult. Accordingly, new conceptual models of managerial competence may be needed to improve prediction in this area (Williams & Lillibridge, 1990). The goal of this chapter is to expand recent models of managerial competence to include personality or dispositional variables that are related to critical managerial skills. In the first half of the chapter, we outline a proactive model of managerial competence and suggest a role for the "Big Five" personality domains (Goldberg, 1990) in the prediction of managerial talent. In the second half of the chapter, we present evidence that these personality domains are related to early behavioral assessment of managerial competence. Predicting managerial competence presents a number of unique concerns for industrial/organizational psychologists. First, operationalizing managerial competence is difficult. Different measures, including level in hierarchy, rate of promotion, department profitability, subordinate satisfaction, supervisor ratings, and turnover rates,

92

Lillibridge and Williams

have been used as indicators of effectiveness, but no clear consensus regarding the best or most appropriate measure exists (Luthans, Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988). Second, the time span between predictor assessment and criterion evaluation is quite large. Effective managers typically rise through the ranks of an organization and traverse many organizational boundaries (Howard & Bray, 1988). Thus, predicting managerial success often involves trying to forecast competence many years into the future. In order to predict accurately managerial competence one needs to identify temperament, skills, and abilities that are not only related to critical managerial behaviors but also facilitate boundary passages or boost performance in several kinds of positions. Recently, we presented a model of managerial potential which attempts to identify such characteristics (Williams & Lillibridge, 1990).

THE WILLIAMS AND LILLIBRIDGE MODEL There are two major features of the Williams and Lillibridge (1990) model. First, we argued for a proactive perspective of managerial effectiveness. According to this perspective, research should attempt to identify individual differences that explain (1) why individuals select or are selected into different environments, (2) how certain individuals are able, often unintentionally, to elicit certain responses from others, and (3) how individuals intentionally create or alter certain environments to fit their interests or capabilities. These three processes are referred to as selection, evocation, and manipulation, respectively (Buss, 1987). These processes may be responsible for the realization of managerial talent: Managerial positions may be sought based on one's motives or goals; certain personal characteristics may attract the attention of significant others (e.g., mentors); and, finally, effective managers may openly act on part of their environment to progress toward their goals (Williams & Lillibridge, 1990, pp. 71-72). Researchers in the managerial leadership area have been interested primarily in selection processes. However, evocation and manipulation processes may be more important in determining long term success. Clawson, Kotter, Faux, and McArthur (1985), for example, found that successful managers were ones that took responsibility for their own development by actively seeking mentors and new assignments. It needs to be stressed that manipulation processes

Five Factor Model

93

are not defined in negative or malevolent terms, but rather as attempts to influence or change one's environment, especially the attitudes and behaviors of others (Buss, 1987). Defined in these terms, the ability to manipulate one's environment is crucial to managerial success. The manipulation of others is especially important, even necessary, for obtaining resources, establishing alliances, gaining promotions, and working effectively with others. The second feature of the Williams and Lillibridge (1990) model is that it identifies specific behavioral functions that help individuals respond to and shape their environments. According to Ford (1987), attempts to influence one's environments are dependent upon five behavior functions: directive, regulatory, control, arousal, and transactional. Descriptions of these functions are outlined in n b l e 1. Effective managers are likely to have skills or abilities in each of these domains. That is, they should have motives or aspirations to lead or manage (directive functions), the ability to monitor progress toward one's goals (regulatory functions), complex problem solving and planning skills (control functions), the ability to selectively vary the rate and intensity of relevant behaviors (arousal functions), and the ability to collect and disseminate information (transactional functions). Williams and Lillibridge (1990) reviewed the empirical literature on managerial effectiveness and grouped predictors by behavior functions. Examples of predictors known to influence managerial success and predictors that may potentially predict managerial success are listed in n b l e 1. A large number of predictors were found that served directive, control, and transactional functions. Few predictors, however, were uncovered for arousal and regulatory functions. Two conclusions can be drawn from our earlier review. First, future studies need to incorporate as predictors of managerial talent individual difference variables that facilitate boundary passage and advancement in organizations. Second, particular attention should be paid to identifying predictors of arousal and regulatory processes. In order to identify such predictors, researchers may have to explore new predictor domains, or at least adopt different perspectives on familiar predictor domains. One area likely to provide information on causes of variation in behavior intensity and regulation across settings and time is research in personality. Personality dimensions have been identified as causes of long-term behavioral outcomes (Caspi, 1987) and thus may be relevant for predicting eventual managerial success. Personality variables may also be related to harbingers of successful managerial careers. Howard and Bray (1988), for example, found evidence that the level of one's interpersonal skills at the beginning of one's career

Lillibridge and Williams

94

nble 1 Ford's (19871 behavior functions. Behavior Function

Role

Known or Potential Predictors

Directive

Specify intended states of individuals.

Motivation to manage (K) Need for Power (K) Values (K)

Regulatory

Specify criteria among options and evaluate progression toward intended states.

Self-efficacy (P) Self-monitoring (P)

Control

Cognitive processes (e.g., planning, reasoning) that combine current perceptual information with one's knowledge base and behavioral repertoire to guide behavior.

Verbal Ability (K) Intelligence (K) n c i t Knowledge (K)

Arousal

Vary the amount, rate, and intensity of behavior.

Vigor/Surgency (P) Empathy (P)

Allows for information flow and exchange.

Communication skills (K) Interpersonal skills (K)

Transactional

Note: Adapted from Williams and Lillibridge (1990). K = known or established predictor; P = potential or possible predictor.

Five Factor Model

95

was predictive of success in management 20 years later. Personality traits such as agreeableness, empathy, and extraversion are likely to predict interpersonal skills and thus may be used as predictors of managerial competence. From a proactive perspective, individual differences in temperament and disposition are also linked to selection, evocation, and manipulation processes. Individuals select social environments that are congruent with their personalities (Emmons, Diener, & Larson, 1986), and select mates with personalities similar to theirs (Buss, 1987). Certain personality types are likely to elicit specific perceptions, reactions, and behavior from observers (Buss, 1987). Shy individuals, for example, are less likely than outgoing or sociable individuals to elicit social invitations from others. Manipulation processes, perhaps most crucial to managerial success, are also linked to personality factors, in that personality influences the tactics used to manipulate one's environment. Buss, Gomes, Higgins, and Lauterbach (1987), for example, found that individuals high on agreeableness were less likely to use coercion as a manipulation tactic.

PERSONALITY AND MANAGERIAL COMPETENCE Within the managerial leadership area, there is a long research tradition examining the relationship between personality traits and managerial effectiveness (Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1989). Much of the this research, however, lacks a conceptual or integrative framework. Researchers have concentrated on specific traits related to managerial effectiveness, with little regard for underlying personality structure. Two exceptions to this trend are research on need for power (e.g., McClelland & Burnham, 1976; Miner, 1978) and Howard and Bray's (1988) assessment center research. Empirical tests of Miner's (1978) role-motivation theory and McClelland's leadership motive pattern (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland & Burnham, 1976) demonstrate that individual differences in the motivation to manage, as reflected by high strivings for power and dominance coupled with self-control, are positively related to managerial effectiveness. Although this research has a strong theoretical focus, one limitation is that it adopts a narrow view of personality structure. Howard and Bray's (1988) research represents a more comprehensive attempt to relate personality differences to managerial success. Managers attending an assessment center early in their careers were measured on 37 different personality and motivation characteristics. These measures were used to predict level of

Lillibridge and Williams

96

progress in the company 20 years later. Factor analyses were conducted on the 37 measures in an attempt to identify an underlying personality structure. Six factors emerged from this analysis: SelfEsteem, Leadership Motivation, Positiveness, Impulsivity, Affability, and Ambition. Impulsivity and Ambition showed the strongest relationships with managerial progress, with correlations ranging from .25 to .37. A major contribution of Howard and Bray's (1988) research is the identification of broad personality domains related to managerial success. One limitation, however, is that their factor structure does not correspond to a coherent trait structure that has emerged in recent personality research, i.e., the "Big Five" robust domains of personality.

ROBUST DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY THE BIG FIVE Personality researchers have established a five-factor model of trait ratings which has substantial convergent and discriminant validity (Conley, 1985; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & "hkemotoChock, 1981; Goldberg, 1990; McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986). These dimensions are usually labeled Surgency (or Extraversion), Agreeableness, Conscientiousness (Impulse Control), Neuroticism vs. Emotional Stability, and Intellectual Interests. These non-overlapping trait domains show significant relationships to relevant behavior patterns, both concurrently and longitudinally, and have been found in studies utilizing self-report inventories (McCrae et al., 1986), ratings by peers (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981), and ratings by trained observers (Digman & Inouye, 1986). Defining terms for the five factors are presented in Bble 2. The core of the surgency domain reflects the enjoyment of others' company, termed sociability (McCrae & Costa, 1987), coupled with high activity levels and dominance (Goldberg, 1990). Agreeableness is defined as trustful and sympathetic relationships with others and is the opposite of antagonism. The conscientiousness domain reflects the extent to which individuals are well organized, directed, careful, and self-disciplined (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Neuroticism reflects the extent to which people experience negative affect and emotional distress; the opposite pole of this domain is emotional stability. There is some debate about the meaning of Intellect, the fifth factor. "Culture," "Openness to Experience," and "Intellect" have all been used to describe this factor, with Digman and Inouye (1986) suggesting "Inquiring Intellect. This fifth factor contains both intelligence I'

Five Factor Model

97

nble 2 The Big Five Personality Domains Domain

Defining Terms

Surgency

enthusiastic, spirited, extroverted, expressive, playful, gregarious, sociable, active, energetic, dominant, assertive, ambitious, courageous

Agreeableness

cooperative, helpful, amiable, cordial, friendly, empathic, understanding, considerate, courteous, generous, affectionate, easygoing, honest

Conscientious- organized, concise, efficient, self-disciplined, ness precise, cautions, punctual, deliberate, decisive, predictable, economical, logical Neuroticism

Intellect

defensive, fretful, insecure, emotionally instable, temperamental, excitable, envious, nervous, anxious, fearful, gullible, intrusive Contemplative, intellectual, insightful, complex, perceptive, bright, smart, curious, inquisitive, creative, innovative, sophisticated

Note: Terms gathered from synonym clusters provided by Goldberg (1990). The negative pole of Factor 4 (Neuroticism) has been used instead of the positive pole (Emotional Stability) because most measures of this factor assess the negative pole.

98

Lillibridge and Williams

notions as well as broad interests and openness to cultural experiences. Applying the five-factor model to research on managerial potential may aid researchers in three ways. First, it provides a meaningful and efficient way of organizing results. Grouping specific traits related to managerial effectiveness by personality domain would increase the understanding of why specific traits predict, as well as how different traits might relate to one another. For example, eleven of the thirteen traits identified by Yukl (1989) as characteristic of successful leaders can be placed in one of the robust domains in 'lhble 2. Five fall within the surgency domain: ambitious and achievement-oriented, assertive, dominant, energetic, and self-confident. N o fall within the agreeableness domain: adaptable to situations and cooperative. Four fall within the conscientiousness domain: decisive, dependable, persistent, and willing to assume responsibility. Only "tolerant of stress" and "alert to social environment" are not clearly identified with one of the domains, although perhaps they can be seen as part of the neuroticism and intellect domains, respectively. By categorizing traits in this manner it can be seen that the surgency and conscientiousness domains have been most strongly linked to managerial effectiveness. The second advantage of the five-factor model is that it provides the opportunity to link behavior and personality taxonomies. YuM (1989), for example, has grouped eleven critical managerial behaviors into four categories: building relationships (i.e, . networking, supporting, managing conflict and team building), influencing people (i.e., motivating, and recognizing and rewarding), making decisions (problem solving, planning and organizing, consulting and delegating), and giving-seeking information (informing, clarifying, monitoring). The relations between these broad behavior domains and the robust personality domains should be investigated. For example, managers high on traits in the agreeableness domain may be effective at building relationships, while those high on traits in the conscientiousness domain may be good decision makers. The third advantage of the five-factor model is that it can guide new research aimed at identifying critical processes involved in boundary passage and hierarchical progression in organizations. Specifically, it may help guide research on evocation and manipulation processes (Buss et al., 1987). One potentially interesting area of research would be to determine whether others' perceptions of a manager's standing on the robust personality domains influences interactions with the manager in such a way to facilitate or hinder early career advancement. Perceptions of specific leader traits (e.g., intelligence, dominance) influences leadership emergence and ability

Five Factor Model

99

of leaders to influence others (Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986). Research should examine whether similar effects occur for perceptions of the five robust domains, and how such perceptions compare to perceptions of specific traits. The previous discussion suggests a number of possibilities for future research, not all of which can be addressed in a single study. As a first step, we will apply the five-factor model to the assessment of managerial potential. As such, this study represents an initial attempt at measuring the five-factor model in a managerial assessment setting.

EXPLORING THE RELATION BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND MANAGERIAL TALENT: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION The relation between one's standing on the five robust personality domains and managerial talent was investigated using data obtained from a managerial identification and development program. The assessment of managerial capability in this program was similar to an assessment center. Applicants completed a battery of personality and attitude surveys, performed role-play simulation exercises, and responded to questions in a structured interview. Selection into the program was based primarily on ratings from the structured interview. For the present analysis, role-play ratings and interview ratings were used as dependent measures and scores on the personality scales were used as predictors. The role-plays and structured interview ratings can be seen as providing behavioral assessment of managerial potential. Obviously, longitudinal data related to managerial success is needed to test many of the suggestions discussed earlier, but because the program is still in its infancy these data are not yet available. Behavioral assessment, however, has been found to be a valid predictor of subsequent performance (Borman, 1982), and the initial assessment data are useful for testing the relation between personality factors and managerial potential or talent, as measured by performance on content-valid tasks. Personality was measured by inventories commonly used in assessment center research (Howard & Bray, 1988). This raised a potential concern because most studies examining the Big Five factor structure have used self and other ratings of trait adjectives (e.g., Goldberg, 1990). One objective of the present study, therefore, was to examine whether common personality inventories alone or in combination are able to capture the Big Five. Only one personality

100

Lillibridge and Williams

inventory -- the NEO (Costa & McCrae, 1985) -- has been designed with the intent of measuring the five robust domains, and being relatively young, it does not have a long history of validation or prediction associated with its use. The main concern in using different personality inventories is whether there is a sufficiently comprehensive pool of items for the five-factor structure to be identified. Factors will not appear if they are underrepresented or not represented at all in the item pool. Likewise, only a subgrouping of a specific trait domain may appear from factor analyses of a limited set of items. Depending on the mix of measures employed in a given study, a factor in the resulting structure may represent the full content of a major domain, a subgrouping of traits from that domain, or the domain may be unrepresented. Thus, the present study had two objectives: (1) to explore whether the Big Five personality domains could be measured adequately with common personality inventories, and (2) to relate observed personality domains to the behavior assessment of managerial potential.

Setting and Subjects An early managerial identification program at a major technological university in the Northeast U.S. served as the setting for this study. The intent of this program was to identify undergraduate science and engineering majors with the aptitude to become successful managers, and provide them with training in such areas as decision making, interpersonal relations, and managerial leadership. Funding for the program was provided by major corporations in the U. S. Subjects were selected into the program on the basis of a number of behavioral factors identified by Stutzman (1985). A structured interview was used to assess applicants' standing on these behavioral dimensions. Trained interviewers provided ratings of specific behavior dimensions and an overall rating of managerial potential. These ratings were used by the Director of the program in making the final selection decision. Applicants to the early managerial identification program over a two-year period comprised the sample for this study. A total of 210 applicants (163 males and 47 females) from two separate years were included (91 from the first year and 119 from the second). The ratio of males to females reflected that of the University. Sex of applicant was not systematically related to the predictor or criterion variables and thus is omitted from the following analyses. All subjects were science or engineering majors entering their junior or senior year at the University.

Five Factor Model

101

Measures Personality Inventories. The full version of the Edwards Personal Preference Scale (EPPS, Edwards, 1959) and t h e GuilfordZimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS, Guilford & Zimmerman, 1949) were used in this study. Subjects completed these personality inventories prior to the interview and role-playing sessions. Raters did not view subjects' responses or scores on these personality measures. Thus, knowledge of one's standing on personality dimensions was not considered in the rating or selection process. Structured Interview. The structured interview consisted of 21 questions addressing different dimensions of managerial behavior identified by Stutzman (1985): Salesmanship, Inner Work Standards, Reliance on Self, Energy, Technical Competence, Achievement, Leadership, and Need for Advancement. Answers were objectively scored using a behaviorally anchored rating scale. Interviewers summed these scores to obtain ratings for each applicant on the different interview dimensions. They also provided an overall managerial potential score (OMP) for each applicant. OMP was a subjective evaluation based on the dimensions' scores and the interviewer's overall impressions of the candidate. This overall score was used as a dependent measure in the following analyses. The interviews were conducted by trained interviewers who had attended an intensive, four-week rater training program. Adequate in ter-rater reliability was confirmed during the training program. Interviewers were paid for their services. Role-play Simulations. In addition to the structured interview, applicants were required to take part in a series of role-play exercises. These exercises were designed to measure three dimensions of managerial potential: Problem Solving, Interpersonal Skills, and Behavioral Flexibility (i.e., the ability to modify one's own behavior to reach a goal). Interviewers rated the applicants on 5 subscales for each dimension on a 5-point scales anchored at poor (l), average (3), and outstanding (5). The subscale ratings were averaged to yield on overall rating of problem solving ability, interpersonal skills, and behavioral flexibility.

Results Correlations Between Personality Scales and Managerial Potential. Zero-order correlation coefficients were computed between ratings of overall managerial potential (OMP) and applicants' scores on the

102

Lillibridge and Williams

GZTS and EPPS scales. In general, weak correlations between OMP and the personality scales were observed. A number of these correlations, however, were statistically significant. OMP was significantly related (p < .05) to four scales from the GZTS: General Activity ( r = . 15), Ascendance (r= .20),Objectivity ( r = . 17), and Personal Relations (r= .15). Higher ratings were given to individuals who could be described, respectively, as high in enthusiasm and energy, eager to voice their opinions, not suspicious of others, and tolerant of others. OMP was significantly related to three scales from the EPPS: Achievement ( r = . 16), Autonomy ( r = - . 16), and Abasement (r= -.16). Higher ratings were given to individuals who could be described as high in achievement orientation, low on independence, and low on feelings of guilt. A number of the personality scales were also significantly related to the selection decision, although again these correlations were weak. Those selected into the program were more likely to score high on General Activity, Ascendance, Sociability, and Achievement (all biserial rs between .15 and .18), and to score low on Autonomy (r=-.18). The ability to predict managerial talent from the separate scales of the GZTS and EPPS was relatively weak. This is not surprising because any one scale may not capture broader personality domains related to managerial potential. However, combination of these scales falling within the same domain may show stronger predictive power. In the present case, for example, Personal Relations and Objectivity, which measure respectively the extent to which people are tolerant of others and not hypersensitive, can be seen as part of the Agreeableness domain. Combining these measures, along with any others that reflect the domain of interest, may improve prediction.

Second-order Factor Analysis. To determine whether the Big Five domains were represented in the GZTS and EPPS, a second-order factor analysis was performed on the 25 subscale scores from the two personality inventories. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation yielded five interpretable factors, as determined by scree analysis. These factors and their factor loadings are presented in llble 3. It should be noted that three additional factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.O, but were not retained because either they had only one item loading on them (Factor 7 - Masculinity, and Factor 8 - Achievement) or were not interpretable (Factor 6). The factors in Tkble 3 seem to provide evidence that four of the five robust personality domains were captured. Scale definitions for the scales loading on each factor are presented in l’hble 4.

103

Five Factor Model

Table 3 Factor Analvsis of GZTS and EPPS Scales. Variable Factor Factor Factor 1 2 3 Ascendance (G) Sociability (G) Dominance (E) Abasement (E) Activity (G)

Factor 4

Factor 5

.84 .73 .71 -.57 .54

Friendliness (G) Objectivity (G) Personal Re]. (G) Aggression (E)

.75 .69 .67 -.60

Change (E) Order (E) Exhibition (E) Endurance (E)

-.73 .60

-.38

-.54 .36

Affiliation (E) Nurturance (E) Succorance (E)

.75 .70 .53

Thoughtfulness (G) Intraception (E)

.82 .78

Heterosexuality (E)

-.40

Emotion Stab. (G)

.49

Autonomy (E) Eigenvalue % variance

.50 -.32

3.39 13.6

3.33 13.3

-.43 2.43 9.7

1.71 6.8

1.64 6.5

Note: Only loadings > .35 are shown. Eigenvalues for Factors 6, 7, and 8 were 1.3, 1.2, and 1.O, respectively.

Lillibridge and Williams

104

Table 4 Defining Terms for GZTS-EPPS Combined Factors. Scale

Scale Definition

FACTOR I (SURGENCY) Sociability

friendship, gregariousness, social activity

Activity

energetic, rapid pace, enthusiastic

Ascendance

spealung skills, persuasion, eager to voice one's own opinion

Dominance

to lead and direct others

Abasement (-)

not to feel guilty, not to accept blame

FACTOR I1 [AGREEABLENESS) Friendliness

tolerate hostile action, not belligerent

Personal Relations

cooperative, tolerant of people, faith in social institutions, not suspicious

Objectivity

thick-skinned, not hypersensitive

Aggressive (-)

not to become angry or criticize others

Five Factor Model

Table 4, continued FACTOR 111 (CONSCIENTIOUSNESS) Order

to have things organized, orderly

Restraint

serious minded, not impulsive, not carefree

Change (-)

not to do new things, not to experience change

Exhibition (-)

not to be the center of attention

FACTOR IV lAffiliation) Nurturance

to show affection for others

Affiliation

to be loyal to friends, do things with others

Succorance

to get help and encouragement from others

FACTOR V (INTELLECT) Intraception

to analyze one's motives and feelings, to analyze the behavior of others

Thoughtfulness

reflective, meditative, mental interests

105

106

Lillibridge and Williams

Table 5 Results of Multiple Regression Analvsis Predicting Overall Manaperial Potential Ratings from Personality Factor Scores.

-r

Variable

h

B

Surgency

,189

.195

2.79"

.23**

Agreeableness

.141

.122

1.73'

.17*

Conscientiousness .137

.080

1.13

.08

Intellect

-.052

-.028

-.39

-.08

Affiliation

-.273

-.113

-1.55

-.17*

t

Notes: R=.293; R2=.086, Adjusted R2=062; F(5, 193) = 3.62, p < .005; = p < .lo, * = p < .05, ** = p < .01. +

Five Factor Model

107

Factor 1 was interpreted as Surgency. The scales loading on this factor -- Ascendance, Sociability, Dominance, General Activity, and (negative) Abasement -- measure a number of traits from the Surgency domain (Goldberg, 1990), including gregariousness, expressiveness, energy level, talkativeness, and assertion. Factor 2 was interpreted as agreeableness and was comprised of Friendliness, Personal Relations, Objectivity, and (negative) Aggression. In terms of defining traits from the agreeableness domain (Goldberg, 1990), individuals scoring high on Factor 2 would display high levels of cooperation, amiability and generosity, and low levels of belligerence, overcriticalness and distrust. Factor 3 was interpreted as Conscientiousness, and was comprised of Restraint, Order, (negative) Change, and to a lesser extent, (negative) Exhibition. Individuals scoring high on Factor 3 would display such domain-relevant traits as persistence, predictability, organization, and low recklessness. Factor 4 did not correspond to any of the Big Five domains. Succorance, Affiliation, and Nurturance loaded the highest on this factor, and indicate high levels of help from others, loyalty to others, and high helping behavior. Thus, this factor was interpreted as Affiliation. Finally, Factor 5 was interpreted as Intellect, the fifth of the Big Five factors. The two scales loading highest on this factor, Intraception and Thoughtfulness, measure the extent to which individuals are analytical, introspective, and meditative. To test concerns regarding the stability of these factors, the average intercorrelation coefficient was computed for the scales loading on each factor, using r to Z transformations. A moderate to high intercorrelation among the scales loading on a given factor indicates that the factor should be stable across studies. The average intercorrelation coefficients were .39, .35, .30,.30, and .39, for Factors 1 to 5 , respectively. These correlations provide evidence that these factors are fairly stable.

Big Five Factors and Managerial Potential. Factor scores were computed for the factors represented in Table 3, and were correlated with OMP ratings. These correlations are presented in the last column in Table 5. Three of the five factors were significantly related to OMP ratings. Surgency and Agreeableness were positively related to OMP, r= .23 and .17, respectively, p < .05, while Affiliation was negatively related to OMP, r = - . 17, p < .05. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which these factors predicted OMP. The results of this analysis are also presented in Table 5 . The overall regression equation was significant, and the five factors accounted for 8.6% of the variance in

108

Lillibridge and Williams

OMP. In the final regression equation, only the beta weight for Surgency was significant at t h e p < .01 level. The regression weight for Agreeableness was significant at thep C .10 level. A stepwise multiple regression anal sis was conducted regressing OMP on 9 dimension ratings rom the structured interview and the 5 factor scores to examine whether applicant personality contributed to the prediction of overall ratings over and above the effects of interview dimension ratings. Five of the nine interview dimension ratings (Salesmanship, Inner Work Standards, Leadership, Technical Competence, and Need for Advancement) entered the equation in steps 1 - 5, accounting for 82.5% of the variance i n OMP. Surgency entered t h e equation at Step 6 , significantly @< .02) incrementing R2 by .6%. Thus, controlling for performance on the behavioral dimensions of the structured interview, individual differences in Surgency significantly influenced raters' judgments of managerial potential. Finally, differences between those selected into the program and those not selected were examined. Those selected into the program had higher Surgency scores (M=58.8)than those not selected (M=53.2), t(200) = -3.46, p < .001. They also had lower (M=24.5) scores on Factor 4 (Affiliation) than those not selected (M=26.2), t(200)=2.31, p < .05. Overall, the factor scores representing the big five domains slightly improved prediction of managerial potential over the use of individual scales. Although the increase in explained variance was not great, using the factor scores rather than the individual scales clarified how underlying personality structure relates to managerial potential. These results suggest that the subjective component of managerial potential ratings was influenced significantly by the applicant's standing on the Surgency domain.

r

Relation between Personality Factors and Simulation Exercises. It could be argued that the effects of personality on OMP ratings in general, and the effects of Surgency in particular, reflect rater bias rather than actual differences in managerial talent. That is, sociable or extraverted individuals may make a more favorable impression on raters and hence receive higher ratings. Fortunately, the role play simulations used during the first year of the program provided an opportunity to assess "on-the-job" behavior in response to realistic organizational demands. Although still prone to rater distortion or bias, role play simulations provide more direct assessment of managerial competence (Cleveland & Thorton, 1990). In this case, role playing exercises were designed to elicit problem solving ability, interpersonal skills, and behavioral demonstration or flexibility.

Five Fuctor Model

109

Table 6 Correlations Between Personality Factor Scores and Role-Play Ratings (Program Year 11. Role-Play Exercise Rating Behavior Flexibility

Problem Solving

Interpersonal Skills

Surgency

.26*

.26*

.ll

Agreeableness

.23*

.18

.22*

Conscientiousness

.22*

-15

-.02

Intellect

.17

.14

.24'

Affiliation

-.08

-.08

.01

Factor

m:N = 81; * = p < .05,** = p < .01.

110

Lillibridge and Williams

Factor scores on the five factors were correlated with ratings of the three simulation dimensions. These correlations are presented in Table 6. All of the factors except Affiliation were significantly correlated with at least one simulation rating. Individuals scoring high on the Surgency domain received higher ratings on behavioral flexibility and problem solving skills. The correlation between Surgency and behavioral flexibility can be explained by a positive relation between energy, spontaneity, and animation and an individual's behavioral repertoire. The explanation for the positive relation between Surgency and problem solving is not as apparent, but may be due to the combination of activity, ascendance, and dominance traits possessed by individuals, which allows them to address problems aggressively. Individuals scoring high on Agreeableness received higher ratings on interpersonal skills and behavioral flexibility. Cooperation, amiability, and empathy are characteristics of the agreeableness domain that should facilitate interpersonal interactions; to the extent that the scales loading on Factor 2 measure these traits, individuals scoring high on this factor should be adept at managing interpersonal problems and conflicts. Conscientiousness did not show the expected positive relation with problem solving. Instead, individuals scoring high on Conscientiousness received higher ratings on behavioral demonstration. Intellect was positively correlated with interpersonal skills. Individuals scoring high on this dimension are, among other things, likely to analyze motives, feelings, and behavior of self and others. This analytic disposition may improve understanding of appropriate or constructive behavior in different interpersonal situations. Multiple regression analyses were conducted regressing the role play ratings on the five factor scores. The five factors accounted for 17.2% of variance in behavior flexibility, F(5, 75)=3.18, p < .02. Significant regression coefficients were found for Surgency and Conscientiousness. For problem solving, the five factors accounted for 12.3% of variance, F(5,75)=2.10, p < .08,with a significant regression coefficient found for Surgency. For interpersonal skills, the five factors accounted for 10.9% of variance, F(5,75) = 1.83, n.s. Overall, the factor scores reflecting the Big Five personality domains accounted for substantially higher variance in role-play ratings than ratings from the structured interview. The is encouraging because the role-play simulations reflected critical managerial behaviors to a greater extent than did the structured interview. Once again, Surgency consistently affected behavioral assessment ratings of managerial talent.

Five Factor Model

111

Implications The results of this preliminary study suggest that the fivefactor model may be useful in predicting managerial potential. The robust personality domains accounted for more variance in the behavioral role-play ratings than did the individual subscdes, and the relation between personality and assessment ratings was more clearly interpretable using the five-factor model. It appears that one's standing on the surgency domain, as identified by the present factor analysis, has the strongest influence on assessments of managerial potential. This finding is consistent with previous research demonstrating that such traits as dominance, self-confidence, energy level, assertiveness, and extraversion are related to managerial effectiveness and leader emergence (Lord et al., 1986; Yukl, 1989). One interpretation of the effects of surgency is that individuals high on this domain elicit positive reactions from others because of selfpresentation skills or the fact that their behavior matches prototypical representations of effective managers (Lord et al., 1986). Alternatively, as the role-play ratings suggest, critical managerial skills and behaviors may be related to the traits comprising the Surgency domain. Despite the consistent effects for surgency, the overall effects of personality on assessed potential were relatively weak. In fact, the strength of the observed effects is similar to that found in previous studies not using the five-factor model (Howard & Bray, 1988; Stogdill, 1974). Thus, the present results do not, in themselves, suggest that the five-factor model improves upon prediction of managerial potential. However, the weak effects could be due to the way in which the five-factor model was measured, rather than to the inadequacy of the model. Indeed, despite evidence that portions of four of the five domains were captured by the factor analysis, we urge caution in combining common personality inventories to identify the five factor model. It is doubtful that the GZTS and EPPS scales provide a comprehensive set of traits to represent the full content of each domain. Neuroticism did not emerge at all from our analyses, and some of the other domains may have been underrepresented. The finding that conscientiousness and intellect were not strongly related to the criterion measures may be due the fact that they were represented by only three and two scales, respectively. It may be the case that rather than identifying the core of these domains, only subgroupings of each domain were covered. Prediction of managerial potential from subgroupings of a domain will not be as strong as prediction from the full content of each domain. Other researchers have also failed to capture fully the five

Lillibridge and Williams

112

factors using questionnaire statements from personality inventories (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac, 1988). Thus, future studies should consider using personality inventories, such as the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985),' designed to measure the five factors or adjective inventories which have shown the most success in capturing the five-factor model (Goldberg, 1990). When other personality inventories have to be used, such as to provide longitudinal or comparison data, attempts should be made to augment these inventories with additional measures related to the five domains.

CONCLUSION We started this chapter by presenting a proactive model of managerial competence and suggesting that the five-factor model of personality may be useful for organizing results and guiding research on managerial potential. The results of the preliminary study are encouraging in that they suggest that surgency, at least, is related to assessments of managerial potential. Further research, however, is needed before the utility of the advocated approach can be assessed. Specific attention should be given to methods of measuring the five robust domains. If stable measures of these domains can be obtained, the five-factor model has considerable potential in research examining (1) the relationship between personality and behavior taxonomies, and (2) selection, evocation, and manipulation processes in organizations.

NOTES

'

The NEO-PI was developed by factor analyzing responses from the 16PF (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970), the GZTS, and the Eysenck and Eysenck (1975) Personality Inventory. This analysis yielded three of the factors: Neuroticism, Surgency (labeled Extraversion), and Intellect (labeled Openness). They subsequently added items to measure the Agreeableness and Conscientiousness domains, and were thus able to capture fully the five factors.

REFERENCES Borman, W. (1982). Validity of behavioral assessment for predicting military recruiter performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 3-9. Buss, D.M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214-1221. Buss, D.M., Gomes, M., Higgins, D.S., & Lauterbach, K. (1987). Tactics of manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social PsyChOlOgY, 52, 1219-1229.

Five Factor Model

113

Caspi, A. (1987). Personality in the life course. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1203-1213. Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.., & 'Itatsuoka, M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Clawson, J., Kotter, J., Faux, V., & McArthur, C. (1985). Selfassessment and career development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cleveland, J.N. & Thorton, G.C. I11 (1990). Use of simulations in management development: Reciprocity between science and practice. In K.R. Murphy & F.E. Saal ( a s . ) , Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 111- 132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Conley, J.J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait-multimethod-multioccasionanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1266-1282. Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Digman, J.M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123. Digman, J.M., & 'Ihkemoto-Chock, N.K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis and comparison of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149-170. Edwards, A.L. (1959). Edwards Personality Preference Schedule. New York: Psychological Corporation. Emmons, R.A., Diener, E., & Larsen, R.J. (1986). Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism. Journal of Applied PSyCholOgy, 51, 815-826. Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B. (1975). Manual f o r the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Ford, D.H. (1987). Humans as self-constructing living systems: A developmental perspective on behavior and personality. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. Guilford, J.P., & Zimmerman, W.S. (1949). The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Supply.

Lillibridge and Williams

114

Howard, A., & Bray, D.W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times. New York Guilford. Lord, R.G., DeVader, C.L., & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A metaanalysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,402-410. Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R.M., & Rosenkrantz, S . (1988). Real managers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. McClelland, D.C. & Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and longterm success in management. Journal of Applied PsychologyJ 67, 737-743. McClelland, D.C., & Burnham, D.H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 159-166. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90. McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., & Busch, C.M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California QSet and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 5 4 , 430-446. Miner, J.B. (1978). Twenty years of research on role-motivation theory of managerial effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 31, 739-760. Offermann, L.R. & Gowing, M.K.(Eds.) (1990). Special issue: Organizational Psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 95273.

Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press. Stutzman, T. M. (1985, May). A model for early management identification. In H. G. Gueutal (Chair), Managerial selection in technically trained individuals. Symposium presented at the meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management, Albany, NY. Thorton, G.C. I11 & Cleveland, J.N. (1990). Developing managerial talent through simulation. American Psychologist, 45, 190-199. Williams, K.J.., & Lillibridge, J.R. (1990). The identification of managerial talent: A proactive view. In K.R. Murphy and EE. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 69-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Five Factor Model

115

Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D.M., & Camac, C. (1988). What Iies beyond N and E? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial1 Organizational Psychology - K . Kelley (Editor) 0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

117

CHAPTER 5 TEAM BUILDING AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: AN EXAMINATION OF CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL DEVELOPMENTS Scott I. Tannenbaum, Rebecca L. Beard, and Eduardo Salas American organizations appear to be using work teams with increasing frequency (Hackman, 1989). As U.S. businesses begin to rely more on the effectiveness of teams to attain organizational goals, and as the number of self-managing and semi-autonomous work teams, quality circle teams, task forces, and other forms of project and functional teams used in the U.S. increase, the need to enhance team effectiveness increases as well. Team effectiveness is different from individual effectiveness (e.g., Yetton & Bottger, 1982). There is ample evidence that work group problems can impede team performance (DeMeuse & Liebowitz, 1981). Therefore, it is imperative that we continue to improve our understanding of team functioning and team performance and continue to examine the usefulness of systematic interventions such as team building. Work teams can hinder or facilitate organizational effectiveness and can be a source of satisfaction or frustration for individuals. Thus, it is not surprising that a considerable amount of attention has been directed towards understanding how teams work and how to improve their effectiveness. One of the most prevalent and promising interventions designed to improve team functioning and effectiveness is team building (Beer, 1976; French & Bell, 1984). One

~ n ~ n bBeard, a ~ and ~ ,Salas

118

review indicated that team building was the dominant intervention used in 40% of all organizational development (OD) programs conducted through 1975 (Porras & Berg, 1978). This chapter examines team building and its influence on team effectiveness. Previous reviewers have noted a lack of definitional clarity in this area (DeMeuse & Liebowitz, 1981), so first we provide an explanation of what we mean by "teams" and "team building". Next, we describe an input-throughput-output model of team effectiveness to provide a context for examining team building interventions. Third, we highlight three previous reviews that examined team building research through 1980. Finally, we review the empirical research on team building published during the ~O'S,comparing it to the findings of the previous research and suggesting avenues for future research.

TEAMS AND TEAM BUILDING: DEFINITIONS

Teams There is a substantial body of research on groups. However, while all teams are groups, not all groups can be considered teams. For a group to qualify as a team, its members must rely on each other and share a common goal. For our purposes, a team is defined as a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal/objective/mission, and who each have some specific roles or functions to perform (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, in press). Thus, a group of people attending a meeting together would not necessarily qualify as a team. Some form of task dependency exists among team members, some coordination is required, and some structure exists. Furthermore, our definition recognizes that a team is not a static entity but instead, its members interact dynamically and adaptively to meet its goals. Teams evolve over time (Gersick, 1988; Glickman, et al., 1987; Morgan, Glickman, Woodard, Blaiwes, & Salas, 1986). Roles and norms evolve, team members develop new skills and attitudes, tasks are modified, communication patterns unfold, goals are revised, personnel may change and hopefully, progress occurs. Change is inevitable. Although there are differences between a team and a group we believe that group research, selectively examined, offers some insights into understanding teams as well. We use the terms "group" and "team" interchangeably in this chapter although our focus is on teams throughout.

Team Building

119

Team Building Team building, sometimes called team development or group development, refers to interventions designed to improve the effectiveness of a work group (Woodman & Sherwood, 1980a). Most team building interventions are based upon an action research model of data collection, feedback, and action planning (Beckhard, 1969; Beer, 1976). While there are a variety of approaches to team building, most focus on improving team operations or processes. Group processes can be improved by removing barriers, clarifying roles, improving interpersonal relations, establishing agreed upon goals, or through other targeted intervention strategies. Team building is based on the assumption that a team's active involvement in planning change is more likely to result in favorable consequences than imposing change and that the p p l e closest to the task situation can solve their own problems if provided with an appropriate structure and process for doing so. In general, the underlying assumptions and values concerning team building are consistent with the humanistic philosophies of management (See Liebowitz & DeMeuse, 1982 for more detail on relevant assumptions). While team building interventions share a conceptual similarity they can vary with regard to their focus. Beer (1976) divided team building interventions into four basic approaches based on their primary focus: goal-setting, interpersonal, role, and managerial grid. While combinations and hybrids of these approaches are common, Beer's breakdown provides a conceptual framework for examining different types of team building interventions. In subsequent work, Beer concentrated on the first three approaches (1980). Dyer (1987) and Buller (1986) describe a more general problem solving approach to team building. Beer's first three approaches and Dyer and Buller's problem solving approach are briefly summarized below.

Goal-Setting Approach. This approach involves group members in the process of developing individual and group goals with the help of a consultant. The goals can be strategic in nature or may be more targeted such as specifying desired productivity or sales levels. Goals may also be set to change the internal environment and process. Interpersonal Approach. The interpersonal approach focuses on improving interpersonal relations in the group. It is based on the underlying assumption that an interpersonally competent group can function more effectively as a team (Argyris, 1962). This approach

120

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

aims to improve group trust and encourage mutual supportiveness and non-evaluative communications within the team.

Role Approach. This approach involves discussion and negotiation among team members regarding each of their respective roles. A role refers to a set of behaviors which a person feels obligated to perform and which other people expect that person to perform (Katz & Kahn, 1978). This approach is based on the assumption that a team is basically a series of overlapping roles and that much of a team's behaviors can be understood in terms of individuals' perceptions of their roles. Role conflict and role ambiguity have been shown to result in anxiety, dissatisfaction, and potential turnover (House & Rizzo, 1972). Thus, team building interventions based on the role approach attempt to clarify roles and reduce conflict and ambiguity. Problem-Solving Approach. This is a more general approach to team building in which team members identify major problems, generate relevant information, engage in problem solving and action planning, and implement and evaluate action plans (Buller & Bell, 1986). This approach is based on the assumption that work teams become more effective by solving their major problems together. The differentiating feature of this approach is its focus on task-oriented problem solving although as part of this approach interpersonal, goal, and role "problems" may be identified and addressed. Prior to examining the research on team building we will first discuss the factors that can influence team effectiveness, including the role that team building can play.

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Why do some teams perform well and others poorly? Why does a particular team perform well for a while and then exhibit decrements in performance? Several researchers have presented useful theoretical models of team or group performance to help address these questions (e.g., Hackman, 1983; Nieva, Fleishman, & Rieck, 1978; Steiner, 1972). Each model has a slightly different emphasis, however they share a great deal in common ( S e e Salas et a]., i n press; Goodman, 1986 for an overview of existing frameworks). In Figure 1 we present an integrative model based on previous team research and theory. It is a variant of a model presented in Salas et al. (in press) and lhnenbaum, Dickinson, Salas,

ORGANIZATIONALAND SITUATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Reward S ~ l r m s

ManPgrmcnl Control

OrganllstlomI Climslr

Iolrrgmup Rcbllom

Resource S a d l y

Lrrcl Of s1-

ComptlUon

EnvlmnmCnlsl U l l C e ~ l y

INPUT

hr

OUTPUT

THROUGHPUT

TEAMCHANGES CIURACTERISTICS -TrkTw -Task Complexlty

.N m No- New R o b .New C O m m u n l u U o m

STRUCTURE -Workkignmcnt ~Ttnm No- Commudcsllon Struc1urC

t t >< INDMDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

- Tprk K S A s .G e n e d Abllltlc. - Motbellon .Allltudc. - PIMnsllly

.Mcntnl Models

TI%% PROCESSES

I

1 TWLMPERFORMANCE

CHARACTERISTICS

.Porer Dl+trtbution

.Member Homogcnclly

.Team Resournr - CLlmnlr -Team Cobrrl*emrs

I

.

Feedback

TEAMINTERVENTIONS

'

Figure I : Team effectiveness model.

I

I

t

E. cy

9

z

122

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

& Converse (1990), modified to incorporate variables relevant to our discussion of team building. The framework shown in Figure 1 is an input, throughout, output model. The major categories of variables are task characteristics, work structure, individual characteristics, team characteristics, team processes, team interventions, team changes, team performance, and individual changes. Specific variables are noted as bullets within each box. These variables are meant to be representative of the broader categories and are not an exhaustive list. Team inputs include individual and team characteristics (including its physical and financial resources), the characteristics of the task(s) on which the team is working, and the manner in which the work is structured. The throughputs are the manner in which the team interacts over a period of time. They are the processes through which the team communicates, coordinates, makes decisions, and converts its inputs into outputs. The primary outputs are the quality and quantity of the products produced and the services delivered, as reflected in the team's performance. Other outputs are changes in the team (e.g., new norms) and changes in individuals (e.g., improved skills), which in turn may influence subsequent team performance. Interventions, such as training and team building, may be targeted to improve team processes, enhance individual or team characteristics, or modify the work structure or task. All of these variables must be considered within the existing and developing organizational environment. Each major element of the model is discussed in more detail below.

Organizational and Situational Context Work teams operate within a particular environmental context (Hackman, 1983; Nieva et al., 1978). Although groups are often viewed as the context variable for individual behaviors, the organizational environment should aIso be considered as the context variable for group behavior (Gladstein, 1984). For example, one organizational variable that could influence a team's behavior is the organization's reward system (Hackman, 1983; Steiner, 1972). The existence and nature of group and individual based rewards can influence the level of cooperation or competition between team members, which in turn may affect team effectiveness (Lawler, 1981; Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Ekeberg, 1988). The nature of intergroup or lateral relations within the company may also influence team effectiveness (Brett & Rognes, 1986). Cooperation between departments, functions, and teams may be

Team Building

123

necessary for successful team performance. Cross-unit relations is but one indication of organizational culture. A supportive organizational culture has been associated with higher performing teams (Sundstrom, Perkins, Futrell, & Hoffman, 1990).

Task Characteristics The influence of the team task on team performance has been well documented (Gladstein, 1984; Steiner, 1972; Goodman, 1986). Task complexity has been shown to be related to task performance (Herold, 1978) and a meta-analysis of previous team performance research revealed that task difficulty accounts for a significant amount of variance in team performance (Xmnenbaum et al., 1990). Tmsk organization and task type can also influence team effectiveness (McGrath, 1984; Kabanoff & O'Brien, 1979a). In sum, it should be remembered that all teams are not alike; task variations differentiate teams and influence performance.

W r k Structure A team can approach a given task in several ways. There can be differences in the way work is assigned to team members, for example whether each team member assumes a single role or exchanges roles as needed. Another element of work structure is the formal communication structure of the group. The nature of the communication structure, that is, who is allowed or required to speak with whom, can also influence the way work is performed (Naylor & Dickinson, 1969). Furthermore, teams establish norms regarding the way work is to be performed. Team norms can have a strong influence on team processes and subsequent performance (Hackman, 1987). As the model suggests, the nature of the task and the makeup of the individual team members will influence the way in which a team (or team leader) structures its work.

Individual Characteristics It has been well established that all things being equal, teams with better individual task proficiency, abilities, and skills will perform better (Gladstein, 1984; Kabanoff & O'Brien, 1979b; Steiner, 1972; Tmnnenbaum et al., 1990). Naturally, all things are not always equal; the sports world is full of examples of teams with lessor abilities outperforming "superior" rivals. However, on the average, holding task characteristics, work structure, and team processes constant, teams with greater individual abilities will out-

124

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

perform teams with lessor individual abilities. Individual team members also bring various personalities and mental models to the team. Personality variables, such as sociability, adjustment, and likability may be related to team performance (Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1987). Driskell et al. argue that different tasks should be performed better by teams made up of individuals with certain personality traits. Mental models, or the symbolic representations that individuals have for various concepts, may also affect team performance (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1990). Team members' mental models of their team's tasks and operations could determine individual behavior and team effectiveness.

Team Characteristics Several characteristics of the team can be important for understanding its effectiveness. The makeup of a team, including its homogeneity, has been shown to be related to team performance Gunderson & Ryman, 1967). A critical team characteristic is team cohesiveness. Team cohesiveness reflects a team's feeling of belongingness and sense of teamness. The importance of team cohesiveness has been discussed in the clinical psychology literature ( S e e Kellerman, 1981) and empirical work has shown its relationship to team performance (Dailey, 1980; 'Ihnnenbaum, et al., 1990).

Team Processes Team processes are the intragroup and intergroup actions that transform resources into a product (Gladstein, 1984). It refers to the way team members interact, including the way in which they communicate, make decisions, resolve conflicts, solve problems, and coordinate their actions. Communication processes have been shown to be related to team performance (Tushman, 1979; Katz, 1982), as have coordination processes (Kabanoff & O'Brien, 1979a, b) and decision making processes (See Guzzo, 1986 for a review of decision making and group effectiveness). The way in which a team manages its interactions with other units and non-team members is another key team process. "Boundary spanning" can influence team performance if cross-unit interdependencies exist (Adams, 1976; Gladstein, 1984; Katz & Kahn, 1978). In fact, some organizational development (OD) interventions are specifically targeted to improve the interactions between teams (Beer, 1976; French & Bell, 1984). There is a general assumption in almost all models of group

Team Building

125

performance that process is directly related to group effectiveness (e.g., Gladstein, 1984). For example, Beer (1980) suggested that if the groups throughout an organization are effective in their interpersonal relations, communications, problem-solving , goal-setting and decision making, then overall organizational effectiveness would also be high. However, some research has questioned whether that connection is always warranted. For example, Porras and Wilkins (1980) described an OD intervention where organizational performance increased following deterioration in process variables. Gladstein's (1984) research showed a connection between process and effectiveness when self-reports were used but no connection when objective performance measures were used. She suggests that the relationship seen in the self-report measures may reflect participant's implicit theories regarding appropriate team processes. Another possible explanation is that in a dynamic team context the relationship between process and performance outcomes may be lagged; it may take time before process changes lead to performance changes. Regardless, some questions remain regarding the nature of the relationship between process and effectiveness. This has important implications for team building, as most team building interventions attempt to change team processes and assume that they will lead to improved team effectiveness.

Out uts: Team Changes, Team Per$ormance, an Individual Changes

B

The primary output in our model is team performance. This refers to the quantity and quality of products and services, as well as time, errors, costs, and overall productivity. I n some situations, team performance can be measured as an average of individual outputs but in other cases aggregating individual measures would be misleading. While team performance is the primary output in our model it is not the only one. We consider changes in the team (e.g., new roles and processes, or greater/lessor cohesiveness) as outputs as well. Similarly, changes i n individuals (e.g., improved/decreased skills, attitudes, or motivation) are also considered outputs. In fact, Hackman's (1976) review of group research showed that groups can have a considerable effect on individual team members over time. Theoretically, these team and individual changes can ultimately influence a team's performance as well. Finally, as depicted in the model, a team's performance can serve as feedback to maintain or revise individual characteristics (e.g., train people, hire new members), work structure (e.g., assign

126

Tannenbawn, Beard, and Salas

tasks differently), or other team inputs and processes. Hackman (1987) suggested that teams evaluate their performance as they work, and that these evaluations affect team processes, which in turn influence subsequent performance. This cyclical framework is consistent with our view of a team as a dynamic entity, changing continually over time.

Team Interventions: naining and Bum Building There are many possible interventions to improve team effectiveness including job redesign, group incentive programs, training, and team building. We limit our discussion to training and team building. Although both team training and team building are interventions designed to enhance team functioning and improve team effectiveness, they are not the same. Training is a systematic effort to facilitate the development of job related knowledge, skills, and attitudes (K,S,A's). The specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be developed are determined and learning objectives are established prior to the start of the training. The training content is then derived and structured to convey the critical K,S,As and to meet the learning objectives (See Swezey & Salas, in press, for a detailed description of team training development). In contrast, team building is more of a "process intervention" (Beer, 1980). A process intervention is a set of activities which is aimed at helping individuals and groups examine and act upon their behavior and relationships (Schein, 1969). Although the general framework of a team building intervention may be established up front, the content of the intervention will in part be determined by the discussions among team members. Interestingly, although team training and team building interventions often focus on similar concerns (e.g., communication, decisionmaking, coordination) the means of approaching the concerns will differ. Based on the framework depicted in our model we consider the implications of these interventions for improving team performance; first focusing on training and then on the four approaches to team building described earlier,

naining. Access to necessary training has been shown to differentiate high performance teams from others (Sundstrom, et al., 1990). Training interventions can focus on the development of individual skills or on the development of team skills. As noted earlier, individual task proficiency is related to team performance so training that enhances individual characteristics (e.g., task K,S,A's,

Team Building

127

motivation) should contribute to team performance. However, team tasks require more than simply well-trained individuals. According to Steiner (1972) team performance is not only a function of the potential of team members to perform their assigned subtasks, but it is also a function of the ability of team members to coordinate their work flow and communicate effectively with one another. Although there has been little empirical research in this area, there is some evidence that training "team skills", such as coordination and communication, should result in improved team performance (Lassiter, Vaughn, Smaltz, Morgan, & Salas, 1990; McRae, 1966; Parsons, 1981). Some team training interventions would affect team performance by enhancing the team process skills, while others would concentrate on enhancing team characteristics by teaching interpersonal skills and changing team climate.

Goal-Setting Approach to Team Building. This approach to team building could enhance team effectiveness in several ways. First, establishing agreed upon output levels may clarify differences regarding what the team's goals should be and may help elucidate what resources are needed to accomplish the goals. Second, individual characteristics can be changed; more specifically, participative goal-setting can heighten team member's motivation and commitment (Latham & Yukl, 1975). Third, the team may establish goals to revise the nature of their task, work structure, or tern processes. Interpersonal Approach to Team Building. The interpersonal approach to team building could enhance team effectiveness in two ways. First, team characteristics can be changed as the result of an interpersonal team building intervention. Team climate could improve with the team exhibiting greater levels of trust, cooperation, and cohesiveness. Second, improvements in interpersonal relations among team members may lead to improvements in team processes. For example, as a result of the intervention, communication or conflict resolution processes may be enhanced. In sum, this approach is based on improving the way teammates feel about each other and the way they interact to enhance team effectiveness. Role Approach to Team Building. In terms of our model, the role approach could improve team effectiveness in several ways. First, by negotiating and revising member's roles, the team's work structure could be improved. Second, individual characteristics can be changed; for example, a team member's perceived role ambiguity could be reduced. Third, team characteristics could be changed as improved role clarity may enhance overall team cohesiveness. Final-

128

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

ly, team processes could be enhanced as the removal of role disagreements can result in improved coordination and communication. In sum, this approach is based on clarifying team members roles and responsibilities to enhance team effectiveness.

Problem-Solving Approach to Team Building. As a more general approach to team building, this approach could improve team effectiveness by influencing almost any component of our model. First, team processes are directly affected as the team adopts a systematic problem-solving process. Then, based on the particular problems that are identified during the diagnostic stage and the agreed upon solutions that are implemented, virtually any element in the model could be affected. This could even include organizational characteristics as the work team might recommend changes in the reward system or other organizational level factors.

TEAM BUILDING: PREVIOUS REVIEWS Several researchers have reviewed the team building literature from the early 1960's through 1980, including Woodman and Sherwood (1980a), DeMeuse and Liebowitz (1981), and Buller (1986). These reviews provide a baseline with which to examine the research conducted in the 1980's. Woodman and Sherwood (1980a) summarized the research evidence on the utility of team development for increasing organizational effectiveness. They noted that team development is designed to improve the effectiveness of people with interdependent jobs, where effectiveness refers to managing problems and accomplishing group goals. They used the terms team development and team building interchangeably, stating that team building is designed to improve team operation by developing problem-solving procedures and skills and increasing role clarity, thereby enhancing organizational effectiveness. Their perspective assumes that team building facilitates team processes which i n turn influences team performance. Woodman and Sherwood delineated the difference between team development and T-group training, excluding the latter from their review. They identified 30 team development studies conducted between 1964 and 1978, and categorized them according to the major types of team building interventions specified by Beer (1976). They reported that team building interventions were used more frequently with management teams than with lower level work groups, and were more common with established work groups than as a means of developing newly formed teams. They expressed some concerns with the research designs and

Team Building

129

outcome measures used in many of the studies. All but one of the studies they reviewed were field studies, so it is not surprising that the formation of true control groups and the utilization of experimental designs was limited. The most common design used in the 30 studies was a pre-post, non-equivalent control group design, which when properly implemented, can be a useful design in field settings (Cook & Campbell, 1979). However, many of the studies reviewed relied on designs with poor internal validity. They noted that studies that used the goal-setting, problem-solving model of team building tended to use designs with better internd validity. Only one third of the research studies used objective performance data (e.g. , productivity, cost, absenteeism, turnover, quality). Most relied on affective outcome measures of satisfaction, climate, or attitudes or subjective assessments of effectiveness. They concluded that team building is related to affective responses but that its effect on performance is unsubstantiated. DeMeuse and Liebowitz (198 1) conducted a similar review. They examined research that pertained to team building interventions, focusing on 36 studies conducted from 1962 to 1980. Despite focusing on a similar research domain, out of a pool of 66 studies, DeMeuse and Liebowitz's review only shared 14 studies in common with the Woodman and Sherwood review. They note that this is a reflection of the vagueness of typical definitions of team building. They define team building as a long-term, data-based intervention in which intact work groups learn to increase their skills for effective teamwork by utilizing a structured agenda, usually with the aid of a behavioral-science consultant. They excluded lab studies, studies with multiple OD interventions, and T-group studies from consideration. They intended to exclude any studies that did not meet a twelve month time standard but were forced to drop that requirement because of the limited number of longitudinal studies. As with Woodman & Sherwood (1980a), DeMeuse and Liebowitz (1981) expressed concern with the quality of the research. They noted that very few researchers predicted specific relationships between independent variables and dependent variables prior to conducting the study. Many used a shotgun approach, collecting a variety of outcome measures and assessing if anything changed. Twenty of the thirty-six studies used pre-experimental designs, designs that Cook and Campbell (1979) would describe as those that do not permit reasonable causal inferences. The remaining sixteen were considered quasi-experimental designs, many of which were pre-post, non-equivalent control group designs. They also expressed some concern regarding the operationalization of team effectiveness. They noted that some researchers

130

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

operationalized team effectiveness in terms of increased intragroup cohesiveness, reduced group-member absenteeism, and improved interpersonal relations. Based on our model, changes in these measures would indicate that team characteristics and team processes were effected but would not suggest that team pe?$omzance or effectiveness had truly been enhanced. All but one of the studies measured attitudinal/perceptual change as the outcome measure, fourteen examined behavioral changes, and nine considered organizational results. Almost half relied exclusively on perceptual dependent variables. Eighty percent of the results were positive and seventeen percent were mixed. Only one study reported negative results. While the general trend is overwhelmingly positive, DeMeuse and Liebowitz also expressed extreme caution in interpreting the results due to the generally low level of methodological rigor seen in the existing research. Work by Terpstra (1981) supports their call for caution. He found an inverse relationship between the degree of methodological rigor of evaluation employed and the degree of reported outcome success of OD interventions. DeMeuse and Liebowitz argued that increased rigor is needed and noted that Cook and Campbell (1979) offer some "refreshing" approaches for conducting quality research in field settings. Buller (1986) expressed concern about the ambiguity of previous team building models. He proposed a team-building-problemsolving approach to team development which he defined as a planned series of meetings facilitated by a third party consultant, with a group of people having common organizational relationships and goals that is designed specifically to improve the team's task accomplishment by developing problem solving procedures and skills and then solving the team's major problems. His approach focuses on improving team processes but also suggests the development of problem solving skills. He suggested that within this framework, team building activities can focus on task or interpersonal skills and may include goal-setting and role clarification. In essence, his apiroach subsumes any 6f the team building models suggested by Beer (1976). Buller identified fifty-two studies conducted through 1980 and focused on the nine studies that employed objective individual, group, or organizational performance criteria. Of those, five used quasi-experimental or experimental designs that provided some control over extraneous variables. Of those five, only one did not include other activities (e.g., training) that have been found to produce performance improvement by themselves. As with the other reviews, he concludes that the relationship between team building

Team Building

131

and performance is inconclusive. Business trends suggest that the use of work teams is increasing. Most theoretical models indicate that team performance is a complex phenomenon but agree that the way in which a team interacts is central to its effectiveness. Team building interventions are a prevalent means of attempting to improve team operations. Unfortunately, while the need to understand and evaluate team development increases, the research up through 1980 has been largely inconclusive. DeMeuse and Liebowitz stated that the eighties will be a critical period for the field. In the next section we review the research conducted in the 1980's and examine if the next generation of team building studies has addressed the concerns expressed at the end of the seventies.

TEAM BUILDING RESEARCH SINCE 1980 We conducted a literature search of the team building research published in the 1980s. A computer search was performed using the Psychologicul Abstracts, ERIC, ABI-Inform and NTIS databases. This was supplemented by a hand search of relevant journals and a cross-referencing of each article's reference list, We excluded organizational development efforts that did not include team building per se. We also eliminated studies that included only author's impressions of effectiveness (e.g., Cohen & Ross, 1982; Murrell & Valsan, 1985), as well as those studies in which artificial teams worked on hypothetical problems (e.g., Gear, Marsh, & Sergent, 1985) or used groups that did not fit our definition of a team. We did not exclude studies with multiple interventions if the primary intervention was team building. When provided by the authors, we include separate information regarding the effectiveness of other interventions (e.g., Fiedler, Bell, Chemers, & Patrick, 1984). The search process yielded seventeen empirical team building studies that met our criteria and were reported in the 1980s. Three of the studies were also reported in previous reviews. Collapsing across the current and previous reviews (i.e., Buller, 1986; DeMeuse & Liebowitz, 1981; Nicholas, 1982; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980a), 67 different empirical team building studies have been reported. Fourteen studies were reported in the 1960's, 36 in the 1970's, and 17 in the 1980's. 'bble 1 shows the seventeen studies conducted in the 1980's. The table includes the type of team(s) being studied, the number of teams and overall sample size, the research design employed, the team building approach(es) used, and a summarization of the results. To allow for comparisons over time we used a categorization schema similar to those used in previous reviews.

132

Tannenbawn, Beard, and Salas

Table 1: Summary of 1980's Team BuildingStudies(continued) OUTCOME VARIABLES ~

#OF SAMPLE AUTHOR

TEAM

TEAMS

SIZE

Eden (1985)

CommandTeams. Logistics Units, Israeli Defense Forces

18

147

Eden (1986)

Command Teams, Combat Corps, Israeli Defense Forces

16

Approx 160

Fiedler, Bell, Work Teams, Chemers. B UndergroundMining Patrick (1984) Company

Fleming B Fleming (1983)

Halstead et al. (1986)

DESIGN

APPROACH

lnii React

AttiV Percep

+

mainly 0

Behav Org Change Change

Experimental Pretest-Posttest True Control Group Randomization

Goal-Setting. Interpersonal. Role

Quasiexperimental Pretest-Posttest Non-equivalent Contrd Groups

Goal-Setting. Interpersonal. Role

Quasiexperimental Pretest-Posttest Non-equivalent Control Group

ProMem Sdving

+

+

+c

+

Structured Management Training

+

+

+

+

t

Multidisciplinary Educational Teams, Elementary 8 High School Levels

5

Approx 35

Pre-experimental Pretest-Posttest

Goal-Setting. Problem Solving

Multidisciplinary Healthcare Teams

3

Approx 21

Qwsiexperimental Pretest-Posttest Non-equivalent Control Group

Problem Solving

mainly

+

+

+

+ CL

w

w

c

Table 1: Summary of 1980's Team Building Studies(continued)

w OUTCOME VARIABLES

AUTHOR

TEAM

#OF SAMPLE TEAMS SEE

DESIGN

APPRQACH

lnit AnW ~eact P m p

+

Hughes. Cadet Squadrons, Rosenbach, B USAF Academy clover (1983)

2

136

QuasiexperimentaI Pretest-PMest Non-equivalent Control Group

GdSening. Interpersonal. Rde

Uaplan. Lombar- Top Level do, 8 Mazique Management Team. (19W PuMic Agency

1

17

Preexperimental PretestPosttest

Other

+

97

Preexperimental P m e s t Only

Other

+

Margerison. Mc- Aircrews. Cann 8 Davies Australian Airlines

i

(1988)

(see also Margerison. Davies, B Mccann, 1987)

Mitchell (1986)

Management Teams (4) MBA Field Project Teams (13)

17

Approx 76

Quasiexperimental Pretest-Posttest Non-equivalent Control Group

Interpersonal

0

Other

+d

Behnv OQ Clmngo Change

t

P

Table 1: Summary of 1980's Team Building Studies(continued) ~

~~

OUTCOME VARIABLES #OF SAMPLE

AUTHOR

Morrison a Sturges (19W

Paul 8 Gross (1981)

TEAM

Top Management Team, large State Gwemment Departrnent

TEAMS SIZE

1

13

Communication and Electric D i i o n . City of San Diego

Food Service Managersand Staff

116

1436

(1QW

Woodman B Shewood

EngineeringStudent Survey Teams

67

192

Porras B Wilkins

(19Mb)

a

DESIGN

APPROACH

Pre-experimental Patched Design Pretest-Posttest No Control Group

Role. Problem Solving

Qwsiexperimental Some Premeasures Posttest Non-equivalent Control Groups

Role. ProMem Sobinge

Quasiexperimental Time Series Non-equivalent Control Group

Problem Solving. Interpersonale

Experimental Posttest Only Random Assignment True Control Group

Goal-Setting, Problem Sdving

lnit Read

+

AHi Beluv Oq Parccp Change Change

mixed

+

+

Comparison was between teambuilding and pal selling versus goal setting on&, a no-rrearmenr condition was not used. Goal Selling considered dislincl from teambuilding by author. Strike at mine prohibited collecrion ofproductiriry data - however, absenteeism declined. Significant change pretest lo posttest. No significanl dflerences between "other" and interpersonal approaches. Teambuilding conducted as pan of a larger orgonizotional deivlopmenr effon including individual developmenl and Tstem development.

'

mixed

0

t

136

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

We coded each study's research design as either pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, or experimental ( S e e Cook & Campbell, 1979). Supplemental information regarding the use of pre- and posttests, control groups, and randomization is also included. We categorized each team building intervention according to Beer's (1976, 1980) breakdown (i.e., goal, role, and interpersonal). Consistent with Beer's later work we did not consider the managerial grid as a team building intervention. Regardless, no empirical studies were found that used the managerial grid as a team development intervention. We also included a problem-solving category (Buller, 1986; Dyer, 1987) and an "other'' category. If more than one approach was used, each approach is noted. Study outcomes were categorized similarly to DeMeuse and Liebowitz (1981). They based their schema on Kirkpatrick's (1976) training evaluation typology; it includes initial reactions, attitudinaUperceptua1changes, behavioral changes, and organizational changes. Initial reactions refers to evaluative remarks concerning the usefulness of the intervention made at the conclusion of the off-site session(s). AttitudinaUperceptual changes involve the subjective assessment of various intergroup conditions (e.g., climate, trust, openness, satisfaction) by participants. Behavioral changes includes team member behaviors such as those collected as critical incidents (e.g., specific helping behaviors). Organizational changes refers to the impact that the intervention has on the organization as a whole, for example its effect on organizational productivity or turnover, and not merely within team changes. Each study's outcomes were categorized as positive (+), negative (-), no change (0),or mixed.

Comparisons With Previous Research How do the studies of the 80's compare with those from the previous reviews? The primary focus is still on intact, established work groups as opposed to newly formed teams. To our knowledge there has been no research that has examined the relationship between the stage of a team's development and the usefulness of various team development interventions. In addition, most of the research is still being conducted with white collar teams although Buller's work with mine production crews provided a fascinating look at team building within a blue collar environment. Buller and Bell (1986) reported a general skepticism of modern management techniques within their blue collar production teams. Although task differences are reputed to be an important factor in understanding team performance and processes (McGrath, 1984) there have been

Team Building

137

no systematic efforts to consider the implications of task differences for team development interventions.

Research Designs A common complaint of previous team building research, and of OD interventions in general, is the poor quality of the research designs. Perhaps the biggest concern with previous research is the use of inadequate methodological controls. Over half the studies reported by DeMeuse & Liebowitz used pre-experimental designs that make it extremely difficult to attribute causality. In addition, no studies prior to 1980 used a true experimental design (DeMeuse & Liebowitz, 1981; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980a). Even when quasi-experimental designs were used, concerns remained about the similarity of the teams experiencing the team building interventions and any non-equivalent control groups (Hughes, Rosenbach, & Clover, 1983). Much of the pre-1980 research was based on fairly small sample sizes. Over 40% of the studies that reported the number of teams included only one team in their study (DeMeuse & Liebowitz, 1981). Lastly, concerns have been voiced about the types of outcome measures that have been used in previous research. This last concern will be addressed in a later section. There appears to be some improvement in the research methodologies employed in the 1980's. Eleven of the seventeen studies used a quasi-experimental design and two (Eden, 1985; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980b) employed true experimental designs. Interestingly, the two experimental studies were conducted with military and student teams, two environments where researchers often have greater control over participants than in private sector studies. One study that used a pre-experimental design incorporated several elements to improve its interpretability (Morrison & Sturges, 1980). They used a "patched-up" design (See Campbell & Stanley, 1966) with multiple data collections and dependent variables. DeMeuse & Liebowitz considered this to be a quasi-experimental design. However, based on Cook and Campbell's (1979) categorization we did not feel it qualified as such, and instead we consider it to be a "better" pre-experimental design than most. The most prevalent design used in the 80's was the pre-test, post-test, non-equivalent control group design. Some researchers carefully matched non-equivalent control groups and some randomly assigned teams to conditions when it was impossible to randomly assign individual participants (e.g., Hughes et al., 1983). However,

138

Tannenbawn, Beard, and Salas

non-equivalence of control groups continued to be a concern. One study (Fiedler et al., 1984) used industry averages as controls. This approach has been used in previous OD studies (e.g., Beckhard, 1966) although it has since been criticized by Hughes et al. (1983). In addition, the number of teams examined within a given study remained fairly small although the incidence of single team studies has decreased. In particular we applaud Eden (1985, 1986) for his work comparing results across different conditions of methodological rigor. He conducted one of only two published team building field experiments and intended to conduct a second, but organizational constraints reduced it to a quasi-experimental study. In one study (1985) he explicitly compared results across three different types of evaluation designs. This study supports the work of Terpstra (1981) in suggesting an inverse relationship between rigor and effectiveness. However, in a subsequent study, Eden's well-conducted quasi-experiment (1986) revealed positive results for the team building intervention despite a fairly high level of rigor. We cannot be certain that pre-experimental evaluations are not being conducted at a similar rate as before. However, the published team development research, particularly in psychological journals, relies much more heavily on quasi-experimental studies than in the 60's and 70's. On average, the methodological rigor of team building studies improved during the 80's. However, small sample sizes still abound and questions regarding internal validity within some quasi-experimental studies makes it difficult to interprete some of the findings. Mitchell's (1986) work with MBA field project teams is a good example of a study with some redeeming methodological features, but with some lingering threats to internal validity. He used a control group and randomly assigned teams to conditions, two excellent features in comparison to older team building studies. He developed a team building intervention based on alignment theory whereby individuals disclose their internalized frameworks. He compared the alignment approach with the conventional interpersonal approach to team building. Unfortunately, despite obviously favoring the alignment approach, he personally delivered both treatments, Furthermore, the interpersonal condition appeared less intensive than similar interventions in previous research (it was only 2.5 hours in length), Lastly, large differences in pre-tests scores made regression to the mean a potential problem and suggests that the alignment team had more room for improvement. In sum, although he incorporated several useful quasi-experimental features into his study, other

Team Building

139

threats to internal validity make it difficult to interpret his results unambiguously.

Nature of the Team Building Interventions According to Woodman and Sherwood (1980a) two-thirds of the previous team building studies used a goal-setting approach, either alone or in conjunction with other approaches. About forty percent of the studies used an interpersonal approach, and less than twenty percent used a role approach. Thirty percent used more than one approach to team building Of the seventeen studies conducted in the go's, 47% used an interpersonal approach (solo or in conjunction with others), 35% used a role approach, and 29% used a goal approach. Unlike Woodman and Sherwood, we included the problem solving approach as a distinct category. Problem solving interventions tend to focus on several of the traditional team building issues of goal, role, and interpersonal; 53% of the studies conducted in the 80's used a problem solving approach. Over seventy-five percent of the studies used either a multi-faceted problem solving approach or combined two or more of the approaches specified by Beer. "Other" approaches included Mitchell's alignment approach and the use of a management simulation as a diagnostic stimuli (Kaplan, Lombardo, & Mazique, 1985). It appears that the interpersonal approach is used with about the same frequency as before and the use of role clarification interventions has increased slightly. The use of goal-setting has been reduced, although this probably reflects its natural use as part of the more generic problem-solving approach. While Dyer (1987) noted a shift in emphasis away from focusing strictly on social interactions, towards a greater attention on team behaviors and tasks, the interpersonal approach to team development is continuing to be used and studied as part of an acceptable intervention strategy. Unfortunately, most of the studies do not include much detail regarding the intervention itself, perhaps due to journal page limitations. In general, the most interesting trend regarding the type of interventions used pertains to the use of multiple team building approaches. Over 75% of the studies conducted in the 80's used interventions that target more than one obstacle to team development. This may reflect an increased awareness of the complexity of team performance or may simply be a shot-gun approach on the part of the intervention developers. A key question that needs to be addressed is, besides personal preference, why choose one approach over another? Unfortunately, details regarding pre-intervention

140

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

diagnosis and problem analysis are rarely included in the articles. The linking of specific team concerns with appropriate interventions is a logical necessity. The problem-solving approach, at least conceptually, is designed to ensure that linkage.

Outcome Measures Almost all the studies reviewed by DeMeuse and Liebowitz examined participants'attitudes/perceptions. In addition, 36 % considered behavioral variables, and 22 % considered organizational changes. Similarly, in the studies we examined, almost all examined participant's attitudes/perceptions. However, the measurement of behavioral variables appeared to increase (65 %) and organizational changes were assessed slightly more than before (29%). There are two other ways of categorizing outcomes measures that have relevance for understanding the effectiveness of team development interventions. The first distinction is whether the outcome measure was provided via self-report. The second distinction is whether the outcome measure focused on team processes or on team performance. Both distinctions are worth considering further. Only one third of the studies in Woodman and Sherwood's review included objective or non-self report outcome measures, while 53% of the studies in the eighties did so. There is some indication that results can differ according to which type of measure is used. For example, Eden (1985) reported positive results based on self-assessment but non-significant results with other measures. Similar findings were reported by Momson and Sturges (1980). Self-report data may reflect participant satisfaction with the team building or participants' implicit theories regarding appropriate team processes rather than actually measuring the effectiveness of the team building. Therefore, it is important that whenever possible, researchers attempt to include some non-self report indicators in their team building studies. It appears that some improvements were made in this regard during the 80's. Most of the research on team building has focused on processrelated outcomes or what Hackman (1983) considers intermediate criteria. Referring back to Figure 1, most of the research has examined team changes or individual changes as outputs or indications of the effectiveness of the team building intervention. For example, in his study of military teams, Eden (1986) examined involvement, conflict handling, cohesion, and clarity as dependent variables of interest. In contrast, far fewer studies included team performance measures as the dependent variable of interest.

Team Building

141

Approximately 80% of the studies conducted in the eighties measured team or individual changes. Only 40% assessed team performance - either via self-report or through some more objective method. When only objective measures are considered the number shrinks even further. Buller (1986) reported that only 17% of the studies he examined included objective measures of either individual, group, or organizational performance. This reliance on process measures as indications of the effectiveness of team building interventions is troubling. As noted earlier, there is not necessarily a connection between improved team processes and improved team performance. Yet most organizational interventions are implemented with an implicit (if not an explicit) expectation that it will yield improved performance or it will be discontinued. Subsequent research studies should attempt to assess changes in team performance in addition to examining changes in team processes and operations. For example, Buller & Bell (1986) collected data regarding changes in process (e.g., task performance strategies), behaviors (e.g., used proper slushing techniques) as well as changes in performance (e.g., quantity and quality of ore produced). Process measures are critical because they can help explain why an intervention works or fails. However, changes in process do not necessarily mean that a team intervention has been successful (Campbell & Dunnette, 1968).

Efectiveness of Team Building Although the quality of team building research improved in the

~O'S,methodological concerns still made it difficult to interpret the results of some studies unequivocally. However, within the methodological limits noted above, some general comments can be made regarding the effectiveness of team building interventions. As with the earlier team development research, most of the studies in the 80's yielded predominantly positive findings. However, the results were not uniformly positive, particularly with regard to behavioral changes. Despite the unwritten but generally acknowledged bias towards publishing positive findings, four of the ten studies that assessed behavioral change reported mixed or non-significant results. Improvements in team member perceptions or attitudes were evidenced more consistently, although some studies reported mixed or flat results (e.g., Eden, 1985; Momson & Sturges, 1980) and one study reported a decrement in job satisfaction and commitment (Porras & Wilkins, 1980). When we consider only the six studies that used the strongest

142

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

research designs, a similar pattern emerges. Two studies used experimental designs (Eden, 1985; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980b) and four used stronger quasi-experimental designs (Buller, 1988; Buller & Bell, 1986; Eden, 1986; Hughes et al., 1983). Five of these six studies examined perceptuaVattitudinal change; four exhibited positive results. Four of the six studies examined behavioral change with only one showing positive results; the other three reported no behavioral improvements or mixed results. It makes sense that team building interventions would show a stronger effect on attitudes and perceptions than on performance. As seen in our model, team performance is a function of many factors, some of which are beyond the scope of most team building interventions. A team building program could enhance team cohesiveness, clarify member roles, and improve member satisfaction, yet the team still may not improve its performance due to a lack of resources, poor intergroup relations, technical problems, or adverse conditions in the environment. The further removed the dependent variable is from the immediate control of the team (i.e.! the more distal the measure), the less likely it is that the team building intervention will demonstrate improvements. Thus, a study that measures team communications is more likely to show improvement than one that measures team performance, since communications are within the direct control of the team. Team performance improvements are less likely to be demonstrated since team performance is partly in control of the team and partly externally determined.

The Role of Diagnosis. Team development activities can target several areas of concern. To date, the accumulated research still provides insufficient evidence to suggest that one team building approach works more frequently than another; each approach appears to work in some instances. However, unidimensional interventions (e.g., role clarification) should be most likely to affect corresponding dependent varibles (e.g., role ambiguity) but should be less likely to affect more global measures of effectiveness such as team performance. Kaplan (1979) and Hughes et al. (1983) suggested that improved process outcomes, such as enhanced openness in communications, may only contribute to improved performance in work groups that have been experiencing conflict. This suggests that diagnostic accuracy is critical to the success of any team building intervention. Most of the studies in the 80's used more than one team building approach, attempting to improve team processes and performance through some combination of role clarification, interpersonal

Team Building

143

enhancement, goal-setting, and problem-solving. Naturally, if the increased breadth of intervention exhibited in these studies was determined via an accurate diagnosis, then the probability of enhancing team effectiveness should be greater. To the extent that a team building intervention addresses several true team deficiencies, then performance improvement should be more likely. Conceptually, this is the logic behind the problem-solving approach to team building, where the team conducts a self-diagnosis and then focuses on the specific problems/concerns that it faces. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the thoroughness of the diagnostic efforts in most studies. Kaplan et al., (1985) described the use of a management simulation as a diagnostic team building intervention. This approach appeared to provide some useful diagnostic information regarding team operations. However, Kaplan et al. (1985) suggested that a team simulation should only be used and interpreted in conjunction with other forms of diagnosis. Further research on team diagnostic techniques is clearly needed.

Multiple Interventions: Team Building Plus., . Team building is not always the appropriate intervention to improve poor team performance. In some cases, the underlying reason(s) for poor performance may be skill deficiencies of team members (suggesting the need for training), motivational problems (which may suggest the need for changes in the reward system), resource problems, or task problems (perhaps calling for job redesign). In some cases, team building may fail to enhance performance because it is an insufficient intervention strategy for addressing the team's problems. A few studies have examined the effectiveness of team building in conjunction with another intervention. Buller (1988) and Buller and Bell (1986) examined the combined effects of team building and a goal-setting intervention (not a goal-setting approach to team building but a I'true" goal-setting program). They provided only limited evidence that the two interventions together enhanced team effectiveness. Porras and Wilkins (1980) and Paul and Gross (1981) described team building interventions that were part of larger OD efforts that included training and other forms of individual and system development. Paul and Gross (198 1) reported improvements in morale and productivity as a result of a combined team building, counseling, and training effort. Porras and Wilkins (1980) reported decrements in attitudes and team processes but improvements in unit performance in their study of a combined OD/team building intervention. The research regarding the combined use of team building and

144

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

other interventions is mixed. It is possible that, when properly diagnosed, team building may serve as an "enabler" to enhance the efficacy of other interventions. Perhaps team building may prepare teams for other changes. However, at this point that is merely speculative. Future research should systematically examine the potential interactions between team building and other interventions.

Process to Pe@ormance: Time Lag, An assumption of most team building interventions is that improving team processes leads to improved team performance. However, it is still unclear under which conditions this assumption is valid. In addition, a related question is, how long does it take for improved processes to translate into improved performance? It is possible that in some studies (e.g., Woodman & Sherwood, 1980b), the time lag between the intervention and the collection of team performance data was too short to allow process improvements to translate into performance improvements. In a simple laboratory task, process improvements may be accompanied by an immediate improvement in performance. However, in complex organizational contexts, it may take some time before improved performance occurs, Thus, process and performance measures collected at the same time may not reveal how improvements in process over a period of time leads to better performance. Buller's research provides some support for this contention. Buller and Bell (1986) reported changes in team members' behaviors 3 to 6 months after a team building intervention but the teams showed no improvements in productivity. However, when Buller (1988) examined data from the same teams 15 months after the intervention, he found improvements in productivity and in profitability per shift. It is possible that three to six months was too short a time period for improved team relations and processes to result in improved performance, but that fifteen months was sufficient. It would be inappropriate to conclude that performance lags process by a specific and constant period of time, It is more likely the case that a variety of factors can influence the relationship between process and performance. In particular, we would speculate that the nature of the task (e.g., degree of interdependence, task complexity) would play a key role. In addition, it is likely that performance feedback influences team processes in a cyclical fashion as well (Hackman, 1987). Nonetheless, there is clearly a need for longitudinal research that examines the relationship between changes in team processes and performance. Future researchers should consider measuring post-intervention processes and perform-

Team Building

145

ance in a time series framework to allow for a closer examination of the relationship over time.

Regression or Fade-out. Another research issue addressed during the 80's was the question of regression or fade-out. Concerns have been voiced about the on-going effectiveness of off-site team development interventions (Beer, 1980). Similar concerns have been voiced in the training literature (cf., Marx, 1982). Boss (1983) examined the usefulness of a post-intervention strategy for maintaining team building effectiveness. After a typical interpersonal team building intervention, Boss had each team leader hold a separate role negotiation meeting with each of his or her subordinates, and then conduct private, one-on-one meetings on a regular basis. He compared these teams with those who underwent team building but were not given a follow-up strategy. Both sets of teams reported positive results immediately after the team building intervention. However, teams without a follow-up strategy showed significant decrements three months after the intervention, while the experimental teams showed improvements up to three years after the original intervention. His research suggests that, as with training, what happens after the intervention can be just as important as the nature of the intervention itself and that team building should be thought of as an on-going intervention and not a one-shot deal.

Summary of Team Building Research in the 80's We offer the following summary based on our analysis of the research conducted in the 1980's:

* The quantity of research on team building has decreased. However, the quality of research has improved. The first two experimental studies of team building were published and most studies used some form of quasi-experimental design. However, methodological concerns remain. * The research still focuses, for the most part, on intact, whitecollar teams. Little attention has been directed at newly formed or blue-collar teams. * Fewer studies used a unidimensional approach to team building. More studies used multiple approaches or a broader problem-solving framework. However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that one approach or combination of approaches is most useful. It is likely that targeted diagnosis is a key.

146

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

* More studies included behavioral measures than in the past and more studies included objective measures or at least measures other than self report. This is a positive development. Unfortunately, only 40% of the studies examined team performance. * There is further evidence that the assumed connection between process and performance is not always warranted. Improvements in process may only yield improved performance if process problems existed. Furthermore, there may be a time delay before process improvements translate into performance enhancement. * In general, team building interventions were fairly effective. Team building appears to have a positive effect on perceptions and attitudes. However, the results are more equivocal with regard to behavioral outcomes. At this point, it is still unreasonable to claim that team building alone can enhance organizational effectiveness, although it may be useful as part of a larger improvement strategy. It is important that decision makers have realistic expectations regarding the usefulness of team building interventions. * Activities after the actual team building intervention may play an important part in determining the long-term effectiveness of the intervention. It may be a good idea to establish a post-intervention strategy as part of the development of a team building intervention. Research Needs/Suggestions We have identified the following research needs/suggestions based on the existing research on team development. Some are suggestions regarding research design while others are issues or topics that we believe merit further attention:

* There have been improvements in research quality. While it is often impossible to conduct true field experiments, we encourage the use of at least a pre-post, non-equivalent control group design in future studies. In addition, in light of the differences exhibited between self-report and more objective measures, we encourage the collection of at least some non self-report measures. * The nature of the relationship between process and performance deserves further attention. To assess this properly calls for a longitudinal research strategy, perhaps utilizing a form of time-series analysis. Complex causal modeling may be needed to test for reciprocal relationships between process and performance over time. Alternatively, longitudinal qualitative research could help shed some light on this issue as well. The collection of rich, qualitative data before and after interventions, supplemented by periodic objective

Team Building

147

performance measures could be a fruitful research paradigm (cf., Van Maanen, 1975). * Two variables that could moderate the effectiveness of team building interventions are task type and stage of team development. To our knowledge no research has examined the effects of these variables. * It appears clear that accurate diagnosis is a key to team development, but typically little information is provided regarding how the diagnosis was conducted. Additional research should be directed towards validly diagnosing team inputs, processes, and outputs. * We would like to see research that examines the potential interaction of team building and other interventions. Since there is general agreement that team performance is a complex phenomenon it seems unlikely that any one intervention will consistently account for large amounts of variance. Systematic efforts to assess the impact of combined interventions may be useful. * Finally, it is important that negative findings be published, as well as positive findings. A great deal can be learned from examining why an intervention failed as well as why it succeeded.

REFERENCES Adams, J.S. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1175-1200). Rand McNally: Chicago. Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational behavior. Homewood, Ill: Irwin Beckhard, R. (1966). An organization improvement program in a decentralized organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2 , 3-25. Beckhard, R. (1969). Organizational development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Beer, M. (1976). The technology of organization development. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 937-994). Rand McNally: Chicago. Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman & Co. Boss, R.W. (1983). Team building and the problem of regression: The personal management interview as an intervention. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19, 67-83. Boss, R.W. & McConkie, M.L. (1981). The destructive impact of a positive team-building intervention. Group and Organization Studies, 6, 45-56.

148

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

Brett, J.M & Rognes, J.K. (1986). Intergroup relations in organizations. In P.S. Goodman (Ed.). Designing effective work groups (pp. 202-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Buller, P.F. (1986). The team building-task performance relation: Some conceptual and methodological refinements. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 147-168. Buller, P.F. (1988). Long term performance effects of goal-setting and team building interventions in an underground silver mine. Organization Development Journal, 6, 82-93. Buller, P.F. & Bell, C.H. (1986). Effects of team building and goalsetting on productivity: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 305-328. Campbell, J.P. & Dunnette, M.D. (1968). Effectiveness of T-group experience in managerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 73-10. Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNall. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E:, & Converse, S.A. (1990). Cognitive psychology and team traming: Training shared mental models of complex systems. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 33(12), 1-4. Cohen, M.H. & Ross, M.E. (1982). Team building: A strategy for unit cohesiveness. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 12, 29-34. Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues forfield studies. Chicago: Rand McNally. Dailey, R.C. (1980). A path-analysis of R & D team coordination and performance. Decision Sciences, 21, 357-369. DeMeuse, K.P. & Liebowitz, S.J. (1981). An empirical analysis of team-building research. Group and Organization Studies, 6, 357-378. Driskell, J.E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 9 1-112. Dyer, W. G . (1987). Team building: Issues and alternatives (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Eden, D. (1985). Team development: A true field experiment at three levels of rigor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 9410. Eden, D. (1 986). Team development: Quasi-experimental confirmation among combat companies. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 133-146.

Team Building

149

Fiedler, F., Bell, C.H., Chemers, M . M . , & Patrick, D. (1984). Increasing mine productivity and safety through management training and organization development: A comparative study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5 , 1-18. Fleming, D.C. & Fleming, E.R. (1983). Consultation with multidisciplinary teams: A program of development and improvement of team functioning. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 367376. French, W.L. & Bell, C.H. (1984). Organization development:

Behavioral science interventionsfor organization improvement (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gear, T.E., Marsh, N.R., & Sergent, P. (1985). Semi-automated feedback and team behavior. Human Relations, 38, 707-721. Gersick, C.J.G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Towards a new model of group development. Academy of Management Review, 31, 9-41. Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-5 17. Glickman, A.S., Zimmer, S . , Montero, R.C., Guerette, P. J., Campbell, W.S., Morgan, B.B. & Salas, E. (1987). The evolution of teamwork skills: An empirical assessment with implications f o r training (Technical Report 87-016). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center. Goodman, P.S. (1986). (Ed.). Designing efSective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gunderson, E.K. & Ryman, D. (1967). Group homogeneity, compatibility, and accomplishment. (Report No. NNNRU-67-16). San Diego, CA: Navy Medical Neuropsychiatric Research Unit. Guzzo, R.A. (1986). Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations. In P.S. Goodman (Ed.). Designing eflective work groups (pp. 34-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hackman, J.R. (1976). Group influences on individuals. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1455-1526). Chicago: Rand McNally. Hackman, J.R. (1983). A normative model of work team effectiveness (Technical Report No. 2). New Haven, CT: Yale University. Hackman, J.R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). New York: Prentice-Hall. Hackman, J.R. (1989). Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

150

Tannenbawn, Beard, and Salas

Halstead, L.S., Rintala, D.H., Kanellos, M., Griffin, B., Higgins, L., Rheinecker, N., Whiteside, W., & Healy, J.E. (1986). The innovative rehabilitation team: An experiment in team building. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 67, 357-361. Herold, D.M. (1978). Improving the performance effectiveness of groups through a task-contingent selection of intervention strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3, 3 15-325. House, R.J. & Rizzo, J.R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7 , 467505. Hughes, R.L., Rosenbach, W.E., & Clover, W.H. (1983). Team development in an intact, ongoing work group: A quasi-field experiment. Group and Organization Studies, 8 , 161186. Kabanoff, B. & O'Brien, G.E. (1979a). The effects of task type and cooperation upon group products and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Peformance, 23, 163-181. Kabanoff, B. & O'Brien, G.E. (1979b). Cooperation structure and the relationships of leader and member ability to group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 526-532. Kaplan, R.E. (1979). The conspicuous absence of evidence that process consultation enhances task performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15, 346-360. Kaplan, R.E., Lombardo, M.M., & Mazique, M.S. (1985). A mirror for managers: Using simulation to develop management teams. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 241253. Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81- 104. Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The socialpsychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Kellerman, H. (1981). The deep structures of group cohesion @. 221). In H. Kellerman, (Ed.). Group cohesion: liraeoretical and clinical perspectives. New York: Grune & Stratton. Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R.L. Craig (Ed.). Training and development handbook, (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Team Building

151

Lassiter, D.L., Vaughn, J.S., Smaltz, V.E., Morgan, B.B., & Salas, E. (1990). A comparison of two types of training interventions on team communication performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the Human Factors Society, Orlando, FL. Latham, G.P. & Yukl, G.A. (1975). A review of research on the application of goal-setting in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 824-845. Lawler, E.E. (198 1). Pay and organization development. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Liebowitz, S.J. & DeMeuse, K.P. (1982). The application of team building. Human Relations, 35, 1-18. Margerison, C., Davies, R. & McCann, D. (1987). High flying management development. Training and Development Journal, 41, 38-41. Margerison, C., McCann, D. & Davies, R. (1988). Air-crew team management development. Journal of Management Development, 7, 41-54. Marx, R.D. (1982). Relapse prevention for managerial training: A model for maintenance of behavior change. Academy of Management Review, 7, 433-441. McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McRae, A. V. (1966), Interaction content and team effectiveness (HumRRO-TR-66-10, AD-637 31 1). Alexandria, VA: George Washington University, Human Resources Research Office. Mitchell, R. (1986). Team building by disclosure of internal frames of reference. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 1528. Morgan, B.B., Glickman, A.S., Woodard, E.A., Blaiwes, A.S., & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement of Team Behaviors in a Navy Environment. (Technical Report No. NTSC TR-86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center. Morrison, P. & Sturges, J. (1980). Evaluation of organization development in a large state government organization. Group and Organization Studies, 5 , 48-64. Murrell, K.L. & Valsan, E.H. (1985). A team-building workshop as an OD intervention i n Egypt. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 6, 11-16. Naylor, J.C. & Dickinson, T.L. (1969). a s k structure, work structure, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 167-177.

152

Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas

Nicholas, J.M. (1982). The comparative impact of organization development inter ventions on hard criteria measures. Academy of Management Review, 7, 531-542. Nieva, V.F., Fleishman, E.A., & Rieck, A. (1978). Team dimen-

sions: Their identity, their measurement and their relationships

(Contract No. DAHC 19-78-C-0001). Washington, D.C.: Advanced Research Resources Organization. Parsons, K.L. (1981). The effects of load sharing system training upon team performance (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 (6A), 2876-2877. Paul, C.F. & Gross, A.C. (1981). Increasing productivity and morale in a municipality: Effects of organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 59-78. Porras, J.I. & Berg, P.O. (1978). Impact of organization development. Academy of Management Review, 3, 249-266. Porras, J.I. & Wilkins, A. (1980). Organization development in a large system: An empirical assessment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, 506-534. Pritchard, R.D., Jones, S . , Roth, P., Stuebing, K., & Ekeberg, S. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal-setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337-358. Salas, E . , Dickinson, T.L., Converse, S.A., & Tannenbaum, S.I. (in press). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R.W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.) Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Schein, E.H. (1969). Process consultation: Its role in organization development . Reading , MA : Addison-Wesley. Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group process and productivity. Orlando: Academic Press. Sundstrom, E., Perkins, M., George, J., Futrell, D. & Hoffman, D. A. ( 1990). Wrk-teum context, development, and efectiveness in a manufacturing organization. Presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April, Miami. Swezey, R.W. & Salas, E. (in press). Guidelines for use in team training development. In R.W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and Performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannenbaum, S.I., Dickinson, T.L., Salas, E. & Converse, S.A. (1990). A metu-analysis of teum performance and team training. Unpublished Manuscript, State University of New York at Albany.

Team Building

153

Terpstra, D.E. (198 1). Relationship between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in OD evaluation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 54 1-543. Tushman, M.L. (1979). Work characteristics and subunit communication structure: A contingency analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 82-97. Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 207-228. Woodman, R.W. & Sherwood, J.J. (1980a). The role of team development in organizational effectiveness: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 166-186. Woodman, R.W. & Sherwood, J.J. (1980b). Effects of team development intervention: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, 2 11-227. Yetton, P.W. & Bottger, P.C. (1982). Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy. Organizational Behavior and Human Pe formance, 29, 307321.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial1 Organizational Psychology - K. Kelley (Editor) 0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

155

CHAPTER 6 PERCEIVED SELF-COMPETENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Kevin J. Williams and John R. Lillibridge

INTRODUCTION Current cognitive theories of motivation and action stress the importance of self-referent thoughts, beliefs, and expectations in determining human behavior (Bandura, 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1981; Locke & Latham, 1990; Rotter, 1966; Weiner, 1986). A prominent component of these theories is the perceived contingency between one's abilities and various outcomes (Markus, Cross, & Wurf, 1990). In general, these theories hypothesize that individuals will be highly motivated and perform better on tasks in which they perceive themselves to be competent. Empirical evidence has established links between perceived self-competence and motivation and performance across a wide variety of settings, including academic (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; McCombs, 1986; Schunk, 1984), athletic (Feltz, 1982; Lee, 1982; Weinberg, Gould, &Jackson, 1979), interpersonal (Holahan & Holahan, 1987; Huber & Neale, 1984), and work settings (Barling & Beattie, 1983; Gist, 1987). Within the field of organizational psychology, researchers have recently expressed considerable interest in the effects of self-perceived competence. Self-competence and related constructs, such as self-efficacy and self-esteem, have become more increasingly prominent in organizational research and theory (e.g., Brief & Aldag, 1981; Brockner, 1988; Gist, 1987; Lee & Gillen, 1989; Locke & Latham, 1990; Wagner & Morse, 1975; Williams, Williams, & Ryer, 1990). For example, a computer search of Psychological Abstracts from 1983 to 1990 identified 48 studies examining selfefficacy and work behavior (757 citations were found for self-efficacy), compared to no studies for the previous eight-year period (71 citations were found for self-efficacy during this period). Given this

156

Williams and Lillibridge

surge in research activity, it is useful to consider what is known about the antecedents and consequences of self-perceived competence. Surprisingly, few attempts have been made to integrate research in this area (see Gist, 1987, however, for a recent attempt). Progress has been hindered in part by the fact that perceived selfcompetence has been operationalized in different, often quite disparate, ways by researchers. In addition, most researchers have examined only a narrow range of behavior related to self-competence, making it difficult to integrate or generalize findings across studies. The intent of this chapter is to review research on the antecedents and consequences of perceived self-competence in organizations and to provide a framework for interpreting previous findings and guiding future research. We will also consider recent theoretical developments related to perceived self-competence.

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF PERCEIVED SELF-COMPETENCE Before reviewing research on perceived self-competence, it is necessary to define what we mean by self-competence, and place it within the broader self-evaluation system. In addition, it is also important to distinguish between perceived self-competence and related, but distinct, constructs such as self-esteem and outcome expectancy. Perceived self-competence is part of a global self-evaluation system, which typically has been divided into three components: perceived competence or efficacy, personal control, and social acceptance (Ford, 1985; Litt, 1988; McCombs, 1986). Perceived self-competence is defined as an individual's subjective evaluation of task-related ability, a self-appraisal of what one can do in a specific situation (Ford, 1985; McCombs, 1986; McEnrue, 1984). As such, it represents the psychological component of competence and is related to other components of competence such as one's capabilities for producing goal-directed activity and the effectiveness of one's behavior (Ford, 1985). Perceived self-competence can be considered a performance expectancy; persons who perceive themselves as competent in a certain area are likely to expect that they can achieve a high level of performance, or that greater effort on their part will result in greater performance. From this perspective, selfcompetence encompasses the construct of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Perceptions of self-efficacy relate to the belief in one's capability to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and behavioral repertoire necessary to control events in one's life (Wood

Perceived Self- Competence

157

& Bandura, 1989). Perceptions of self-efficacy and competence relate to a sense that "I can do it" and "I am effective" (Markus et al., 1990; Williams & Lillibridge, 1990). Two important aspects of perceived self-competenceare that it is situation-specific and malleable. Perceived self-competence is a task-specific construct related to one's assessment of level of expertise on a specific task or in a specific setting. Accordingly, it is influenced by the joint effects of situational and dispositional factors. Past accomplishments exert considerable influence on competence beliefs, but these beliefs can be changed by present and future experiences and by interventions aimed at changing one's self-belief structure. Perceived personal control, the second component of the selfevaluation system, refers to the belief in one's own ability to alter events and regulate one's environment significantly (Burger, 1989; Greenberger & Strasser, 1986). Beliefs about the ability to control the behavior of others towards oneself are especially important in determining perceived personal control (Litt, 1988). In general, situations are controllable when one perceives a strong covariation between action and various outcomes. In addition, perceived control, like perceived self-competence, is situationally specific and changeable. Perceived control and perceived self-competence may mutually influence one another (McCombs, 1986): perceived control over one's environment may increase one's sense of competence, and vice versa. Despite the overlap between perceived control and perceived self-competence, however, the two constructs should be treated as distinct. Control beliefs specifically relate to expectations about the possibility that one's actions bring about desired outcomes (i.e., an outcome expectancy), while competency beliefs relate to expectations about the extent to which one possesses the potential means to attain effectively the desired level of performance (i.e., a behavioral expectation). Expectancies about how one's performance will affect outcomes (i.e., "are desired outcomes controllable") are differentiated from self-appraisals of what one can accomplish (i.e., "can I achieve the necessary level of performance?"; McCombs, 1986). In addition, different patterns of self-perceptions of control and competence may exist within people and these patterns may have important implications for organizational behavior (Ford, 1985; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Individuals who have self-perceptions of high competence and personal control perceive themselves as effective, controlling agents (Ford, 1985). However, individuals who perceive themselves as competent in an area, yet do not have perceptions of personal control are more likely to think of themselves as potentially

158

Williams and Lillibridge

effective but powerless in the specific situation because control resides in others (Ford, 1985). As a result, perceptions that the environment is controllable may lead people to exercise their personal efficacy strongly, while perceptions that the environment is uncontrollable may lead people to exercise their personal efficacy weakly (Bandura, 1986; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Social acceptance, the third component of the self-evaluation system, refers to the evaluation of self by others. Reflected appraisals from others reduce uncertainty about one's performance or specific role behaviors (Williams et al., 1990), and also provide a means of testing or verifying self-perceptions. Approval or acceptance by others in most circumstances boosts self-evaluations. Self-competence beliefs can also be distinguished from selfesteem and outcome expectancy. Like self-competence, interest in self-esteem has recently increased in the work motivation area (Brockner, 1988; Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989). Self-esteem is related to the self-evaluation process and to our definition of perceived self-competence, but differs in that it reflects global rather than specific self-evaluation. It is perhaps best to think of self-esteem as an individual's attitude concerning approval or disapproval of himself or herself (Pierce et al., 1989). It indicates the extent to which persons believe themselves to be generally effective, reflecting a personal judgment of worthiness. Self-esteem is partially dependent on perceptions of self-competence, and, in fact, research examining self-esteem at work parallels research on selfcompetence at work. Pierce et al. (1989) have studied organizationbased self-esteem, which they define as a belief that one is important, meaningful, effectual, and worthwhile within the organization. They view self-efficacy perceptions across a variety of organizational tasks as contributing to organization-based self-esteem. As such, Pierce et al. I s (1989) construct of organization-based self-esteem may be considered a more global or superordinate measure of perceived-self competence. Accordingly, recent work on the correlates of organization-based self-esteem has been included in the literature review that follows. A word of caution is needed, however. Although self-esteem may be highly dependent on perceptions of self-competence, it is possible for individuals to feel competent in an area, but still not like themselves (Brockner, 1988). Thus, selfesteem and self-competence should not be treated as interchangeable constructs. Outcome expectancy refers to the perceived likelihood of a desired outcome occurring (Carver & Scheier, 1981), and is thus close in meaning to perceived personal control. Motivation to act is likely to be higher if individuals perceive that the desired level of perform-

Perceived Self- Competence

159

ance produces positive outcomes. For example, individuals are more likely to diet, exercise or adopt other health-related changes in lifestyle if they see that health-risk is reduced as a result of their behavior. Perceived self-competence is one determinant of outcome expectancy, but so are environmental impediments (e.g., time constraints) and prior experience or knowledge of behavioral outcomes (Carver & Scheier, 1981). As mentioned earlier, perceived selfcompetence represents a behavioral expectancy (i. e., effort-performance) and its effects on behavior may be independent of outcome expectancy (Barling & Beattie, 1983). To summarize, perceived self-competence refers to self-appraisal of one's performance capabilities in a specific situation, and together with perceptions of personal control and social acceptance comprises the self-evaluation system. Although perceived self-competence contributes to one's self-esteem, and interacts with outcome expectancies to influence behavior (Carver & Scheier, 1981), it should be kept distinct from these constructs. In the following sections we turn our attention to identifying the critical outcomes and antecedents of self-competence.

ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES OF PERCEIVED SELF-COMPETENCE In this section we summarize the empirical literature on perceived self-competence and organizational behavior. Our review focuses on major outcome variables -- performance, job attitudes, and psychological well-being -- and mediating or intervening mechanisms responsible for the effects of perceived self-competence on these outcomes. The variables identified as intervening and outcome variables are depicted in Figure 1. It should be noted that much of the research on self-efficacy in organizational settings has been correlational in nature; only a few studies have employed longitudinal or experimental designs capable of providing evidence of causality. Much of the causal evidence that does exist comes from laboratory studies. Evidence of a causal relationship between variables is depicted in Figure 1 by filled arrows.

Job Perj4omance Self-efficacy and self-competencebeliefs have been related to job performance in a variety of settings. In a study of sales representatives, Barling and Beattie (1983) found that self-efficacy beliefs were correlated with objective measures of sales performance (i.e., poli-

Williams and Lillibridge

160

Perceived Self -Competence

MEDIATORS

. . . . .

Persistence Attributions Goal Difficulty Performance Strategies Coping Strategies

Job Attitudes commitment satisfaction

Figure I : Consequences of perceived self-competence.

Perceived Sey- Competence

161

cies sold, calls per week, commissions). Outcome expectancies, on the other hand, were not related to sales performance, leading Barling and Beattie (1983) to conclude that self-efficacy beliefs were more important in predicting sales performance than were beliefs about rewards for success. The finding that self-efficacy predicts sales performance has been replicated by Lee and Gillen (1989). 'bylor, Locke, Lee and Gist (1984) found that beliefs about personal efficacy in research significantly predicted research productivity in a sample of university professors, and Huber and Neale (1984) found that negotiators' self-beliefs about their interpersonal skills were positively related to negotiation outcome. Perceptions of personal efficacy and competence also help individuals sustain performance in difficult or demanding task environments. Kahn and Long (f988) found that the performance of clerical workers low in perceived self-efficacy was impaired during periods of high stress to a greater extent than those high in self-efficacy. In a laboratory simulation, Freedman and Phillips (1985) found that feelings of self-competence enabled individuals to overcome performance constraints and perform at the same level as individuals not encountering such constraints. Evidence that self-perceived competence and performance are causally linked is provided by a series of simulation studies examining complex decision making (Wood & Bandura, 1989; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey, 1990). In these studies, college students were asked to role-play managers making multiple strategy decisions in a complex environment. A strong belief in one's managerial and problem-solving capabilities was consistently related to efficient analytic thinking and higher quality decisions. Path analysis results revealed that self-efficacy beliefs directly influenced performance (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy had direct effects on decision-making performance, as well as indirect effects through increased personal goal difficulty. These results support earlier laboratory research demonstrating that self-efficacy predicts task performance after controlling for ability and previous performance (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984). Wood and Bandura's (1989) simulation studies also indicate the reciprocal nature of the relationship between self-competence and performance. Pre-existing beliefs in personal efficacy increased initial task performance, which in turn further elevated perceptions of personal efficacy. As we will discuss in greater detail later, performance and perceived self-competence are involved in an ongoing, self-reinforcing feedback loop.

162

Williams and Lillibridge

Job Attitudes High levels of organizationalcommitmenthave been found among workers high in perceived competence (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Moms & Sherman, 1981). In their meta-analysis of the antecedents of organizational commitment, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) reported a mean correlation of .63 between attitudinal measures of organizational commitment and self-competence. They suggested that the self-belief system links an individual to the organization; individuals high i n perceived self-competence may be more committed to the organization than those low in perceived selfcompetence because they believe their performance will result in desired organizational rewards. Although researchers, including Mathieu and Zajac (1990), have assumed self-competence is an antecedent to organizational commitment, causality has not been directly addressed. It is possible that high levels of organizational commitment increase feelings of efficacy. Social identity theory ("hjfel, 1982), for example, would predict that strong identification with a group or organization would raise levels of self-esteem, and perhaps self-efficacy (Britt, 1991). Future research is needed to address the exact nature of the relation between perceived selfcompetence and organizational commitment. Feelings of competence have been identified as the proximal cause of intrinsic task motivation and task satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 1985; McCombs, 1986; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Accordingly, perceived work-competence should be related to job satisfaction in workers. Surprisingly, we uncovered few studies that directly assessed the relation between self-competence and job satisfaction. Bhagat and Allie (1989) found that perceived competence was positivel related to satisfaction with supervisors, coworkers, and work itsell! Williams et al. (1990) found a weak, but statistically significant, positive correlation between job satisfaction and perceived selfcompetence in a sample of practicing school psychologists. In laboratory experiments, however, a stronger relationship between perceived self-competence and task satisfaction has been found (Freedman & Phillips, 1985).

Psychological Wll-being People's beliefs in their capabilities are apt to affect their psychological and emotional adjustment to work situations. Research in social and health psychology reveals that perceived competence is a crucial determinant of emotional well-being and mental health

Perceived Self- Competence

163

(Warr, 1987), and an extensive body of literature exists which examines the relation between self-efficacy and the ability to cope with stressful situations (Bandura, 1986). Perceived inefficacy has been related to arousal, preoccupancy with negative thoughts and personal deficiencies, poor coping strategies, and subjective distress in threatening situations (Bandura, 1989; Feltz, 1982; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). In addition, efficacy perceptions have been causally linked to such physiological manifestations of anxiety as catecholamine secretion (Bandura, Thylor, Williams, Mefford, & Rarchas, 1985) and immunological system functioning (Wiedenfeld, O'Leary, Bandura, Brown, Levien, & Raska, 1990), suggesting that individuals low in perceived self-efficacy to cope with stressful events are more susceptible to stress-related diseases. Similar conclusions can be drawn from organizational research, where feelings of mastery and high levels of work selfefficacy have been associated with low levels of job stress and anxiety (Kahn & Long, 1988; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). In a recent study (Bhagat & Allie, 1989) perceived competence was negatively related to emotional exhaustion and feelings of depersonalization at work. In addition, perceived competence moderated the relationship between life stress and job stress. Thus, it appears that feelings of competence at work may reduce psychological strain and job stress. These were correlational studies, however, and thus further research is needed that examines the causal relationship between competence and job stress.

Intervening Mechanisms Although some of the research reviewed above demonstrated direct effects of perceived self-competence on outcomes (e.g., Wood & Bandura, 1989), most theorists have identified intervening processes responsible for the effects of perceived competence. The effects of efficacy beliefs can be seen as influencing performance mainly through motivational processes; that is, they influence the initiation, direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior. Eflort Expenditure and Persistence. A major proposition of Bandura' s self-efficacy theory is that perceptions of personal efficacy will be causally related to effort. According to Bandura (1980), people with a strong sense of self-efficacy will pursue goals with vigor and persistence. Indeed, laboratory results have shown that greater effort and greater persistence occurs when individuals have high as opposed to low levels of perceived self-competence (Bandura & Cervone, 1983, 1986). Bandura and Cervone (1983), for example,

164

Williams and Lillibridge

found that subjects responded with greater effort after failure on a laboratory task when they had high rather than low feelings of selfcompetence. Similarly, Sandelands, Brockner, and Glynn (1988) found that subjects high in self-esteem persisted on difficult tasks longer than subjects low in self-esteem, especially when persistence was identified as a wise strategy. Although experimental evidence from the laboratory supports the relation between perceived self-competence and effort and persistence, few researchers have directly examined this relation in organizational settings. Gibson and Dembo (1984) found that teachers high in instructional self-efficacy spent more time and effort helping failing students than did those low in instructional self-efficacy. Presumably, teachers high in instructional self-efficacy believed that they could, through persistence, raise students' grades. Further evidence that perceptions of work ability and effort may be linked is provided by Williams, Suls, Alliger, Learner, and Wan (in press). Experience sampling methodology (Larsen & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983) was used in this study to measure employed mothers' mood states and perceptions of ability and effort as they performed work and family tasks throughout the day. Perceived ability was significantly related to self-reported effort and mood in both work and family settings. These studies provide initial field support for the laboratory findings that perceived self-competence and effort are positively related.

Attributions for Perfomance. The attributions one makes for his or her performance may also mediate the effects of self-competence on work outcomes. Of crucial concern may be the attributions one makes following failure. Individuals low in perceived self-competence may attribute failure to stable internal causes, i.e., to their lack of ability. As a result, these individuals are likely to reduce their effort in the future or, if possible, withdraw from the performance situation. Individuals high in self-competence, on the other hand, are likely to adopt a mastery orientation to difficult situations, and attribute initial failure to effort rather than ability (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Attributing performance to lack of effort rather than lack of ability is likely to increase task persistence and ultimately one's chances of success. In general, attributional styles that underutilize stable, internal attributions for success and overutilize such attributions for failure will reduce assessments of self-competence (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Goal Setting. Self-efficacy may also increase performance through its effects on personal goal setting. Individuals perform better when

Perceived Self-Competence

165

they are committed to specific, challenging goals than nonspecific or easy goals (Locke et al., 1981; Locke & Latham, 1990) and research suggests that p p l e high in self-efficacy set more difficult goals for themselves and are more committed to these goals than those low in self-efficacy (Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Lee, 1988; Locke et al., 1984; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Britt (1991), for instance, found a strong correlation (r= .61) between perceived self-competence and difficulty of self-set goals for individuals working on an novel laboratory task. Locke et al. (1984) examined the joint effects of ability, self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Selfefficacy was found to affect goal level, task performance, and commitment to self-set goals. Subjects with a strong sense of personal efficacy set higher goals, were more committed to these goals, and performed better than subjects with a weak sense of personal efficacy. In addition, self-efficacy significantly predicted future performance even when past performance and ability were controlled, with the level of prediction better for increasing levels of goal difficulty. Wood and Bandura's (1989) research on complex managerial decision making also suggests that self-efficacy influences goal setting. In addition to direct effects on performance, they found that self-efficacy indirectly influenced decision-making performance through increases in difficulty of personal goals.

Coping Strategies. Perceptions of personal competence not only affect one's ability to perform a task but also are likely to affect ability to cope with task demands. Two common strategies for dealing with environmental demands are problem-focused and emotion-focused coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Latack, 1986); the former is characterized by direct attempts to solve problems and coordinate activities, while the latter is characterized by a greater concern with controlling feelings and self-perceptions. Problemfocused coping has been found to be more effective than emotionfocused coping in dealing with a variety of work demands (Parkes, 1990), and research exists to suggest that individuals high in perceived competence are more likely to adopt problem-focused coping strategies. People who judge themselves unable to cope with environmental demands tend to become more self-diagnostic rather than task-diagnostic (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Self-diagnosis tends to focus on personal deficiencies and diverts cognitive resources from the task at hand. Accordingly, low efficacious people should be more likely to adopt dysfunctional emotion-focused coping strategies. Stumpf, Brief, and Hartman (1987) found support for this hypothesis: feelings of competence and mastery reduced emotionfocused coping for applicants preparing for job interviews. Feelings

Williams and Lillibridge

166

of competence may lower the need to regulate one's emotions and increase the likelihood of adopting problem-focused coping strategies (Stumpf et al., 1987; Wood & Bandura, 1989).

Summary Strong support exists for the hypothesis that perceived selfcompetence is related to positive work outcomes. Competence beliefs are positively related to job performance and attitudes, and negatively related to job stress. However, evidence of causal relationships among these variables in organizational settings is scarce. Data from simulation and laboratory studies are highly suggestive of the hypothesis that self-competence influences work performance through its effects on effort, personal goals, and type of coping strategy. Future research is needed that firmly establishes these links in organizational settings. In addition, research is also needed that examines causal relationships between self-competence and job attitudes.

ANTECEDENTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF PERCEIVED COMPETENCE IN ORGANIZATIONS In this section we address the question of how perceptions of self-competence at work can be strengthened. This question has received little research attention relative to research examining correlates and outcomes of self-efficacy. We agree with Ford (1985), however, who argues personal agency and competence must be viewed from a developmental perspective: self-referent thoughts and beliefs reflect an evolving theory of the self as we confront new challenges and obstacles. It is important for organizational psychologists to consider work and job characteristics that may enhance or decrease one's belief in personal efficacy. Individuals develop skills and competence through interactions with their environments. Accordingly, the social environment contains multiple sources of information regarding one's capabilities. The most extensive analysis of sources of self-competence information is Bandura's (1986) work on sources of self-efficacy. Bandura (1977, 1986) has posited that individuals develop feelings of efficacy through enactive and vicarious experiences of success, and through persuasory opinions of others and self-interpretation of arousal. Beliefs in personal efficacy are increased when one experiences success on relevant tasks (enactive mastery), observes successful performance by similar others (modeling), receives positive efficacy

Perceived SeEf-Competence

167

appraisals from credible observers (social persuasion), and construes somatic information as natural reactions to performance situations or evidence of capability rather than personal inadequacies. The first three of Bandura's sources (i.e., enactive mastery, modeling, and social persuasion) can be controlled directly by organizations, and work environments that provide these sources of efficacy information may be capable of raising workers' perceptions of competence. Figure 2 outlines potential ways in which organizations can provide workers with efficacy information.

Empowerment Enactive mastery is considered the most effective and powerful source of self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986; Stumpf et al., 1987). Thus, the most effective organizational interventions in terms of raising workers' feelings of self-competence may be those that allow workers to learn new skills and master challenging assignments. One way in which organizations can do this is through empowering workers. Although it has been defined in various ways by researchers, empowerment is an increasingly popular construct used by theorists to explain motivational processes and organizational effectiveness (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Conger and Kanungo's (1988) definition of empowerment as a motivational process in workers is particularly useful for the purpose of this discussion. They explicitly define empowerment in selfefficacy terms, stating that the empowerment process enhances workers' self-efficacy beliefs. Accordingly, efforts to empower workers can be seen as increasing workers self-competencebeliefs; that is, interventions that empower workers increase their perceptions that they can perform competently on the job (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Many current organizational development and managerial principles can be seen as strategies for empowering workers. Job enrichment, goal setting, and participative decision making may positively influence motivation through their effects on feelings of competence.

Job Enrichment An underlying objective of psychological approaches to job enrichment is to increase intrinsic motivation in workers. Although different techniques have been used to accomplish this objective, all involve raising workers' self-perceptions of mastery or competence. The notions of enactive mastery and perceived competence are prominent, although often overlooked, concepts in Hackman and

Williams and Lillibridge

168

Antecedents

goal setting job enrichment €eedback systems Competence 1

I

Leader Style and Expectations 1

I

r

I

1

I I

Organizational Controllability

Figure 2: Antecedents of perceived self-competence.

Perceived Self-Competence

169

Oldham's (1980) job characteristics model of job design. Their model postulates that workers obtain intrinsic rewards when they learn (knowledge of results) that they personally (experienced responsibility) have performed well (my italics) on a task they care about (experienced meaningfulness; Hackman, 1983). The focus of much of the research on the JCM has been on the experienced psychological states of meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of results. Less attention has been paid to how competent workers feel when their jobs have been redesigned according to the model's principles. It is clear from the above quote, however, that perceptions of self-competence are necessary for intrinsic rewards to be obtained. Providing workers with skill variety and autonomy, for example, will increase intrinsic motivation to the extent that workers experience a sense of personal accomplishment and competence. A recent approach to job design that is consistent with the notion that enriching one's job increases feelings of efficacy is Karasek and Theorell's (1990) decision latitude model. According to this model, decision latitude, operationalized as high personal control and skill utilization at work, relates to psychological well-being and job performance. The amount of decision latitude experienced by workers interacts with the job's psychological demands (i.e. , workload, task complexity, and required concentration levels) to determine healthy or unhealthy outcomes. Jobs that are high i n both psychological demand and decision latitude foster learning of new skills, or what Karasek and Theorell (1990) refer to as "active learning." Longterm development of feelings of mastery is stimulated as active learning accumulates. Coincidentally, feelings of mastery inhibit anxiety perceptions, thus facilitating effective coping and likelihood of further learning. Karasek and Theorell's (1990) model would predict that workers in high demand-high discretion jobs should have higher levels of perceived self-competence than workers in other jobs. To date, no direct tests of this hypothesis have been conducted; future research is needed to see whether or not job discretion and job demands interact to increase feelings of competence.

Goal Setting Realistic challenging goals also provide the opportunity for enactive mastery. The motivating potential of specific, challenging goals has been widely established (Locke & Latham, 1990), and much of the current research on goal theory focuses on the cognitive processes responsible for the goal-performance relationship. Empirical support is growing for the hypothesis that goal setting has its main effects on motivation through an individual's sense of efficacy

170

Williams and Lillibridge

or feeling that he or she can function at a specific level of performance (Evans, 1986; Locke & Latham, 1990). Lee (1988) examined the effects of goal setting and a bonus system on performance in a sample of telephone solicitors. Performance goals were established based on previous performance levels and bonuses given to workers who exceeded these goals. Self-efficacy levels increased over the course of the study as assigned goals were met, suggesting that goal accomplishment results in increased self-efficacy. An assigned goal apparently affects one's confidence in his or her ability to meet the goal, with difficult goals increasing one's confidence to a greater extent than easy goals (Locke et al., 1984; Locke & Latham, 1990; Wood & Bandura, 1990).

Pygmalion Effect Communicating high performance expectations to workers is also likely to raise competency beliefs. The Pygmalion effect refers to situations in which holding high expectations of others evokes behavior that confirms these expectations. Education researchers have found evidence of such self-fulling prophecies in the classroom (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), where increasing teachers' expectations of children's learning potential has boosted student performance. In work settings, raising managers' expectations of subordinates has resulted in subsequent increases in subordinate performance (Crawford, Thomas, & Fink, 1980; Eden, 1990). The Pygmalion effect may operate in a number of ways. First, supervisors holding high expectations of subordinates are likely to convey such expectations in persuasive attempts to increase performance, as predicted by Bandura. By expressing high expectations, supervisors signal confidence in workers, which is likely to increase workers' self-confidence. Second, as Eden (1988) has suggested, supervisors holding high expectations of subordinates may set difficult goals which motivate and raise the performance levels of subordinates.

Participative Decision Making Organizations may also raise efficacy beliefs by allowing workers greater participation and involvement in organizational decision making. Potential outcomes of shared decision making include a better understanding of jobs and how they can be performed, more creative ideas, and support for higher goals (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). All of these factors may increase workers' confidence that they can effect change. In support of this hypothesis, Steel and Lloyd (1988) found that participation in quality circles (one form of

Perceived SeljX'ompetence

171

shared decision making) increased workers perceptions of task competence, independent of performance increases. One issue that has generated much debate in the goal theory literature is whether participation in the goal setting process boosts productivity (Locke & Schweiger, 1978; Miller & Monge, 1986). The current conventional wisdom appears to be that participation does not have any independent effect on performance; it is useful only to the extent that more difficult goals are set through the participation process (Locke & Latham, 1990). We suggest, however, that the joint effects of difficult goals and participation may be similar to those brought about by Karasek and Theorell's (1990) active learning jobs. Difficult goals may create psychological demand, which coupled with the ability to make decisions about what strategies to use will increase learning and feelings of enactive mastery. Feelings of mastery, in turn, are likely to have a positive impact on future performance. The long-term effects of participation in goal setting have not been adequately addressed by goal theory researchers.

Pe?$ormance Feedback Performance feedback is a valuable individual resource that influences worker motivation, performance, and job attitudes (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968), and thus can be expected to influence perceptions of personal efficacy. Feedback is especially crucial for the development of competence because it is essential for personal control of one's environment (Warr, 1987). In addition, performance feedback is an integral component of enactive and vicarious mastery processes and forms the basis for persuasory opinions of efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Frequent feedback about the effectiveness of one's actions increases self-beliefs that one can execute the desired behavior. Efficacy feedback can be obtained from many sources: reflected appraisals from significant others, comparisons with self-standards or one's own past performance (i.e., self-generated feedback), and comparisons with the performance of others (i.e., social comparison; Herold & Parsons, 1985; Schwalbe, Gecas, & Baxter, 1986; Williams et al., 1990). Self-perceived competence at work is likely to be high to the extent feedback from these sources is perceived to be frequent and positive (Steel, Mento, Davis, & Wilson, 1989). Reflected appraisals are persuasory opinions regarding efficacy (Bandura, 1986) and thus can be expected to have direct effects on perceived self-competence. Gist (1987), however, suggested that self-

172

Williams and Lillibridge

generated feedback may be especially useful for increasing selfefficacy perceptions because it is equivalent to self-guided enactive mastery. That is, self-monitoring processes provide workers with continuous feedback regarding goal progression and attainment. Williams et al. (1990) directly examined the relation between sources of job feedback and self-perceptions of competence among school psychologists. Respondents in this study rated their competence in several job areas (assessment, intervention, counseling, and consultation) and indicated the extent to which they obtained positive and negative feedback from administrators, coworkers, students, parents, and self-assessments. Both quality and type of feedback predicted self-competence: self-perceptions of competence were high when positive reflected appraisals from others were frequent and low when negative feedback from self and coworkers was frequent. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that the best predictors of perceived self-competence were infrequent negative self-feedback and frequent positive feedback others (i.e., parents, teachers, and administrators). Unfortunately, this study was correlational in nature and thus causal effects cannot be ascertained. The availability of different types of feedback may increase perceptions of selfcompetence, but the opposite causal sequence may also be true: competent individuals may receive more feedback. Nonetheless, this study has a number of implications for raising workers' self-efficacy or competence perceptions. First, it is consistent with other studies indicating a strong relation between performance feedback and selfefficacy. Second, it supports Gist's (1987) suggestion that selffeedback is important for self-competenceperceptions, in addition to feedback from others. Many occupations are similar to that of school psychologist, in which supervisory feedback is not readily available. Designing self-appraisal and accountability programs may be especially useful in raising self-efficacy in such occupations (Williams & Williams, in press). Along these lines, Lane and Herriot (1990) found that managers' self-ratings of performance predicted subsequent performance. They suggested that positive self-ratings raise self-efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, increase performance.

Organizational Controllability Perceived self-competence may also be affected by organizational constraints on individual behavior and personal control (Wood & Bandura, 1989). As we mentioned earlier, individuals may be more likely to exercise their efficacy when they perceive their environment as changeable and controllable. Indeed, Wood and Bandura

Perceived SeEf-Competence

173

(1989) found that subjects displayed higher levels of self-efficacy, set higher goals, and made more effective decisions when they felt that they could control organizational events and outcomes than when did not feel outcomes were under their control. Wood and Bandura (1989) suggest that organizational controllability is best increased by (1) increasing the opportunity for individual discretion and action, (2) relating even small changes by workers to major outcomes, such as profit or productivity, and (3) increasing the predictability of organizational events and work behaviors.

Leadership Finally, leadership styles can be expected to affect followers' perceptions of self-competence (Gist, 1987). Inspirational or charismatic leaders, for example, have been found to increase personal goals and feelings of competence in followers (House & Baetz, 1979; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). By presenting a strong idealized vision of future goals and successes, these leaders are likely to mobilize followers to action and increase behavioral and outcome expectancies (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). Similary, leaders can increase self-competence by stressing the importance of individual and organizational learning (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; YuM, 1989). Leaders who provide coaching and social support, promote skillsdevelopment seminars, reward innovation, and tolerate or accept mistakes as part of the learning process are likely to have more motivated and self-efficacious followers.

Summary A number of interventions have been indentified that are capable of increasing perceived self-competence. What has not been adequately addressed, however, is how these interventions change selfperceptions of ability. Markus et al. (1990) have suggested that a cognitive representation of competence is necessary before an individual can express and display competence. This cognitive representation includes not only an understanding of task-relevant abilities, but also knowledge of strategies for employing these abilities. From this perspective, job enrichment, goal setting, pygmalion effects, feedback, and charismatic or leadership styles can all be seen as strengthening one's understanding of how they can use their skills and abilities to contribute to success in organizations. Furthermore, these interventions may enable individuals to simulate anticipated performance, thereby bridging the gap between current performance and desired outcomes (Markus et al., 1990).

Williams and Lillibridge

174

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Much of the research discussed up to this point has focused on self-competence in a specific setting. In contrast, recent research has begun to look at self-perceptions of competence across different settings or domains. In this section we will briefly discuss research on how self-competence beliefs help individuals navigate through their social environments and how different domain-specific perceptions of competence relate to one another.

A Proactive View of Self-competence Researchers have tended to focus on coping or reactive processes in relation to self-competence and self-efficacy. That is, they have mainly examined how individuals behave in existing environments, and how experiences shape individuals. The emphasis on coping is clearly reflected in Bandura's (1982) statement that judgments of efficacy determine "how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles or aversive experiences" (p. 123, italics added). This interest in the effects of selfefficacy on coping perhaps reflects the initial concerns of clinical psychologists. Organizational psychologists, however, should also be concerned with proactive behavior, or how individuals select and manipulate their environments to suit their preferences and capabilities (Buss, 1987; Williams & Lillibridge, 1990). A proactive view of self-competence argues that individuals who are high in selfcompetence are better able to mold, create, and choose their environments than those who are low in self-competence. Proactive effects of perceived self-competence at work are most apparent in research on work socialization and feedback-seeking behavior.

Wrk Socialization. Jones (1986) developed and tested a theoretical model of the role of self-efficacy in the work socialization process. He argued that newcomers low rather than high in self-efficacy would be influenced by an organization's socialization tactics, because they are likely to readily accept definitions of situations offered by others. Persons with high levels of self-efficacy, on the other hand, are more likely provide their own interpretations of work situations. Furthermore, Jones (1986) hypothesized that newcomers high in self-efficacy would "take a proactive stance toward performance in order to demonstrate their abilities" @. 267). Results of the study supported this hypothesis and indicated that newcomers high in work self-efficacy were more likely to adopt an innovative role orientation than newcomers low in work self-efficacy. High efficacy

Perceived Self-Competence

175

newcomers were also more likely to attempt to alter work procedures to fit their interests and capabilities. Those low in self-efficacy conformed to definitions offered by others. This study suggests that a high sense of personal efficacy may help individuals mold their environments to suit their preferences and strengths, thereby increasing their chances of success. A self-perpetuating cycle is likely to result whereby high efficacy produces favorable work environments and high chances for success, which reinforce feelings of competence.

Feedback Seeking Behavior. Given that feedback has been identified as a necessary component for the development of competence (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Warr, 1987), one would expect that all individuals would desire and seek competence information (White, 1959). The degree of feedback seeking engaged in by an individual, however, may be a function of dispositional factors (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Feinzig, 199l), including perceptions of self-competence. Research in the self-perception literature suggests that performance feedback is seen as threatening to people low in perceived self-competence, while it is ego-enhancing to those high in self-competence (Carver, Antoni, & Scheier, 1985). Thus, it seems logical to hypothesize that persons high in self-competence would engage in more feedback-seeking behaviors than those low in self-competence. Although no studies have examined the role of perceived self-competence in feedback seeking behavior at work, Miller and Jablin (1991) recently presented a model of informationseeking tactics and identified a number of dispositional and situational factors influencing these tactics. They suggested that persons. low in self-esteem are concerned about the risks and costs of obtaining performance information (e.g, poor reflected or self-appraisals), and thus are likely to engage in minimal search for information. In addition, they are likely to use indirect or disguised tactics which may shield them from public scrutiny or embarrassment. Persons high in self-esteem, on the other hand, may be less concerned with the social costs of information seeking and thus more likely use direct and sustained tactics. These effects can also be predicted for perceived self-competence and task-specific, feedback-seeking behavior. If supported by future research, this model would also demonstrate how individuals who feel competent are able to sustain proactively and further develop such feelings,

Williams and Lillibridge

176

nble 1 Intercorrelation$ Between Domain-Specific ComFetency Ratings and Feedback Sources in Universitv Athletes. Competency Domain ~

~

Competency Domain

Social

~~~~

Athletic

Academic

Social

1.o

Athletic

-26'

1.0

Academic

.29'

.29*

1.o

Reflected appraisal

.26*

.24*

.13

Self appraisal

.17

,33*

.30*

Social comparison

.08

.05

.03

Feedback Source

~

Note: * = p