Management Test 1
Naive realism
"Unshakeable conviction that one is somehow privy to an invariant, objective, knowable reality - a reality that others will perceive faithfully, provided they are reasonable & rational" A priori When others disagree, we conclude that it must be b/c they (not I!) view the world through a "prism of self-interest, ideological bias, or personal perversity." In other terms: coming into a situation assuming that you have all the answers about everything and that you have no biases. Likely to lead to Advocacy rather than ("time-wasting") Inquiry
An illusion of unanimity
An Illusion of Unanimity: The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. • If we all agree (esp. initially), it must be true Then leads to curious atmosphere of assumed consensus: Major participants don't reveal their own reasoning/assumptions or discuss any reservations they may have "Silence gives consent" This is especially likely to emerge from face-to-face sessions
Biases in your teammate evaluations
Illusion of asymmetric insight: A cognitive bias whereby people perceive their knowledge of others to surpass other people's knowledge of them. Worse-than-average effect: A tendency to believe ourselves to be worse than others at tasks which are difficult. Spacing effect: That information is better recalled if exposure to it is repeated over a long span of time rather than a short one. Peak-end rule: That people seem to perceive not the sum of an experience but the average of how it was at its peak (e.g., pleasant or unpleasant) and how it ended
direct pressure on dissenters
Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group's views.
Decision-making checklist
What evidence would be necessary to DISCONFIRM this belief? Am I overemphasizing the PRIMARY or most RECENT information? What is the true BASE RATE of this phenomenon? What is the appropriate ANCHOR or standard of reference? Can I think of multiple anchors to consider? A range? Would I feel differently if my most recent experience with this was a success? Or a loss?
Status quo
We are biased toward alternatives that perpetuate the current state of affairs. Breaking from that means taking action, and taking action means taking responsibility - which opens us up to criticism & regret. The more choices you are given, the more likely you are to stick with the status quo. E.g., making retirement plan allocations
Authority
We are more willing to follow the suggestions of someone who is a legitimate authority "Credibility" based on expertise and relationships Don't assume that others know where you're the expert! Inform them, subtly; expose your expertise Brand ethos
Ladders of Inference
We confuse "accounts" of reality from reality
Halo effect
We tend to view others holistically -- all good or all bad Evaluation of one stand-out characteristic of a person can "spill over" to inform evaluations of that person on other, objectively unrelated dimensions Physically attractive job candidates being assessed as more suitable for a job
Framing
We treat gains and losses differently: Risk averse for gains, risk seeking for losses Experts in their area of expertise suffer most Time pressure, high stakes make the problem worse Typical Frames
Scarcity
We try to secure opportunities that are scarce or dwindling "Availability = quality" heuristic We hate to lose freedoms/opportunities "Limited supply"/ "Limited time offer", "This is a once-in-a-career opportunity" Exclusive information is more persuasive than widely available data Cookie example: "Scarce cookie" was rated more desirable, attractive, & costly
Social Proof
We view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree that we observe others performing it Similarity matters: We are more willing to comply with a request or behavior if it is consistent with what peers are thinking or doing. List technique, e.g., alumni donations. Start-ups listing clients Cultural differences: collectivistic vs. individualistic people In an organizational setting, frame goals on common ground
Cialdini's six principles of interpersonal influence
Friendship/Liking Reciprocity Authority Scarcity Commitment/Consistency Social Proof
Self-serving bias
belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe their failure to external factors. Cognitive/perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner In short: We attribute our own success to our traits and our failing to external circumstance We attribute other's successes to external circumstance, and their failings to their traits
Dan Airely's TED talk
uses classic visual illusions and his own counterintuitive (and sometimes shocking) research findings to show how we're not as rational as we think when we make decisions. example: print news is 59, web news is 125, and both is 125. middle option exists to make third option more attractive, but if the middle option did not exist, most people would go for the cheaper first option
Team Launch
- "Launch" = the first substantive interaction among team members - Team should reach a shared understanding of the task - should disclose relevant expertise, strengths, weaknesses, etc
Friendship/liking
People are more likely to comply with requests of others that they like (Referent power)
Maslow's hierarchy
a hierarchy of five needs - as each need is substantially satisfied, the next becomes dominant.
Overconfidence
"Undue optimism" - an inflated sense of knowledge and ability. Good decision-making requires not only knowing the facts, but understanding the limits of our knowledge and abilities. In general, researchers have found, whether the category is driving skills, looks, leadership potential, intelligence, or charm, people rank themselves above average, usually considerably above. Potential Consequences: Underestimation of risk, missing deadlines, overrunning budgets, not asking for needed help KEY: When making a decision: Be a realist/pessimist. Then, be an optimist when implementing the decision.
Anchoring
("Anchoring & Adjustment"): The tendency to focus on one value or idea (the "anchor") and not adjust away from it sufficiently. Sample anchors: Real Estate listing prices Initial cost estimates for development projects The salary of your last job
Confirmation bias
("Confirming-Evidence Trap"): The tendency to seek information which supports our existing beliefs/values/desires or reaffirms past choices, while discounting or avoiding information which contradicts our beliefs, values, or past choices.
Conflict/ How to have a good fight
- Debate on the basis of facts/information - Focus on issues, not personalities - Develop multiple alternatives to enrich debate - Resolve issues without forcing consensus - Maintain a balanced power structure - Be intellectually humble - Remember we're on the same team - Share commonly agreed-upon goals - Inject humor into the decision process
False consensus effect
- People tend to see their own views as more common than they actually are... they project their way of thinking onto others - Not a problem... until unexpectedly refuted (as happens spontaneously in a disagreement) - People then often assume that the others who do not agree with them are defective in some way
The study of Management
- involves the study of managers and organizational behavior -study management on the level (individuals, groups, organizations), phenomena (inputs, processes, outcomes), analysis (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods)
The study of Organizational Behavior
- what people do in an organization and how their behavior impacts the organization - combination of studying business, psychology, sociology, and anthropology
Team dynamics model
-input: team design (task analysis, team environment, team members) -process : team processes (team launch, post-launch) - output: team outcome (team output, performance)
McGregor's theory
2 distinct view of humans - managers use a set of assumptions based on their view and assumptions mold their behavior toward employees Theory X (negative): Workers have little ambition, dislike work, and avoid responsibility Theory Y (positive): Workers are self-directed, enjoy work, and accept responsibility
Self-fulfilling prophecy
4 step process Form certain beliefs about a person Communicate related expectations with various subtle cues (usually nonverbally) Peron responds to cues by adjusting behavior to match Result is that original expectation becomes fulfilled Research: experiment with gifted kids
Groupthink
A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.
Advocacy vs Inquiry
Advocacy is presenting a stance and trying to convince others of it, you argue for the position you are advocating Inquiry is an attempt to understand the position of others rather than change it Inquiry encourages contemplation and have other party think about your position Advocacy states's one's views, inquiry asks questions Sometimes, a lot of advocacy and little inquiry does not allow others to learn about their differences Where there is a lot of inquiry and little advocacy, it is difficult for participants to know where each other stands Advocacy is used to win over people and convert them to your stance Used amongst competitors Inquiry is used to collectively arrive at the best solution Used amongst collaborators
Info processing challenges
Ambiguity, information overload, and limited time are intentional and realistic, especially for teas Role of forms or communication
Self-efficacy theory
An individual's belief that they are capable of performing a task. Higher efficacy is related to Greater confidence (based on engagement) Greater persistence in the face of difficulties Better response to negative feedback (work harder, more motivated) Self-efficacy complement Goal-Setting Theory Managers who set higher goals have employees with greater self-efficacy and set own higher goals (employees perceive boss's confidence in them via harder goals) Four ways to increase self-efficacy: Enactive mastery - gain relevant experience; if you have done it successfully in the past, you're more confident you can do it again Vicarious modeling - see someone else doing the task; especially effective if you observe someone similar to you. Verbal persuasion - someone convinces you that you have the necessary skills. Remember the "bloomers" from the self-fulfilling prophecy? If you are told you are something, you will fulfill that prophecy Arousal - energized state; but if the task requires a steady, low-key perspective, this can hurt performance Not in Bandura's list, but also shown to increase self-efficacy: intelligence & personality (Conscientiousness & Emotional Stability)
Metaknowledge
An understanding of the limits of our knowledge (knowing what you do & don't know). Poor metaknowledge is usually far more dangerous than limits on our subject-specific knowledge. "It's not what we don't know that gives us trouble; it's what we know that ain't so." - Will Rogers
How to avoid decision-making traps
Be a realist/ pessimist while making the decision Always check to see whether you are examining all the evidence with equal rigor. Avoid the tendency to accept confirming evidence without question. Get someone you respect to play devil's advocate, to argue against the decision you're contemplating. Better yet, build the counterarguments yourself. What's the strongest reason to do something else? The second strongest reason? The third? Consider the position with an open mind. Be honest with yourself about your motives. Are you really gathering information to help you make a smart choice, or are you just looking for evidence confirming what you think you'd like to do? In seeking the advice of others, don't ask leading questions that invite confirming evidence. And if you find that an adviser always seems to support your point of view, find a new adviser. Don't surround yourself with yes-men.
Information exchange
Why Was Davis's Style So Effective? Liking & human connection imperative for collaboration Information often shared among pairs or subgroups rather than the team as a whole Sometimes an "us vs. them" dynamic emerges between subgroups, decreasing information-sharing & communication between subgroups More frequent and less formal tends to be more effective Often shared in hallway conversations, piping up over cubicle walls Uniquely-held info typically does not get communicated to the team, or when it does, it is not given adequate consideration, even when valid & important. Instead, teams spend an inordinate amount of time discussing info that all team members already share
Stereotypes
Word, Zanna & Cooper (1974) White interviewers interviewed African-American and White applicants. Measured interviewers' nonverbal behavior With White applicants, interviews lasted longer, there was more eye contact, and there was more forward body lean. With African-American applicants, there was more distance and fewer questions. Study 1: White interviewers interviewed either an African-American or White confederate, measured interviewers' nonverbal behavior (more distant with black applicants, more speech errors, fewer questions) (A, B) Study 2: White confederates interviewed White study participants - either treated them like the Study 1 Whites or the Study 1 African-Americans (the group treated like the latter performed worse in the interview) (B, C) Stereotypes (A); Nonverbal Behavior (B); Behaviors Consistent with Stereotype (C)
Henry Tam case
Case is about a start-up group Team has trouble deciding how to market product between the child education market and the entertainment industry No one really has expertise in their roles There is no one as a set leader, all share role depending on who has the energy to do it Other team members were also added There was also a lack of communication amongst team members
collective rationalization
Collective rationalization: Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions
Implicit association tests
Correlation between physical appearance and work life Taller people could earn up to $789 more per year Physical attractiveness is associated with higher income Thin women are paid more Thing men make less
Self-determination theory
Deci & Ryan People prefer to feel like they have control over their actions. Therefore, sometimes rewarding people or saying you're going to reward them hinders their productivity. Anything that makes a previously enjoyed task feel more like an obligation than a freely chosen activity will undermine motivation. Implications for work Extrinsic rewards may decrease intrinsic rewards Exception: Rewards for meeting goals Exception: Verbal praise/feedback can increase intrinsic motivation Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are not independent; if extrinsic rewards are given, they should be tied to how a person would be intrinsically motivated Competence and positive connections to others are also key. Self-Concordance: how strongly reasons for pursuing goals are consistent with interests and core values More likely to achieve goals and be happier if pursing goals for intrinsic interest. Pursuing goals for extrinsic reasons (money, status, etc.) less likely to achieve goals and less happy because less meaningful. People pursuing work goals for intrinsic reasons are more satisfied with jobs, feel they fit better with organizations, and may perform better. So... individuals should choose jobs for reasons other than extrinsic rewards. Managers should provide both incentives (make work more interesting & provide recognition) Pink Four factors matter re: individual motivation; Autonomy - freedom of choice; urge to direct our own lives Mastery - chance to develop one's skills and expertise Purpose - yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves Connection - internal need for cohesion within/between teams, united for a common cause; external engagement with community via sincere dialogue and contribution
self censorship
Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed. Doubts are not expressed, partly out of a fear of being labeled negatively (e.g., "too soft") Don't want to be a nuisance by breaking down assumed consensus Strong motivation for maintaining approval of other group members
Equity theory
Employees compare their ratios of outcomes-to-inputs of relevant others SELF Outcome // Input ?= REFERENT Outcome // Input When ratios are equal: state of equity exists; there is no tension as the situation is considered fair When ratios are unequal: tension exists due to unfairness Underrewarded states cause anger. Overrewarded states cause guilt Eg. "How does the pay I receive compare to that of others who are doing similar work?" Tension motivates people to act to bring their situation into equity Referent Comparisons Self-Inside - employee's experiences in diff position inside current org Self-Outside - employee's experiences in situation/position outside current org Other-Inside - another individual/group inside the employee's org Other-Outside - another individual/group outside the employee's org Reactions to Inequity Employee behaviors to create equity: Change inputs (slack off), change outcomes (ask for raise), change perceptions of self/others, choose a diff referent person, leave the field (quit) Choosing the reference Both men/women prefer same-sex comparisons Employees with long tenure rely more heavily on co-workers for comparisons Upper-level employees make more other-outside comparisons Those with higher amounts of education tend to have better info about other orgs Model of Organizational Justice (US-culture based model) Justice is Multi-Dimensional Distributive Justice: how much we get paid vs. what we think we should get paid Most related to org commitment and satisfaction with outcomes (pay). Procedural Justice: how we get paid/fairness of distribution process Process Control - ability to express your point of view re: desired outcomes Explanations - reasons for outcome.. Manager must be consistent, unbiased, decide using accurate information, and open to appeals More important when distributive injustice is perceived - "I didn't get what I want, do I understand why?" Most strongly related to job satisfaction, employee trust, withdrawal from org, job performance, and citizenship behaviors. Interactional Justice: Degree to which I perceive I am treated with respect.
Big 5 Leadership Traits/Dimensions
Extraversion Conscientiousness Openness to Experience Agreeableness Emotional Stability Relationships to Leadership
What leads to decision-making traps
High pressure on the decision Vulnerability Desire to stick to status quo Stereotypes, predisposition https://hbr.org/1998/09/the-hidden-traps-in-decision-making-2 Being easily influenced
Emotional Stability
High: tend to be calm, secure, and adept at withstanding stress. Low: tend to be more emotionally reactive; frequently nervous, depressed, and insecure.
Agreeableness
High: tend to be cooperative, warm, sympathetic, and trusting. Low: tend to be colder, more antagonistic, more competitive, and more comfortable with conflict
Extraversion
High: tend to be talkative, assertive, energetic, and sociable. Low: tend to be reserved, quiet, and deliberate.
Conscientiousness
High: tend to be thorough, planners, and dependable. Low: tend to be laid-back, less ordered, and less goal-oriented.
Openness to Experience
High: tend to be thorough, planners, and dependable. Low: tend to be laid-back, less ordered, and less goal-oriented.
Calibration
Individuals whose intellectual and interpersonal abilities are weakest are those most likely to overestimate their performance and ability. Still, "experts" sometimes can be as miscalibrated as non-experts (e.g., many economists prior to the recent financial crisis).
Heuristic processing
Involves utilization of a familiar knowledge or rule structure as the means to process and reach a judgement Motivation to think about something is low and their ability to think carefully is constrained Three heuristics Availability(1) and Recallability(2) Bias The tendency for people to base their judgments on information that is readily available to them even if it's not the most representative or relevant Anchoring Bias (or "Anchoring and Adjustment" The tendency to focus on one value or idea (the "anchor") and not adjust away from it sufficiently Examples: real estate listing prices, initial cost estimates for development projects, salary of your last job
Early motivation theories
Maslow's hierarchy McGregor's theory McClelland's theory
belief in inherent morality
Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical/ moral consequences of their decisions
self-appointed mindguards
Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group's cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions Social pressure is put on any member who begins to express a deviant view Leader is protected from unwelcome ideas/dissent Motivation to preserve leader & group's confidence
Relationships to Leadership
Most salient aspects of personality related to leadership: Extraversion r=0.31 (moderate correlation strength) (leader emergence & leader effectiveness) - high on extraversion tend to be sociable, assertive, active, and to experience positive affects such as energy & zeal. Conscientiousness r=0.28 (more related to leader emergence than leader effectiveness) - achievement & dependability; best predictor of job performance. Openness to experience r=0.24 - the disposition to be imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional, and autonomous. Under discussion Agreeableness - some say positively correlated with good team work skills, but negatively correlated with leadership skills; others say it is positively related to team effectiveness. Associated with lower levels of career success. Emotional Stability - more about job/life satisfaction and low stress levels, although when in a bad mood, people with low stability make faster and better decisions.
Expectancy theory
Motivation is a function of three different types of beliefs people have Expectancy - the belief that one's effort will affect performance Instrumentality - the belief that one's performance will be rewarded or punished Valence - the perceived value of the expected rewards or punishments This is more naturally a model of extrinsic motivation, but can be adapted to intrinsic motivation if the outcomes match one's values Motivation = E x I x V Reward Caveats Rewards often create temporary compliance - not long term behavior change... once the rewards run out or lose their novelty, people revert back Reward systems can feel manipulative - which has negative long-term implications "If they have to bribe me to do it..."
Personality measures
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Big 5 dimensions are most stable individual difference measures over time. Best measures are not just survey-based - physical observation is preferable. Research suggests that observer-ratings surveys measuring personality are a better predictor of success on the job than are self-reports. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator E/I: Extraversion vs. Introversion, N/S: Intuition vs. Sensing (use intuitive leaps or physical data?), T/F: Thinking vs. Feeling (use logical thinking or feelings?), J/P: Judging vs. Perceiving (regulate lifestyle or be flexible?) Some say MBTI is more about what you value than what you are actually capable of. Self-report only (easy for organizations to administer) MBTI is still popular, but with validity concerns: Should not be used for selection purposes because has not been validly associated with job performance. Context specificity. Can manipulate test answers
stereotyped views of out-groups
Negative views of "enemy" make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
Improving your social judgments
Pay more attention to others' facial expressions and other nonverbal behavior like tone Making eye contact can help with this considerably - HARD these days with so much technology Don't overlook potential external causes of others' behavior Be honest with yourself about your stereotypes Force yourself to go through objective criteria when evaluating others Avoid rushing to judgment Avoid set-up-to-fail syndrome or self-fulfilling prophecy Ask specific questions to test your assumptions Assume that you are perceived as less open to potentially unwelcome messages Consider how your behavior - even subtly - can influence others' behavior
Reciprocity
People are more likely to comply with a request from someone who has previously provided a favor or concession Reciprocal Concessions ("door-in-the-face" technique): When you begin with an extreme request that is nearly always rejected and then retreat to a more moderate one (the one you had in mind from the outset). The persuasive target leaves the transaction feeling better about the outcome.
regulatory focus theory
People are motivated to achieve their goals for 2 reasons: Promotion focus - achieve success Prevention focus - don't want to fail
Team norms
Regular behavior and interaction patterns that come to be expected by team members. Some explicitly stated, others emerge implicitly and/or spontaneously. Patterns of information sharing Communication - who talks the most, who is quiet, who talks to whom outside of the large group Conflict - is it encouraged, how is it handled? Approaches to decision-making Enactment of leadership roles
Team environment
Rewards (individual and team) Responsibility for resource support
Types of values
Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) - Terminal and Instrumental Terminal: desirable end-states; goals a person wants to achieve in lifetime (economic success, freedom, well-being, meaning in life, etc.) Instrumental: preferred modes of behavior; means of achieving terminal values (kindness, autonomy, goal-orientation, team-oriented, etc.) Generational Baby Boomers - Xers - Millennials
SMART goals
Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely
Case analysis/Case discussion
Steps: Situation analysis- involving identification of the case's central situation, challenges, and decisions to be made Formulation of your position or the hypothesis Support for the hypothesis with relevant facts and data from the case Chosen plan of action and implementation with at least one alternative course of action including advantages and disadvantages
Synergy
Synergy occurs when the *interactive* efforts of the team have a greater impact than the sum of their independent efforts. Teams are most needed to achieve synergy
Learned behaviors
Task ignition, Admitting "broken promises", Relational invitations, Making requests
Task complexity & interdependence
Teams are most needed with high task complexity and high task interdependence. The need for group members to tightly coordinate their individual efforts - Pooled interdependence: work on seperate components that must be combined together into a coherent whole - Sequential interdependence: ex. Assembly line - Reciprocal interdependence- requires each member to work simultaneously and provide inputs for one another
Commitment/Consistency
The desire to appear consistent exerts considerable influence over our behavior After actively, publicly, and voluntarily committing to a position, people are more likely to comply with requests consistent with that position "Four Walls Technique": Ask several questions to which the target will be likely to say yes, then follow up with a final question (your real question) to which they must then say yes Foot in the door technique: Person led to perform initial low-cost behavior before being requested to perform target behavior (Big Ugly Sign study) Low-ball technique: Person asked to immediately accept target behavior, without knowing full cost of the behavior. After accepting, the full cost is revealed. Obtain commitment to an action and then increase the costs after commitment is obtained. (7am experiment (Cialdini, et.al., 1978)) "Even a penny would help...": Plea to act in a way that is consistent with seeing yourself as a helpful person Cognitive dissonance: Severity of initiation predicts commitment to the group (voluntary piece is critical here) "Actively, publicly, voluntarily" applied to management
Primacy/recency
The first information we receive exerts an organizing influence on subsequent information. Part of why first impressions are so "sticky" The most recent information we have processed distorts the retrieval of earlier information. For negative feelings, it is peak intensity and end experience which are weighted most heavily in memory.
directive leadership
The leader indicates to the decision-making group what s/he believes to be the preferred decision, - in a rather indirect or subtle way Leader may not even be consciously aware that s/he has done this This subtle communication makes it difficult for those who question the initial consensus to suggest alternatives & raise critical issues Often occurs with tacit approval of members
Availability/recallability
The tendency for people to base their judgments on information that is readily available to them (even if it's not the most representative or relevant) Vivid, dramatic examples distort our perception of the base rate (power of the media) E.g., fear of flying (esp. after 9/11), perception that violent crimes on school grounds are going up, annual performance appraisals Be wary of this when you read your 360 reports (qualitative vs. quantitative feedback) Primacy & Recency are one subset of this
Escalation of commitment
The tendency for people to continue to support previously unsuccessful courses of action because they have sunk costs invested in them. Resources already committed should have no bearing on future investment. The correct analysis is that of future benefits to future costs. More likely to happen when decisions are public (in attempts to save face) - remember the commitment/consistency influence principle/tactic.
Sunk cost
a cost that has already been committed and cannot be recovered "To terminate a project in which $1.1 billion has been invested represents an unconscionable waste of taxpayer's dollars" - Senator J. Denton
Subarctic survival simulation
activity with purpose to simulate a shared experience of group-decision making
Information Asymmetries
employees have more information than the managers
McClelland's theory
eople have varying levels of three needs. 3 Needs Need for power The need to make others behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise Need for Achievement The drive to excel to achieve in relation to a set of standards to strive to succeed Need for Affiliation The desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships Performance Predictions Managerial success: high level of need for Power (NOT Achievement) and low need for Affiliation High need for achievement prefers a 50/50 chance of success avoiding very low or high-risk situations and high degree of personal responsibility, feedback, and moderate risk
An Illusion of Invulnerability
excessive optimism -> extreme risk-taking "If our leader & everyone else in our group decides that it is okay, the plan is bound to succeed" Driven by group euphoria/ optimism "We are a strong group of good guys who will win in the end" AND "Our opponents are stupid, weak, bad guys"
Contemporary theories
goal setting theory self-determination theory self-efficacy theory equity theory expectancy theory regulatory focus theory
Abeliene Paradox
group decides on course of action contrary to the preferences of the individuals in the group!
In group/out group
he majority of managers treat some subordinates as part of an "in-group", while they relegate others to "out-group" status Distinctions Tend to make distinctions within 5 days Filter information about an employee selectively to fit with categorization and in turn treat employees differently Managers intend to disguise their expectations, but aren't so good at it Result: ultimately the failure to get the best out of the employee
Goal-setting theory
management by objectives (MBO) [Locke] By assigning a goal we increase the possibility that we achieve the goal and increase our motivation to achieve the goal Assigning a goal influences: people's beliefs about being able to perform the task (expectancy) and people's own personal goals (increasing goal commitment). These two factors improve performance. Goals make clear what type and level of performance is expected. Basic promise: Specific and difficult goals, with self generated feedback, lead to higher performance. MBO is systematic way to utilize goal-setting theory in a workplace Corporate goals are broken down into smaller, specific goals at each level of organization; when lower units can set their own goals, MBO works from bottom up as well as top down. Four common ingredients to MBO programs: Goal specificity Participative decision making Explicit time period Performance feedbac Goals might NOT be helpful when: Exploration vs. Exploitation Exploration includes things captured by terms such as experimentation, search, risk taking, etc. Exploitation includes such things as efficiency, choice, refinement Exploitation-exploration paradox is that firms must balance exploitation and exploration for long-term growth and survival but over time firm exploitation tends to crowd out exploration Focus people on tasks/achieving the goals and they won't explore as much outside of that narrow focus
Context
our personality will shift based on the situation we're in One problem with many personality assessments is that they fail to take context into consideration. Many aspects of personality, for most of us (there are exceptions), are flexible across situations (home, work, etc.). Situations can often be more powerful in determining our behavior than our natural dispositions devoid of context. Most of "personality" seems to be in consistent responses to similar, particular situations, rather than consistent responses across different kinds of situations.
Consequences of power
power impacts the accessibility of the information required to perceive others and the organization accurately Managers have skewed perceptions of their own openness to difficult news/info They underestimate the extent to which power differences discourage employees from speaking up They often are not self-aware of the signals they send by changing the subject or avoiding interactions - or filling silence/pauses in conversations High-power individuals tend to stereotype more and be more prone to other biases Too many cognitive demands on them (overload leads to cognitive shortcuts) Less motivated to attend to consequences of their actions Greater self-focus/less other-focus
Values
someone's ideas about what is good, right, or desirable. Content: what is important, Intensity: how important it is. Value System: a person's values ranking Values Are relatively stable/enduring; however, research suggests that your work values are likely to be in fluctuation early in one's career and will stabilize with time and experience. Cloud objectivity and rationality, influencing attitudes and behaviors Lay the foundation for our understanding people's attitudes & motivations - key to effective management, of ourselves & others (Drucker) Values & Fit Values: Institutional/Organizational & Individual. Concept of fit: Person-Job Fit: How well does a person's personality characteristics fit with a particular occupation? [Holland's Typology of Personality and Congruent Occupations] People in jobs that match personality characteristics are more satisfied and persistent than those in incongruent jobs. Person-Organization Fit: People are attracted to and selected by organizations that match their values and they leave if they find they don't fit after entering. Employees' performance, satisfaction & commitment to stay with the organization are likely to be higher if their values fit well with their jobs & organization's culture
Fundamental attribution error
tendency to over-attribute the causes of outcomes to dispositions of individuals in situations, and underemphasize the role that contextual factors play, especially in the context of negative outcomes (failures) We are more likely to assume other people's behavior is a reflection of traits rather than situational factors
Personality
the ways in which an individual reacts to and interacts with others and her/his environment (some also include values as part of personality) Personality trait: the consistency over time and frequency of expressing enduring characteristics that describe an individual behavior (shy). What determines personality? - Both "nature" (heredity) & "nurture" (environment) Research suggests that aspects of our personalities can change over time, but that rank orderings (relative to other traits/people) are less likely to do so Common belief: personality is more changeable in adolescence and stable among adults