wadsworth psychology module

Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint

1

© S

usan

Ruk

lin/P

hoto

Res

earc

hers

You have applied for a job, submitted your resume, and taken a series of tests. You have been interviewed by your potential supervisor and given a tour of the company. You now find yourself sitting across from the co-owners, who have just offered you a position. They tell you that their organization is a great place to work. As evidence, they tell you that no one has quit their job in the last five years and employees are rarely absent. They also tell you that they have flexible policies. You can work whatever hours you like and take vacation whenever you want. And if you decide to work for them, you’ll have access to spending cash as well as keys to the company. You try to maintain your composure. You’d heard interesting things about this company but didn’t really believe them. Finally, the co-owners ask you what you are worth, indicating they will pay you whatever you wish. Now you’re really dumbfounded and wonder what the catch is, but sit quietly while they talk about other issues. Does this sound too good to be true? Wouldn’t this be ideal? Almost this exact scenario played out in an organization owned and managed by an Oakland appliance dealer in the 1970s. His name was Arthur Friedman, and he had decided to change how he ran his business. Friedman, as reported in the Washington Post (Koughan, 1975), announced at one of his staff meetings that employees could work the hours they wanted, be paid what they thought they were worth, take vacation time when they wanted, and help themselves to petty cash if they were in need of spending money. New employees would be allowed to set their own wages too. As you might imagine, the employees weren’t sure how to take this news. It was reported that no one said anything

during the meeting when Friedman first described his plan (Koughan, 1975). When asked why he was changing his business prac-tices, Friedman replied, “I always said that if you give peo-ple what they want, you get what you want. You have to be willing to lose, to stick your neck out. I finally decided that the time had come to practice what I preached” (Koughan, 1975). In the final analysis, Friedman’s experiment worked. The organization was profitable. Friedman signed union contracts without reading them (the employees didn’t need a union with him in charge). Employees didn’t quit, they didn’t steal from the company, and they were rarely absent.

1

W A D S W O R T H P S Y C H O L O G Y M O D U L E

W A D S W O R T H P S Y C H O L O G Y M O D U L E

Industrial and Organizational PsychologyK A T H Y A . H A N I S C H , I o w a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA. Google provides many employee perks, including free meals and haircuts, exercise classes, game rooms, child care, and on-site doctors. Would you want to work for Google?

AP P

hoto

/Joh

n Co

gill

9489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 19489X_01_c01_01-16.indd 1 2/19/08 11:48:13 AM2/19/08 11:48:13 AM

Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint

Net profits increased, and the company was a success. The employees realized that to make the organization work and remain in business, they had to be reasonable in their requests and behavior (Koughan, 1975). A present-day company with some enticing work perks is Google. In 2007, Fortune magazine rated it the num-ber one company to work for. Included among its many perks are free gourmet meals, snack rooms, free haircuts, gyms, massages, subsidized exercise classes, classes to learn another language, child care, on-site doctors for free employee checkups, a pet-friendly facility, and a travel-ing library for book checkout. In addition, they offer free shuttle bus transportation to work or, if you drive, free on-site car washes and oil changes. If you have a baby, they provide up to a $500 reimbursement for takeout food to ease your transition home. If you refer a friend to work at Google and they hire him or her, they give you extra cash. They even provide washers and dryers so you can do your laundry at work for free (they provide the detergent too!). In addition to all these benefits, they reward innovation, both high-tech and otherwise, and allow employees such as engineers to spend some of their time at work on indepen-dent projects. Organizations like Google and Friedman’s company are interesting in the way they deal with their employees and in the ways such treatment affects their employees’ behaviors. Psychologists who study people’s behavior at work using psychological principles are called industrial and organi-zational psychologists, and their field of study is industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology. I/O psychologists study employee selection, performance appraisal, training, job design, communication, work stress, motivation, lead-ership, groups and teams, organizational culture, human factors, job attitudes, well-being, and work behavior. This module will introduce you to the field of I/O psychology. You will experience many of the topics discussed here first hand when you seek, obtain, and keep a job.

Work in Our LivesYou have learned about work since you were a small child. You may have asked where your mother was going when she took you to day care or why your father left the house before 8 A.M. and did not return until after 5 P.M. You likely “played” at different jobs by dressing up as an astronaut, doctor, firefighter, teacher, chef, or construction worker. As you got older, other sources of information about work may have come from your friends, other family members, school, and the media. In high school, more education and

a part-time job may have given you additional details about the meaning of work. As you pursue a college degree, you may receive information about jobs available in your chosen field through classes, internships, or other job experiences. Work is an important part of life for many people. We often ask people we meet what they “do,” which translates into “What is your job and whom do you work for?” Many people identify with their work because they spend so much of their waking lives at work. Work is important because it provides many of the things people need and value. Work for pay provides us with the money necessary to satisfy our basic needs for food, shelter, and security (e.g., health care, retirement income), while the “leftover” money pro-vides us with discretionary funds to use as we see fit. These funds may be used to buy a round of golf, an iPod, or a fancy place to live; to support charities or attend athletic or fine art performances; or to save money for college. Essen-tially, money, typically from work, provides us with a stan-dard of living that varies from person to person depending on our income and how we choose to spend it. In addi-tion, work provides much more. It provides a source of

I n d u s t r i a l a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y2

“The doctor is in!”

Cour

tesy

of K

. Han

isch


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint

S e l e c t i n g E m p l o y e e s 3

social interaction and friendship, independence, a sense of accomplishment, satisfaction, a reason to get up in the morning, happiness, a sense of identity, recognition, and prestige. Although most researchers and practitioners agree that money and recognition are nearly universal motivators (Clark, 2003), many of the things we value or seek from work vary from person to person. For example, the prestige of a job may not be important to you, but might be impor-tant to your best friend. Perhaps you want your work to provide you with a sense of accomplishment or a source of social interaction, while your friend may not. It is impor-tant to understand what you want from your work as well as what a job can provide. From an employer’s perspective, it is useful to deter-mine what employees want because satisfied employees will be more likely than dissatisfied employees to work to meet organizational goals. Part of a supervisor’s job is to ascer-tain what employees value because those values can be used to motivate employees to perform well in their jobs.

Types of JobsThere are many types of work, in many types of jobs, in many different organizational settings. These settings include multinational conglomerates, public and private companies, nonprofits, federal, state, and local government organizations, and home businesses. People in the United States work a variety of schedules, from extended workweeks (45–99 hours) to standard work-weeks (between 35–44 hours) to part-time workweeks (less than 35 hours). Because of the nature of some jobs, peo-ple such as police officers, medical personnel, and factory workers work shifts other than the typical 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. shift. Others are offered flexible work schedules that best fit their lives as long as they work the required number of hours and accomplish the work. Telecommuting is becom-ing more and more popular with an increase in appropri-ate technology. Some people work for virtual organizations that use communication technologies to outsource the majority of their functions. Regardless of the type of job or your work schedule, you will spend most of your waking hours in some type of employment for many years. Many people spend their weekends working, too. Because work is critical to who we are and what we do, studying some of the psychological principles and topics examined by I/O psychologists will provide you with information that should aid you in your future careers.

Selecting Employees “We just want to have great people working for us.”

Sergey Brin, Google co-founder

The Hiring ProcessIndustrial and organizational psychologists first became involved in the process of selecting employees when the United States government needed help selecting and plac-ing officers and soldiers in World War I (Aamodt, 2007). They used mental ability tests to determine who would become officers and who would be in the infantry. The process many employers use now to hire employees is very detailed, typically consisting of five components: job analysis, testing, legal issues, recruitment, and the selection decision.

Job AnalysisJob analysis is the identification of the critical elements of a job. I/O psychologists have helped devise effective strategies for determining three basic aspects of any job:

(1) What tasks and behaviors are essential to the job?(2) What knowledge, skills, and abilities are needed to per-

form the job?(3) What are the conditions (such as stress, safety, and tem-

perature) under which the job is performed?

A job analysis can be conducted in many ways. An analyst may interview current employees or have them complete questionnaires, observe people on the job, or talk to people knowledgeable about the job (Gael, 1988) The information from a job analysis is used in many types of personnel functions. These include employee selec-tion, performance appraisal, training, and human resources planning. Within the hiring process, a job analysis is used to write job descriptions; to determine what tests might be used to assess the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities of job applicants; and to assist in meeting legal requirements that affect the selection process.

TestingYou are familiar with tests and taking tests. Tests are defined here as the measurement of carefully chosen sam-ples of behavior. These include the standard paper-and-pencil tests used to measure specific skills or abilities in a class, or more general abilities, as in the SAT or ACT. They also include vocational interest inventories and personal-ity assessments, such as conscientiousness and honesty tests. In addition, work samples, in which applicants do a


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint

replica of the work they will be asked to do on the job, are useful tests. Properly developed tests are vital to the suc-cess of organizations. They are used to ascertain differ-ences between people. The goal of these tests is to help employers choose the person best suited for the job and the organization. Another type of test is the employee interview. Nearly all organizations use some type of interview in their selec-tion of employees (Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2003), even though interviews are often viewed as subjective and worthless. More than 85 years of research has provided evi-dence regarding when interviews are useful and when they are not. Selection interviews can be broadly classified as either unstructured or structured. Unstructured inter-views are informal and unplanned. They are conducted by an untrained interviewer, with random questions, and no scoring key. Structured interviews are conducted by a trained interviewer. They have standardized questions, a specific question order, and a predetermined scoring or answer key. Structured interviews based on a job analysis have greater validity and are more useful than unstructured interviews (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994). Some typical ques-tions asked during both unstructured and structured inter-views are listed in ● Table 1.

Legal IssuesOne of the most important pieces of legislation regarding employment, and specifically the hiring of employees, is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2002). Title VII “prohibits dis-crimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin,” which are known as the “Big 5.” Providing protec-tion based on the Big 5 helps to ensure that all applicants have an equal opportunity for employment. Exceptions to this provision include matters of national security, employ-ers with seniority systems in place, and bona fide occupa-tional qualifications (BFOQs). BFOQs permit organizations to discriminate in hiring persons in a protected class if the qualification is determined to be reasonably necessary to the operation of the business. For example, women can be discriminated against when hiring someone to model men’s swimwear, and vice versa. It is reasonably necessary to the marketing and selling of swimwear that organizations hire men to model male swimwear and women to model female swimwear; sex is thus a BFOQ in this case. It is not reason-ably necessary, however, that a secretary in a church who does secretarial work and not church or religious work be the same religion as the church that employs him or her; religion could not be used as a BFOQ in this case. It is important for employers to abide by laws that pro-tect people against discrimination, as the costs of litigation

● Table 1

Types of Interview Questions

Unstructured Interview Questions:

1. What are your weaknesses?

2. Why should we hire you?

3. Why do you want to work here?

4. What are your goals?

5. If you were an animal, which one would you want to be?

Structured Interview Questions

6. Tell me in specific details about a time when you had to deal with a difficult customer.

7. Give me an example of a time when you had to make a decision without a supervisor present.

8. Give me a specific example of when you demonstrated your initiative in an employment setting.

9. Give me an example of a time when you had to work with a team.

10. Describe a time when you had to be creative at solving a problem

Sources: C. Martin, 2006, http://www.monster.com; The Job Centre, Niagara College Canada, 2005, http://jobs.niagarac.on.ca/



Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint

can be very high, both monetarily and in terms of an orga-nization’s reputation. This applies to discrimination based not only on the Big 5 (covered under the Civil Rights Act), but also on age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) and disability (Americans with Disabilities Act). Employ-ment law in the United States is meant to protect and pro-vide equal opportunities for individuals. Nondiscriminatiory hiring practices offer fair treatment for any person looking for a job. In general, in the United States, organizations with more than 15 employees are required to abide by the federal employment laws. These laws have changed the employment process over the last 50 years, affording equal opportunities for those seeking a position. Equal opportunity laws in the United States today make the job market a fairer place than in many countries.

RecruitmentRecruitment is the process organizations use to iden-tify potential employees for a job. Depending on the job, an organization may recruit from inside the company or seek someone outside the organization. They may adver-tise on their company website or on a site for specific types of jobs. In addition, websites like monster.com and careerbuilder.com link potential employees and employers in a variety of jobs and locations. Other recruitment sources include newspapers, radio and television advertisements, trade magazines, professional publications, and employee referrals. Research indicates that employees recruited through inside sources such as employee referrals or rehires worked for the organization longer and had better job performance than those recruited through outside sources, including advertisements, employment agencies, or recruiters (Zot-toli & Wanous, 2000). Studies have supported the idea that those recruited using inside sources receive more accurate information about the job than those recruited through external sources (Conrad & Ashworth, 1986; McManus & Baratta, 1992). A survey of the 50 best small and medium organiza-tions to work for in the United States found that 92 per-cent use employee referrals. The survey also found that more than 30 percent of all hires were referred by a current employee (Pomeroy, 2005). Because of the effectiveness of employee referrals, some companies provide rewards to employees who recommend an applicant who is hired. These rewards include cash, vacations, and raffles for prizes such as televisions and free maid service for a year (Stew-art, Ellenburg, Hicks, Kremen, & Daniel, 1990). Typically, the new employee must work for the organization for a

set period of time in order for the referring employee to receive the award (Stewart et al., 1990). Google rewards an employee with a $2,000 bonus if his or her referral accepts Google’s offer and remains employed for at least 60 days. After applicants have submitted either a resume or an application, someone from the organization such as the human resource manager or supervisor will determine which applicants should be considered further. In that pro-cess, he or she may make telephone inquiries of previous employers or other references and conduct criminal back-ground checks. A growing phenomenon is employers’ use of social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Xanga, and Friendster to learn about job candidates (Finder, 2006). On these sites, recruiters and company presidents have found promising candidates reporting on their own drug use, sexual exploits, and drinking, along with suggestive photo-graphs (Finder, 2006). These are considered “red flags” by employers. They assume that these applicants are lacking in good judgment and therefore remove them from their selection process (Finder, 2006). Information that students thought would only be viewed by their peers is making its way into the public arena at all levels, with future employ-ers and relatives viewing the information without the stu-dents’ knowledge.

Making the DecisionWhen selecting employees, employers are looking for a good match between the employee and the organization. They would like to match their requirement for excel-lent job performance with the person’s own knowledge, skills, abilities, personality, and motivation. They attempt

S e l e c t i n g E m p l o y e e s 5

If you found this photo on a job applicant’s MySpace page, would you hire him?

© L

ouis

Qua

il/Co

rbis


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint


to accomplish this by using the different types of tests dis-cussed earlier. Researchers have posited two factors that determine an employee’s performance in a job: the can-do and the will-do factors (Schmitt, Cortina, Ingerick, & Wiechmann, 2003). “Can-do” factors suggest what an employee is capa-ble of doing on the job if he or she is working to the best of his or her ability. “Will-do” factors suggest the time and effort an employee is willing to exert for the organization. Personality factors such as conscientiousness, a need for achievement, and integrity have been classified as impor-tant “will-do” factors in performance (Schmitt et al., 2003). A person’s “can-do” and “will-do” factors may change as he or she moves from organization to organization. Once a person is selected, the important process of being accepted and socialized into the organization at all levels, including a work group or team, begins.

Socializing Employees: Culture, Groups, and LeadershipWhen you report for your first day of work in an organiza-tion, there will be many things you will need to learn in order to be successful in your job. The process of learning these things is called organizational socialization, which has been defined as “the process by which organizational mem-bers become a part of, or are absorbed into, the culture of the organization” (Jablin, 1982, p. 255). Organizational socialization consists of people learning how the organiza-tion operates by using information provided by manage-ment, coworkers, observation, and company handbooks or memos. Nowadays, electronic communication is an important part of how you and your coworkers are socialized (Flana-gin & Waldeck, 2004). Employees communicate through e-mail, company websites, chat groups, and blogs. Job applicants also use these resources to learn about the orga-nization before submitting their applications. Supervisors and coworkers are also important sources of socialization information. Mentoring is a form of train-ing in which a current and often long-term employee (the mentor) is paired with a new employee. The mentor’s role is to help the new employee adapt to the job by assisting with advice or resources. The mentor may provide informa-tion about how the organization works and career advance-ment opportunities. Good mentoring helps new employ-ees become successful on the job and learn the formal and informal rules of the organization (Aamodt, 2007). Research indicates that both mentors and those they mentor often benefit from the relationship. For example, in

one study of health care employees, it was found that those who were mentored reported higher salaries, greater pro-motion rates, and more positive career success than those who did not receive mentoring (Allen, Lentz, & Day, 2006). Employees who have been mentored experience more effec-tive socialization and better compensation, advancement, career satisfaction, job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment than those with no mentoring (Greenhaus, 2003).

Organizational Culture and ClimateOrganizational culture includes the shared assumptions and beliefs of the organization. These cognitions then influence the organizational climate, or the actions and behaviors of the people in the group or organization (Schein, 1985). These behaviors are considered the norm for the organiza-tion; they represent the “normal behaviors” expected by its members. Because culture and climate generally operate in concert, our discussion will refer to these elements collec-tively as culture (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003). Orga-nizational culture is important because it lets employees know what is expected of them and affects how they think and behave. Culture is often determined by the founders of the organization, and may be modified over time by the successes and failures of an organization. There have been several case studies of organizations that have successfully changed their culture. Remem-ber Arthur Friedman from the beginning of this module? Friedman allowed his employees to set their own wages and decide the hours they worked; he also required employees to belong to the union. After Friedman made these changes, employee grumbling stopped. The organizational culture changed, resulting in better morale, increased productivity,

Mic

k St

even

s/ca

rtoon

bank

.com


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint

and employee longevity. No one wanted to quit working in a culture where the employees got to make their own deci-sions that affected the organization’s bottom line. Finding an organizational culture that fits your working style will have consequences for your morale, performance, and ten-ure in an organization.

Groups and TeamsWork teams and the leadership of an organization have a large influence on the culture of an organization. Work teams and groups can be defined as two or more employees who have common goals, have tasks that are interdepen-dent, interact socially, and work on relevant organizational tasks within specific requirements and rules (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Just as there can be a culture in an organiza-tion, groups or teams also exhibit cultures that may encour-age or discourage certain types of work-related behaviors and attitudes. These cultures then form the basis for the socialization of new group or team members. Although most organizations provide formal means of socializing new employees, group or team dynamics have immediate and direct effects on employees’ socialization (Anderson & Thomas, 1996). The outcomes of informal and formal socialization may be different. Teams may have leaders or may be self-managing. When teams fail, the failure is often linked to the team leader. Team leaders may be too autocratic, wielding too much power or influence. As a result, the team does not realize the autonomy and control level it needs to be suc-cessful (Stewart & Manz, 1995). Self-managing teams tend to show better productivity, an increase in work quality, improved quality of life for employees, decreased absentee-ism, and decreased turnover (Cohen & Ledford, 1994).

Leadership“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something

you want done because he wants to do it.”Dwight D. Eisenhower

Leadership has many definitions, including one person influencing another person or a team toward a goal (Bry-man, 1996). Leadership has received a lot of research atten-tion in industrial and organizational psychology. Yet it is still difficult to describe how to make or select the ideal leader. Many theories exist, and most have been useful in helping us understand what makes a good leader and how to improve leadership style. Personality plays a role in many leadership theories. Certainly, it is important in determining whether or not a leader will be successful. Kirkpatrick and Locke’s (1991) review suggests that drive, honesty and integrity, self-

confidence, cognitive abilities, and knowledge are associ-ated with successful leaders. Leaders with poor cognitive abilities and social skills and those who are indecisive, low in self-confidence and self-esteem, dishonest, and lacking in ambition tend to be less successful (Kaplan, Drath, &, Kofodimos, 1991). Arthur Friedman’s integrity likely made him a success-ful leader. He decided to give employees what he would want, providing them with the capability to make major decisions that could either make or break the organization. In his case, he created a self-managing group that had no need for external assistance from unions or other entities. As a result, Friedman demonstrated the transformational leadership approach (Bass, 1990). Transformational leader-ship is characterized by high ethical standards, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consid-eration—all evident in Arthur Friedman’s leadership style. Leaders today must contend with information-based team environments requiring the capacity for sifting large amounts of information coming from computer networks (Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2000). The widely varying work-ing environments that result from global competition also require leaders to be adaptable (Mann, 1959), capable of handling stress (Goleman, 1998), knowledgeable about competitors and products (Kirpatrick & Locke, 1991), and able to solve complex problems quickly (Zaccaro, Mum-ford, Connelly, Marks, & Gilbert, 2000)

Attitudes and Behaviors at WorkOne of the most important factors influencing whether you will be motivated to do a good job hinges on your attitudes at work. The causes and consequences of work attitudes have been extensively researched. Some of the outcomes of attitudes include volunteering for a project, helping out a coworker, quitting, absenteeism, tardiness, early retire-ment, and performance.

Attitudes at WorkAttitudes at work include organizational commitment and satisfaction with job conditions including the work itself, pay and benefits, supervision, coworkers, promotion opportunities, working conditions, and job security. In gen-eral, you can be satisfied or dissatisfied with the tasks and conditions at work, the people in your work environment, and the rewards you get from work. Employee satisfaction is important because it has been shown to be related to employee behaviors at work (Hanisch, 1995). Job satisfac-tion and organizational commitment are two of the most commonly studied work attitudes.

A t t i t u d e s a n d B e h a v i o r s a t W o r k 7


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint


Job Satisfaction. The positive or negative affect associated with a job defines job satisfaction (Thurstone, 1931). Some of the ways organizations can create satisfied employ-ees include offering flexible working hours, professional growth opportunities, interesting work (Hackman & Old-ham, 1976), autonomy, job security, a good supervisor, good benefits, competitive pay, and opportunities for pro-motion (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992). It is important to note that what makes one worker satisfied may not make another worker satisfied. For some people, interesting work is paramount. Others place higher emphasis on hav-ing coworkers they like. Still others feel that the pay and benefits they receive are most important. Just as in the hir-ing process, a match between what you want and what the organization can provide will result in a successful outcome for both parties.

A recent survey found that listening to music at work leads to higher levels of reported employee satisfac-tion. About one-third of those participating in a Spherion Workplace Snapshot survey conducted by Harris Interac-tive in 2006 reported they listened to an iPod, MP3 player, or other personal music device while working (Spherion, 2006). Seventy-nine percent of the participants reported that listening to music improved their job satisfaction and/or productivity at work. Allowing workers to listen to music may become more and more popular in jobs where music does not interfere with coworkers, safety, or job per-formance. Having happy workers contributes to an organi-zation’s success.

Organizational Commitment. Employee commitment to an organization is related to employee retention within the organization. There are three types of organizational com-mitment: affective, normative, and continuance (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Meyer and Allen define affective commitment as an employee’s emotional attachment to the organization that makes the employee want to stay in the organization. Normative commitment is based on feelings of obliga-tion. Continuance commitment results when an employee remains with a company because of the high cost of los-ing organizational membership, including monetary (e.g., pension benefits) and social (e.g., friendships) costs. Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) argue that employees have an orga-nizational commitment profile at any given time in their job, with high or low values on each of the three types of commitment. In other words, an employee may have high scores on normative and continuance commitment, but be lower on affective commitment. Depending on the profile, the employee may engage in different behaviors such as quitting or helping out the organization. Students may experience these different types of com-mitment to their college. A student acting under affective commitment would feel an emotional attachment to the school because she really likes the school, including her classes, the football team, and the town. The student wants to stay in that school because of her attachment to it. Nor-mative commitment might be evidenced by a student whose parents attended that college and who feels obligated to do the same thing, regardless of whether it is the best school for him. Staying at a college because your friends are there and you have already paid for two years of college would typify someone acting under continuance commitment. The three levels of commitment could be represented as a commitment profile for a student. One of the causes of organizational commitment is job satisfaction. People who are satisfied with their job are

Employees report that their job satisfaction and productivity increase if they are allowed privileges such as the ability to lis-ten to music while they work.

© C

hris

toph

er R

obbi

ns/P

hoto

Libr

ary


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint

more committed to their organization than those who are less satisfied (Mueller, Boyer, Price, & Iverson, 1994). Other causes of organizational commitment include trust in one’s supervisor and human resources practices that are support-ive of employees (Arthur, 1994). The organizational com-mitment of Arthur Friedman’s employees was very high, as evidenced by a complete lack of turnover in five years.

Behaviors at WorkEmployers want their employees to engage in behaviors that will make them successful in the job because their success helps the organization meet its goals, including earning profits and fulfilling its mission. Employees have control over two aspects of their work: their time and their effort (Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980). Having employees at work on time instead of late or absent is important to performance and productivity. Positive behaviors generally help an organization meet its goals while negative behav-iors detract from goal attainment.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Organizational citi-zenship behaviors (OCBs) or prosocial behaviors are often described as extra-role behaviors because they are not spe-cifically required by the job and are not usually evaluated during performance reviews. These behaviors go beyond what is expected by the organization (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Examples include staying late to finish a proj-ect, mentoring a new employee, volunteering for work, and helping a coworker. Some reasons why people engage in organizational citizenship behaviors are job satisfac-tion, high job autonomy, a positive organizational culture, high agreeableness (as a personality dimension; Witt, Kac-mar, Carlson, & Zivnuska, 2002), and high conscientious-ness (Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001). Often, however, males who engage in OCBs are viewed positively while females are viewed as just doing their jobs (Heil-man & Chen, 2005; Kidder & Parks, 2001)—a difference that may result in gender disparity in performance ratings. OCBs have positive consequences for the organization and for employees in their day-to-day interactions with others in the organization.

Organizational Withdrawal and Counterproductive Behav-iors. Unhappy employees cause problems for organizations because they sometimes engage in behaviors that research-ers refer to as organizational withdrawal (Hanisch, Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998) and counterproductive behaviors (Sack-ett & DeVore, 2003). Organizational withdrawal has been defined as behaviors employees use to avoid their work (work withdrawal) or their job (job withdrawal) (Hanisch,

1995; Hanisch & Hulin, 1990, 1991). Examples of work withdrawal are being absent from work, leaving work early, arriving to work late, missing meetings, and using work equipment for personal use without permission. Examples of job withdrawal are quitting one’s job, transferring to another department within an organization, and retiring. College students are familiar with withdrawal behav-iors when it comes to certain college courses. Some classes may fail to keep your attention, and you may find yourself taking a nap in class or reading the newspaper. You may even look for legitimate reasons not to attend class, such as offering to fill in for another employee at work or deciding to attend an optional session for another class. Counterproductive behaviors, although similar in some ways to withdrawal behaviors, are defined as “any intentional behavior on the part of an organizational mem-ber viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate interests” (Sackett & DeVore, 2003). An example of a coun-terproductive behavior would be an intentional violation of safety procedures that puts the employee and the organiza-tion at risk. Other examples of counterproductive behavior are theft, destruction of property, unsafe behavior, poor attendance, drug use, and inappropriate physical actions, such as attacking a coworker.

A t t i t u d e s a n d B e h a v i o r s a t W o r k 9

Naf

/car

toon

stoc

k.co

m


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint


Relation Between Attitude and BehaviorOrganizational citizenship behaviors are positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In other words, employees with good attitudes and who feel com-mitted to their organization are more likely to do positive things to assist the organization (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Research indicates that those employees who dem-onstrate organizational citizenship behaviors are less likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors (Dalal, 2006). Researchers have found strong links between job satisfac-tion and specific withdrawal or counterproductive behav-iors such as absenteeism (Hackett, 1989), and even stronger links with job withdrawal (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990). Employers need to evaluate their work environment and fringe benefit packages and make modifications where necessary to ensure that they have employees who are satis-fied and committed. Arthur Friedman made modifications in the work environment of his organization that resulted in high satisfaction and commitment among his employ-ees. To help with the commute to and from work, Google added a free shuttle service that many employees say is the best fringe benefit, given the traffic in the Silicon Val-ley (Helft, 2007). Employees need to learn how to seek out satisfying work and perks that will result in their commit-ment to the organization. Satisfaction and commitment facilitate organizational citizenship behaviors and decrease withdrawal and counterproductive behaviors. Together, the right employee attitudes and behaviors will lead to success-ful organizational functioning.

ConclusionsThis module detailed the role of I/O psychologists in the workplace, including job analysis, employee recruitment and selection, organizational culture, and the effect of employees’ work attitudes on their work behaviors. Now that you have an understanding of the process organizations use to hire successful employees, you have some of the tools necessary to help you in your own search for a job. You also learned about the appropriate matches you might strive for in seeking employment that will make your work with an organization fulfilling for both you and the organization. If you enjoyed learning about I/O psychology and think it might be a possible career for you, you may be interested in education and employment opportunities in the field. Most I/O psychologists earn a master’s or doctoral degree from a graduate school. This may take an additional two to five years beyond a bachelor’s degree. Job opportunities are varied and often lucrative. For example, people with

master’s degrees in I/O psychology may work for an orga-nization in their human resources office, conduct research on the best ways to train employees, or implement a moti-vation program. They may also work in consulting firms or even start their own after obtaining some experience in the workplace. Those who earn a doctoral degree may secure the same type of jobs as those with master’s degrees, but will typically be paid more for their expertise. In addition, they have the option of working at a university or college teaching courses and/or conducting research on topics of their choosing. I/O psychology is an excellent career choice for many students interested in business who wish to inter-act with and help people.


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint

ReferencesAamodt, M. G. (2007). Industrial/Organizational psychology:

An applied approach. California: Thomson Wadsworth.Allen, T. D., Lentz, E., & Day, R. (2006). Career success out-

comes associated with mentoring others: A comparison of mentors and nonmentors. Journal of Career Develop-ment, 32(3), 272-285.

Anderson, N., & Thomas, H. D. C. (1996). Work group social-ization. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology, 423-450. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 670-687.

Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Dodge, G. (2000). E-leading in organizations and its implications for theory, research and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 615-670.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, (Winter), 19-31.

Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship per-formance. International Journal of Selection and Assess-ment, 9, 52-69.

Bryman, A. S. (1996). The importance of context: Quali-tative research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 353-370.

Clark, R. E. (2003). Fostering the work motivation of indi-viduals and teams. Performance Improvement, 42(3), 21-29.

Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13-43.

Conrad, M. A., & Ashworth, S. D. (1986). Recruiting source effectiveness: A meta-analysis and re-examination of two rival hypotheses. Paper presented at the First Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., and Stone, E. F. (1992). Job sat-isfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington Books.

Dalal (2006). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterpro-ductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2002). Fed-eral laws prohibiting job discrimination questions and answers. May 24.

Finder, A. (2006, June 11). For some, online persona under-mines a resume. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

Flanagin, A, J., & Waldeck, J. H. (2004). Technology use and organizational newcomer socialization. Journal of Busi-ness Communication, 41(2), 137-165.

Gael, S. A. (1988). The job analysis handbook for business, industry, and government (Vols. 1 and 2). New York: Wiley.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Greenhaus, J. H. (2003). Career dynamics. In W. C. Bor-man, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, 12, 519-540, New York: Wiley.

Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absen-teeism: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupa-tional Psychology, 62(3), 235-248.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: A test of a theory. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.

Hanisch, K. A. (1995). Behavioral families and multiple causes: Matching the complexity of responses to the complexity of antecedents. Current Directions in Psy-chological Science, 4(5), 156-162.

Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retire-ment and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Jour-nal of Vocational Behavior, 37(1), 60-78.

Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110-128

Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. A. (1998). The importance of individuals’ repertoires of behav-iors: The scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 19, 463-480.

Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, dif-ferent consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 90, 431-441.

Helft, M. (2007, March 10). Google’s buses help its work-ers beat the rush. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184-190.

Jablin, F. M. (1982). Organizational communication: An assimilation approach. In M. E. Rolff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 255-286). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

R e f e r e n c e s 11


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint


Kaplan, R. E., Drath, W. H., Kofodimos, J. R., (1991). Beyond ambition: How driven managers can lead better and live better. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kidder, D. L., & Parks, J. M. (2001). The good soldier: Who is s(he)? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 939-959

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5, 48-60.

Koughan, M. (1975, February 23). Arthur Friedman’s out-rage: Employees decide their pay. Washington Post.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Indus-trial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 333-375.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnston, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 56, 241-270.

McManus, M. A., & Baratta, J. E. (1992). The relationship of recruiting source to performance and survival. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Canada.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component con-ceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.

Mueller, C. W., Boyer, E. M., Price, J. L., and Iverson, R. D. (1994). Employee attachment and noncoercive condi-tions of work: The case of dental hygienists. Work and Occupations, 21, 179-212

Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A the-ory of behavior in organizations. New York: Academic Press.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Orga-nizational culture and climate. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 565-593. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Pomeroy, A. (2005). 50 best small and medium places to work: Money talks. HR Magazine, 50(7), 44-65.

Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproduc-tive behaviors at work. In In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran, Handbook of Indus-trial, Work and Organizational Psychology, 1, 145-165. California: Sage Publications.

Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. (2003). Predic-tors used for personnel selection: An overview of con-structs, methods and techniques. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran, Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, 1, 166-199. California: Sage Publications.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Leadership and Cul-ture: A Dynamic View. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schmitt, N., Cortina, J. M., Ingerick, M. J., & Wiechmann, D. (2003). Personnel selection and employee perfor-mance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organi-zational Psychology, 12, 77-105. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organiza-tional citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Spherion (2006, September 18). Spherion survey: Work-ers say listening to music while working improves job satisfaction, productivity. Retrieved from http://www.spherion.com.

Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48, 347-370.

Stewart, R., Ellenburg, G., Hicks, L., Kremen, M., & Dan-iel, M. (1990). Employee references as a recruitment source. Applied H.R.M. Research, 1(1), 1-3.

Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The measurement of social atti-tudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26, 249-269.

Witt, L. A., Kacmar, M., Carlson, D. S., & Zivnuska, S. (2002). Interactive effects of personality and organi-zational politics on contextual performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 911-926.

Zaccaro, S. J., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M., Marks, M., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Assessment of leader abilities. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 37-64.

Zottoli, M. A., & Wanous, J. P. (2000). Recruitment source research: Current status and future directions. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 435-451.


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint


Cenga

ge Le

arning

Not for

Rep

rint

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008922443

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-59489-5

ISBN-10: 0-495-59489-X

Wadsworth10 Davis DriveBelmont, CA 94002-3098USA

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solu-tions with offi ce locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local offi ce at international.cengage.com/region.

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

For your course and learning solutions, visit academic.cengage.com

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.ichapters.com

Wadsworth Psychology Module: Industrial and Organizational PsychologyKathy A. Hanisch

© 2009 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copy-right herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, tap-ing, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Printed in Canada 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 11 10 09 08

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning Academic Resource Center, 1-800-423-0563

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be emailed [email protected]

For your course and learning solutions, visit academic.cengage.com

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.ichapters.com


wadsworth psychology module

Documents

d s w o r t h p s y

employees didnt

organization work

new employees

e r s i t ygoogle headquarters

t e u n

employees werent sure

arthur friedman