Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior PDF

Document
Page i
The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_I.html [2008-04-01 01:24:23]

Document
Page ii
THE BLACKWELL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MANAGEMENT
About the Editors
Cary L. Cooper is Professor of Organizational Psychology in the Manchester School of Management

at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. He was the Founding President of
the British Academy of Management and served as its president for four years. He is a Fellow of the
British Psychological Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and is the editor-in-chief of the
international quarterly journal The Journal of Organizational Behavior. He is the author of numerous
books and scholarly articles in the fields of organizational behavior, and has been an adviser to two UN
Agencies (The World Health Organization and The International Labor Office).
Chris Argyris is the James B. Conant Professor, Graduate School of Business, Harvard University. He
is the author of thirty books and research monographs as well as numerous articles. He is a consultant to
many corporations, governmental organizations, and universities in the United States and Europe.
Professor Argyris, who received his Ph.D. from Cornell University, is the holder of six honorary
degrees.
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_II.html [2008-04-01 01:24:23]

Document
Page iii
The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior
Edited by Nigel Nicholson
Advisory Editors
Randall S. Schuler
Andrew H. Van de Ven
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_III.html [2008-04-01 01:24:24]

Document
Page iv
Disclaimer:
Some images in the original version of this book are not available for inclusion in the netLibrary
eBook.
Copyright © Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1995, 1998

Editorial organization © Nigel Nicholson 1995, 1998
First published 1995

Revised edition first published in paperback 1998
Blackwell Publishers Inc

350 Main Street
Malden, Massachusetts 02148, USA
Blackwell Publishers Ltd

108 Cowley Road
Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review,
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
permission of the publisher.
Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by
way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's
prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a
similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of organizational behavior/
edited by Nigel Nicholson; advisory editors, Randall Schuler,
Andrew Van de Ven.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0–631–18781–2 ISBN 0–631–20910–7 (Pbk)
I. Organizational behaviorDictionaries. I. Nicholson, Nigel.
II. Schuler, Randall S. III. Van de Ven, Andrew H. IV. Blackwell
Publishers. V. Title: Encyclopedic dictionary of organizational behavior.
HD58.7.B57 1995 95–5490
302.3'5'03dc20 CIP
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_IV.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:25]

Document
Typeset in 9.5 on 11pt Ehrhardt

by Page Brothers, Norwich
Printed and bound in Great Britain
by T. J. International Limited, Padstow, Cornwall
This book is printed on acid-free paper
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_IV.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:25]

Document
Page v
Contents
Preface vi
Acknowledgements xi
List of Contributors xiii
Dictionary Entries A–Z 1
Index 613
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_V.html [2008-04-01 01:24:25]

Document
Page vi
Preface
Organizational Behavior – Coming of Age
Organizational Behavior (OB) is the study of human action and experience in organizational contexts,
and the behavior of organizations within their environmental contexts. The subject takes as its starting
point the idea that organizations are human creations. This means that what they generate in terms of
varieties of experience, social value and practical consequences are matters of choice – choice which
can be informed by knowledge and ideas.
This definition implies that much of what we prize most dearly about our ways of living, and also what
we most abhor, are created or conditioned by Organizational Behavior. The Great Wall of China, the
Nazi holocaust, the Gobelin tapestries, the automobile, every major war, disaster relief effort, all the
religions of the world, and the welfare, transportation and communication systems of society, and much
more besides are the product of organization and behavior. At the level of personal experience, it is also
true that many of the greatest achievements and failings of individuals can be traced to the liberating or
oppressive effects of organizational structures and relationships.
This is not a new insight. From the earliest oral traditions of reflective inquiry to the modern social
sciences, people have pondered upon how we should organize to live – to fulfill human potential in
harmony with each other and with the living planet which sustains us. Plato, Confucius, the authors of
the Talmud, the Gospels, the Bhagavad Gita and the Koran, all, in different ways, sought to answer this
question by explaining and prescribing secular human relations, but within frameworks which
pronounce about spirituality and the meaning of existence. For much of our history this metaphysical
legacy has inhibited the search for insights about human organization through systematic methods of
inquiry, in contrast to the relatively liberated growth of other bodies of knowledge, such as the natural
sciences. Normative social philosophies have often discouraged and sometimes punished the separation
of the empirical from the doctrinal when it came to thinking about human conduct (an effect not
exclusive to self-declared religions; Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy has also exhibited this character where
it has held sway).
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VI.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:26]

Document
For this reason, the applied social sciences are relatively new. It has only been in the last hundred years
that they have found institutional legitimacy for their pedagogy, empirical research, dissemination and
practice. Within this volume, the reader will find reference made to the historical cornerstones of OB as
we find it presently constituted: writings at the turn of the century by psychologists about human
capacities in work environments, by sociologists about the consequences of industrial organization, and
by administrative theorists about the tasks of management. But The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary
of Organizational Behavior is not a history book. Contributors are reaching towards the future as much
as reflecting on the past, and our collective aim has been to provide a contemporary atlas of the field, its
key ideas, its major findings, and their implications. Over 180 worldwide experts have provided
definitive statements about these developments. The maturity of the field can be seen in the confidence
and authority with which they have set about their task. Demonstrably, OB come of age.
Indeed, this book would not have been possible even a few years ago, such has been the explosion in
knowledge and activity within the field. The interest and enthusiasm this project has raised among
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VI.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:26]

Document
Page vii
all who have shared in its creation also owes to the fact that OB's interests have never been more
important than at the present time. We are moving into an age of increasing uncertainty and choice
about how we organize and work. These developments are extensively documented in this book.
Although the nature of work and organization, as defined above, are matters of choice, those decisions
have in the past often been heavily constrained by prior choices about technologies and institutional
forms. This has often cast OB scholars in the role of powerless observers or critical commentators on
the dysfunctions of organization, such as monotonous work, autocratic management, interpersonal and
intergroup conflict and inefficient production. The disciplines of engineering and finance have tended to
set the organizational agenda, with SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT1 as their operational paradigm,
leaving PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT to pick up the pieces, i.e. deal with the human consequences
of operational imperatives.
This industrial order is being dismembered before our eyes, as a function of several developments.
First, there is a vast increase in the complexity of technical and financial problems in business, and
complexity means choice. Second, new business disciplines such as marketing and strategy have raised
awareness of the need to satisfy multiple STAKEHOLDERS, and the inherently open-ended nature of
this challenge. This implies for organizations the need to be proactive as well as responsive in their
DECISION MAKING about market positioning, resourcing and external relationships. Third,
competitive pressures, intercultural exchange, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, regulatory pressures,
and demographic developments in LABOR MARKETS are having the simultaneous effect of
increasing the diversity of organizational forms visible in society and making apparent the
implausibility of "one best way" solutions to the problems of managing. Fourth, the human and material
costs of poorly designed jobs, unskilled management practices, and ill-conceived ways of organizing
and communicating, are being laid bare, not just as a result of pressures to reduce costs, but also
through a growing awareness that the satisfaction of human needs and values is essential to firms'
ability to rise above the mediocre in the quality of their products and services. Fifth, and finally, all of
this implies change, often on a profound scale. Throughout organizations of all kinds and among people
at all levels, one finds a primary and urgent desire to know how best to manage change, and to
understand what factors help or hinder human adaptive processes.
As a result of these recent developments, we are now witnessing the curious irony that ideas with a long
pedigree of vigorous promotion in scholarly articles but almost universal neglect in business practice,
have suddenly become prime concerns to managers. COMPETITIVENESS is newly perceived as
linked with long-familiar concepts such as JOB ENRICHMENT, SELF-MANAGEMENT,
PARTICIPATION, LEADERSHIP STYLE, TEAMBUILDING, DECENTRALIZATION,
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE and STRATEGIC CHOICE. OB is now in demand as never before,
from individual managers struggling to make sense of their experience and take charge of their careers,
to business leaders realizing that competitive success means drawing creatively upon their prime asset –
human adaptability, tacit knowledge and talent.
How to Use This Book
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VII.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:27]

Document
This Encyclopedic Dictionary is a reference work but its entries give much more than definitions. Some
500 essays by over 180 leading authorities provide definitive statements of current knowledge and
thinking about all the key concepts and ideas of OB. Entries vary in length according to the significance
or specificity of a term, but most are 500–1000 words long, and follow a format which includes the
following elements:
definition – state of knowledge – current significance – future trends & applications
This is designed to be especially useful to people new to the field, cutting through the jargon barrier
with clear, concise and informative explanations of key concepts and issues, with an emphasis on
1 Words set in small capital letters are entry cross-references, i.e. they are the titles or "headwords" for
substantive entries to be found in this volume.
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VII.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:27]

Document
Page viii
current and developing trends. These qualities are also intended to make the book a valuable resource
for educators, graduate students, researchers, practising managers and any other inquiring minds.
The format of the volume means it can be used in many ways – it is an almost-infinite matrix. Because
entries are substantive essays, and each contains multiple cross-references (terms set in capitals in the
text, plus additional cross-references at the end of each entry), any number of entries may form a
continuous and developing chain or program of reading. This makes the volume ideal for executive,
short-course reading, core MBA modules, other programs, or just personal exploration of related
themes.
Since each entry provides key references and further reading on topics, it can also be seen as 500
gateways into specialist areas for students and educators. The Subject Index at the end of the volume is
designed to help reader searches. (Entry headwords are marked in bold).
Possibilities for usage are further extended by the wide coverage of the volume. The field as represented
here is much broader than is to be found in the curriculum of a single OB course, and has been defined
to embrace the broadest interests of writers on organizations. In addition to core OB issues it
encompasses key topics in HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS ETHICS,
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION THEORY and STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT.
Since the volume is committed to reporting what is known at the leading edge of the field, we are also
committed to regular future editions of The Encyclopedic Dictionary. Readers can help us here. We
would be pleased to hear from you, what topics you would like to see included in future editions, and
what trends that you detect in the field which should be represented.
The Field as Represented by the Dictionary
The reader's first impression on leafing through the contents of this volume may be the enormous
breadth of the interests of OB scholars and practitioners. Even similar sounding headwords (entry titles)
have widely diverging contents – see, for example, the quite different ideas described under
LEARNING ORGANIZATION and ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING. This diversity comes from
four dimensions: level of analysis, domain, pedigree, and controversy.
Level of Analysis (See Levels of Analysis)
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VIII.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:28]

Document
Within OB it is common for scholars to describe themselves or each other as working at a micro or
macro level, though in reality this represents a continuum of interacting themes from individual
experience and behavior (see INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES), through group and intergroup
functioning (see GROUP DYNAMICS; WORK GROUPS), to the characteristics and behaviors of
organizations as units of analysis (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN; STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT). Many entries have an even wider focus, such as the nature of OCCUPATIONS, the
POPULATION ECOLOGY of firms within sectors, and the effects of CULTURE on organizations.
The chosen focus of a scholar's interest can often be traced to their academic origins – psychologists at
the individual level, social psychologists at the group level, sociologists at the organizational level, and
anthropologists and economists at the societal level.
Yet this academic division of labor is weakening as a result of two developments. First, as OB becomes
more instituted as a defined subject area (mainly in business education) scholars have become
increasingly aware of work outside their original disciplinary specialism and its relevance to their
interests. Within specialist university departments, social scientists studying organizations may still call
themselves I/O (Industrial/Organizational) Psychologists or Organizational Sociologists, but in
interdisciplinary contexts, such as business schools, these labels become less useful as circumscribing
and understanding the breadth of OB scholars' interests. Second, the problems which OB seeks to
address, as presented by the business environment, do not come neatly wrapped in discipline-shaped
parcels. To understand individual behavior or performance in an organization requires a developed
sense of contextualism, i.e. an understanding of the nature of the "macro" forces bearing down upon the
individual or the group, constraining their scope for action. Conversely, ideas about how organizations
are designed or function benefits from awareness of the "micro" diversity and dynamics of
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES in MOTIVATION, VALUES, and PERSONALITY.
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VIII.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:28]

Document
Page ix
It is helpful, therefore, to draw a distinction between the nature of a field of study and a discipline.
Fields are defined by the content of their topics. Disciplines are defined by how they define their
approach to topics – the type of knowledge they seek, the kinds of theories they construct, and the
character of the methods they use. This makes OB an interdisciplinary field of study. It is defined, as we
have seen above, by a bounded range of issues and problems, and within it, different social sciences
meet, often with common cause.
Domain
Domain denotes four kinds of activity in which one finds scholars displaying differing balances of
interest: theory building/testing, empirical investigation, methodological development/practice, and
intervention/application. However, the interdependence of these domains points to the danger of
individual scholars becoming over-identified with any of them. Theorizing without data drifts into
armchair dreaming. The pursuit of data without theoretical foundation becomes trivial or empty
cataloging. The pursuit of methodological rigor for its own sake degenerates into technical game
playing. Application without conceptual, empirical and methodological discipline become mere selling.
However, readers will find entries and authors differing in the emphasis across these domains,
according to the state of knowledge about a topic. For example, there are topics whose primary
challenge is theoretical, such as EXCHANGE RELATIONS, areas where the descriptive accumulation
of data is the main objective, such as AGE; fields in which methodological development is a priority,
such as NETWORK ANALYSIS; and areas where different methods of application are compared, such
as SELECTION INTERVIEWING. However, most topics (including all of the above) offer challenges
in all four domains.
Pedigree
Entry topics also differ in terms of their historical and cultural positioning. Some are represented here
because of their importance to the past development of the field, such as MOTIVATOR/HYGIENE
THEORY, whose insights have now largely been absorbed into current thinking. Others stand at the
leading edge of the field and look likely to be areas of major future growth and application, such as
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM and BUSINESS ETHICS, though one can never be too sure. The
field of knowledge creation is a treacherous arena in which to try to second-guess the future and pick
winners. This is not the same as identifying the unanswered questions, untested applications or future
research needs of a topic, and in most entries authors have sought to do this.
Controversy
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_IX.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:29]

Document
The fourth way in which topics differ is the degree to which they are contested. Contributors were
asked to provide definitive statements about their topics, but at the same time to be open about
controversies or substantive debates within them. Readers should not be alarmed if what they read in
one entry is qualified or challenged in another – indeed the cross-referencing is intended to help surface
these debates (compare, for example, EMOTION with EMOTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS, or
CHANGE METHODS with EVALUATION RESEARCH). Some entries offer more explicit challenge
to orthodoxy than others (see, for example, POSTMODERNISM or CRITICAL THEORY). Others
summarize the status quo in fields where a substantial consensus has emerged (e.g. GOAL-SETTING
and MINORITY GROUP INFLUENCE). These contrasts are healthy in any field of inquiry where
theories compete to give more complete explanations of phenomena, where new empirical studies are
continuing to accumulate evidence, and where relevance is critically tested through application and
practice. In other words, if you detect apparent contradictions between entries, they represent the
vitality of competition in a growing field.
The Method:
How the Dictionary Was Conceived and Developed
The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior is one of those projects which,
when one hears of it, one's reaction is, "what a great idea – I could really use something like that." Well,
that was my response on first thinking about it with the publisher, and it was a reaction pretty
universally shared by contributors. Very few people approached to contribute declined the invitation.
Unsolicited enthusiasm was the most common response: "this is a wonderful project – my graduate
students/executive classes/researchers/and I will find this really helpful."
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_IX.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:29]

Document
Page x
Clearly, to fulfil this potential required an organization and method. The key elements in the chronology
of this were as follows:
A Model of the Field
The first major editorial task (in November 1991) was to develop a model of the field in terms of broad
topic areas to be covered, with sample headwords to illustrate each. Feedback from Blackwell
Publishers and external referees subsequently refined the categories into the following list: 1. individual
differences; 2. job and role attitudes and behaviors; 3. management and leadership; 4. groups and group
processes; 5. power, politics and intergroup relations; 6. human resources management; 7. organization
theory; 8. organizational strategy and effectiveness; 9. human factors and technology; 10. culture and
change; 11. metatheory and method.
This formed the framework for the first draft of the headword list, and is the structure underlying the
alphabetical sequence which appears in the volume.
Generating the Headword List
In April 1992 Advisory Editors, Professors Randall Schuler and Andrew Van de Ven, were recruited,
not just to offer their specialist expert advice respectively in human resources management and
organization theory, but also as scholars renowned for their breadth and mastery of the wider field. Our
first collective task was to develop and refine the headword list, with the aim of achieving balance of
content across domains, and a balance of specificity/detail across topics. To this end all headwords were
classified, specifying target wordcount length and number of references. The length categories ranged
from 50 words for a glossary entry to 4,000 for a few major feature entries. The final distribution by
length was a bell-curve: the most frequent allocations were 500 and 1000 words, with fewer in the
shorter and longer categories.
Identifying Contributors
Once the provisional headword list was complete (October 1992) the editorial team set about drawing
up a contributor list. Selection and allocation was designed to achieve an international mix, but allowing
for a North American preponderance, in keeping with the field's distribution of scholarship worldwide.
It was also designed to draw upon a mix of established authorities and mid-career scholars and young
rising stars. More senior authors were more often allocated major fields with wide boundaries and long
histories, and newer scholars invited to write on specialist and emerging topics. Around April 1993, the
list was complete and letters of invitation were sent out, accompanied by sample entries and guidance
Notes for Contributors. In the months following, the contributor and headword list were extended and
refined in response to contributor feedback.
The Editorial Process
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_X.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:30]

Document
Writing a concise, informative and definitive essay within a very limited wordcount is no easy task.
Most contributors did an outstanding job with their first drafts. Editorial feedback, typically, was to
suggest ways of tightening text to fit within limits, queries for clarification of key points, and requests
for additional material. The most common request of the latter kind was for contributors to expand on
how their topic related to organizational experience, or to add comment on what future questions and
developments might be foreseen for their topic. From mid-1994, with the bulk of entries now submitted,
copy-editing commenced. Apart from minor adjustments to remove anomalies, overlaps and solecisms,
the main task here was cross-referencing. This not only meant highlighting and adding textual
headwords, but making additional suggestions at the end of entries, often to make connections which
might not be obvious to readers.
Production
The final stages of the project were those associated with production – final copy-editing, type-setting,
proof-reading and printing.
You hold the result in your hands. Read, use, enjoy.
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_X.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:30]

Document
Page xi
Acknowledgments
The name of my secretary Angie Quest easily merits top billing for help way beyond the call of duty
toward the creation of this book. Angie's name is well-known to contributors, since she has had
continuing dialog with them all and has been absolutely indispensable to the smooth running of this
project. There were times when we were simultaneously commissioning new contributors, receiving
new manuscripts, suggestions, revisions, and receiving revised or finished copy. The complexity of this
task with over 180 contributors writing over 500 pieces was, frankly, mind-boggling. It didn't boggle
Angie's mind, and she handled the task and the contributors superbly throughout, always cheerful,
tactful, insistent when necessary and unfailingly accurate and efficient in this multi-track operation.
Most heartfelt thanks, not just from me but also from anyone who profits from or enjoys this book, are
owed to her. A truly brilliant job.
Randall Schuler and Andy Van de Ven also gave outstanding assistance at various stages of the project.
Most of all, they gave deep and considered thought to the vital issues of content, balance and design to
ensure the book represented the newest as well as the most traditional interests of OB scholars across a
wide-ranging field. They also did a great job in helping suggest and commission the wonderful
contributor list we assembled, also giving occasional additional advice on feedback to authors where I
needed additional opinions. The fine quality of this book is a tribute to their contribution.
The staff at Blackwells have also been terrific. First thanks are due to the editorial team of Alyn
Shipton, Alison Mudditt, Tim Goodfellow and Philip Carpenter, whose combined commitment from
Blackwell's Reference, Psychology and Business divisions helped the interdisciplinary vision of this
volume to flourish, and were essential to its continuity and efficient production. Successively, Judith
Harvey, Jason Pearce, Denise Rea, Sarah McNamee and other staff, provided first-class backroom
support – circulating contributors, detecting problems to be solved, logging copy and providing
technical advice. Thanks to you all.
I also want to thank all my professional colleagues, at London Business School and beyond for their
consistent support, encouragement and advice at all points on the long journey from inception to
completion. Special thanks here are due to the OB Group at London Business School, for the excellence
of their contributions to the volume, for their insights and ideas about its conception, and their tolerance
of my absorption with it during some very busy periods of the academic calendar. Without these
supports, the book would have been a near impossible task, and much less enjoyable and meaningful as
a project.
My wife and partner Mary, I thank too, for her patience at my regular distraction day and night by piles
of manuscripts, and for her unflagging and generous support.
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XI.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:31]

Document
Last, but by no means least, I thank our contributors, for their outstanding work, their good-natured
responsiveness to editorial suggestions and progress-chasing, and for their belief in this project.
Financial rewards for short reference entries are necessarily limited, but clearly this was never the
source of their high motivation to take part and produce work of the highest quality standards (see
INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION!). Throughout the process, I have continued to receive
numerous notes from them affirming that this was a great project and expressing thanks and
encouragement to me and the team. That meant a lot. Thank you.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XI.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:31]

Document
Page xiii
Contributors
Seymour Adler
Stevens Institute of Technology
Stuart Albert
University of Minnesota
Teresa M. Amabile
Harvard Business School
Deborah Ancona
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Philip Anderson
Dartmouth College
Chris Argyris
Harvard University
Richard Arvey
Stephen R. Barley
Stanford University
William P. Barnett
Stanford University
Jay B. Barney
The Ohio State University
Bernard Bass
SUNY, Binghamton
Max Bazerman
Northwestern University
Avner Ben-Ner
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XIII.html (1 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:32]

Document
Kenneth Bettenhausen
University of Colorado at Denver
John Bigelow
Boise State University
Paul Blyton
University of Wales
Jeanne Brett
Philip Bromiley
William Brown
University of Cambridge
L. David Brown
Boston University
John G. Burgoyne
Lancaster University
W. Warner Burke
Teachers College, Columbia University
Richard Butler
University of Bradford
Kim Cameron
University of Michigan
Andrew Clarkson
Boston University
Chris W. Clegg
University of Sheffield
Stewart Clegg
UWS MacArthur
A. P. Cockerill
London Business School

Document
Adrienne Colella
Rutgers University
Mary Ann Collins

Brandeis University
Thomas D. Cook
Arnold C. Cooper
Purdue University

Document
Page xiv
Cary L. Cooper
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
John Cordery
University of Western Australia
Thomas G. Cummings
University of Southern California
Sandra Dawson
University of Cambridge
Angelo De Nisi
Rutgers University
Gerardine DeSanctis
Duke University
David L. Deephouse
Louisiana State University
Theresa Domagalski
University of South Florida
Robert Drazin
Emory University
William Dyer
Brigham Young University
P. C. Earley
Jack E. Edwards
Defense Manpower Data Center
P. K. Edwards
University of Warwick
Miriam Erez
Technion–Israel Institute of Technology
Paul Evans
INSEAD
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XIV.html (1 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:33]

Document
Daniel C. Feldman
University of South Carolina
Mark Fenton-O'Creevy
Open University Business School
Alan C. Filley
University of Wisconsin
Stephen Fineman
University of Bath
Clive Fletcher
Goldsmiths College, University of London
Charles Fombrun
New York University
John A. Fossum
Arthur Francis
University of Glasgow
John Freeman
University of California, Berkeley
Michael Frese
University of Giessen
David Fryer
University of Stirling
A. G. Gallagher
Queens University, Belfast
Jennifer M. George
Texas A & M University
Barry Gerhart
Cornell University
Connie Gersick
University of California, Los Angeles

Document
Robert A. Giacalone
University of Richmond
Rob Goffee
Irwin L. Goldstein
University of Maryland
Brian Graham-Moore
University of Texas at Austin
Lynda Gratton
Jerald Greenberg
Ohio State University
Hal B. Gregerson
Ricky W. Griffin
David Guest
Birkbeck College, London
Barbara A. Gutek
University of Arizona
J. Richard Hackman
Harvard University

Document
Page xv
Jerald Hage
University of Maryland
Colin L. Hales
University of Surrey
Donald C. Hambrick
Columbia University
Kathy A. Hanisch
Iowa State University
Michael M. Harris
University of Missouri-St Louis
Jean Hartley
Torsten Heinbokel
University of Giessen
Peter Herriot
Institute of Employment Studies, University of Sussex
Beryl Hesketh
University of New South Wales
Linda Hill
Harvard Business School
Wendy Hirsh
Institute for Employment Studies (University of Sussex)
Joyce C. Hogan
University of Tulsa
Edwin P. Hollander
Bernard M. Baruch College, CUNY
Dian Marie Hosking

Aston University
Robert House
Wharton School
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XV.html (1 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:34]

Document
Graham Hubbard
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Anne Sigismund Huff

University of Colorado
John W. Hunt
Daniel Ilgen
Michigan State University
Susan E. Jackson
New York University
Marie Jahoda
University of Sussex
Mariann Jelinek
College of William and Mary
John M. Jermier
Gary Johns
Concordia University
Ruth Kanfer
Tony Keenan
Heriot-Watt University
John Kelly
London School of Economics and Political Science
Manfred Kets de Vries

INSEAD
Richard Klimoski
Ohio State University
P. L. Koopman
Free University, Amsterdam

Document
Kenneth Koput
Kathy E. Kram
Boston University
Roderick Kramer
Stanford University
Michael Lawless
University of Colorado
Barbara S. Lawrence
University of California, Los Angeles
Gerald E. Ledford, Jr
Karen Legge
Ariel S. Levi
Wayne State University
Alessandro Lomi
Robert G. Lord
University of Akron
Judi Marshall
University of Bath

Document
Page xvi
Joanne Martin
Stanford University
Mark J. Martinko
Florida State University
Michael Masuch
University of Amsterdam
Thomas C. Mawhinney
Nigel Meager
University of Sussex
Elizabeth O. Mellon
Marshall W. Meyer
University of Pennsylvania
Stephen Mezias
New York University
Susan Miller
Durham University
Henry Mintzberg
McGill University and INSEAD
Lawrence B. Mohr
Allan M. Mohrman Jr
Tim Morris
J. Keith Murnighan
Nigel Nicholson
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XVI.html (1 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:34]

Document
Stella M. Nkomo
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Greg Oldham
University of Illinois
J. Douglas Orton
Hautes Études Commerciales, Paris
Richard Osborn
Wayne State University
Roy L. Payne
Kirton University
Maury Peiperl
Johannes M. Pennings
University of Pennsylvania
Jeffery T. Polzer
Scott Poole
Walter W. Powell
Robert D. Pritchard
Derek Pugh
Open University
Elizabeth C. Ravlin
University of South Carolina
Gordon Redding
University of Hong Kong
Peter Smith Ring

Loyola Marymount University

Document
Catherine A. Riordan
University of Missouri-Rolla
Ivan T. Robertson
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
David Rogers
New York University
James E. Rosenbaum
Paul Rosenfeld
Sara Rynes
University of Iowa
John Schaubroeck
University of Nebraska
Randall S. Schuler
New York University
Viv Shackleton
Aston University
Noel P. Sheey
Queen's University, Belfast
Henry P. Sims Jr
University of Maryland – College Park

Document
Page xvii
John W. Slocum
Southern Methodist University
Sabine Sonnentag
University of Amsterdam
Paul Sparrow
Manchester Business School
Paul E. Spector
R. B. Stammers
Aston University
Linda Stroh
Loyola University
Robert I. Sutton
Stanford University
Marie D. Thomas
California State University, San Marcos
Cheryl J. Travers
Loughborough University Business School
Linda Trevino
The Pennsylvania State University
Roger Undy
Templeton College, University of Oxford
John Van Maanen

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Andrew Van de Ven

Marc J. Ventresca
Mary Ann Von Glinow

Florida International University
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XVII.html (1 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:35]

Document
Toby D. Wall
John P. Wanous
The Ohio State University
Peter Warr
Karl E. Weick
David T. H. Weir
University of Bradford Management Centre
Michael A. West
Roy Westbrook
David A. Whetten
Uco J. Wiersma
Hong Kong Baptist University
Charles R. Williams
Texas Christian University
Paul Willman
Donna J. Wood
University of Pittsburgh
Stephen Wood
London School of Economics & Political Science
Richard W. Woodman
Stuart A. Youngblood
Texas Christian University

Document
Edward J. Zajac
Dale E. Zand
New York University
Fred Zimmerman
University of St Thomas

Document
Page 1
Ability
This concept denotes competence in an activity (see COMPETENCIES). It is the capacity to act – it is
realized talent. Ability is a synonym for mental power, although there are other human abilities beyond
the cognitive domain. Ability, a construct inferred from human performance, is a product of inherited
genetic predispositions and acquired characteristics. Basic or general abilities are important for
performance of a wide range of tasks (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL).
Historically, intelligence was seen as the basic human ability, and perhaps the most classic controversy
in psychology is whether intelligence is a general ability (g) or a collection of specific abilities.
Spearman, at the turn of the century, studied the relations between various mental measures and
concluded that intelligence (see INTELLIGENCE, TESTING) has one general component and several
secondary components. Thorndike and Thurstone argued that there are multiple components of
intelligence; the most comprehensive conceptualization of intelligence is Guilford's structure of intellect
model, which proposes 120 cognitive abilities. Cattell and Horn, in a more recent interpretation, suggest
two dimensions – fluid intelligence, based on the individual's biological inheritance, and crystallized
intelligence, based on fluid ability combined with experience. Measures of basic intellectual abilities
almost always include verbal comprehension and quantitative reasoning (see COGNITIVE
PROCESSES). In addition to the cognitive domain, abilities underlying physical, perceptual, and
psychomotor task performance have been identified (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984).
See also Assessment; Psychological testing; Skill
Bibliography
Fleishman, E. A. & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance. New York:

Academic Press.
JOYCE C. HOGAN
Absenteeism
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_1.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:36]

Document
The term can be defined as the failure to report for scheduled work. Absenteeism is distinguished from
lateness or tardiness, which indicates a failure to show up for scheduled work on time and from
TURNOVER, which indicates a permanent break in the employment relationship. Traditionally,
managers have been interested in absenteeism because of its cost to organizations, while academic
researchers have been interested in absenteeism on the assumption that it indicates something about
employees' social or psychological attachment to the organization (see COMMITMENT;
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT).
The Measurement of Absenteeism
Many organizations are notoriously lax when it comes to recording systematically instances of absence.
When they do so, they often codify absence instances with attributions as to cause which are of suspect
accuracy (see ATTRIBUTION). Consequently, contemporary researchers most often simply divide
absenteeism into time lost, the number of days missed over some period, and frequency, the number of
inceptions or spells of absence over some period irrespective of the duration of each incident. To permit
comparisons of employees with a different number of scheduled days or to characterize absenteeism at
the group level (see LEVELS OF ANALYSIS) these figures can also be expressed as rates. Following
the logic that absence is missing scheduled work, not reporting due to jury duty,

Document
Page 2
vacation, or maternity leave is not generally counted as absence.
Absence is a low base rate behavior, in that most employees exhibit relatively low absence levels while
a few exhibit higher levels. Thus, a frequency distribution for absenteeism is truncated on the low end
and positively skewed. Because it is a low base rate behavior, absence measures for individuals must be
aggregated over a reasonably long period of time (3 to 12 months) to achieve adequate RELIABILITY
of measurement. Even then, the reliability of absence measures (indexed by interperiod stability or
internal consistency) is tenuous and varies across samples. Some VALIDITY evidence suggests that
frequency of absence is more likely than time lost to reflect a voluntary component (Chadwick-Jones,
Nicholson, & Brown, 1982; Hackett & Guion, 1985). Because of its nonnormal distribution, researchers
should give serious consideration to transforming absence data or using alternative statistical
procedures (e.g., tobit) in its analysis (see STATISTICAL METHODS). Managers should be aware that
a few extreme absentees can have a disproportionate effect on means calculated from absence
distributions, especially for small samples.
The Correlates and Causes of Absenteeism
A longstanding tradition concerns the correlation between demographic variables and absenteeism. This
research reveals reliable associations between AGE and absence among men (younger workers exhibit
more absence (Hackett, 1990)) and GENDER and absence (women are absent more than men) (see
SEX DIFFERENCES; WOMEN AT WORK). However, little theory has emerged to explain these
associations, and they tend to be confounded by differences in OCCUPATION and job STATUS.
Johns (1997) presents several ''models" of absenteeism that correspond to both popular explanations and
research-based explanations for absenteeism. Concerning the medical model, there is increasing
evidence regarding the association between verified illness and absence. Also, self-reported health
status is correlated with absence, and people tend to attribute the majority of their own absence to minor
medical problems. The ultimate accuracy of such attributions is questionable, since "sickness" absence
has motivational correlates, medical diagnoses often reflect prevailing community standards, and people
sometimes adopt sick roles that manifest themselves in absence (see MENTAL HEALTH).
The withdrawal model suggests that absenteeism is an attempt to remove oneself temporarily from
aversive working conditions (see WITHDRAWAL, ORGANIZATIONAL). The voluminous literature
on the relationship between JOB SATISFACTION and absenteeism reveals a very modest relationship,
with dissatisfaction with the work itself being the facet most associated with absenteeism (Hackett &
Guion, 1985). The progression-of-withdrawal hypothesis posits a movement from temporary absence to
permanent turnover. In fact, there is a positive relationship between these variables at the individual
level, a condition that is necessary but not sufficient to prove such a progression.

Document
The deviance model derives from the negative consequences of absence for organizations. In its more
elaborate form, it suggests that absentees harbor negative dispositional traits that render them unreliable
(see PERSONALITY). People tend to make negative attributions about the causes of others'
absenteeism, and absenteeism is a frequent cause of employee/management conflict. People also have a
tendency to under-report their own absenteeism and to see their own behavior as exemplary compared
to that of their coworkers and occupational peers (Johns, 1994). Evidence for an actual connection
between negative traits and absenteeism is sparse and indirect. A necessary condition would be cross-
situational consistency in absenteeism, and there is some evidence for that. More rigorous proof would
be an association between absenteeism and other negative behaviors. Bycio's (1992) review indicates
that more frequent absentees tend to be poorer performers and notes that "a disposition for delinquency"
is one possible explanation.
The economic model of absence suggests that attendance behavior is influenced by economic and quasi-
economic constraints and opportunities. Those who value highly their nonwork time are more likely to
be absent, and looser contractual provisions regarding attendance result in more absence (see
NONWORK/WORK). Absence tends to increase when unemployment

Document
Page 3
falls and when lucrative overtime pay is available. Some INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS scholars have
argued that absence is a form of unorganized conflict that substitutes for some of the functions of
COLLECTIVE ACTION.
The cultural model of absence begins with the observation that there is often more variance between
aggregates of individuals (such as work groups, departments, organizations, occupations, industries, and
nations) than within these aggregates. Mechanisms of social influence and control subsumed under the
label absence CULTURE have been advanced to account in part for these differences between groups
(Chadwick-Jones et al., 1982; Johns & Nicholson, 1982). Some rich case studies of absence cultures
exist, and work unit absence has been shown to account for individual absence over and above
individual-level predictors. What is needed currently is more rigorous evidence on the formation and
content of absence cultures (see ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE).
In addition to the research subsumed under the above models, other eclectic themes can be seen in
contemporary research. These include investigations of mood and absence (see AFFECT; EMOTION),
the self-regulatory and coping functions of absence (see SELF-REGULATION), and the prediction of
absence using within-person rather than between-person models.
Managing Absenteeism
The deviance model has tended to dominate management approaches to absence. As a result, surveys
show that PUNISHMENT and discipline systems are the most common methods of controlling absence.
Used alone, they are not especially effective because of negative side effects and because few
employees are actually punished. More effective are mixed consequence systems that punish extreme
offenders but reward good attenders with money, time off, and so on (Rhodes & Steers, 1990) (see
REWARDS). JOB ENRICHMENT and FLEXITIME have both been associated with reduced absence,
as have SELF-MANAGEMENT programs that teach employees to regulate their own attendance
behavior. Badly needed are theories that translate the likely causes of absenteeism into credible
interventions and organizations with the foresight to experiment with these interventions. Obsession
with extreme offenders has distracted managers from giving attention to the attendance behavior of all
employees.
See also Job characteristics; Motivation and performance; Person–job fit; Performance,
individual; Stress
Bibliography
Bycio, P. (1992). Job performance and absenteeism: A review and meta-analysis. Human Relations, 45,
193–220.
Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson, N. & Brown, C. (1982). Social psychology of absenteeism. New
York: Praeger.

Document
Goodman, P. S. & Atkin, R. S. (Eds), (1984). Absenteeism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackett, R. D. (1990). Age, tenure, and employee absenteeism. Human Relations, 43, 601–619.
Hackett, R. D. & Guion, R. M. (1985). A reevaluation of the absenteeism-job satisfaction relationship.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 340–381.
Johns, G. (1997). Contemporary research on absence from work: Correlates, causes and consequences.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13, 115–173.
Johns, G. (1994). Absenteeism estimates by employees and managers: Divergent perspectives and self-
serving perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 229–239.
Johns, G. & Nicholson, N. (1982). The meanings of absence: New strategies for theory and research.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 127–173.
Martocchio, J. J. & Harrison, D. A. (1993). To be there or not to be there? Questions, theories, and
methods in absenteeism research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 11, 259–
329.
Rhodes, S. R. & Steers, R. M. (1990). Managing employee absenteeism. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
GARY JOHNS
Accidents
"Accident" normally refers to a chance event or consequence which, being unexpected, seems to lack an
obvious cause. Investigations of industrial or organizational accidents commonly attribute cause either
to machine failure, environmental factors, human error, or a combination of these (see ERGONOMICS;
ERRORS). Applied psychologists and

Document
Page 4
ergonomists have traditionally seen their organizational role to include accident analysis, particularly
when accidents might be due to human error (Sheehy & Chapman, 1987).
A number of methods have been devised to assist in the investigations and analysis of accidents. Task
analysis permits the design of work practices according to regulated sequences of behaviors (see JOB
ANALYSIS). This makes it possible to identify human error from a reliable and well-established
reference point. However, in the modern workplace the increasing flexibility in work roles and
responsibilities and the increased sophistication of industrial equipment, means that highly regularized
work sequence reference points are less common. This type of analysis is probably inadequate in large-
scale socio-technical systems (Rasmussen, 1990) (see SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY). Another type
of accident analysis involves tracing the causal path from consequences back to an identified source and
to contributing factors. The advantage of this approach is that it allows the enumeration of a broad
range of factors, and the identifications of inter-relationships between them, and can guide the design of
counter-measures. However, it can lead to biases in the sampling and analysis of error behaviors
(Brown & Groeger, 1988) (see BIAS). This occurs because only error behaviors resulting in a recorded
accident are studied. We have no indication of the frequency of occurrence of that behavior, nor of its
variability, under circumstances which do not lead to accidents. Limitations in accident analysis
methods may explain why some types of accident or patterns of accident are difficult to predict or
explain. For example, Guastello (1988) describes the phenomena of small groups being subject to a
highly variable accident rate (even bimodal) whereas large groups often display consistent rates over
time (see GROUP SIZE).
The study and prevention of accidents is not simply a matter of identifying abnormal events and
practices. Many accidents are "normal" in the sense that they are an inevitable consequence of the
design and management of certain kinds of work practice. Dwyer and Raferty (1991) have offered a
sociological theory of industrial accidents using this idea. They suggest accidents are a product of three
levels (not necessarily hierarchical), of social relations of work: (1) REWARDS; (2) command; and (3)
organization. The reward level refers to the work that is produced through the manipulation of
recompense (monetary or symbolic) in return for work effort (e.g., price-work, overtime, or BONUS
PAYMENTS). The command level refers to work produced through the use of POWER, overt or
covert, such as when risks at work are accepted as normal. Organizational level refers to the division of
labor through task structure, the relationship between tasks and the knowledge or information that
workers possess.
See also Crises; Safety; Stress; Information processing
Bibliography
Brown, I. D. & Groeger, J. (1988). Risk perception and decision taking during the transition between
novice and experienced driver status. Ergonomics, 31, 585–597.

Document
Dwyer, T. & Raferty, A. E. (1991). Industrial accidents are produced by social relations at work: A
sociological theory of industrial accidents. Applied Ergonomics, 22, 167–178.
Guastello, S. J. (1988). Catastrophe modeling of the accident process: Organizational subunit size.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 246–255.
Rassmussen, J. (1990). The role of error in organizing behaviour. Ergonomics, 33, 185–1199.
Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J. & Cambell, K. (1990). Errors and violations on the
road: A real distinction? Ergonomics, 33, 1315–1332.
Sheehy, N. P. & Chapman, A. J. (1987). Industrial accidents. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1987. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
NOEL SHEEHY and A. G. GALLAGHER
Accountability
The term denotes responsibility for particular activities, results, or outcomes; specification of the person
(s) or group(s) who hold such responsibility in an organization; the practice of holding designated
individuals responsible, in an effort to insure that tasks are accomplished on time and according to
agreed-upon methods and criteria. Literally, the term implies that the responsible party will be expected
to account for outcomes, positive or negative, explaining how and why they occurred.

Document
Page 5
Accountability has roots in CLASSICAL MANAGEMENT THEORY, in the DIVISION OF LABOR

into parts, and in explicit job specifications. Consistent with Taylor's SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT,
as well as with widespread norms of fairness, employees in organizations are deemed accountable for
that portion of the work under their direct control; it is assumed that they can and will cause agreed-
upon results for that work. Accountability thus also assumes that results can be directly linked to the
actions of specific individuals or groups. More generally, accountability carries an assumption of
POWER as well as responsibility to affect specified results, often including profit or loss. Accounting
systems, performance ASSESSMENT systems, and organizational arrangements generally are
characterized by accountability if responsibility for identified outcomes is charged to specified
individuals.
See also Job analysis; Job description; Delegation; Hierarchy; Organizational design
Bibliography
Hoghland, J. C. & Wood, J. R. (1980). Control in organizations and the commitment of members.
Social Forces, 59, (1), 92–104.
MARIANN JELINEK
Achievement, Need For
This denotes a motivational disposition toward performance improvement and achievement under
challenging or competitive conditions. Need for achievement, or nAch, has since 1947 been the subject
of an impressive program of research by McClelland (1985), his students and others. This research has
shown that those high in nAch are distinguished by a preference toward effort-based tasks on which
they have a moderate – rather than a very high or low – probability of success and that provide them
with concrete performance FEEDBACK. Tasks of this sort allow those high in nAch to more accurately
diagnose the degree of effort required to improve and, ultimately, to succeed. A key developmental
predictor of high nAch is early independence TRAINING. McClelland has measured societal
differences in nAch and demonstrated how these differences are predictive of subsequent economic
development. The preferred method for measuring individual differences in nAch is through the
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) or a similar, fantasy-based measure of achievement need (see
PERSONALITY TESTING); self-report measures of achievement motivation are only weakly
correlated with fantasy-based measures of nAch and are less predictive of achievement outcomes.
See also Personality; Motivation; Power
Bibliography
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Document
Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two
meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140–154.
SEYMOUR ADLER
Action Research
"Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate
problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually
acceptable ethical framework" (Rapoport, 1970, p. 499).
Its origin has been traced back to Kurt Lewin's concern that THEORY should not only be used to guide
practice and its evaluation but that, equally important, results of evaluation should inform theory in a
cyclical process of fact-finding, action, and evaluation (Ketterer, Price, & Politser, 1980) (see
EVALUATION RESEARCH).
Action research can be a rich source of accurate, detailed and authentic understanding of informants'
assumptive worlds and contribute to both theory development and the prevention/intervention of
psychological distress (see STRESS). Action researchers also emphasize the importance of the
dissemination and use of the findings of research, ensuring that results are readily available in a
comprehensible and meaningful form to the people involved.
Much research "dealing with organizations from an action–research base" (Trist, 1980, p. 148) has been
carried out from a socio-technical systems theory (STST) perspective (see SOCIO-TECHNICAL
THEORY). Classic STST action

Document
Page 6
research redesigned the work of coal miners and weavers in the 1950s. More recent job redesign studies
have also included action research components (Kemp, Wall, Clegg, & Cordery, 1983) (see
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT).
Action research has also been carried out within a community psychology perspective. Action
researchers have illuminated the social impact of new TECHNOLOGY by facilitating the development
of computer applications by women, ethnic minorities, older people, the disabled, and unwaged people
collectively in the community (Cassell, Fitter, Fryer, & Smith, 1988). Others have investigated the role
of poverty in psychological distress through action research which simultaneously empowers
informants in their dealings with state organizations by offering financial advice as part of the research
process (Fryer & Fagan, 1994). Other researchers have empowered tenants' groups in lobbying state
organizations for housing improvements by enabling tenants to demonstrate the physical and MENTAL
HEALTH consequences of damp housing through research (Martin, Platt, & Hunt, 1987).
Action research is especially valuable when investigating difficult to access, exceedingly complex, or
sensitive issues, or when working with informants who would be otherwise unlikely to become
constructively involved in research. These include those who are: low in confidence; confused;
apathetic; emotionally fragile; distressed; suspicious; or who have limited COMMUNICATION skills.
It is interesting that Eric Trist's first published paper was based on research "methods of investigating
and giving some kind of service to the community in order to gain legitimate access" (Trist, 1980, p.
146).
Jahoda's seminal study of an unemployed community is a classic example of such research. Her team
distributed shoes and clothing, ran courses, provided free medical consultations and medications, and
facilitated political party activity, amongst many other interventions, to build close and insight-yielding
researcher/informant relationships. It was "a consistent point of policy that (none) of our researchers
should be . . . a mere reporter or outside observer. Everyone was to fit naturally into the communal life
by participating in some activity generally useful to the community" (Jahoda, Lazarsfeld, & Zeisel,
1972, p. 5). More recent Scandinavian action research in the same spirit is reported by Levi, Brenner,
Hall, Hjelm, Salovaara, Arnetz, & Pettersson, (1984).
The main attraction of action research is, indeed, that it facilitates the development of ethically and
ideologically more acceptable ways for persons as researchers to relate to persons as research
informants, methods which do not reinforce distress or further disadvantage.
See also Research methods; Consultancy intervention models; Empowerment
Bibliography
Cassell, C., Fitter, M., Fryer, D. & Smith, L. (1988). The development of computer applications by non-
employed people in community settings. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 89–102.

Document
Fryer, D. & Fagan, R. (1994). The role of social psychological aspects of income on the mental health
costs of unemployment: An action research perspective. The Community Psychologist, 27, 2, 16–17.
Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Zeisel, H. (1972). Marienthal: The sociography of an unemployed
community. London: Tavistock.
Kemp, N.J., Wall, T. D., Clegg, C. W. & Cordery, J. L. (1983). Autonomous work groups in a
greenfield site: A comparative study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 271–288.
Ketterer, R. F., Price, R. H. & Politser, P. E. (1980). The action research paradigm. In R. H. Price & P.
E. Politser (Eds), Evaluation and action in the social environment. London: Academic Press.
Levi, L., Brenner, S., Hall, E. M., Hjelm, R., Salovaara, H., Arnetz, B. & Pettersson, I. (1984). The
psychological, social and biochemical impacts of unemployment in Sweden. International Journal of
Mental Health, 13, 18–34.
Martin, C. J., Platt, C. D. & Hunt, S. M. (1987). Housing conditions and ill health. British Medical
Journal, 294, 1125–1127.
Rapoport, R. (1970). Three dilemmas of action research. Human Relations, 23, 499–513.
Trist, E. L. (1980). Eric Trist, British Interdisciplinarian, interviewed by Marshall Sashkin. Group and
Organisation Studies, 5, 2, 144–166.
DAVID FRYER
Action Theory
The theory offers an account of how human action is structured cognitively, and is of special relevance
to JOB DESIGN, TRAINING, GOAL-SETTING, and other applica-

Document
Page 7
tions. It originated over 20 years ago in Germany and has been highly influential in European Industrial/
Organizational Psychology since that time (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1985; Volpert, 1974). It is both
a cognitive and a behaviorally oriented theory (see COGNITIVE PROCESSES). One basic assumption
is that action is goal-oriented behavior. Action is described from a process-oriented and a structural
view-point that are integrated in a hierarchical–sequential model.
From a process-oriented perspective, an action consists of developing goals, choosing between

competing goals, orienting and making prognoses for future events, generating and selecting plans,
executing and monitoring the plan, and processing FEEDBACK. These steps are not necessarily
performed in this order, their sequence may appear rather chaotic, for example, when a goal is changed
during the execution of a plan.
Regarding the structural aspects of action, actions are organized hierarchically. High level and global
goals that cannot be achieved directly are divided into lower level subgoals. Generally, this means that
units at lower levels are nested in units at higher levels (e.g., via TOTE units, see Miller, Galanter, &
Pribram, 1960). One can distinguish four levels of action regulation along both the dimension of
conscious to automatic regulation and the dimension of thoughts to muscular movements: Heuristic
level, intellectual level, level of flexible action patterns, and sensorimotor level.
Operative image systems build the knowledge base of action regulation. They are internal long-term
action-regulating representations and are comprised of movement-oriented, flexible actions, as well as
complex schemata, strategies, metaplans, and heuristics. These image systems are task-oriented,
selective, schematic, and "cost optimizing." Appropriate operative image systems are necessary for
efficient action regulation.
Action Theory conceptualizes action as a mediator between the working person and the objective world
of work objects such as material and outcome. Action is necessary in order to change work objects, but
also the objective world has an impact on actions. Personal prerequisites influence actions, and actions
have an impact on the PERSONALITY of the working person as well (see SOCIALIZATION).
Within this framework, Action Theory has developed applications for central phenomena in Industrial/
Organizational Psychology: classifications of task characteristics (see JOB CHARACTERISTICS),
instruments for job analysis, strategies for work design, ERRORS, the effects of competence on
performance, training, and the developmental impact of work experience on personality.
One of Action Theory's most important contributions to OB is its analysis of competence for efficient
actions and its methodology for enhancing competence through training. For example, effective
managers demonstrate more causal thinking and better PLANNING, better diagnostic information
seeking, and better synthetic thinking than do average managers (Klemp & McClelland, 1986). This is
also true of blue and white collar workers.

Document
Action Theory can well explain why goal setting methods (see GOAL SETTING) have been found to
work so well, and why people will fall back on old routines even when new approaches are actually
necessary (the principle of automatization).
See also Cognition in organizations; Performance, individual; Human-computer interaction; Self-

regulation
Bibliography
Frese, M. & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In M. D.
Dunnette, J. M. Hough & H. C. Triandis (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(vol. 4, 2nd edn, pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hacker, W. (1985). Activity: A fruitful concept in industrial psychology. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds),
Goal directed behavior: The concept of action in psychology (pp. 262–283). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klemp, G. O. & McClelland, D. C. (1986). What characterizes intelligent functioning among senior
managers. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds), Practical intelligence. Nature and origins of
competence in the everyday world pp. 51–83. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E. & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. London: Holt.

Document
Page 8
Volpert, W. (1974). Handlungsstrukturanalyse als Beitrag zur Qualifikationsforschung. Köln: Pahl–

Rugenstein.
SABINE SONNENTAG and MICHAEL FRESE
Adhocracy
see DECISION MAKING; GARBAGE CAN; ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN
Administrative Theory
see ORGANIZATION THEORY
Advanced Manufacturing Technology
The term "advanced manufacturing technology" (AMT) describes computer-based manufacturing

machinery and support systems. In other words, AMT is the manufacturing application of
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. Closely related terms, often used as synonyms, include "new
manufacturing technology," ''microelectronic-based manufacturing technology," and "computer-aided
manufacturing." A distinction can be made between direct and indirect applications of AMT (Sharit,
Chang, & Salvendy, 1987). The former include standalone computer numerically controlled machine
tools, assembly machines, and robotics installations. Where several such pieces of equipment are
integrated under shared computer control, through various materials handling and transfer devices, they
form a flexible manufacturing system (see FLEXIBILITY). Indirect applications include COMPUTER-
AIDED DESIGN and computer-aided engineering, process planning, and production scheduling
systems.
Two features of AMT make it a particularly significant development. First, because different
applications are based on a common information technology there is the potential for greater functional
integration through the transmission of information between direct and indirect applications (see
INFORMATION PROCESSING). For example, information on materials use from shopfloor
equipment can be downloaded to immediately update an inventory control system; data on machine
utilization can be fed into production scheduling systems to optimize output; and design to production
lead times can be reduced through computer-aided design functions being directly linked to part
programming. This offers the prospect of full "computer integrated manufacturing," though in practice
logistic and economic factors constrain the extent to which such integration is being realized. However,
there is a second feature of AMT which is being more widely exploited. Computer control not only
supports accurate and rapid machine operation but, because it can be programmed, also enables
machinery to be used to make a wide variety of parts and to readily accommodate new ones. For the
same reason, set-up and changeover times are often very short. Consequently, AMT represents a
flexible and more widely applicable form of AUTOMATION which is also highly compatible with
JUST-IN-TIME inventory control and TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT. Indeed, because of the

Document
interdependencies among these three initiatives they have been identified as core components of a "new
paradigm" of "integrated manufacturing" (Dean & Snell, 1991).
Much of the initial interest in AMT concerned its impact on JOB DESKILLING. Research has shown
that while it can encourage the simplification of shopfloor work, it does not necessarily do so. The
effect depends on the choices made in the associated JOB DESIGN. Correspondingly, increasing
attention is being paid to the relationship of operator job design to the effective use of AMT systems,
where initial findings suggest that, at least for more complex applications, an enskilling strategy is best.
That in turn, from a HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION standpoint, has raised the question of the
appropriate allocation of function between AMT and operator, and how one can bring "human-
centered" criteria into the system design process. Also of current interest are the wider implications of
AMT for HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT strategies and ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN.
Research in these and other areas is in its early stages, but is gathering momentum.
See also Productivity; Ergonomics; Business process reengineering; Operations management
Bibliography
Dean, J. W. & Snell, S. A. (1991). Integrated manufacturing and job design: Moderating effects

Document
Page 9
of organizational inertia. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 776–804.
Majchrzak, A. (1988). The human side of factory automation. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Sharit, J., Chang, T. & Salvendy, G. (1987). Technical and human aspects of computer-aided
manufacturing. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors pp. 1587–1616. New York: Wiley.
Wall, T. D., Clegg, C. W. & Kemp, N. J. (Eds), (1987). The human side of advanced manufacturing
technology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Wall, T. D. & Davids, K. (1992). Shopfloor work organization and advanced manufacturing
technology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (vol. 7, pp. 363–398). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
TOBY D. WALL
Affect
This is a generic term which refers to the wide range of feeling states that people experience. In
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, the primary concern is with affective or feeling states that are
experienced on the job. Affective states vary in intensity. Relatively strong affective states that interrupt
cognitive processes and/or behavior are typically referred to as EMOTIONS. Typical day-to-day
affective states that do not interrupt cognitive processes and/or behavior, but rather provide the affective
context for daily experiences are often referred to as moods. While mood states do not interrupt current
thought processes and activities, they have been demonstrated to have profound effects on them.
Mood at work refers to feeling states workers typically experience on the job. While there is a tendency
to think of mood as varying along a single continuum from positive to negative, a substantial body of
literature suggests that mood states are characterized by two predominant and independent dimensions,
positive mood and negative mood. Positive moods and negative moods have different antecedents,
different consequences, and have different relationships with life events.
Mood at work is determined by both PERSONALITY and situational factors. Two personality traits,
positive affectivity and negative affectivity, are the key dispositional determinants of positive and
negative mood states, respectively. Positive and negative moods at work are also influenced by
situational factors which can be either work or nonwork related (see NONWORK/WORK). While
situational factors may help to initiate a particular mood state, mood states are generally pervasive and
not directed at any particular object or event.

Document
Mood at work has been neglected by organizational behavior researchers, but this situation is changing
and mood is currently receiving increasing attention. It is important to realize that affective states (and
moods at work) are conceptually and empirically distinct from the often studied construct, JOB
SATISFACTION, which connotes an attitude toward one's job rather than how one feels on the job
(Clark & Isen, 1982).
Mood at work has been linked to various work-related behaviors such as ABSENTEEISM, helping
behavior, and the extent to which individuals perform extra-role behaviors such as forms or
organizational spontaneity (George, 1989; 1990; George & Brief, 1992). Mood states of group leaders
have been shown to affect group outcomes such as group performance (see GROUP DYNAMICS).
Additionally, it has been argued that certain processes may result in members of WORK GROUPS
experiencing similar mood states on the job. When this occurs, groups are said to possess an affective
tone which has been shown to be related to group outcomes such as performance (see CULTURE,
GROUP).
See also Attitude, theory; Performance, individual; Emotions in organizations
Bibliography
Clark, M. S. & Isen, A. M. (1982). Toward understanding the relationship between feeling states and
social behavior. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds), Cognitive social psychology pp. 73–108. New
York: Elsevier.
George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317–324.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
107–116.
George, J. M. & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at
work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329.
JENNIFER M. GEORGE

Document
Page 10
Affiliation, Need For
This dispositional motive reflects a concern with establishing and maintaining affectively positive
relationships with other people (McClelland, 1985; 1989). In common with other dispositional motives
such as the NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT and need for power, the preferred method for measuring
individual differences in need for affiliation is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) (see
PERSONALITY TESTING). Those high in need for affiliation (nAff) more frequently interact with
others. Friendship, rather than SKILL or expertise, more strongly governs their choice of a work
partner. There is a strong element of fear of rejection in nAff; consequently, those high in nAff act to
avoid CONFLICT or direct competition. They will only demonstrate higher levels of CONFORMITY if
conformity is instrumental in the particular situation for achieving social acceptance or avoiding
conflict or rejection. In pursuit of approval, those high in nAff will demonstrate strong task performance
and in the presence of social incentives demonstrate strong achievement tendencies. High nAff is a key
component of what McClelland (1989) has labeled the Relaxed Affiliative Syndrome, or Affiliative
Trust, which is associated with lower rates of hypertension, lower levels of STRESS, and higher levels
of immunochemicals.
See also Type-A; Need theory; Group cohesiveness
Bibliography
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
McClelland, D. C. (1989). Motivational factors in health and disease. American Psychologist, 44, 675–
683.
SEYMOUR ADLER
Age
Within ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, two questions about age are paramount. What are the
effects of age on work PERFORMANCE and attitudes, and how do different conditions of work affect
the pace of aging? (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL).
On the first question, meta-analyses of studies published in the past four decades have shown that the
average association between age and job performance is around zero; in the extensive review by
McEvoy and Cascio (1989) the mean correlation was 0.06. However, there are wide variations between
individual studies, with age–performance correlations ranging from -0.44 to 0.66.

Document
In all cases we need to ask what are the underlying causal factors. Negative age gradients in any
behavior are likely to be due to a decline in basic capacities, deriving from physiological processes
which tend to deteriorate over the years, especially after the age of RETIREMENT. Positive
associations between age and performance are likely to arise from accumulated knowledge and SKILLS
over years of relevant experience.
In general, positive associations between age and job performance are likely to be found in relatively
stable situations, where knowledge and skills can continue to be acquired by older workers. Models of
age-related gains in cognitive performance are sometimes presented in terms of "selective optimization
with compensation" (Baltes & Baltes, 1990b). As people age, they increase their effectiveness in areas
of specialization. Continued interest and practice in a limited number of areas permit the growth of
knowledge-based expertise; and at the same time individuals are sometimes able to learn how to
compensate for limitations from deteriorating basic capacities.
In many jobs, declines in basic capacities (typically small during the years of employment) will be
balanced by improvements associated with relevant experience and possible compensation for limited
deficits. For example, older people's successful compensation in cognitive activities was documented in
relation to transcription-typing by Salthouse (1984). Although older typists were found to respond more
slowly in a choice reaction–time task, there was no age difference in actual typing speed. That was
because older staff were more likely to look further ahead along the line than their younger
counterparts; it was this additional preparation time which permitted them to type as rapidly as their
younger colleagues, despite their slower reactions.
On the other hand, a negative relationship with age is expected in tasks where basic capacities are
exceeded and experience cannot help. This is seen in continuous rapid INFORMATION-
PROCESSING or in any kind of stren-

Document
Page 11
uous physical activity which becomes more difficult with advancing years. For example, slight negative
age gradients are found in "fluid" intelligence, over the span of working life, in situations where new
material (usually abstract and nonverbal) has to be processed under time pressure.
Age differences of a similar kind are found in LEARNING and memory. Older people in general do not
learn as quickly and they sometimes lack confidence in training situations. Within specific jobs, older
employees thus tend in general to have more difficulty where job content is changing rapidly, and
where their knowledge and skills can become obsolete. However, it is clear that older as well as
younger employees are able to learn complex new material, despite the operation of negative
STEREOTYPING in this area (Sterns & Doverspike, 1989; Warr, 1994).
It is important to stress that many job activities are unaffected by either type of age effect. Work is in
many settings routine and nonproblematic, requiring either limited skill or skill sufficiently firmly
established for behavior to be fairly automatic. Age differences in task performance are not expected in
the many roles where employees are not required to perform at high levels nor to respond quickly to
new stimuli.
However, age DISCRIMINATION is common in the SELECTION and promotion of staff (see
SELECTION METHODS). Research has shown that age discrimination harms an organization's
effectiveness as well as being unethical. The variation in employees' performance within age-groups is
typically greater than that between them.
Research has also examined job attitudes at different ages. Overall JOB SATISFACTION is typically
found to be significantly higher among older workers (e.g., Clark, Oswald & Warr, 1996), although the
positive correlation is not high, usually falling between 0.10 and 0.20. Even after controlling for factors
such as tenure, income, positive job features, or job level there still remains a positive age gradient. Part
of that gradient is likely to be attributable to nonwork differences between older and younger people,
associated with differences in LIFE STAGE and general MENTAL HEALTH (Warr, 1992).
The second major question about age is: How do different conditions of work affect the pace of aging?
Are some environments more conducive than others to "successful aging" (Baltes & Baltes, 1990a)?
Evidence about the long-term influence of jobs on aging tends to be indirect, since any job is located in
a broader socio-economic structure and it is difficult to disentangle job from nonjob factors (see NON-
WORK/WORK). However, research has pointed to the causal importance of the "environmental
complexity" provided by different jobs. Kohn and Schooler (1983) have demonstrated longitudinally
that several forms of "intellectual flexibility" are enhanced by prolonged exposure to complex jobs.
Avolio and Waldman (1987) have reported that age and mental performance are differently interrelated
among skilled and unskilled employees. Negative correlations of reasoning ABILITY with age (holding
constant level of education) were significantly greater for the unskilled group (exposed to less complex
work environments) than for the skilled workers.

Document
As part of the wider concern of organizational behavior for the impacts of different JOB
CHARACTERISTICS, it is thus important to examine long-term effects across a period of years.
Cognitive aging is likely to be accelerated or slowed down by the nature of a person's employment.
See also Individual differences; Career stages; Training
Bibliography
Avolio, B. J. & Waldman, D. A. (1987). Personnel aptitude test scores as a function of age, education,
and job type. Experimental Aging Research, 13, 109–113.
Baltes, P. B. & Baltes, M. M. (Eds), (1990a). Successful aging. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Baltes, P. B. & Baltes, M. M. (1990b). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of
selective optimization with compensation. In P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes (Eds), Successful aging (pp.
1–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, A., Oswald, A. & Warr, P. B. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 57–81.

Document
Page 12
Kohn, M. L. & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social
stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McEvoy, G. M. & Cascio, W. F. (1989). Cumulative evidence of the relationship between employee
age and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 11–17.
Salthouse, T. A. (1984). Effects of age and skill in typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 113, 345–371.
Sterns, H. L. & Doverspike, D. (1989). Aging and the training and learning process. In L. L. Goldstein
(Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 299–332). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Warr, P. B. (1992). Age and occupational well-being. Psychology and Aging, 7, 37–45.
Warr, P. B. (1994). Age and employment. In H. Triandis, M. Dunnette & L. Heugh (Eds), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, 485–550. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
PETER WARR
Agency Restriction
Agency Restriction Metatheory (ARM) is based on two hypothesis-generating assumptions. The first is
that people are socially embedded agents actively striving for purposeful self-determination, attempting
to make sense of, initiate, influence, and cope with events in line with personal VALUES, goals, and
expectations of the future in a context of cultural norms, traditions, and past experience (see SELF-
REGULATION).
The second assumption is that agency is frequently undermined, restricted, and frus trated by formal
and informal social forces including: powerful constituting and regulating social institutions and
organizations; required social relationships entailing strain-inducing obligations combined with minimal
collective and individual rights; inadequate personal, family, social, community, and material resources;
and powerful, socially constructed, norms, role expectations, and disentitlements.
ARM was first developed within the UNEMPLOYMENT field out of a critique of the underlying
assumptions of Jahoda's MANIFEST AND LATENT FUNCTION theory in an attempt to generate
alternative working hypotheses (Fryer, 1986). It was developed further to focus research on the way
unemployment undermines future orientation, on the extent and nature of active coping strategies and
on the FRUSTRATION of personal agency by relative poverty.
Although first applied to individuals, ARM also helps to explain the impact of unemployment and
relative poverty on families and on the broader community, and the psychological costs of JOB
INSECURITY, and low JOB SATISFACTION amongst young people, as well as negative labor market
experience more generally.

Document
Support for ARM comes from literature reviews, conceptual analysis, small scale qualitative research
ACTION/INTERVENTION RESEARCH, and large scale, orthodox quantitative studies.
See also Locus of control; Mental health; Stress; Quality of working life
Bibliography
Fryer, D. (1986). Employment deprivation and personal agency during unemployment. Social
Behaviour, 1, (1), 3–23.
DAVID FRYER
Agency Theory
This theory examines the problems – and partial contractual solutions (see CONTRACT) – that exist
when a principal delegates DECISION-MAKING responsibility to an agent who is paid a fee, but
whose own objectives may conflict with those of the principal. This economics-based theoretical
perspective, like TRANSACTION COST THEORY, has grown enormously in scope and influence
(and with some controversy) since the 1970s, and has been used in analyses of executive compensation
contracts and other corporate governance issues (see GOVERNANCE AND OWNERSHIP). In
applying or adapting agency theory to these organizational issues, it is useful, however, to distinguish
between what Jensen (1983, pp. 334–335) refers to as two "almost entirely separate" agency literatures:
a normative principal–agent literature emphasizing the design of compensation contracts with optimal
risk-sharing properties (Levinthal, 1988), and a positive, empirically-based, agency literature focusing
primarily on questions relating to the separation of corporate ownership and control, and the role of
boards of directors (ensen & Murphy, 1990).

Document
Page 13
Organizational research using agency theory has tended to draw from the positive, rather than the
normative, agency literature. For example, while the positive agency literature highlights the value of
placing greater amounts of managerial compensation and managerial wealth at risk by tying it closer to
firm performance, the normative agency literature stresses the need to consider the potential
disadvantages of forcing managers to bear "excessive" compensation risk (Beatty & Zajac, 1994) (see
RISK-TAKING). Organizational research, however, has generally placed greater emphasis on the
importance – from an incentive and control standpoint – of imposing strong pay-for-performance
linkages, rather than the possible disadvantages of imposing risk-bearing in managerial compensation
contracts (see PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY). Interestingly, the lack of debate in the recent
organizational literature on this issue is somewhat surprising, given that the organization behavior
literature on compensation has historically recognized that different forms of compensation, such as pay-
for-performance, vary in their attractiveness to individuals, and therefore, vary in their appropriateness
as incentive-motivational tools (Zajac, 1992) (see PAYMENT SYSTEMS).
Agency problems typically emerge because of the two fundamental conditions that underlie principal–
agent relationships: goal incongruence and information asymmetry (Zajac, 1990). Goal congruence is
an assumed condition, without which the agency problem reduces to a more easily solvable contracting
problem. The second dimension, information asymmetry, is a critical variable in the principal-agent
relationship, and has generated a substantial body of research within the information economics
literature (see ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS). Information asymmetry refers to the fact that in
the typical principal-agent relationship, the principal has less information than the agent about:
(1) the characteristics of the agent; and
(2) the decisions made and the actions taken by the agent.
These two aspects of information asymmetry have been labeled formally in the information economics
literature as adverse selection and moral hazard, respectively.
The moral hazard problem is typically discussed in the positive agency literature that examines
problems between owners and top managers (Fama and Jensen, 1983) or between boards and CEOs
(Westphal & Zajac, forthcoming). For that literature, the issue is whether owners are able to adequately
monitor and control the actions and decisions of self-interested CEOs. Interestingly, organizational
research has tended to focus on the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of boards of directors as monitors
of top management, without considering explicitly the possible cost/benefit trade-offs between the
relative use of incentives versus monitoring as alternative sources of controlling managerial behavior
(Zajac & Westphal, 1994). Beatty and Zajac (1994) suggest that three fundamental elements underlie
agency relationships in organizations (incentives, monitoring, and risk-bearing), and that all three
should be included in theoretical and empirical analyses of contractual relations. Future research that
considers these three elements jointly, and explicitly considers the conflicts, trade-offs, and substitution
possibilities among them, may have the greatest potential to further advance our understanding of top
executive compensation, ownership, and corporate governance.

Document
See also Exchange relations; Governance and ownership; Strategic management
Bibliography
Beatty, R. P. & Zajac, E. J. (1994). Top management incentives, monitoring, and risk sharing: A study
of executive compensation, ownership, and board structure in initial public offerings. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 39, 313–336.
Fama, E. F. & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and
Economics, 26, 301–325.
Jensen, M. C. (1983). Organization theory and methodology. Accounting Review, 58, 319–339.
Jensen, M. C. & Murphy, K. J. (1990). Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of
Political Economy, 98, 225–264.
Levinthal, D. (1988). A survey of agency models of organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 9, 153–185.
Westphal, J. D. & E. J. Zajac (1994) Substance and symbolism in CEOs' long-term incentive plans.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 367–390.

Document
Page 14
Zajac, E. J. (1990). CEO selection, succession, compensation and firm performance: A theoretical
integration and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 217–230.
Zajac, E. J. (1992). Relating economic and behavioral perspectives in strategy research. In P.

Shrivastava, A. Huff & J. Dutton (Eds), Advances in strategic management (vol. 8, pp. 69–96).
Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Zajac E. J. & Westphal, J. D. (1994). The costs and benefits of managerial incentives and monitoring in
large US corporations: When is more not better. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 121–192.
EDWARD J. ZAJAC
Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Alcohol and illegal substance use is regarded as a major problem in the United States and many other
countries. While precise figures are impossible to estimate, a commonly used estimate is 30 billion
dollars of lost productivity due to illegal substance use and 60 billion dollars of lost PRODUCTIVITY
due to alcohol abuse in the United States annually. Alcohol and illegal substance use is viewed as a
workplace problem in many other countries as well. In an attempt to alleviate such losses, some have
argued that companies should address the causes of alcohol and substance abuse. One of the most
commonly mentioned causes is job conditions (e.g., STRESS). Despite the adage "my work is driving
me to drink," empirical studies have found little support for a link between job conditions and alcohol
and substance abuse. There is relatively stronger evidence for a relationship between workforce
characteristics, such as AGE and substance abuse (i.e., younger workers are more likely to engage in
substance abuse than older employees).
A great deal of attention has focused on organizations' attempts to reduce alcohol and substance abuse
through testing and Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). With regard to testing, many U.S.
companies have adopted programs to screen for a variety of illegal substances (Roman, 1990). These
testing programs may be performed at the pre-employment stage (see SELECTION METHODS), "for
cause" (e.g., after an accident occurs), or on a random basis. The research on drug testing has been
somewhat mixed; although some studies have found drug testing to be somewhat predictive of job
outcomes (e.g., ACCIDENT rates, terminations) (see TURNOVER), others have challenged the cost-
benefits of such testing. Drug testing has also been criticized by those who feel that it produces a high
false positive (i.e., applicants or employees who may be mistakenly labeled as drug users) rate. Again,
the research evidence is quite mixed as to how high the false positive rate is for various drug tests. In
terms of legal status, there are numerous federal, state, local, and industry (e.g., Department of
Transportation) regulations in the United States that may limit the conditions under which drug testing
can be performed. In some cases, however, these regulations may mandate drug testing. Other U.S. laws
potentially affect the employment rights of alcohol and substance abusers; under certain conditions, for
example, an alcoholic may be protected from discrimination under the Americans with the Disabilities
Act. Workplace drug testing in other countries is practically nonexistent.

Document
Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) are workplace-based programs designed to identify troubled
employees (e.g., those who are alcohol or substance abusers), and help them obtain treatment or
counseling (see COUNSELING IN ORGANIZATIONS). Such programs are widely available in many
U.S. companies, particularly among larger companies. Similar programs are becoming much more
common in other countries, such as Sweden and Germany. Despite their popularity, there has been little
rigorous research regarding their effectiveness. The focus, from an organization's perspective, has been
on the cost-benefits of such programs compared with other treatment sources. At least in some cases,
organizations have reported that their EAP provided lower cost treatment than other health providers.
One frequently reported problem that remains is the reluctance of employees to use EAPs. Despite
some criticisms of EAPs, they remain prevalent in many companies.
See also Mental health; Performance, individual; Justice, procedural; Absenteeism
Bibliography
Harris, M. & Heft, L. (1992). Alcohol and drug use in the workplace: Issues, controversies, and
directions

Document
Page 15
for future research. Journal of Management, 18, 239–266 [A summary of recent literature
addressing drug use, drug tests, and EAPs].
Roman, P. (Ed.) (1990). Alcohol problem intervention in the workplace. New York: Quorum Books.
Sonnenstuhl, W. J. & Trice, H. M. (1986). Strategies for employee assistance programs: The crucial
balance. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Zwerling, C., Ryan, J. & Orav, E. J. (1992). Costs and benefits of pre-employment drug screening.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 91–93.
MICHAEL M. HARRIS
Alienation
The concept of alienation originated in Marxist thought, to denote the separation of proletarian workers
from the means of production and its capitalist control. Subsequent sociological writings by Durkheim,
Simmel, Weber, and Merton extended its use to denote the psychological and social consequences –
anonymity, inequality, fragmentation, isolation – of industrial production and DIVISION OF LABOR,
especially under conditions of MASS PRODUCTION and BUREAUCRACY. Blauner reintroduced the
concept into industrial sociology in the 1960s, and it was subsequently developed by Seeman (1972) as
a six-facet construct consisting of powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, social isolation, self-
estrangement, and cultural estrangement. It has tended to fall out of favor as a concept in
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, though some studies continue to use it, but with varying
definitions and measures. This decline parallels the relative reduction in use of the term QUALITY OF
WORKING LIFE, both of which trends might be attributed to the decline of smokestack industrial
production, with which alienation has been traditionally associated. However, it may be argued that
alienation remains a highly relevant experience in many OCCUPATIONS, perhaps especially among
certain types of office work and casualized or part-time employment (see HOURS OF WORK;
FLEXIBILITY). It is possible that alienation will remain an important focus of some academic
attention, perhaps within the compass of the fast growing field of BUSINESS ETHICS (Kanungo,
1992).
See also Job characteristics; Job design; Job insecurity; Job satisfaction; Power
Bibliography
Kanungo, R. N. (1992). Alienation and empowerment: Some ethical imperatives in business. Journal of
Business Ethics, 11, 413–422.
Seeman, M. (1972). Alienation and knowledge-seeking: A note on alienation and action. Social
Problems, 20, 3–17.

Document
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Altruism
This term refers to human action that is motivated by concern for the interests of others. Although
neoclassical economists argue that all human behavior is driven by self-interest, research supports the
existence of significant amounts of altruistic behavior, suggesting that individuals are motivated by both
self-interest and moral COMMITMENTS (Etzioni, 1988). Within ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR,
altruism has been studied primarily as a dimension of ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP behavior.
See also Business ethics; Corporate social performance; Values
Bibliography
Etzioni, A. (1988). The moral dimension. New York: Free Press.
LINDA TREVINO
Ambiguity
see UNCERTAINTY; ROLE AMBIGUITY
Analyzers
see STRATEGIC TYPES
Anticipatory Socialization
This process occurs prior to organizational entry, and is typically considered to be the first stage of
organizational SOCIALIZATION (Feldman, 1976). The sources of such influence are virtually
unlimited; including, family, peers, schools, local/regional/national culture, and the organization itself
(Van Maanen, 1976, discusses these). The primary organizational influence is the RECRUITMENT/
selection process, including, where they apply, REALISTIC JOB PREVIEWS. Because CAREER
ENTRY precedes the JOINING-UP PROCESS, all of the formal and informal factors associated with a
career choice are also relevant anticipatory socialization factors.

Document
Page 16
Anticipatory socialization influences both specific expectations about organizational life (e.g., How will
my boss treat me?), basic work beliefs (e.g., accepting authority), work VALUES (e.g., hard work is
good, or the "Protestant work ethic") PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS, and an individual's valences
(the desirability of various work outcomes, such as job security versus pay) (see VIE THEORY). The
congruence of an individual's expectations with organizational realities is particularly important for
newcomers (Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992), and is primarily influenced by the realistic job
preview. The congruence of an individual's basic beliefs, work values, and valences with the
reinforcement received from the organization remain important long after organizational entry, because
they are major influences on JOB SATISFACTION, COMMITMENT, and TURNOVER.
Organizational socialization tactics are designed to increase the congruence of beliefs, values, and
valences by changing the newcomer individual.
See also Career choice; Career transitions; Selection methods; Selection interviewing; Training
Bibliography
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21,

433–452.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and

unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work,
organization, and society (pp. 67–130). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L. & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects of met expectations on
newcomer attitudes and behavior: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288–
297.
JOHN P. WANOUS
Anxiety
The construct of anxiety can be viewed as a state or a trait. When viewed as a state, it refers to aroused
levels of negative AFFECT or EMOTION. Anxiety as a state fluctuates over time and refers to affective
experience in the short-run; such as when an employee is worried about the future and potential
problems. Anxiety as a trait refers to the disposition to experience negative emotional states; relatively
enduring personality characteristics making the individual more likely to experience anxiety over time
and across situations (Tellegen, 1983).

Document
In ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, anxiety is related to the concept of job STRESS. Anxiety (as a
state) may be viewed as a consequence of exposure to workplace stressors. Considering anxiety as a
trait suggests that some individuals are more likely to experience distress at work over time and across
situations. Self-reports of levels of distress at a single point in time are likely to contain aspects of both
state and trait anxiety. Therefore, organizational researchers need to control for trait anxiety when
investigating anxiety as a state.
Anxiety can interfere with thought processes, behaviors, and job performance (see PERFORMANCE,
INDIVIDUAL). A considerable body of literature focuses on how individuals cope with stressors which
has implications for the management of anxiety at work.
See also Organizational neurosis; Personality; Emotions in organizations
Bibliography
Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P. & George, J. M. (1993). The role of negative affectivity in understanding
relationships between self-reports of stressors and strains: A comment on the applied psychology
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 402–412.
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with
an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp.
681–706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
JENNIFER M. GEORGE
Appraisal
see PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Aptitude
This term means readiness to learn. It is the capacity to acquire SKILL – potential for talent. Aptitudes
predict subsequent performance and can be used to forecast achievement in a new situation.
Traditionally, aptitudes refer to relatively homogeneous and narrowly defined segments of ability.
Aptitudes reflect the

Document
Page 17
cumulative experience of daily living under unknown conditions (Anastasi, 1988). Interest in measuring
aptitude comes from the need to make specialized distinctions from the more general intelligence test
(see INTELLIGENCE, TESTING). From this practical need and the availability of factor analysis and
high-speed computers, distinctive aptitude measures were developed for educational advising,
CAREER counseling, and occupational classification. Today, available multiple aptitude test batteries
include assessments of mechanical reasoning, clerical speed and accuracy, spelling, language use,
manual dexterity, and CREATIVITY; these are used widely by the armed services and civilian agencies
for vocational counseling (see VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE). It should be noted that tests of ability,
aptitude, and achievement (see ACHIEVEMENT, NEED FOR) – where achievement is defined as
learning information under controlled conditions – correlate very highly, making statistical distinctions
between these test types difficult.
See also Psychological testing; Assessment; Ability; Individual differences
Bibliography
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan.
JOYCE C. HOGAN
Assessment
This practice in the field of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR generally involves judgments being
made about someone's personal qualities. When the assessment is made against a standard or criterion
(e.g., whether an employee shows sufficient competence to be promoted) the assessment is criterion-
referenced. When people are compared with each other the assessment is norm-referenced. Assessment
of people is conducted in organizational settings for a variety of reasons including the selection of new
entrants or the appraisal of existing personnel for development and promotion/placement. Assessment is
a broad topic and there is a great deal of relevant literature. At the most general level assessment
practices need to be linked to the strategic goals of the organization; the literature on HUMAN
RESOURCE STRATEGY and HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT contains useful guidance here.
At the more specific level of individual assessment, material concerning personnel SELECTION
METHODS, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL, and
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING, is of substantial importance.

Document
Some form of assessment takes place in most organizations. It is common for supervisors or managers
to be asked to assess their subordinates although other forms of assessment, such as self-assessment or
upward assessment, also take place. Tact, sensitivity, and SKILL are needed when one person makes an
assessment of another and assessors should always be trained. There is a lot of material to draw on for
the training of assessors and the development of assessment procedures but there is no single, correct
approach. The assessor TRAINING needed and the procedures to be followed vary according to the
purpose of the assessment, the circumstances and the use to which the information will be put. It is
always important for assessors to be taught to focus on actual events and behavior, and some
understanding of the psychology of person PERCEPTION is important. Any assessment must be as
reliable (i.e., free from random error) and as valid (i.e., provide relevant information) as possible (see
RELIABILITY; VALIDITY).
Research has shown that, when making assessments, people are prone to certain kinds of error,
including a tendency to attribute too much influence to personal factors, such as personality, and too
little to the circumstances surrounding an individual's behavior. This tendency is so pervasive that it is
known as "The FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR" (Ross, 1977) (see ATTRIBUTION).
Other errors include being influenced by stereotypes and irrelevant personal features (e.g., RACE or
GENDER) (see STEREOTYPING; BIAS), making norm-referenced judgments when criterion-
referenced judgments are needed, giving distorted information due to rating ERRORS such as leniency
or restriction of range (see HALO EFFECT). Most general OB or industrial/organizational psychology
texts will provide an overview of these errors and advice on how to overcome them.
The FEEDBACK of information to the assessee is of crucial importance in any assessment process. It is
well established that FEEDBACK

Document
Page 18
can be an important ingredient in performance improvement (Algera, 1990) but only when it is
accurate, interpretable, and delivered in a supportive and constructive fashion.
See also Assessment centers; Personality testing; Competencies; Selection interviewing
Bibliography
Algera, J. A. (1990). Feedback systems in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds),

International review of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 5). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 10). New York: Academic
Press.
IVAN ROBERTSON
Assessment Centers
These do not refer to physical locations but to a combination of several personnel SELECTION
METHODS (e.g., PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING, SELECTION INTERVIEWING, work sample
testing). A typical assessment center will take place over a day or two, and candidates will be assigned
to small groups (6–8 people) so that they can participate in the various exercises. Generally, the
assessors will be senior managers from the organization who have been specially trained; it is quite
common for psychologists to be involved in both the training and ASSESSMENT process. Detailed
information on the research base for assessment centers and clear guidance on their development may
be found in Thornton and Byham (1982) and Woodruffe (1990).
Like other selection methods assessment centers should be designed after a JOB ANALYSIS has been
conducted and used to clarify the major dimensions on which candidates should be assessed. Typical
dimensions used in an assessment center include planning and organizing, INTERPERSONAL
SKILLS, and business acumen. Each dimension should have been derived from job analysis and needs
to be defined clearly in conceptual and behavioral terms so that assessors have a clear grasp of the
constructs involved. Centers vary in terms of the number of dimensions used. Some use as few as seven
but others use as many as 20. Candidates are required to undertake a variety of exercises and assessors
observe their behavior in these exercises and make judgments about the candidates on the various
dimensions. It is common for specific exercises to be focused on specific dimensions. For example, a
group discussion may provide information about interpersonal skills and judgment, an intray exercise
may be designed to provide information on business acumen and problem analysis, and a presentation
may provide evidence of oral COMMUNICATION skills.

Document
Evidence on the criterion-related validity of assessment centers is good. Several large-scale validation
studies have reported positive findings and a meta-analysis (Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson,
1987) of results from a large number of these studies found good criterion-related VALIDITY for
assessment centers against various criteria (e.g., job performance, career advancement) (see VALIDITY
GENERALIZATION).
Although the majority of validation studies have concentrated on assessment centers as a whole, the
validity of the component parts of assessment centers has been explored. Most assessment centers
incorporate several work sample exercises which have been derived from job analysis. Work sample
exercises literally sample the key tasks of a job and build these into an assessment procedure. Probably
the most common exercises in assessment centers are Group Discussions and In-Trays. In general,
evidence on the validity of In-Trays is good and they have been shown to make a unique contribution to
the prediction of managerial success (e.g., Wollowick & McNamara, 1969; Kesselman, Lopez, &
Lopez, 1982). Group Discussion exercises have been less extensively studied and some investigations
have found problems with their reliability. Although the exercises may be standardized for group
discussions there is no established procedure for taking account of differences in group composition
(see GROUP STRUCTURE). Gatewood, Thornton, and Hennessy (1990) found problems with the
alternate form RELIABILITY of Group Discussions and suggested that measurement reliability may be
influenced by differences in group membership.

Document
Page 19
Although the results from meta-analysis suggest that assessment centers have a useful role to play in
personnel selection, there have been some troubling findings concerning the extent to which assessment
centers provide valid measures of the underlying dimensions that they are designed to examine. In a
landmark study Sackett and Dreher (1982) discovered that the correlations between assessments of
candidates on the same dimension but different exercises (monotrait–heteromethod) were smaller than
correlations between different dimensions on the same exercises (heterotrait–monomethod). This is
exactly the opposite of what should have been the case. It seems from this research that either assessors'
evaluations of candidates do not provide clear measures of the dimensions, that candidate performance
on the dimensions is not consistent across exercises, or that candidate performance is exercise (rather
than dimension) specific. The true picture is probably some combination of these possibilities. The
original findings from Sackett and Dreher have been reproduced many times and place a large question
mark over the construct validity of assessment centers. These results make it difficult to explain why
assessment centers show good criterion-related validity (see also Klimoski & Brickner, 1987) but do
not detract from their good criterion-related validity.
Assessment centers involve multiple assessors and candidates. The problems of pooling information
and arriving at a clear view of each candidate have been resolved in a variety of ways and many
assessment centers incorporate an assessors' meeting at which candidates are discussed. Research
evidence suggests that a fairly mechanical approach to this task, in which scores are combined with
minimal discussion, is likely to produce the best results.
Assessment centers are complex procedures and there is evidence to show that validity can vary from
one situation to another. The meta-analysis of Gaugler et al. (1987) and other research (e.g., Schmitt,
Schneider, & Cohen, 1990) revealed that the type of assessor used, number of exercises, use of peer
evaluation, degree of prior contact between assessor and candidate, and other factors moderate the
effectiveness of assessment centers. These results demonstrate clearly that simply using assessment
center exercises does not guarantee success. Like other selection and assessment processes, assessment
centers need careful design and monitoring.
As well as being used for personnel selection purposes, assessment center technology has also been
adapted for use in TRAINING and MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT. Used in this way,
development centers make use of assessment center exercises to provide an evaluation of a person's
COMPETENCIES. With suitable preparation, counseling, and follow-up, the procedure can make a
useful contribution to training needs diagnosis and to the preparation of a tailored development program.
See also Human resource management; Recruitment; Management of high potential; Succession
planning
Bibliography
Gatewood, R., Thornton, G. C. & Hennessey, H. W. (1990). Reliability of exercise ratings in the
leaderless group discussion. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 331–342.

Document
Gaugler, B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. C. & Bentson, C. (1987). Meta-analysis of assessment
center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 493–511.
Kesselman, G., Lopez, F. M. Jr. & Lopez, F. E. (1982). The development and validation of a self-report,
scored in-basket test in an assessment center setting. Public Personnel Management, 11, 228.
Klimoski, R. & Brickner, M. (1987). Why do assessment centers work? The puzzle of assessment
center validity. Personnel Psychology, 40, 243–260.
Sackett, P. R. & Dreher, G. F. (1982). Constructs and assessment center dimensions: Some troubling
empirical findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 401–410.
Schmitt, N., Schneider, J. R. & Cohen, S. A. (1990). Factors affecting validity of a regionally
administered assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 43.
Thornton, G. C. & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment centres and managerial performance. London:
Academic Press.
Wollowick, H. B. & McNamara, W. J. (1969). Relationship of the components of an assessment centre

to management success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 348–352.
Woodruff, C. (1990). Assessment centres. London: IPM.
IVAN ROBERTSON

Document
Page 20
Attitude Measurement
see ATTITUDE, THEORY
Attitude, Theory
This connotes the body of extant knowledge concerned with the structure of attitudes and the
determination and consequences of attitudes. Attitude theory has generally tended to focus on the
components of attitudes, the formation of attitudes, and the formation of quasi-consistent construct
systems comprised of different attitudes, VALUES, and beliefs.
Central to this body of knowledge is work concerned with attitudes that manifest themselves in and/or
that are relevant to the workplace. An attitude is a relatively enduring feeling, belief, and behavioral
tendency directed toward specific individuals, groups of individuals, ideas, philosophies, issues, or
objects (see Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Thus, in an organization a person may (and likely will) have
attitudes about various coworkers and colleagues, supervisors, subordinates, various organizational
policies and practices, physical WORKING CONDITIONS, REWARDS and other compensation,
opportunities for advancement, the organization's culture and climate, and a wide variety of other
organizational characteristics.
The dominant approach to characterizing the structure of an attitude is in terms of three components.
The affective component of an attitude is the EMOTION, feeling, or sentiment the person has toward
something (see AFFECT). For example, the statement ''I do not like that particular work group" reflects
affect. The second component of an attitude, the cognitive component, is the actual belief or knowledge
the individual presumes to have about something. The statement "The people in that work group are
lazy and are too political" represents cognition (note that cognitions may or may not be accurate, or
true, but are only believed to be by the individual). Finally, the behavioral intention component of an
attitude reflects how the individual intends to behave toward something. For example, the statement "I
would resist a transfer to that work group." reflects a behavioral intention. These components are not
discrete phenomenon that are formed sequentially but instead interact among themselves and are
manifested in a variety of forms and mechanisms.
An alternative view of attitudes that has received moderate attention is the so-called situational model
of attitudes (see Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). This approach suggests that attitudes represent socially
constructed realities based on social information available in the workplace (see SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTIONISM). Any given person's attitudes are seen as being a function of social cues about
the object of the attitude that are provided by "significant others" in the workplace.

Document
Attitudes are of interest in part because of their presumed connection with workplace behavior.
Common sense suggests that attitudes will affect behaviors. In reality, this relationship is not
straightforward. Only specific attitudes actually predict specific behaviors. For example, a strong
attitude about one's pay being too low may cause that person to resign for a position with higher pay.
General attitudes such as overall JOB SATISFACTION are not precise predictors of specific job
behaviors. Likewise, specific attitudes such as satisfaction with one's vacation schedule are not precise
predictors of overall job performance. While people develop a wide array of attitudes in the workplace,
much organizational research on attitudes has tended to focus on the key attitude of job satisfaction (see
Fisher, 1980).
See also Individual differences; Cognitive dissonance; Attitude, measurement
Bibliography
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fisher, C. D. (1980). On the dubious wisdom of expecting job satisfaction to correlate with
performance. Academy of Management Review, 5, 607–612.
Salanick, G. & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes.

RICKY W. GRIFFIN
Attitudes, Dispositional Approaches
Within the last decade, a stream of research has emerged to challenge the view that job attitudes (see
also Attitude, measurement; Attitude,

Document
Page 21
theory) can be easily modified through organizational intervention. Within this new perspective, job
attitudes are seen to be a function of stable traits of the worker in addition to being a reaction to a
specific situation (see PERSONALITY TRAITS). Perhaps the most convincing evidence for a
dispositional component to job attitudes was a longitudinal study by Staw, Bell, and Clausen (1986).
Affectivity measures obtained from Californian children in the classroom were significantly correlated
with job attitudes measured later in life.
Laboratory studies subsequently implicated individual dispositions in JOB SATISFACTION, but it was
also found that task enrichment manipulations had a stronger effect on satisfaction.
Field studies suggest that individual job attitudes have some stability over time, and experimental
studies indicate that traits and mood influence task satisfaction. On the other hand, the degree of
stability in attitudes is not very strong, and no study has yet shown that that stability can be attributed to
traits rather than constancy in the situation. Moreover, the effects of traits do not in any way account for
the satisfaction effects of task perceptions. While there may be some dispositional component to job
attitudes, this would not seem to be an impediment to organizational interventions designed to improve
job attitudes.
See also Attitude theory; Personality; Affect
Bibliography
Gutek, B. A. & Winter, S. J. (1992). Consistency of job satisfaction across situations: Fact or framing
artifact? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 61–78.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E. & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime
longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56–77.
JOHN SCHAUBROECK
Attribution
An attribution is a causal explanation. Attribution theory is concerned with the COGNITIVE

PROCESSES and consequences of the processes by which individuals explain the behavior and
outcomes of others as well as their own behavior and outcomes (Martinko, 1994).
Heider (1958) is most often credited as the founder of attribution theory. His basic thesis was that
people are motivated to predict and control their environments. An essential prerequisite for control is
an understanding of the basic causal mechanisms operating in the environment. Thus, average people
can be viewed as "naive psychologists" attempting to understand and explain cause and effect
relationships so that they can attain mastery in their environments.

Document
Although there are many variations of attribution theory, Kelley and Michela (1980) note that research
on attributions has focused on two primary areas:
(1) the achievement motivation model (see ACHIEVEMENT, NEED FOR) which emphasizes how
individuals explain their own successes and failures (see the work of Weiner (1986) and his colleagues);
and
(2) the process by which observers account for and explain the outcomes of others (see Kelley (1973);
Green & Mitchell, 1979; Martinko & Gardner, 1987).
Attribution theories have been applied to a wide range of phenomena including STEREOTYPING,
LEADERSHIP, performance evaluation processes, interpersonal CONFLICT, IMPRESSION
MANAGEMENT, and accounts of organizational responsibility.
Several models of attributional processes have been developed to describe the role and function of
attributions in motivating individual behavior. The achievement motivation models of Weiner (1986)
and his colleagues as well as the learned helplessness models suggested by Abramson, Seligman, and
Teasdale (1978) and Martinko and Gardner (1982) all show the role of attributions with regard to
individual behavior. While the achievement motivation models focus on the role of attributions
regarding individual success and failure, the learned helplessness models focus specifically on passive
and maladaptive reactions to failure. Thus, learned helpless individuals often display passive behavior
and fail to exert effort even when success may be possible because they believe that prior failures were
due to stable and internal characteristics such as lack of ability (see LOCUS OF CONTROL). The
learned helplessness models are most helpful in under-

Document
Page 22
standing and explaining the behavior of poor performers whereas the achievement-oriented models
address the more general process of explaining and predicting reactions to success and failure.
In both the learned helplessness and achievement motivation models, individuals process information
about prior outcomes to arrive at causal attributions. These attributions are believed to affect most
directly subjects' expectancies, which, in turn, influence individuals' affective states (e.g., depression
and ANXIETY) and affect the probabilities of target behaviors and the consequences (outcomes)
generated (see VIE THEORY). A basic assumption of both these models is that attributions can be
classified within a limited number of underlying cognitive dimensions. The models almost always
include the dimensions of internal/external and stable/unstable. The internal/external dimension is
concerned with whether the locus of causality is inside the person or in the environment. The stability
dimension is concerned with whether or not the cause is likely to remain constant or change over time.
Combining the polar opposites of these two dimensions, attributions can be classified as: stable/internal
(e.g., ability); stable/external (e.g., task); unstable/internal (e.g., effort); and unstable/external (e.g.,
chance/luck). In addition, other dimensions such as intentionality, controllability, and globality have
also been proposed (Abramson et al. 1978; Weiner, 1986) but have less research support (see SELF-
REGULATION).
Research has generally supported attributional models of learned helplessness and achievement
motivation. In particular, there appears to be reasonably clear relationships between attributions and
expectations. It has also been found that certain types of attributions are related to particular affective
states (see AFFECT). Thus, for example, attributing failure to an internal and stable characteristic such
as lack of ABILITY has been associated with depression. On the other hand, the linkage between
attributions and behaviors is not as clear. Attributions affect behaviors primarily through the influence
that they have on expectations.
Several models have also been developed to describe how individuals make attributions for the
behavior of others. The majority of these responsibility assignment models (e.g., Green & Mitchell,
1979) generally use the three factors described by Kelley's cube to explain the attribution process.
Essentially, these models indicate that observers evaluate the environment and the target person to
determine which of three causal factors is responsible for the outcome. The belief about causation then
drives the observer's response (behavior) toward the actor. The three types of causal factors that are
believed to be responsible for the outcome are: the person, the stimuli, and the specific occasion. To
make a determination of the causal factor that is primarily responsible, observers are posited to evaluate
the behavior of the target along the dimensions of:
(1) the distinctiveness of the response – performance on this versus other tasks;
(2) consistency – over time and occasions; and
(3) consensus – comparison to others (see SOCIAL COMPARISON).

Document
The final assignment of responsibility is made according to the principle of covariation which attempts
to determine whether or not changes in causes are related to different outcomes. Thus, there must be
multiple observations and causes must vary for analysis to occur. As Kelley (1967) indicated: "The
effect is attributed to that condition which is present when the effect is present and which is absent
when the effect is absent." Thus a leader is most likely to blame a subordinate for poor performance if
he observes that the subordinate typically performs poorly on other tasks, has consistently performed
this task poorly on other occasions, and that everyone else performs this same task well. In general, the
research has documented that information regarding the dimensions described by Kelly's cube is related
to the nature and severity of leaders' reactions to poor subordinate performance.
Two issues appear to recur in the attributional literature and research regarding ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR. First is the effect of attributional processes on LEADERSHIP behavior and leader–
subordinate interactions. Particular attention has been devoted to the impact of attributional biases such
as the FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR on leader evaluations of employee performance.
Another key issue has been the validity of descriptions of attributional

Document
Page 23
processes within organizational contexts. Lord and Maher (1990) have suggested that the rational
process depicted by attributional models may not always provide a realistic description of the processes
by which people assign causality in specific organizational situations. Thus, for example, as a result of
experience, leaders may develop cybernetic short-cuts or schemata in assigning causality regarding the
outcomes associated with a particular job and set of workers, thereby bypassing the more thorough
causal analyses suggested by attribution theory. In addition, some researchers have questioned whether
or not other cultures have the same need for causal analysis and suggest that other dimensions or
depictions of the process of responsibility assignment and achievement motivation may be appropriate
for other cultures (see CULTURE, NATIONAL).
See also Perception; Role; Motivation; Minority group influence
Bibliography
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P. & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:

Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87 (1), 49–74.
Green, S. & Mitchell, T. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader–member interactions.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429–458.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium
on motivation, 1967. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.
Kelley, H. H. & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology,
31, 457–501.
Lord, R. G. & Maher, K. J. (1990). Alternative information processing models and their implications
for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 15 (1), 9–28.
Martinko, M. J. (Ed.), (1995). Attribution theory: An organizational perspective. Delray Beach, FL: St.
Lucie Press.
Martinko, M. J. & Gardner, W. L. (1982). Learned helplessness: An alternative explanation for

performance deficits. Academy of Management Review, 7 (2), 195–204.
Martinko, M. J. & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader member attribution process. Academy of
Management Review, 12 (2), 235–249.
Mitchell, T. R. & Wood, R. E. (1980). Supervisor's responses to subordinate poor performance: A test
of an attributional model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 123–138.

Document
Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
MARK J. MARTINKO
Authoritarian Personality
This term denotes a personality syndrome characterized by rigidity of thinking, deep suspicion of out-
groups, an aggressively domineering and harshly critical attitude toward those in a subordinate position,
an excessively submissive attitude toward those in positions of authority (see OBEDIENCE and
CONFORMITY), and a generally conservative or "old-fashioned" out-look on life (Ray, 1990).
Authoritarianism was identified and studied in a remarkable program of research begun during World
War II to better understand the psychological origins of PREJUDICE and totalitarianism. One of the
unique characteristics of the authoritarian research program was the blend of psycho-analytically-
oriented concepts (see PROJECTION) and methods with more traditional psycho-metric approaches.
Authoritarianism was measured by a self-report measure, the California F-Scale (F stood for Fascism),
which became one of the most widely used personality instruments (Christie, 1991). Publication of The
Authoritarian Personality generated much criticism and debate which in turn stimulated several
important contributions to the study of PERSONALITY. For one, by focusing on the disposition toward
fascist beliefs the researchers had overlooked a more general rigidity and conventionality of thought
that characterized authoritarians irrespective of political orientation. Rokeach developed a measure of
authoritarianism that was politically neutral, labeling the construct Dogmatism, or close-mindedness
(Christie, 1991). Research also revealed that scores on the F-scale were affected by an acquiescence
response set, or the tendency to agree with self-report items (see BIAS; ERROR). In the decades since
the original authoritarian research, response sets of different sorts have been identified and studied.
Organizational behavior

Document
Page 24
researchers have become more sensitive to the need to control these response sets in their measures.
See also Leadership style; Managerial style; Power; Theory X and Y; Organizational neurosis
Bibliography
Christie, R. (1991). Authoritarianism and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson P. R. Shaver & L. S.

Wrightsman (Eds), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Ray, J. J. (1990). The old-fashioned personality. Human Relations, 43, 997–1013.
SEYMOUR ADLER
Authority
This concept denotes the legitimate POWER in a social system associated with a particular person or
position. Legitimate power is consented to or accepted by members of the social system (see
LEGITIMACY). The power exercised by an authority includes not only the expectation of
COMPLIANCE or OBEDIENCE with orders but also the ability to reward or punish.
Weber outlined four types of authority. Katz Kahn (1978) condensed two of them into the rational-legal
type; ideally, it is rule-bound, formal, and based on positions, not personalities. Prevalent in modern
organizations, rational-legal authority is manifested by HIERARCHY or BUREAUCRACY.
Charismatic authority, Weber's second type, also is prevalent in organizations and is derived from the
visionary characteristics of a particular leader (see LEADERSHIP, CHARISMATIC); this authority is
personal and not characterized by rules. Weber's third form of authority is traditional, based on the
sanctity of customs, VALUES, and experience; interest in traditional authority in organizations is
evidenced by ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.
See also Classical design theory; Formal organization; Management, classical theory; Status
Bibliography
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd edn), New York: Wiley.
DAVID L DEEPHOUSE
Automation

Document
In his seminal study of automation, Bright (1958) credits D. S. Harder, then Vice-President of
Manufacturing of the Ford Motor Company, with coining the word in 1946. Initially used to describe
automatic work feeding and material handling devices, the meaning of the term soon broadened to
cover the more general case of the automatic control of the manufacture of a product through successive
stages. Thus, as reflected in the use of the prefix "auto," which comes from the Greek word "autos"
meaning "self,'' "automation" refers to machinery or equipment characterized by SELF-REGULATION,
which operates independently of real-time human CONTROL. The term also has a relative connotation.
It is used both to describe TECHNOLOGY which performs functions previously carried out manually,
and to characterize technology which is more automatic than its predecessor. For these reasons, it is
common to identify different levels or degrees of automation.
Manufacturing automation traditionally has been based on built-in mechanical or electromechanical

control devices such as cams, timers, and counters. These are designed for particular requirements,
which results in a technology dedicated to one or at most a few products. The initial capital outlay, and
the cost of modification to meet different product requirements, effectively restricts the use of such
"hard" automation to MASS PRODUCTION (Sharit, Chang, & Salvendy, 1987). The advent of
numerical control and computer numerical control, however, has made it possible to develop more
flexible or "soft" forms of automation (see ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY). A
key feature of such computer-based control systems is that they can be programmed to determine the
selection, sequence, and duration of different machine operations. The same technology can thus be
used to make a much wider range of products and can more easily be adapted to accommodate new
ones. This has extended the sphere of application of automation to BATCH PRODUCTION, which
represents

Document
Page 25
the larger part of the manufacturing base in industrialized countries.
Although the term automation remains closely associated with manufacturing technology its use is no
longer restricted to that domain. It is now common, for example, to refer to "office automation" to
describe computer-based information input, storage, manipulation, retrieval, and COMMUNICATION
systems which provide word-processing, spreadsheet, electronic filing, messaging and a wide range of
other facilities (see INFORMATION PROCESSING). Czaja (1987) suggests that such applications do
not represent automation in a strict sense, since rather than substituting for human activity they enhance
or augment it. However, that is a subtle distinction which is ignored in practice.
Within the study of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR automation bears upon several areas of inquiry.
For example, from a human factors and HUMAN–COMPUTER-INTERACTION perspective, it raises
the question of the appropriate allocation of function between operator and technology (see
ERGONOMICS). There is evidence that over-automation can impede the operator's ability to respond
correctly to malfunctions which threaten output or safety. Another set of issues concerns the
relationship of automation with JOB DESIGN. Here there is concern about the implications of
automation for JOB DESKILLING, and interest in how to design operator jobs so as to promote system
efficiency and reliability. Automation is also a component of the more inclusive concept of technology,
and hence central to the wider issue of the relationship of technology to ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN.
See also Business process reengineering; Operations management; Productivity
Bibliography
Bright, J. R. (1958). Automation and management. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Czaja, S. J. (1987). Human factors in office automation. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human
factors (pp. 1587–1616). New York: Wiley.
Sharit, J., Chang, T. & Salvendy, G. (1987). Technical and human aspects of computer-aided
manufacturing. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 1694–1723). New York: Wiley.
TOBY D. WALL
Autonomous Work Groups
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_5F25.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:57]

Document
These are groups of employees with overlapping skills who collectively perform a relatively whole task
(e.g., manufacturing a complete product), whilst exercising a high level of discretion over the conduct
of work. Sometimes called "self-regulating," "self-managing," ''semiautonomous," or "internally led"
work groups (see SELF-MANAGEMENT), they are the most common structural outcome associated
with sociotechnical systems interventions (see SOCIO-TECHNICAL THEORY; SELF-MANAGED
TEAMS). According to this perspective such work designs enhance productivity by encouraging the
control of key variances at source and locating intertask coordination requirements within a single work
unit. They are held to be more performance effective than individual JOB DESIGNS when technically
required cooperation is high and when there is a high level of uncertainty or variability associated with
boundary transactions or work processes. A positive effect on employee MOTIVATION and
ATTITUDES is also predicted, since such structural arrangements yield jobs which are congruent with
psychologically significant human VALUES, such as the needs for variety, AUTONOMY, meaningful
work, opportunities to learn, and social support (Pasmore, 1988). Autonomous work groups often
feature as part of an overall HUMAN RESOURCES STRATEGY oriented toward labour flexibility and
employee COMMITMENT.
In practice, the degree of autonomy exercised by these WORK GROUPS varies, but typically involves
three categories of workplace DECISION MAKING (Susman, 1979). First, there are decisions
associated with regulating the immediate production or work process. These concern the coordination
of task performance or the allocation of resources within the group. Second, there are decisions which
affect the work group's overall level of independence within the organization, such as determining the
order of production. Finally, there are decisions concerning the internal governance of the group, such
as the process whereby collective decisions are reached.
The capacity of an autonomous work group to operate effectively depends on the degree of:

Document
Page 26
(1) task differentiation – the extent to which the group's task is independent of others within the
organization;
(2) boundary control – the degree to which employees can influence transactions with their work
environment and protect work boundaries from external intrusions; and
(3) task control – the extent to which employees are free to regulate their own behavior to convert
inputs (e.g., information, raw materials) into a completed product or service, such as by varying the
pace of work (see SELF-REGULATION).
Therefore, autonomous work groups require first-level management practices which clearly define and
protect the boundaries of the group's discretion, avoid close direct supervision, and ensure that members
possess the necessary information, knowledge, and SKILL to exercise control effectively (Manz &
Sims, 1987). Group-based performance FEEDBACK and REWARD systems are also common, whilst
skill-based pay is often used as a means of encouraging the development of multiskilling (see
PAYMENT SYSTEMS).
Studies confirm that appropriately designed autonomous work groups positively affect
PRODUCTIVITY and some specific work attitudes (e.g., intrinsic JOB SATISFACTION). However,
they have not consistently given rise to improvements in performance motivation, ABSENTEEISM, or
labor turnover (see TURNOVER) (Goodman, Devadas, & Hughson, 1988), leading some researchers (e.
g., Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986) to question motivational explanations of their effects.
See also Group decision making; Organizational design; Team building
Bibliography
Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R. & Hughson, T. G. (1988). Groups and productivity: Analyzing the
effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell, R. J. Campbell & Associates (Eds),
Productivity in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-
managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–128.
Pasmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The sociotechnical systems perspective.

New York: Wiley.
Susman, G. I. (1979). Autonomy at work: A socio-technical analysis of participative management. New

York: Praeger.
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R. & Clegg, C. W. (1986). Outcomes of autonomous work groups:
A long-term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 280–304.
JOHN CORDERY

Document
Autonomy
This concept, in work settings, means the degree to which an individual is free to decide how to
accomplish a task, or goals of a job. Considered a basic human need, it is also a motivational
characteristic of jobs. Employees who perceive themselves as choosing to perform an activity, as
opposed to being directed to do so, are intrinsically motivated and accept more personal responsibility
for the consequences of their work (see MOTIVATION; INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION).
Workers relinquished autonomy in the eighteenth century during the Industrial Revolution and the
consequent DIVISION OF LABOR; but better educated workforces, technologically complex jobs,
service-based economies, and international competition have spurred attempts over the past 40 years to
increase autonomy. Organizations have changed the distribution of POWER through decentralization
and participative decision making, (see PARTICIPATION; DECISION MAKING) and have improved
oversimplified work through JOB ENRICHMENT. Findings (Spector, 1986) show that high levels of
perceived control are associated with high levels of JOB SATISFACTION, COMMITMENT,
involvement, performance and motivation, and low levels of physical symptoms, emotional distress,
role STRESS, ABSENTEEISM, and labor turnover (see TURNOVER). However, because
organizations are OPEN SYSTEMS which must adjust to their environments, they will vary in the
degree to which they are able to provide autonomy (see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC).
See also Locus of control; Job design; Job characteristics; Democracy; Job deskilling; Leadership
style; Delegation; Self-regulation; Employee involvement; Theory X and Y; Theory Z

Document
Page 27
Bibliography
Spector, P. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy

and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.
UCO J. WIERSMA
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_27.html [2008-04-01 01:24:59]

Document
Page 28
Bargaining
see COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; NEGOTIATION.
Barriers to Entry
Economic theorists generally argue that under perfect competition a firm's profits should be equal to its
cost of capital. When firms make profits above the cost of capital they are said to generate "rents."
When researchers look across industries or portions of industries' STRATEGIC GROUPS, they often
find significant profitability differences unrelated to cost of capital. They argue that with a few firms in
the industry, the firms can collude to raise prices and profits. This raises a serious question: If firms in
this industry make unusually high profits, why don't other firms enter this industry until the industry
simply makes normal profits?
Researchers have proposed that "barriers to entry" prevent other firms from entering the industry. A
barrier to entry can be any of a number of things that keep other firms from entering an unusually
profitable industry. Some barriers and how they might work include:
1. Government Action For a variety of reasons, government actions can directly and indirectly create
barriers to entry. Regulatory monopolies constitute the most direct barrier. Firms are restrained from
offering services (e.g., telephone, cable television) which would compete with an existing firm. Patent
and other property rights laws may also protect firms in an industry by denying potential entrants access
to essential intellectual property. Environmental, labor, and other regulations may create barriers by
raising the cost of entry, minimum scale for entry, and so forth.
2. Economies of Scale In some industries, both costs and competitive ability may vary such that only
large producers are competitive. This might come from a need for large-scale production facilities or
some economies of scale in advertising or any of a number of sources. If current producers have
reached such efficient scales, then entrants unable readily to attain a similar scale will find entry
difficult. This is particularly true if the demand for a product is not large relative to the efficient scale of
production.
3. Limit Pricing Competitors within an industry may not price to maximize their profits, given current
industry participants, but rather control price and output to deter new entrants.

Document
4. Absolute Competitive Advantages Current competitors in an industry may have factors of production
(e.g., control of ore deposits) that can be denied to any potential entrant, putting new entrants at a cost
disadvantage. This is particularly true where the factors have value within current competitors but may
not be readily sold or transferred (e.g., REPUTATION or know-how). Competitive advantages can also
derive from control over other stages of the value chain than the one of primary interest (see
COMPETITIVENESS). For example, control over distribution channels may deny other manufacturers
the ability to market their products. Alternatively, a vertically integrated firm may deter entry into later
stages in the production process because it can control earlier stages (see VERTICAL
INTEGRATION). For example, a firm might use dominance in the mining of ore to keep other firms
out of smelting and other materials processing industries.

Document
Page 29
5. Product Differentiation Long-term development of loyal or even legally or technically bound

customers greatly increases the difficulty for new entrants.
A number of these barriers can also be seen as "first mover advantages," i.e., advantages that accrue to
the early participants in the industry. For example, early participants are likely to be able to lock up
absolute competitive advantages or attain economies in production due to learning curve effects (see
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING).
See also Strategic management; Organizational design; Organization and environment;

Stakeholders
Bibliography
Geroski, P., Gilbert, R. J. & Jacquemin, A. (1990). Barriers to entry and strategic competition. Chur,
Switzerland: Harwood Academic.
PHILIP BROMILEY
Batch Production
This is a method of transforming inputs into outputs in lots or groups so that any single type of product
is produced only intermittently. This is generally considered the least complex PROCESS
TECHNOLOGY, compared to MASS PRODUCTION and continuous production. Manufacturers
employing batch processes typically produce heterogeneous items targeted to different customer
groups; batch sizes are small if customers demand modest amounts of different types of goods.
Batch production is important in organizational research because many studies generally suggest that
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN is linked to the process technology the firm employs, and that high
organizational performance requires matching technology with structure (see CONTINGENCY
THEORY). Batch production usually involves more UNCERTAINTY than mass production or
continuous-flow processes. Consequently, it is usually associated with more flexible, organic
organizations (see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC). Woodward (1970), for instance, found that
organizations employing batch processes use more ambiguous performance measures, have market-
oriented as opposed to functional departments, and less carefully rationalized work patterns than did
organizations using more complex forms of process technology.
Historically, batch production has been more adaptive but also more costly than mass production or
continuous-flow production. However, ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY may lead
to general-purpose machine tools that can process batches of one unit as cost-effectively as mass
quantities of an item can be produced (Lengnick-Hall, 1986).
See also Automation; Productivity; Technology; Organizational effectiveness

Document
Bibliography
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1986). Technology advances in batch production and improved competitive

position. Journal of Management, 12, 75–90.
Woodward, J. (1970). Industrial organization: Theory and practice (2nd edn) Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
PHILIP ANDERSON
Behavior Modification
(Kazdin, 1978) This is the systematic application of scientific principles of learning (including but not
limited to those mentioned elsewhere, e.g., LEARNING, INDIVIDUAL; and REINFORCEMENT) to
change behavior on a person-by-person or case-by-case basis. Individuals may seek the services of a
qualified behavior modifier to change behaviors they personally consider dysfunctional and beyond
their own ability to control without professional assistance. Common problems addressed and solved by
behavior modification specialists include elimination of phobias, body weight goal achievement
(gaining or reducing), smoking cessation, and elimination of drug abuse. Supervisors are sometimes
taught behavior modification methods so they can determine why one or several subordinates have
learned dysfunctional behaviors on the job. The supervisors then create new environmental experiences
for subordinates that increase the rate of functional behaviors or eliminate dysfunctional and replace
them with functional behaviors.

Document
Page 30
See also Conditioning; Influence; Learning, individual
Bibliography
Kazdin, A. K. (1978). History of behavior modification. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
THOMAS C. MAWHINNEY
Behavioral Decision Research
The rational model of DECISION MAKING is based on a set of assumptions prescribing how a
decision should be made rather than describing how a decision is made. In contrast, behavioral decision
research focuses on the systematic inconsistencies in the decision-making process which prevent
humans from making fully rational decisions (see RATIONALITY).
Kahneman and Tversky (1979) and Tversky and Kahneman (1974) have provided critical information
about specific systematic biases that influence judgment. Their work, and work by subsequent
researchers, has elucidated our modern understanding of judgment. People rely on a number of
simplifying strategies, or rules of thumb, in making decisions. These simplifying strategies are called
heuristics. Unfortunately, these heuristics lead to a number of biases. A number of the predominant
biases described in this literature are reviewed below (this summary is based on Bazerman (1994)):
Ease of Recall
Individuals judge events which are more easily recalled from memory, based upon vividness or
recency, to be more numerous than events of equal frequency whose instances are less easily recalled.
Retrievability
Individuals are biased in their assessments of the frequency of events based upon how their memory
structures affect the search process.
Presumed Associations
Individuals tend to over-estimate the probability of two events cooccurring based upon the number of
similar associations which are easily recalled, whether from experience or social influence.
Insensitivity to Base Rates
Individuals tend to ignore base rates in assessing the likelihood of events when any other descriptive
information is provided – even if the information is irrelevant.
Insensitivity to Sample Size

Document
Individuals frequently fail to appreciate the role of sample size in assessing the RELIABILITY of
sample information.
Misconceptions of Chance
Individuals expect a sequence of data generated by a random process to look "random," even when the
sequence is too short for those expectations to be statistically valid.
Regression to the Mean
Individuals often ignore the fact that extreme events tend to regress to the mean on subsequent trials.
The Conjunction Fallacy
Individuals falsely judge that conjunctions, i.e., two events cooccurring, are more probable than a more
global set of occurrences of which the conjunction is a subset.
Anchoring
Individuals make estimates for values based upon an initial value (derived from past events, random
assignment, or whatever information is available) and typically make insufficient adjustments from that
anchor when establishing a final value.
Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events Bias
Individuals exhibit a bias toward overestimating the probability of conjunctive events and
underestimating the probability of disjunctive events.
Overconfidence
Individuals tend to be overconfident in the infallibility of their judgments when answering moderately
to extremely difficult questions.
The Confirmation Trap
Individuals tend to seek confirmatory information for what they think is true and neglect the search for
disconfirmatory evidence.
Hindsight
After finding out whether or not an event occurred, individuals tend to overestimate the degree to which
they would have predicted the correct outcome.
Framing
Individuals are influenced by irrelevant information concerning how questions are framed.

Document
During the 1980s and 1990s, these biases have had a profound influence on the field of organizational
behavior. Decision making and a decision perspective to negotiation have emerged as central themes in
OB research and the development of new OB courses. Our knowledge of biases has been used to help
organizational members better understand their limitations, and have been extended to the
organizational level of analysis to help account for the systematic errors of organizations.

Document
Page 31
See also Attribution; Bounded rationality; Errors; Commitment, escalating; Negotiation;

Prospect theory
Bibliography
Bazerman, M. H. (1994). Judgment in managerial decision making (3rd edn). New York: Wiley.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185,
1124–1131.
MAX H. BAZERMAN
Behaviorism
see LEARNING, INDIVIDUAL
Benchmarking
This has become a highly fashionable "buzzword" in business, especially in the areas of OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT and STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT. It denotes the identification of best practice in
another organizational unit, followed by its analysis and adoption. An early example of the method
being taken to an extreme was the Xerox Corporation's fightback against surgent Japanese competition
in the copier market, where a wide range of business and operational processes were improved as a
result of systematic benchmarking (for a case study report of the Xerox experience, see Jick, 1993). The
car industry also contains numerous examples.
From an ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR perspective it can be seen as a substitute for

INNOVATION, practiced by "Analyzer" companies (see STRATEGIC TYPES) who seek to minimize
first mover risks whilst reaping the benefits of EXCELLENCE and COMPETITIVENESS. Companies
can benchmark their own best practice as well as that of others, and increasingly do so in the "soft"
areas of HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT through the use of employee attitude SURVEYS and
the like.

Document
Usually, companies benchmark the practices of their best performing competitors, though
commentators have pointed out the dangers of this, since bad practice or conservatism may predominate
in a sector. It is said that companies should benchmark activities not other companies, and may accrue
the benefits of benchmarking most dramatically where the focus is on organizations quite dissimilar to
themselves in type. This is more likely to lead to adoption and diffusion of new forms in a business (see
INNOVATION ADOPTION; INNOVATION DIFFUSION), though inevitably raises issues of whether
benchmarked practices are transferable and implementable. Other recommendations for effective
benchmarking are that it should be creatively applied, rather than an exercise in mere imitation, and that
it should be a continuous monitored activity, rather than a one-off effort at improvement (see
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT).
See also Five forces framework; Organizational change; Organizational effectiveness;

Productivity; Risk-taking
Bibliography
Jick, T. D. (1993). Managing change: Concepts and cases. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Bias
Any systematic deviation of an estimate given by a STATISTICAL METHOD from the true value the
estimate is meant to represent is called bias (Oakes, 1986). As such, bias is a property of a procedure for
estimating a value, rather than of any particular value of an estimate obtained from such a procedure.
Bias can take many forms. The most common in organizational research are sample-selection,
aggregation, model-selection, and omitted-variable biases.
Sample-selection bias occurs when an investigator selects a sample for observation without proper
randomization. Examples of nonrandom selection abound, as when individual units are included in the
sample because they are successful on the outcome variable of interest, because they are convenient, or
because they are willing. Researchers using the case method (see CASE STUDY RESEARCH) need to
guard against bias in the process of selecting evidence. Studies done via SURVEYS, on the other hand,
are especially prone to concerns about a particular sample-selection problem known as response bias.
Aggregation biases can occur when observations on individual units or variables are combined. These
biases are closely tied to questions concerning the choice among LEVELS

Document
Page 32
OF ANALYSIS. Time-aggregation bias is a particular form that arises in POPULATION ECOLOGY

or similar work where continuous durations are rounded, either solely up or down, to discrete intervals.
Model-selection bias occurs when an investigator presumes the relationship between the predictor and
outcome variables follows a certain form without verifying that form for a particular set of data. Often a
convention emerges to use a particular model for reasons of expediency, and it becomes taken for
granted. Omitted-variable biases are extremely difficult to eliminate. These occur when an important
predictor variable is unobserved, but at least partially correlated with other variables in a model.
Simulation (see SIMULATION COMPUTER) is often used to demonstrate the bias of a statistical
procedure or to explore ways of reducing biases in statistical methods. Other biases are of a
nonstatistical nature. Foremost among these are personal biases. Personal biases can only be mitigated
through careful scrutiny of an investigator's entire methodology.
See also Errors; Reliability; Research design; Research methods; Validity
Bibliography
Oakes, M. W. (1986). Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioral sciences. New
York: Wiley.
KENNETH W. KOPUT
Big Five Personality Model
see PERSONALITY; PERSONALITY TESTING
Biodata
There are many selection situations where the ratio of candidates to posts available is so high that many
have to be screened out on the basis of biographical data contained in the application form (see
SELECTION METHODS). Not only is the process of reading large numbers of application forms very
time-consuming, but also the judgments made are highly subjective and of doubtful validity. Biodata
offers an alternative method of dealing with biographical data which is both economical in time and
objective in terms of the method used to evaluate the information.

Document
The procedure involves allocating scores to individual items of biographical data provided by
applicants. These individual scores are then summed to obtain a total score for each individual. Only
those whose total score is above a predetermined cut off point proceed to the next stage of the selection
procedure. A central feature of the biodata approach is the method used to develop scoring keys for the
individual items. The procedure is essentially an empirical one. It involves a development stage of
identifying the extent to which each of a series of trial items is answered differently by successful
versus less successful existing employees and allocating weights to these items accordingly to create
scoring keys. England (1971) provides a detailed description of one of the most popular techniques for
constructing biodata scores.
As with any selection device, a central issue is VALIDITY. The evidence here is generally favorable,
the indications being that biodata can be one of the more valid predictors of job performance (Hunter &
Hunter, 1984). Despite this evidence, there are some areas of current concern relating to the exact
meaning and applicability of biodata.
First, as Mael (1991) points out, there is no clear definition as to what actually constitute biodata. On
the one hand, there are "hard" biodata items consisting of essentially verifiable factual information. On
the other hand, there are a wide variety of "soft" biodata items covering attitudes, opinions, reactions to
hypothetical events, and the like. With this latter group in particular, it is not at all clear what the
defining characteristics of a biodata item actually are. Two other issues are the possibility of faking and
of unintentional DISCRIMINATION against particular social or racial groups (see RACE). Because
"hard'' biodata items can be checked, it seems plausible to assume that they will be less susceptible to
faking, and indeed there is some evidence that this is the case. Nonetheless, there are real possibilities
of unintentional discrimination here. Suppose, for example, individuals living in a certain location
performed better, say in terms of job tenure. Weighting this item could be discriminatory should it turn
out that very few members of a particular racial group happened to live in that location. The dangers

Document
Page 33
of unintentional discrimination may be less for "soft" items, but, because these are not readily
verifiable, they may be more susceptible to applicants' "faking good" by guessing the "correct"
response. Another limitation on the use of biodata is the time-consuming nature of the procedure to
develop scoring keys coupled with the widely held view that scoring keys developed in one job
situation cannot be used for another. However, recent research suggests that well-developed
biographical items may be more robust across job situations than was previously assumed (Rothstein,
Schmidt, Erwin, Owens, & Sparks, 1990).
See also Assessment; Recruitment
Bibliography
England, G. W. (1971). Development and use of weighted application blanks. Minnesota: Minnesota
Industrial Relations Center.
Hunter, J. E. & Hunter, R. F. (1984). The validity and utility of alternative predictors of job
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–99.
Mael, F. E. (1991). A conceptual rationale for the domain and attributes of biodata items. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 763–792.
Rothstein, H. R., Schmidt, F. L., Erwin, F. W., Owens, W. A. & Sparks, C. P. (1990). Biographical data
in employment selection: Can validators be generalizable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 175–184.
TONY KEENAN
Bonus Payments
These are cash payments received in addition to, or in lieu of, base salary increases. Bonuses may be
linked to individual performance (e.g., merit ratings), group performance (e.g., new product
development), facility performance (e.g., cost savings, product quality, customer satisfaction) business
unit/organization performance (e.g., profits, stock returns), or any combination thereof. From a financial
point of view, bonus payments have the advantage of being paid out, in the case of profit sharing, only
when the organization is profitable. In addition, it has been argued that bonuses, which must be re-
earned, in contrast to base salary increases which roll into the base permanently, provide a more direct
link between current performance and pay, and also control the growth of fixed labor costs. On the
other hand, employees, especially those at lower levels, who have less discretionary income, may view
bonuses as unnecessarily putting their income stream at risk.

Document
Whereas bonus payments for production workers were fairly rare until recently, middle and top level
managers in the United States have typically had a bonus plan as an important part of their total
compensation (see CEOs). Among top executives, bonus payments can easily exceed base salary. Short-
term (quarterly or annual) bonus pools for executives are typically tied to meeting net income or return
on stockholders' equity targets (Berton, 1990) and individual performance (Gerhart & Milkovich,
1990). Long-term incentives can also be based on such objectives, although stock performance is
usually the key factor in such plans.
See also Payment systems; Performance, individual; Performance related pay; Rewards
Bibliography
Berton, L. (1990, April 18). Calculating compensation. Wall Street Journal, p. R26.
Gerhart, B. & Milkovich, G. T. (1990). Organizational differences in managerial compensation and

financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 663–691.
BARRY GERHART
Boundary Spanning
To understand this term, we must first understand the idea of boundary. Boundary implies limit or
separateness; a boundary therefore limits or establishes something to be separate from something else.
This something can be physical – e.g., a wall – psychological or sociological – e.g., one's role, title or
ethnic identity – or even imaginary – e.g., "People who work in that part of the organization should be
avoided." Boundary spanning then becomes any process or activity that bridges, links or perhaps even
blurs the separateness of two or more boundaries (see ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES).
Organizationally, boundaries exist interpersonally between and among individuals, particularly in the
form of roles (see ROLE). Job descriptions also establish boundaries. Regard-

Document
Page 34
less of how desirable it might be to link if not blur roles, spanning a role can create stress and conflict.
Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964) defined a boundary role person as one located in two
or more groups within the organization or within more than a single organization. Such a person can
experience conflicting demands (see ROLE CONFLICT).
Organizational subsystems (see FORMAL ORGANIZATION; FUNCTIONAL DESIGN;

ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN) establish boundaries within the organization. Marketing is one
subsystem, finance another, etc. The classic organizational studies of Burns and Stalker (1961) and
Lawrence and Lorsch (1964) distinguished between dividing labor (differentiation) and coordinating
work (integration) (see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC). In one organization that Lawrence and Lorsch
(1964) studied, product INNOVATION was desperately needed, requiring strong interdependence
between research and sales groups and between research and production groups. They pointed out that
management hierarchy alone could not bridge the gap across such wide differences. Consequently,
Lawrence and Lorsch advocated the development of integrating roles and cross-functional teams,
recommendations for spanning boundaries within the organization.
Thompson (1967) has described boundary-spanning structures, particularly between the organization
and its external environment (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). In this context,
procurement is an example of an organizational function that is boundary spanning. Thompson
proposed that the more the organization's environment was large, complex, and unpredictable, the more
management would need to establish boundary-spanning structures to monitor – e.g., market research –
and respond rapidly to the environment with decentralized, local units (see DECENTRALIZATION).
More recently Kanter (1989) has identified at least three examples of boundary spanning across
organizations:
(1) service alliances, where a group of organizations band together to create a new organization to serve
some need for all of them, e.g., an industry research consortium;
(2) opportunistic alliances, where usually two organizations seize an opportunity to gain a competitive
advantage by joining forces, typically referred to as a joint business venture; and
(3) STAKEHOLDER alliances, where pre-existing interdependencies are strengthened, such as with
suppliers, customers, and employees, i.e., between labor organizations and management. (See also
STRATEGIC ALLIANCE.)
By 1990 a new term had entered the scene – the boundaryless organization, popularized by Welch of
GE and others. The point being made, albeit in an exaggerated form, is that since organizations by their
very nature are often overly hierarchical, protective of domains, and unnecessarily competitive and
conflictual, spanning processes and activities are required to decrease the boundaries and increase
permeability.
See also Linking pin; Division of labor; Span of control; Managerial behavior; Integration

Document
Bibliography
Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D. & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress:
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Kanter, R. M. (1989). When giants learn to dance: Mastering the challenge of strategy, management,
and careers in the 1990s. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lawrence, R. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1964). Organization and environment. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
W. WARNER BURKE
Bounded Rationality
Classical economic theories of management assume that decision makers make choices in completely
rational ways, selecting the best alternative to achieve optimal outcomes. They assume a complete set of
alternative solutions is readily available to the decision maker, who has full knowledge of the
consequences of each. The choice is arrived at after a thorough evaluation of each alternative against
explicit criteria.

Document
Page 35
These assumptions are unrealistic in many cases and, although individuals are "intendedly" rational,
their RATIONALITY is bounded – constrained by the environment in which they operate and their own
human limitations.
The complexity of the environment means that decision makers have to simplify to make sense of it. It
also means they are faced with UNCERTAINTY. Individuals cannot absorb all the information needed
to formulate a complete set of alternatives from which to choose. Information may not be available and
evaluation may be subject to personal biases.
A boundedly rational process involves limiting information to what can be easily managed. Alternative
solutions are evaluated sequentially, not all together; if the first is acceptable, further search ceases.
Decisions are made using "rules of thumb," heuristics, and, where possible, tried and tested routines for
problem solving. A suboptimal, or SATISFICING, decision is the result of this process, which is neither
absolutely exhaustive nor completely rational.
See also Decision making; Group decision making; Behavioral decision theory; Cognitive
processes
Bibliography
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. (2nd edn., 1993; Oxford:
Blackwell).
SUSAN MILLER
Brainstorming
The brainstorming technique is an informal technique or tool for GROUP DECISION MAKING.
Group participants informally generate as many ideas, regardless of their apparent practicality or even
relevance, as possible, without evaluation by others. In this way, brainstorming generates a large
number of alternatives to issues, problems, and concerns (Ackoff & Vergara, 1988). Using the same
informal and relaxed format, the brainstorming group is then used to generate creative solutions based
upon those alternatives. Again, during the process of solutions generation, evaluation is suspended until
everyone has had the opportunity to contribute. By these means the brain-storming technique is
regarded as a highly effective process for groups to generate, at relatively low cost and in an informal
atmosphere, many potentially creative and useful alternatives and solutions.
The method is used by business and governmental organizations to help groups overcome barriers to
DECISION MAKING, such as HIERARCHY which tends to suppress the contributions from lower
status members. By generating contributions from all group members, the method creates member
understanding and ownership of alternatives and solutions. This can then result in less resistance to
solutions and greater recognition of the usefulness of change (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson,
1977) (see RESISTANCE TO CHANGE).

Document
Used in conjunction with more formal and more structured techniques of group decision making such as
the nominal group technique and the Delphi technique, brainstorming offers organizations an effective
means to foster and facilitate CREATIVITY in organizational and group decision making (Whiting,
1978).
See also Nominal group technique; Delphi; Innovation
Bibliography
Ackoff R. L. & Vergara, E. (1988). Creativity in problem solving and planning, in R. L. Kuhn (ed.),
Handbook for creative and innovative management pp. 81–92. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Delbecq, A., Van de Ven A. & Gustafson, D. (1977). Group techniques for program planning.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Whiting, C. S. (1978). Operational techniques of creative learning, in M. Richards (ed.) Readings in

management, (5th edn) pp. 131–142. Cincinnati: South-Western.
RANDALL S. SCHULER
Bureaucracy
This widely used concept has a variety of meanings, some positive, some less so. The sociologist Weber
(1946) thought bureaucracy synonymous with rational organization (see RATIONALITY):
bureaucracies embodied the ideals of rational–legal Authority such that all but policy decisions are
based on rules, which themselves are internally consistent and stable over time (see DECISION
MAKING). Political scientists tend to think of bureaucracy as governance by bureaus having the
following characteristics: they are large, they are staffed by

Document
Page 36
full-time employees who have careers within the organization, and they rely on budget allocations
rather than revenues from sales since their outputs cannot be priced in voluntary quid pro quo
transactions in the market (Downs, 1967; Wilson, 1989). There is a third definition of bureaucracy,
which is far less flattering; bureaucracy is inefficient organization, is inherently antidemocratic, cannot
adapt to change, and, worse, exacerbates its own errors (Crozier, 1964). Discussion of bureaucracy
tends to be ideologically tinged (see IDEOLOGY). The political left emphasizes the rationality and
neutrality of government while downplaying the power of bureaucracy itself, while the right uses
bureaucracy as an epithet or shibboleth and focuses on bureaucracy's antidemocratic tendencies and
inefficiencies.
Properties of Bureaucracy
The properties of bureaucracy are best understood in comparison with other forms of organization.
Weber, for example, focuses on comparisons between bureaucracy and traditional forms of
administration. Compared to traditional organizations, the structure of bureaucracy exhibits much
greater DIFFERENTIATION and INTEGRATION. With respect to differentiation, there is intensive
DIVISION OF LABOR, a HIERARCHY of authority, and, perhaps most importantly, a clear separation
of official duties from personal interests and obligations, what Weber calls separation of home from
office. With respect to integration, bureaucracies have written rules and regulations, codified procedures
for selection and advancement of officials, and a specialized administrative staff charged with
maintaining these rules and procedures (see ROUTINIZATION). And compared to traditional
organizations, bureaucracies constrain the conduct of officials while offering powerful incentives for
compliance. The constraints lie in strict super- and subordination requiring all actions to be justified in
terms of the larger purposes of the organization, the norm of impersonality that requires detachment and
objectivity, and advancement contingent on both seniority and performance (see CONTROL). The
incentives consist of the prospect of a lifetime career, salaries paid in cash rather than in kind, and (in
Europe if not the United States) a modicum of social esteem attached to the status of official or
fonctionnaire. The elements of differentiation, integration, constraints, and INCENTIVES render
bureaucratic organizations both more powerful and more responsive to central authority than traditional
administration. The power of bureaucracies results from their capacity for coordinated action. Their
responsiveness to centralized authority arises from the dependence of individual bureaucrats on their
salaries and other emoluments of office. These four elements, according to Weber, also render
bureaucracy more efficient than traditional forms of organization. "Precision, speed, unambiguity,
knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of
material and personal costs – these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic
administration . . ." (Weber, 1946, p. 214).

Document
Compared to modern business organizations, bureaucracies have somewhat different and in some
respects less attractive properties. One must ask, to begin, whether comparison of business and
bureaucracy is warranted given Weber's insistence that the bureaucratic model describes both private
and public administration. Public and private administration were remarkably similar at the time Weber
was writing. Indeed, much of the United States public sector was modeled explicitly after the private
sector at the beginning of the twentieth century. It is not accidental that the reform movement in the
United States, which called for administration devoid of politics, coincided with the emergence of
scientific management, which called for active management of firms. Nor is it accidental that in the
1940s the same theory of organization was believed to apply to public- and private-sector enterprises
(see ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY and CLASSICAL DESIGN THEORY). Public and private
organizations have diverged in the last 50 years, however. Divergences have occurred in several
domains, most notably organizational design, accounting practices, and performance measurement.
With respect to organizational design, virtually all large firms have moved from functional to
divisionalized organizational structures, that is, from designs in which the principal units are
responsible for different activities (such as purchasing, manufacturing, and sales) to

Document
Page 37
designs in which the principal units are self-contained businesses responsible for profit as well as for
other objectives (see DECENTRALIZATION). To be certain, patterns of divisionalization have
changed over time – firms typically have fewer and somewhat larger business units as a result of several
waves of DOWNSIZING – but until very recent times there have been no comparable innovations in
the public sector (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). For the most part, public agencies have retained
the same organizing principles–organization by function–they used 90 years ago. With respect to
accounting, public-sector agencies have departed substantially from private-sector practices. At the
beginning of this century, public entities issues consolidated financial reports and maintained capital
accounts just like private businesses. Consolidated accounting gave way to much more complicated
fund accounting during the 1920s, when it was believed necessary to segregate revenues and
expenditures intended for different purposes into separate funds. Capital accounting has all but
disappeared from the public sector, though accounting for long-term indebtedness remains out of
necessity. With respect to performance measurement, the public sector lags substantially behind private
businesses (see ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE). In business operations, not only is financial
analysis necessary and universal, but firms' internal operations are often typically gauged against
industry Benchmarks (see BENCHMARKING) assembled by consultants and trade associations. By
contrast, very little comparative performance assessment exists for government. In the United States, at
least, performance comparisons across governmental units are strongly resisted. Just as at the beginning
of the twentieth century, some efforts to make government more businesslike are now underway (see
GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES). Some services have been
privatized altogether. Others have been placed in public corporations, which are held responsible for
breaking even if not making a profit. And some government agencies now measure customer
satisfaction, just as businesses do.
Liabilities of Bureaucracy
If public-sector bureaucracies suffer in comparison with private-sector management, one must ask
whether these liabilities arise from systematic causes, that is, the structure of bureaucracies themselves,
or from other causes. Both sociologists and economists have argued that at least some of the liabilities
of bureaucracy are systematic, although for different reasons. Sociologists have focused on bureaucratic
dysfunctions of various kinds, including displacement of goals, so-called VICIOUS CYCLES in which
different dysfunctions feed on one another, and spiraling bureaucratic growth. Economists, by contrast,
have emphasized the efficiency disadvantages of bureaucracies compared to firms, asking whether, in
general, nonmarket transactions are inefficient compared to market transactions and, specifically, the
funding of bureaucracies through budgets rather than market transactions is conducive to
overproduction of bureaucratic services. These potential liabilities of bureaucracy should be reviewed
seriatim.
Displacement of Goals

Document
Bureaucracies are known for rigid adherence to rules and procedures, even when rules and procedures
appear to impede the objectives of the organization. The notion of goal displacement provides both a
description and an explanation for this seemingly nonrational conduct. Goal displacement, following
Merton (1958), describes the process whereby means become ends in themselves, or "an instrumental
value becomes a terminal value." The displacement of goals is especially acute in settings, such as
bureaucracies, where the following conditions obtain: the technical competence of officials consists of
knowledge of the rules, advancement is contingent on adherence to the rules, and peer pressure
reinforces the norm of impersonality, which requires rules and procedures to be applied with equal
force in all cases. What is important is goal displacement, at least as originally conceived, argues that
bureaucracies are efficient in general – under conditions anticipated by their rules and procedures – but
inefficient in circumstances that cannot be anticipated. The implications of goal displacement for
INNOVATION and new product development have been realized only gradually: bureaucracy can be
antithetical to innovation.
Vicious Cycles
A more thoroughgoing critique of bureaucracy argues that dysfunctions are

Document
Page 38
normal rather than exceptional and, moreover, that dysfunctions accumulate over time such that
organizational stasis is the expected outcome. The elements of the vicious cycle of bureaucratic
dysfunctions are impersonal rules that seek to limit the discretion of individual workers, centralization
of remaining decisions, isolation of workers from their immediate supervisors as a consequence of
limited DECISION-MAKING authority, and the exercise of unofficial power in arenas where
uncertainty remains. Thus, as Crozier (1964) observes, maintenance people exercise undue influence in
state-owned factories because their work is inherently unpredictable and cannot be governed by rules.
The logic of vicious cycles, it should be pointed out, yields several consequences. To begin, new rules
will arise to eliminate whatever islands of POWER remain in the organization, but these rules will
trigger further centralization, isolation, and power plays as new sources of UNCERTAINTY arise.
Second, to the extent that the organization is opened to uncertainties arising externally, line managers
have the opportunity to reassert power that would otherwise erode through the dynamics of vicious
cycles. External crisis (see CRISES), in other words, may be an antidote to bureaucracies' tendency
toward rigidity over time.
Spiraling Growth
Bureaucratic systems also tend toward growth other things being equal (Meyer, 1985). Until recently,
growth of government and of administrative staff in private firms was endemic. The causes of growth
lie in several factors, but chief among them are people's motives for constructing organizations in the
first place. People construct formal organizations in order to rationalize or make sense of otherwise
uncertain environments; organizations, in fact, succeed at making the world more sensible; as a
consequence, there is continuous construction of bureaucracy and hence bureaucratic growth as people
attempt to perfect their rationalization of an inherently uncertain world (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT). Two comments are in order. First, the logic of bureaucratic growth is built into
administrative theory as developed by Simon (1976) and others (see ORGANIZATION THEORY).
Irreducible uncertainty in the environment in conjunction with the belief that administrative
organization can rationalize uncertainty will result in continuous growth in administration. Second, the
growth imperative is so strong that deliberate campaigns to "downsize" or "restructure" organizations
must be launched in order to achieve meaningful reductions in staff (see RESTRUCTURING).
Downsizing continues to occur at record rates in United States' firms but may have reached a limit now
that modest industrial expansion is underway.
Inefficiency

Document
Economists have asked persistently without resolution whether public sector bureaucracies are
inherently less efficient than private-sector enterprises. Several answers have been proffered, none fully
satisfactory. From the 1940s to the present time, the Austrian school of economics, von Mises (1944)
and others, have argued that any departure from market principles yields both inefficient transactions
and antidemocratic tendencies. This position has proved difficult to reconcile with contemporary
transaction–cost theories (see TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS), which argue that hierarchies
may be more efficient than markets under some circumstances. In the 1970s, the efficiency question
was cast somewhat differently: might bureaus, which depend on budgets for their sustenance,
overproduce compared to firms subject to the discipline of the market (Niskanen, 1971)? Here too the
answer was equivocal, as analysis showed that rent-maximizing monopolists would have similar
incentives to overproduce whether they were located in public bureaucracies or private firms. Despite
the absence of strong analytic underpinnings for the belief that bureaucracies are more apt to harbor
inefficiencies than private-sector organizations, PRIVATIZATION of governmental functions is
occurring rapidly and with positive results in many countries. It is unclear whether the liabilities of
public bureaucracies are simply the liabilities of established organizations that have been shielded from
extinction for too long, or whether bureaucracies suffer disadvantages in comparison with private
organizations regardless of their age.
Research on Bureaucracy
Organizational research and research on bureaucracy were once synonymous or nearly so, as the

Document
Page 39
bureaucratic model was believed descriptive of all organizations, for-profit and non-profit, and
governmental (see NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS). Case studies of bureaucracy written
during the 1950s and 1960s encompassed government agencies and industrial firms alike as evidenced
by titles like Gouldner's (1954) Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Early quantitative research on
organizations, such as the work of the Aston group and the studies emanating from the Comparative
Organization Research Program in the United States, focused mainly on relations among elements of
organizational structure (size, hierarchy, administrative ratio, formalization, centralization, etc.) that
flowed from the bureaucratic model implicitly if not explicitly (Blau & Scheonherr, 1971). As attention
shifted to external causes of organizational outcomes, the bureaucratic model lost some of its relevance
to research. Thus, for example, the key causal variable in RESOURCE DEPENDENCE models of
organizations is control of strategic resources, which is more germane to businesses than to government
bureaus. The key dependent variables in organizational POPULATION ECOLOGY are births and
deaths of organizations, which are infrequent in the public sector. And institutional organizational
theory has very much downplayed Weber's notion of bureaucracy as rational administration and has
substituted for it the notion that all organizations, bureaucratic and nonbureaucratic alike but especially
the former, seek social approval or legitimation rather than efficiency outcomes (see LEGITIMACY).
Some research on bureaucracy remains. Development economists continue to study the role of national
bureaucracies in promoting or retarding economic growth. Others, again mainly economists, pursue the
comparative efficiency of private-versus public-sector service deliver and possible advantages of
creating competition among public agencies. And the study of public administration remains a viable
although by no means a growing field. But research on bureaucracy is no longer at the core of
organizational theory even though most of the public sector and much of the administrative component
of the private sector continues to be organized along bureaucratic lines.
See also Competitiveness; Alienation; Organizational Size
Bibliography
Blau, P. M. & Schoenherr, R. (1971). The structure of organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little-Brown.
Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Glencoe: Free Press.
Merton, R. K. (1958). Bureaucratic structure and personality. In Social theory and social structure, (2nd
edn, pp. 195–206). Glencoe: Free Press.
Meyer, M. W. (1985). Limits to bureaucratic growth. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine.

Document
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior, (3rd edn). New York: Free Press.
Weber, M. (1946). Bureaucracy. In H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Eds), From Max Weber: Essays in
sociology (pp. 196–244). Glencoe: Free Press.
von Mises, L. (1944). Bureaucracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books..
MARSHALL W. MEYER
Burnout
The technical use of the concept of burnout originated with Freudenberger who wrote about Staff
Burnout in 1974. Its importance grew directly as a result of the development of a measure, The Maslach
Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). The definition of the concept was implicit in the three
factors derived from this 22-item measure: emotional exhaustion; depersonalization of feelings toward
clients; and reduced personal accomplishment in helping clients.
Burnout was originally conceived to be the result of job STRESS, particularly arising from caring for
other people. Questions were soon raised as to whether burnout was different from job stress. More
recently, it has been asked how it differs from depression and negative affectivity, as empirical studies
have shown that the emotional exhaustion scale correlates moderately strongly with these constructs
(Cordes & Dougherty, 1993).
In a study of 600 nurses, Schaufeli and van Dierendonck (1993) show the concept of

Document
Page 40
exhaustion is the core element in measures of burnout and recommend it is best reserved for studies of
people in caring professions. It remains an interesting theoretical and empirical issue as to whether there
is advantage in continued use of the burnout concept, if superior measures of psychological strain
provide better scope for comparative studies across occupations.
See also Affect; Job satisfaction; Mental health; Performance, individual; Repetitive work
Bibliography
Cordes, C. L. & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and integration of research on job burnout. The
Academy of Management Review, 18, No. 4, 621–656.
Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of

Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99–113.
Schaufeli, W. B., Maslach, C. & Marek, T. (Eds), (1993). Professional burnout: Recent developments
in theory and research. New York: Hemisphere.
ROY L. PAYNE
Business Ethics
This subject is becoming an increasingly well established and institutionalized field of management
study. Institutionalization is evidenced by the existence and development of professional associations (e.
g., Society for Business Ethics, Social Issues in Management Division of the Academy of Management,
International Association of Business and Society, and European Business Ethics Network) and
professional journals (e.g., Business Ethics: A European Review, Journal of Business Ethics, Business
Ethics Quarterly, and Business and Society), and the growth of business ethics course offerings in the
United States and some European business schools.
The business ethics field is comprised of two somewhat distinct subfields:
(1) normative (or prescriptive) business ethics – traditionally the province of philosophers; and
(2) descriptive (or empirical) business ethics – traditionally the province of social scientists.

Document
The key differences between these approaches include different underlying assumptions about human
agency, different research goals and questions, and different methodologies. The normative approach is
openly value driven, focusing attention on questions of what ought to be (how the morally autonomous
individual and/or business ought to behave) and on developing methods for making these normative
decisions. The empirical approach assumes a degree of researcher objectivity in its attempts to answer
social scientific questions about what is – how individuals and organizations can be expected to
actually behave, given INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES and external influences on their behavior
(Trevino & Weaver, 1994).
Despite recent calls for integration of business ethics into a single unified field (Kahn, 1990), these key
differences in the two approaches make integration a difficult challenge (Weaver & Trevino, 1994).
Because they remain essentially separate, and because the descriptive approach is more in line with the
domain of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, this entry will focus on the descriptive/empirical
approach.
Within the descriptive/empirical approach, the business ethics area can be further divided into micro
and macro levels. The macro level concerns the organization/environment interface (e.g., corporate
social responsibility, social performance, and relationships with STAKE-HOLDERS). The micro level
addresses individual and group ethical or unethical behavior within the business organization context.
Because other entries will focus on the more macro level concerns (see CORPORATE SOCIAL
PERFORMANCE), this entry is limited to the micro level.
As this field of inquiry grows, more attention is paid to research quality and methodology (see
RESEARCH METHODS). Randall and Gibson (1990) critiqued the methodology of business ethics
research in their review of three decades of published empirical research (94 academic journal articles)
on ethical beliefs and behavior in business organizations. The large majority of these articles were
published in the Journal of Business Ethics, but thirty-eight academic journals were represented.
Atheoretical surveys of managers' beliefs and attitudes predominated. The researchers concluded that
business ethics

Document
Page 41
studies have been seriously lacking in theory development and rigorous research methodologies.
Further, an entire issue of Business Ethics Quarterly (Volume 2, No. 2, 1992) was devoted to
methodological issues. It included articles on the use of experimental approaches, scenarios, interviews,
and specific techniques to overcome social desirability biases and to increase the cooperation of
SURVEY subjects (see BIAS).
More recent business ethics research has focused on developing and testing models of individual ethical
behavior in organizations. These models have generally proposed that some combination of individual
and situational factors influence ethical behavior in organizations.
Ferrell and Gresham (1985) developed a broad framework for understanding ethical DECISION
MAKING in marketing that included individual factors (knowledge, VALUES, attitudes, and
intentions) and external factors (significant others and opportunity).
Trevino (1986) proposed an interactionist (see INTERACTIONISM) model of ethical decision making
in organizations that began with the assumption that individuals think about ethical dilemmas based
upon their individual stage of cognitive MORAL DEVELOPMENT. The model proposed a direct
relationship between cognitive moral development and ethical behavior, and then proposed that this
relationship would be moderated by other individual differences (ego strength, field dependence, and
LOCUS OF CONTROL and situational influences (e.g., the organizational reward system,
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, and characteristics of the work) (see PERSONALITY; PAYMENT
SYSTEMS). Trevino and Youngblood (1990) tested aspects of the model and found support for a
mutual influences model of ethical decision-making behavior. The two individual differences they
studied (cognitive moral development and locus of control) influenced ethical decisions directly. The
reward system (vicarious reward) influenced ethical decisions indirectly through outcome expectancies
(see VIE THEORY). No interactions were found.
Jones incorporated characteristics of the moral issue itself in his issue-contingent model of ethical
decision making (Jones, 1991). Jones proposed that the intensity of the moral issue would influence an
individual's likelihood of recognizing the moral issue, making a moral judgment, establishing moral
intent, and engaging in moral behavior. Moral intensity is based upon five issue characteristics:
(1) magnitude of the consequences;
(2) social consensus about what is right or wrong;
(3) probability of harm;
(4) temporal immediacy of the consequences; and
(5) proximity to victims or beneficiaries of the act.

Document
Still others have focused their research attention on particular types of ethical or unethical behavior, the
emphasis of this research being on the social context of ethical decision making. For example, Grover
(1992) developed and tested a model of dishonesty among professionals based upon ROLE THEORY
(see EMPLOYEE THEFT; HONESTY TESTING). He found that dishonesty was greater in
professional role conflict situations, particularly for those at lower levels of moral development.
Trevino and Victor (1992) studied peer reporting of unethical behavior. They found that role
responsibility and the interest of group members both influenced the inclination to report a peer's
unethical behavior.
Victor and Cullen (1988) focused systematically on the social context to propose a theoretical typology
of ethical work climates (see ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE). The typology was built upon three
ethical criteria derived from normative ethical theory (egoism, benevolence, and deontology) and three
levels of reference (individual, local, and cosmopolitan), creating nine theoretical ethical work climate
types. Empirical tests of the theory supported the existence of five ethical climate types across
companies, and differences within companies by position, nature and work group membership.
Subsequent research has found an indirect association between ethical climate types and ethical
decisions through their influence on the decision-making criteria used (Gaertner, 1991).
More work will be required to further develop theoretical models of ethical organizational behavior and
to test these models in a methodologically rigorous fashion. Additional work will also be required to
determine the appropriate ongoing relationship between

Document
Page 42
descriptive/empirical and prescriptive/normative approaches to business ethics (Weaver & Trevino,

1994). Finally, despite the growth in business ethics courses, questions remain about whether teaching
business ethics results in any real or lasting changes in students' ethical attitudes or behaviors.
See also Codes of conduct; Dilemmas, ethical; Justice, distributive; Justice, procedural
Bibliography
Ferrell, O. C. & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision
making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 87–96.
Gaertner, K. (1991). The effect of ethical climate on managers' decisions. In Morality, rationality and
efficiency: New perspectives on socio-economics. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Jones, T. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model.

Academy of Management Review, 6, 366–395.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Toward an agenda for business ethics research. Academy of Management Review,
15, 311–328.
Randall, D. M. & Gibson, A. M. (1990). Methodology in business ethics research: A review and critical
assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 457–471.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person–situation interactionist

model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617
Trevino, L. K. & Weaver, G. (1994). Business ETHICS/BUSINESS Ethics: One field or two?. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 4, 113–128.
Trevino, L. K. & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical
decision making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 3378–3835.
Victor, B. & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative
Weaver, G. & Trevino, L. K. (1994). Normative and empirical business ethics: Separation, marriage of
convenience, or marriage of necessity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 129–144.
LINDA TREVINO
Business Process Reengineering

Document
Also called ''business process redesign" and "BPR." BPR is a technique for corporate transformation
which came to prominence in the early 1990s. Since the term is relatively new, definitions vary, but
there is some consensus on key elements. Fundamental is the prescription that companies should be
organized around key business processes rather than specialist functions. Proponents of BPR maintain
that a business process (such as new product development, for example) typically involves several
departments or functions – to its detriment. The vertical orientation of each function breeds inefficiency
and retards responsiveness. Reorganizing along business process lines claims to save time and cost, and
to produce an organization better able to respond swiftly to market needs. There is thus a clear link
between the currency of BPR and aspects of organizational RESTRUCTURING such as
DELAYERING. Also many BPR schemes involve replacing the narrow specialist with multiskilled
workers often working in SELF-MANAGED TEAMS. The presence in BPR case studies of familiar
ideas such as these, and a few spectacular BPR failures have led to a negative reaction in some quarters.
Opponents feel BPR offers nothing new and is little more than the next oversold trick in the consultants'
repertoire. But the bringing together of all these elements into a holistic package with a radical aim is
arguably the new and valuable contribution of BPR. In particular, its breakthrough orientation is often
contrasted with incremental techniques such as CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT, which are seen as
actually harmful – evolution doing just enough to stave off revolution. The role of INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY is also of importance – its role in worker empowerment (see EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT) via the swift availability of key data is just one of the ways in which information
aids reengineering schemes. Even if not all companies radically re-engineer themselves in the next
decade, the exhortation of BPR to see a company as a set of business processes rather than specialist
functions is likely to affect both JOB DESIGN and many aspects of HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT.

Document
Page 43
See also Organization development; Organizational change; Productivity; Technology;

Sociotechnical theory
Bibliography
Hammer, M. & Campy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution.
London: Brealey.
ROY WESTBROOK

Document
Page 44
Career
A career is the evolving sequence of a person's work experiences over time, usually with reference to a
particular social setting and outcome.
The work experiences, social settings, and outcomes that define a career may be construed broadly or
narrowly. Narrowly, an individual may hold a career within an OCCUPATION or organization. The
work experiences are jobs, seen as related from an external perspective (see CAREER THEORY), and
the outcome is being promoted. More broadly, an individual may hold a career within society, ranging
across multiple occupations and organizations. The work experiences are also jobs, but they may be
seen as unrelated from either an internal or external perspective. The outcome is earning a livelihood.
Other examples of careers include a family career, in which the outcome is developing and maintaining
ties to spouses, children, and relatives, and a volunteer career, in which the outcome is contributing to
the community (see NONWORK/WORK).
This definition contrasts with the dictionary definition of career, in which career is "a course of
continued progress (as in the life of a person or nation): a field for or pursuit of consecutive progressive
achievement especially in public, professional, or business life (Webster's Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, 1976)." The dictionary definition provides a narrow
view of career, in which individuals work within a small set of institutions toward an outcome tightly
defined by increased hierarchical STATUS and social recognition.
The etymological origins of the term career consistently denote the narrow view. However, modern
careers diverge from this perspective. The rate of change and uncertainty in industrial society
increasingly produce careers characterized by fragmentation, discontinuities, and diversity. As personal
meanings acquired through work environments lose focus and continuity, people necessarily rely more
on self-identity to define, make sense of, and evaluate their own "continued progress."
See also Career development; Career transitions; Labor markets; Psychological contract
Bibliography
Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T. & Lawrence, B. S. (Eds), (1989). Handbook of career theory. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language unabridged (1976). U.S.: G. & C.
Merriam.
BARBARA S. LAWRENCE

Document
Career Anchor
A career anchor is an individual's occupational self-concept, composed of his or her self-perceived

talents and abilities, motives and needs, and attitudes and VALUES (see NEED THEORY;
MOTIVATION; ATTITUDE, THEORY). Individuals discover their career anchors over time through
personal work experiences in real-life settings. "By definition, there cannot be an anchor until there has
been work experience, even though motives and values may already be present from earlier
experiences. It is the process of integrating into the total self-concept what one sees oneself to be more
or less competent at, wanting out of life, one's value systems, and the kind of person one is that begins
to determine the major life and occupational choices throughout adulthood" (Schein, 1978, p. 171).
Once identified, a career

Document
Page 45
anchor provides a growing source of stability for individuals. Although individuals typically hold and
explore many abilities and interests, when presented with occupational choices, they will make
decisions congruent with the career anchor.
The career anchor concept emerged from a longitudinal panel study by Edgar H. Schein of 44 male
alumni of MIT's Sloan School of Management (Schein, 1975). The panelists were interviewed in 1961
and then again in 1973. Schein identified five career anchors during this study: technical/functional
competence, managerial competence, security, CREATIVITY, and AUTONOMY/independence (see
COMPETENCIES).
Technical/Functional Competence
The occupational self-image of individuals with a technical/functional anchor is tied to their feelings of
competence in the "actual technical or functional content of the work they are doing" (Schein, 1978, p.
129). Individuals with a technical/functional anchor see their ideal job as the top job within an
organization or occupation that fits their specific functional area (see PROFESSIONALS IN
ORGANIZATIONS).
Managerial Competence
The occupational self-image of individuals with a managerial anchor is tied to their feelings of
analytical, interpersonal, and emotional competence. In contrast to individuals with a technical/
functional career anchor, individuals with a managerial career anchor see technical or functional jobs as
a means of getting to general management positions, rather than as an end in and of themselves.
Security
The occupational self-image of individuals with a security anchor is tied to their organizations'
evaluations of them. These individuals value stability and continued job employment over job content
or choice (see JOB INSECURITY).
CREATIVITY. The occupational self-image of individuals with a creativity anchor is tied to their need
to build or produce something that is entirely their own – something that they can point to and say "I did
that." These individuals have motives that overlap with those in other anchors, but the need to create
something is paramount.
AUTONOMY. The occupational self-image of individuals with an autonomy anchor is tied to control
over their own lives. These individuals "have found organizational life to be restrictive, irrational, and/
or intrusive into their own private lives and have therefore left business or government organizations
altogether . . ." (Schein, 1978, p. 156).
Research extending this concept is limited. Other anchors, such as service and variety have been
hypothesized, and a Career Anchor Orientation Questionnaire is available.

Document
See also Career; Career theory; Career development.
Bibliography
DeLong, T. J. (1982). The career orientation of MBA alumni: a multidimensional model. In R. Katz
(Ed.), Career issues in human resource management (pp. 50–64). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schein, E. H. (1975). How career anchors hold executives to their career paths. Personnel, 52 (3), 11–
24.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
BARBARA S. LAWRENCE
Career Breaks
A career break scheme enables employees to leave and subsequently reenter a job following an agreed
period of absence (Leighton & Syrett, 1989). Such schemes are found mainly in organizations where a
high proportion of the workforce is female (see WOMEN AT WORK). While being consistent with
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES policies, employers may also introduce career breaks to help retain access
to scarce SKILLS during periods of LABOR MARKET shortage and avoid additional
RECRUITMENT and TRAINING costs. Career breaks remain rare, however, and those in existence
vary considerably. Ones guaranteeing reentry at the same level are typically available to only a small
proportion of high-level staff. Other schemes embody less employer COMMITMENT, for example,
concerning which jobs are available to returners. The spread of career breaks is restricted by several
factors. Market uncertainties mean that many employers are unwilling to commit themselves to rehiring
staff several years in the future. TECHNOLOGY changes also mean that rehiring can entail substantial
retraining (thus reducing the benefit

Document
Page 46
of schemes in terms of training cost savings). Also, the widespread weakening of labor market pressures
in recent years, coupled with the tendency for many organizations to reduce the size of their work
forces, has restricted the growth of career breaks.
See also Career transitions; Career development; Flexibility
Bibliography
Leighton, P. & Syrett, M. (1989). New work patterns: Putting policy into practice. London: Pitman.
PAUL BLYTON
Career Choice
CAREER choice is a major construct in career development (Meier, 1991). It is used to refer to a
person's statement about the area of work or occupation they intend to follow as well as to the actual
area of work or occupation finally entered. As such, it is one of the most frequently used outcome or
dependent variables in research undertaken to test theories in the careers domain and to evaluate
VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE programs. Understanding career choice is an advantage to HR
professionals who have traditionally ignored the individual's perspective in selection (see SELECTION
METHODS). Individual career choices influences who apply for jobs and whether or not an offer is
accepted. Understanding career choice is also critical for HR practitioners involved in setting up career
development systems within organizations.
Theories of career choice address the factors that influence work-related decisions and the processes by
which individuals make career choices. Factors influencing career choice have been studied within an
economic, sociological, or cultural perspective as well as a psychological perspective. The former
address issues, such as the internal and external labor market, labor force trends, the availability of
educational and other work opportunities, and the social back-ground of individuals. The latter
psychological approaches explain choice in terms of individual capabilities (intelligence, specific
abilities, COMPETENCIES, intelligence, and work experiences), motivational orientations (needs,
interests, and values) as well as the opportunity structure. Individuals are viewed as using these factors
to make a choice that optimizes their "fit" with the environment (see PERSON-JOB FIT).

Document
Two dominant theories within the psychological perspective are Holland's (1985) typological theory
and the Minnesota Theory of WORK ADJUSTMENT. Holland's theory argues that both people and
environments can be described in terms of six types: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising,
and conventional. These six types are organized in a hexagon, with adjacent types being most similar.
Individuals who choose occupations of the same or similar type to themselves are predicted to be more
stable, satisfied and productive compared with those who choose occupations further removed from
their type on the hexagon. Recently, questions have been raised about the notion of "fit" implicit in both
Holland's theory and the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (Hesketh, 1993). Research
demonstrates a stronger direct relationship between job characteristics and satisfaction and between
general cognitive ability and performance than implied by the theories.
Social learning, psychoanalytic, and developmental theories of career choice emphasize developmental
influences (Brown & Brooks, 1990). Adult developmental theories usually offer loosely defined adult
CAREER STAGES, while other theoretical approaches address the transition process following the
implementation of choices involving change (Nicholson, 1984) (see CAREER TRANSITIONS).
Normative decision theories of career choice draw on Subjective Expective Utility and other classical
decision theory approaches. Descriptive approaches outline how individuals actually make choices,
with nonoptimal strategies such as SATISFICING being common and with time pressure and decision
stress reducing vigilance in processing relevant information (Brown & Brooks, 1990).
See also Personality; Joining-up process; Realistic job previews
Bibliography
Brown, D. & Brooks, L. (Eds), (1990). Career choice and development (2nd edn). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hesketh, B. (1993). Toward a better adjusted theory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 43, 75–83.

Document
Page 47
Holland, J. H. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Meier, S. T. (1991). Vocational Behavior, 1988–1990: Vocational choice, decision-making, career

development interventions, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 131–181.
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172–191.
BERYL HESKETH
Career Development
This denotes the sequence of changes that occur throughout individuals' careers (see CAREER), usually
with reference to either individuals' inner psychological evolution or their status within a social entity,
for instance, functional area, hierarchical level, or degree of inclusion (organizational centrality). Career
development represents a subset of CAREER THEORY that focuses on individuals (Arthur, Hall &
Lawrence, 1989). The outcome of interest is the individual's career, and the time period involved is
usually the individual's working life, although shorter segments are also studied.
The term career development generally assumes either an explanatory or prescriptive meaning. First,
the term refers to theories or research that explain what happens to individuals over their careers. Thus,
such work might include studies of CAREER CHOICE, CAREER STAGES, career typologies,
SOCIALIZATION, or MENTORING. Second, the term refers to programs designed to facilitate
individuals' career growth. These programs are usually developed by career development specialists
outside organizations or by human resource managers (see HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)
within organizations. For example, individual counselors may provide private career counseling to
individuals, and organizations may furnish special developmental career tracks to employees, such as
dual-track engineering/management careers (see COUNSELING IN ORGANIZATIONS). The
following discussion of career development focuses on the former rather than the latter meaning.
The history of career development theory begins with, and has been heavily influenced by, studies of
vocational choice (Super 1953; Roe, 1956) (see VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE). Early versions of these
theories through the 1950s assume that people select vocations during young adulthood and that, once
selected, vocations generally do not change. Because later life experiences make no contribution to such
initial selections, these theories did not examine adult lives. However, during the 1950s and 1960s
changes in working patterns challenged this single-vocation assumption. Then, in the 1970s adult
development research focused scholars on psychological change in mature men and women. As a result,
scholars revisited vocational choice theories and considered career choices throughout life. Further,
they developed new types of career development theory: career stage theories, which propose career-
related developmental changes at given ages, situational theories, which focus on career development
within social settings, and career typologies, which identify distinct career development patterns.
Vocational Choice Theories

Document
These can be loosely categorized into trait-factor and PERSONALITY theories. Trait-factor theories
assume that people's abilities and interests can be matched with available vocations, and that once
matched, the match remains relatively stable for life. Widely used standardized tests, such as the Strong-
Campbell Vocational Interest Inventory and the Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT), are based on trait-
factor theory. Personality theories assume that people select vocations that meet their needs. Studies
from this perspective examine people's needs as identified in the vocational choice process as well as
personality characteristics associated with different occupations.
Career Stage Theories
These assume that career development follows human development, that career development represents
an evolutionary process, and that it must be examined throughout the life course. Most career stage
theories are based on developmental psychology and focus on the maturation of people's self-concepts
over time. These theories divide life up into segments loosely related to LIFE STAGES and specify the
developmental tasks that produce career growth within each segment.

Document
Page 48
Situational Theories
These assume that social settings influence people's career development. Situational theories primarily
come from ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR and sociology. Organizational theories within this
category might examine the process by which organizations socialize individuals or how identity and
psychological success are related over time within organizational careers (Hall, 1990). Sociological
examples in this category might include studies of the impact of socio-economic class on career choice,
or the distinction between hereditary and meritocratic cultures in determining occupational entry.
Career Typologies
These assume that people's careers fall into distinct patterns. Typologies do not explain development so
much as they describe different developmental forms. Psychological typologies distinguish careers
using people's inner experiences of work. For example, different self-concepts may produce a
CREATIVITY or security CAREER ANCHOR. Social psychological typologies distinguish careers
using people's relationships with institutions. For example, "fast track" (see FAST TRACK
DEVELOPMENT) and "slow-burn" identify different careers within an organizational or occupational
context. Sociological typologies distinguish careers using institutional criteria, for example, the JOB
CHARACTERISTICS that distinguish occupations such as a brick-layer or radiologist.
These four categories provide a flavor for different types of career development theory. However, many
theories fall across categories. Dalton and Thompson (1986), for example, present a career stage theory
that is situationally-based. They propose that PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS experience
four career stages, segmented by changes in work-related activities, relationships, and psychological
issues. In contrast to most career stage theories, people do not move inexorably through each stage. The
stages fall in chronological order, but they are not age-linked. Thus, a person might get stuck in Stage II
and never experience Stages III and IV. Further, and again in contrast to most career stage theories, the
stages are segmented by changes in a person's work relationship with the organization rather than by
changes in the person's inner psychological evolution.
As with all social science, career development theory is tied to the social and historical times in which it
evolved. Much of the situational literature matured during a time when people held fairly stable
relationships with their work organizations. However, the dramatic DOWN-SIZING, DELAYERING,
and reengineering of organizations in the 1980s and 1990s created a more tenuous relationship between
employees and employers. Thus, similar to the evolution of vocational choice theories in the 1950s and
1960s, situational theories seem ripe for reconsideration and revision.
See also Joining-up process; Career transitions; Management development
Bibliography
Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T. & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Handbook of career theory. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Document
Dalton, G. W. & Thompson, P. H. (1986). Novations: strategies for career management. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.
Hall, D. T. (1990). Career development theory in organizations. In D. Brown, L. Brooks & Associates
(Eds), Career choice and development, (2nd edn, pp. 422–454). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: a theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Osipow, S. H. (1985). Theories of career development, (3rd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Roe, A. (1956). The psychology of occupations. New York: Wiley.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 8, 185–190.
BARBARA S. LAWRENCE
Career Entry
see CAREER CHOICE; JOINING-UP PROCESS
Career Mobility
see CAREER TRANSITIONS; LABOR MARKETS
Career Orientation
see CAREER; CAREER CHOICE

Document
Page 49
Career Plateauing
The phenomenon of CAREER plateauing in organizations presents an important and perplexing

challenge to HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (HRM), and an array of conceptual and
empirical problems to ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR scholars. The first problem is definitional.
How do we decide when an employee is plateaued? Three types of criteria can be found in the
literature. First, many researchers have adopted time in current position as a measureable and objective
benchmark. Employees more than 5 years in a post would typically be counted as immobile or
"plateaued" by this standard, though this or alternative cutoffs have the drawback of looking worryingly
arbitrary, and, at the same time, liable to mischaracterize the experience and career positions of many
groups, such as professionals (see PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS). A second alternative is
to use a subjective criterion – individuals' expectations of future advancement, defining as plateaued
those who expect no or minimal further STATUS increase. The problem with this approach is the
questionable accuracy of people's reading of future opportunities and their own capabilities. A less
common third alternative, of increasing interest, is the concept of implicit AGE-grade timetables
(Lawrence, 1988). These may be assessed subjectively – whether employees believe themselves to be
on-track relative to peers, or ahead/behind schedule. Individuals' positions relative to company norms
may also be assessed objectively (Nicholson, 1993).
Plateauing by any of these definitions is an organizational problem to the degree that the people to
whom it applies have desires or expectations which have not or are not being fulfilled. This is regarded
as especially problematic for managerial ranks, whose career expectations are more deeply socialized
(see SOCIALIZATION) and hierarchical than other workers, and whose MOTIVATION and
COMMITMENT organizations are most concerned to maintain.
Research has shed light on several aspects of the phenomenon. First, career success is often foretold by
rapid early upward movements in a person's history (see CAREER TRANSITIONS; MANAGEMENT
OF HIGH POTENTIAL), and conversely, people who get off-track early typically fail to recover
momentum (see TOURNAMENT PROMOTION). Second, it is mistaken to assume plateauing is
necessarily associated with loss of motivation and effectiveness. The distinction needs to be drawn
between mere immobility and frustrated feelings of being "stuck." Some people are contentedly
plateaued, often called "solid citizens," as distinct from "high fliers" and ''deadwood" (Veiga, 1981).
Third, people's aspirations and interests change over the career cycle (see CAREER DEVELOPMENT;
LIFE STAGES). Early career ambition may, as the person matures and the realities of limited horizons
sink in, become deflected into other life spheres (see NONWORK/WORK). Not all forms of this
displacement need detract from the individual's organizational contribution, though in some cases
"insurgent" and "alienated" orientations may develop if there is resentment and FRUSTRATION at
perceived unfairness of career opportunities (see ALIENATION; JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE).

Document
Finally, the phenomenon of plateauing is becoming more common as organizations restructure toward
"delayered" or "flattened" structures (see RESTRUCTURING). One recent survey estimated that 25
percent of the United States workforce was plateaued. Plateauing presents a challenge to HRM to the
degree that employees maintain hierarchical views of career fulfilment – the view that "up is the only
way" (see HIERARCHY). One solution is increased lateral mobility, sabbaticals, and alternative
developmental paths (see CAREER BREAKS). To date, organizations have been slow to seek these
remedies, often more aware of the short-term costs than the long-term benefits to the
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.
See also Career theory; Labor markets; Succession planning
Bibliography
Chao, G. T. (1990). Exploration of the conceptualization and measurement of career plateau: A

comparative analysis. Journal of Management, 16, 181–193.
Feldman, D. C. & Weitz B. A. (1988). Career plateaus reconsidered. Journal of Management, 14, 69–
90.

Document
Page 50
Lawrence, B. S. (1988). New wrinkles in the theory of age: Demography, norms, and performance
ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 309–337.
Nicholson, N. (1993). Purgatory or place of safety? The managerial career plateau and organizational
agegrading. Human Relations, 46, 1369–1389.
Veiga, J. F. (1981). Plateaued versus nonplateaued managers: Career patterns, attitudes, and path
potential. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 566–578.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Career Stages
The career stage concept is embedded in developmental theories of CAREER CHOICE (Swanson,
1992). From developmental psychology it takes the idea that developmental tasks are appropriate for
particular stages, with successful resolution of these tasks prerequisite for moving on to the next stage
(Mussen, Conger, & Kagan, 1975). Typically, career stages are defined in terms of AGE bands. Super
and others suggested that career development could be divided into fantasy, exploration, establishment,
maintenance, and decline stages, each with various substages and associated vocational developmental
tasks. More recently in the HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT literature, the concept of adult
career development stages has received considerable attention, with a focus on the career concerns that
predominate at particular stages. The Adult Career Concerns Inventory (ACCI) (Super, Thompson, &
Lindeman, 1984), is a measure designed to locate individuals in a particular stage according to their
dominant career concern. Future work might use the concept of FUZZY SETS to assign individuals a
grade of membership for each stage rather than locating them in one particular stage. Fuzzy
classification could prove more accurate, since locating individuals in a particular stage is seldom an all-
or-nothing affair.
Levinson's (1986) theory offers another view of career stage, with a cyclical rotation through stability
and change at roughly 5-year intervals in adulthood. The theoretical, empirical, and rational bases for
these precise predictions are yet to be established. Most traditional approaches to the concept of career
stage have been normative, with assumptions about common patterns of career development at
particular ages for most individuals. Although intuitively appealing, career stages with precisely
specified age bands are difficult to justify theoretically, and there are scant empirical data to support this
model (Ornstein & Isabella, 1990). Recent approaches to the concept of stage include notions of a
personal career clock, which acknowledges individual variations in both the timing and sequencing of
career stages. However, the departure from an age-related definition of career stage raises fundamental
questions about the utility of the concept.

Document
Future developments in the concept of career stages will need to integrate what is known about the
biological aging processes, family lifecycles, society norms, and expectations for age-appropriate career-
related behaviors, and the differing opportunity structure at different ages. Organizations should take
account of the changing needs and values of employees at different stages of the life-span in order to
retain and motivate staff (see CAREER PLATEAUING). In doing this it will be necessary to consider
work and nonwork domains (see NON WORK/WORK). Specifically, organizations should provide
flexibility with respect to child care responsibilities in early career, programs for reducing the impact of
plateauing in mid-career, and RETIREMENT programs to optimize the withdrawal (see
WITHDRAWAL, ORGANIZATIONAL) process for both individuals and organizations.
See also Life stage; Management development; Individual differences; Career transitions
Bibliography
Levinson, D. J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41, 3–13.
Mussen, P. H., Conger, J. J. & Kagan, J. (Eds), (1975). Basic and contemporary issues in
developmental psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
Ornstein, S. & Isabella, L. (1990). Age versus stage models of career attitudes of women: A partial
replication and extension. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 1–19.
Super, D. E., Thompson, A. S. & Lindeman, R. H. (1984). The Adult Career Concerns Inventory. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Swanson, J. L. (1992). Vocational Behavior, 1989–1991: Life-span career development and

Document
Page 51
reciprocal interaction of work and non-work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 101–161.
BERYL HESKETH
Career Theory
Career theory is a generalizable explanation of a CAREER or career-related phenomenon. The qualifier

"generalizable" is used to distinguish career theory from situation-specific career descriptions derived
from personal experience or local practices (Arthur, Hall, & Lawrence, 1989). Thus, while an
ethnographic career description may explain that career and prove useful in generating career theory,
the description itself is not a THEORY (see ETHNOGRAPHY).
Career theory examines a fundamental area of management studies: the relationship between
individuals, their work, and the social systems within which they work over time. Careers are a
temporal product of what the individual contributes to the social system and what the social system
returns to the individual (see PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT). As a result, career theory involves a
multidisciplinary perspective, including, but not limited to, contributions from psychology, sociology,
economics, and anthropology. Topics covered by career theory include phenomena as diverse as self-
identity, work role transitions, occupational mobility, and human capital (see CAREER
TRANSITIONS).
Career theories are distinguished by six dimensions: work, time, level of analysis, perspective, social
setting, and outcome. Work is any set of activities directed toward a specific goal. Thus, one could study
the work of a dishwasher, an architect, a volunteer fire fighter, or a delinquent. Each constitutes a set of
activities that is recognized as connected and purposeful by the individual, or by others observing the
individual. Time is a measurable period during which actions, processes, or conditions occur. Time
provides an important dimension because work represents a process: a sequence of activities begining at
one time and ending at another. Work may involve a short time, such as the task of managing breaks in
a blue collar job, or a long time, such as intergenerational changes in occupational STATUS (see
OCCUPATIONS). Further, work may be defined by chronological time, i.e., time as measured by a
clock, or sociotemporal time, i.e., time as measured by people's perceptions (Lawrence, 1984).
LEVEL OF ANALYSIS is the position on a scale of social entities, ranging from small to large,
selected for research focus, where "small" might be individuals and "large" might be a society. For
example, careers can be studied at the individual level by examining individuals' self-concepts within
work settings, at the organizational level by examining how vacancy chains influence mobility, at the
social network level by examining how social contacts lead to jobs (see NETWORKING; NETWORK
ANALYSIS), or at the societal or national level by examining the impact of economic conditions on
LABOR MARKETS (Blau & Duncan, 1967).

Document
Independent of level of analysis is the perspective from which the career is studied. For instance, the
career can be viewed from the individual's perspective, i.e., how the individual sees him or herself, from
the organization's perspective, i.e., how organizational managers perceive, define, or evaluate the
individual's career, or from a regional perspective, i.e., how the inhabitants of a specific geographic area
define or evaluate the individual's career. Other terms for distinctions in perspective include internal
versus external and objective versus subjective.
Social setting is the context within which careers occur. Because careers include all points where the
lives of individuals touch the social order, careers do not exist without social settings. Many scholars
study career-related phenomena without concurrent study of the social setting in which they occur: a
typical example is studying individuals' promotions and career success without examining their
organization or occupation. However, research suggests that social settings play an important role in
careers.
A final dimension of career theory is outcome, the result or consequence of the work that individuals
perform. Outcomes are specified either by the researcher, the individual, or the social setting. For an
individual, the defining outcome of an organizational career might be self-perceived career success or
simply making a living. For an organization, the defining outcome might be organizational
performance. For a network, the defining outcome might be a typology of boundaryless careers.

Document
Page 52
The history of career theory begins in psychology and sociology. In psychology, career theories
originated with studies of vocational choice in the 1940s and 1950s. The idea was understanding how
individual differences and self-knowledge translated into career choices characterized by JOB
SATISFACTION and MOTIVATION. Two types of theories emerged: matching theory and process
theories (see PROCESS THEORY). Matching theories examine vocational choice as the match between
the individual's traits and those of people currently in the occupation (see PERSON-JOB FIT; WORK
ADJUSTMENT). These theories led to psychological instruments used for vocational counseling. In
contrast, process theories focus on how people make vocational decisions, examining the sequence of
development and motivations involved throughout the life course (see CAREER CHOICE; CAREER
DEVELOPMENT; CAREER STAGES).
Sociologists started with a different notion of career. In the 1920s and 1930s, scholars at the University
of Chicago began using life histories to study the sequence of events underlying various social problems
such as delinquency. These unfolding sequences were defined as "careers," and subsequent research by
Everett Hughes and his students produced the beginnings of the sociology of work and occupations
(Barley, 1989). Their studies included an array of ethnographies, embracing medical careers, funeral
directors, marijuana users, and "taxi dancers" (partners for hire). The focus was on connecting the
individual's interpretation and experience of career with institutional definitions. Later sociologists
objected to the breadth of this career vision and began narrowing their scope, concerned with providing
depth about more focused topics.
In the early 1970s, a group of management professors, energized by the connections they saw between
these disciplinary approaches and armed with a view of careers as a fundamental component of social
systems, began broadening the theoretical and research agenda once again. The development of this
agenda can be seen in a series of books about career theory and research published during the
subsequent two decades. The topics this group examined included CAREER ANCHORS, scientific and
engineering careers, SOCIALIZATION, sense-making; MENTORING, and career "styles," emphasized
professional careers within organizations (Hall, 1976; Osipow, 1983; Schein, 1978).
This much abbreviated history presents a central dilemma of career theory. The dizzying breadth of
topics and interactions encompassing career theory make it easy for big picture theories to be "a mile
wide and an inch deep." As a result, interest in the topic waxes and wanes as scholars search for middle
ground. Interest is highest when the concept remains broad, but narrowly defined studies produce more
concrete results. However, when narrowly defined, scholars seem to retreat toward disciplinary
boundaries and the concept seems to lose its broad, general appeal.

Document
Notwithstanding this dilemma, the importance of maintaining a broad definition of career theory has
never been more important than it is today. The global economy, corporate DOWNSIZING, massive
shifts in job types, and technological changes have dramatically changed the nature of careers (Kanter,
1989). These systemic changes in the fabric of work challenge all career theories and provide a potent
reminder of the importance of historical period and cohort effects in theory and research. Career
theories that are truly generalizable will hold to the test of such change. Others may not, becoming more
conditional, middle-range theories. Certainly, these striking changes in modern work life are putting
career theory to the test.
See also Career plateauing; Succession planning; Management of high potential; Motivation and
performance; Nonwork/work; Tournament promotion.
Bibliography
Barley, S. R. (1989). Careers, identities, and institutions: The legacy of the Chicago school of
sociology. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence (Eds), Handbook of career theory (pp. 41–65).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blau, P. & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley.
Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Document
Page 53
Howard, A. & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times.
New York: Guilford Press.
Kanter, R. (1989). Careers and the wealth of nations: A macro-perspective on the structure and
implications of career forms. In M. B. Arthur D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence (Eds), Handbook of career
theory (pp. 506–521). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, B.S. (1984). Historical perspective: Using the past to study the present. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 307–312.
Osipow, S. H. (1983). Theories of career development (3rd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1984). Career mobility in a corporate hierarchy. New York: Academic Press.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Super, D. E. (1963). Career development: Self-concept theory. New York: CEEB.
BARBARA S. LAWRENCE
Career Transitions
CAREER or work role transitions can be defined as any major change in work roles or ROLE
requirements. This definition is designed to encompass not just major job switches, but also situations
where the role changes radically "around" the incumbent, without their mobility to a new post, such as
instances of significant job redesign (see JOB DESIGN) and changes of boss and coworkers.
The term career transitions is potentially misleading, if taken to connote order and logic in succession
between positions, for a significant proportion of transitions are between tenuously related roles, i.e.,
traversing sectors and functions quite radically.
TURNOVER has been a heavily researched career transition, but usually with exclusive interest in its
causes. The transitions perspective on this and other job changes has developed in recent years to turn
attention toward the consequences of mobility, which can have great significance for individuals and
organizations. These have been relatively under-researched, compared with the extensive literature on
predictors of mobility. For individuals, transitions can be turning points, a significant force for identity
change in the job mover (see MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT; PERSONALITY). For
organizations, transitions of key personnel can be significant catalysts for change and development (see
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT), e.g., via the succession of a new CEO (see CEOs;
SUCCESSION PLANNING).

Document
The outcomes of adjustment to transitions include Stress and well-being, personal change, role
INNOVATION (changes effected to how roles are performed), and success in job performance (see
WORK ADJUSTMENT) (Nicholson, 1984). These outcomes are determined by the interaction of three
sets of factors:
1
The Nature of the Change
The definition of transitions embraces a wide range of mobility types (Schein, 1978), including lateral
(functional), inclusionary (to or from the center to the periphery of an organization), vertical (promotion/
demotion), interorganizational, cross-cultural (see EXPATRIATES), and between states of employment
(see UNEMPLOYMENT; REDUNDANCY). The adjustment challenge varies greatly in terms of the
novelty of change, the scale of the demands, and the amount of discretion in the new role. Research
suggests that radical high-discretion roles have more positive outcomes on some dimensions, such as
innovation and personal change, but also entail significant risks on others, such as stress and failure.
The high personal impact of expatriation, and the high rate of failure (as signified by premature return
home), illustrates both of these tendencies (Black, Mendenhall, & Odou, 1991).
2
The State of the Person
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES in dispositions, expectations, preparation, motives, SKILLS and related

attributes affect the adjustment process in various ways, but principally in terms of the adjustment
strategies individuals adopt and how they react to experiences. For example, people with high SELF-
EFFICACY will be more likely to achieve successful proactive adjustment (Nicholson & West, 1988),
and individuals high in HARDINESS better withstand stresses. Research indicates that preparation for
change can help, but that previous experience is less important than how successful has been prior
experience of transitions (Brett, Stroh, & Reilly, 1992).

Document
Page 54
3
The Management of the Change
The idea of a "Transition Cycle" (Nicholson, 1990) helps to point out the different strategies, supports,
and resources which aid adjustment at various stages: preparation, encounter, adjustment, and
stabilization. Most research has concentrated on the early phases of the cycle (see JOINING-UP
PROCESS), and the role of management, coworkers and other agencies in easing the transition and
supporting individuals' "sense-making" in their new role or setting (Louis, 1980). A number of
distinctive SOCIALIZATION tactics have been identified, which have differentiated effects upon
adjustment outcomes (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
The combined effects of these forces are little understood in the absence of definitive research
untangling their complex and varied interactions. To do so is clearly of the utmost importance since
transitions have the power to shape significantly the identity of individuals, and to affect significantly
the effectiveness of organizations. This also implies that the strategic management of transitions – who
moves, over what boundaries, and with what support – is a potentially powerful tool for
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING, the management of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, and the
maximization of ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. Unfortunately, most organizations'
management of transitions is ad hoc rather than planful, driven by necessity rather than vision, and
concerned more with causes than with outcomes. This is understandable, given the complexity of the
subject, but it also represents a missed opportunity, since the information and resources needed for a
strategic outcome-oriented approach to all forms of mobility already exist in most organizations (see
HUMAN RESOURCE STRATEGY).
Future scholarly interest can be expected to focus increasingly on radical, i.e., cross-functional,
interorganizational, and intercultural career transitions, which are becoming more common as a
function of the accelerating globalization of business and the restructuring of organizations (see
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT; RESTRUCTURING).
See also Career choice; Career theory; International human resource management;
Organizational change; Retirement; Tournament promotion
Bibliography
Black, S. J., Mendenhall, M. & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international
adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16,
291–317.
Brett, J. M., Stroh, L. K. & Reilly, A. H. (1992). Job transfer. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds)
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1992. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Louis, M.R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.

Document
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172–191.
Nicholson, N. (1990). The transition cycle: Causes, outcomes, processes and forms. In S. Fisher & C. L.
Cooper (Eds) On the move: The psychology of change and transition. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Nicholson, N. & West, M. W. (1988). Managerial job change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw
(Ed.) Research in organizational behavior (vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Case Study Research
It has become increasingly popular in the research of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR to study

phenomena in large numbers (see RESEARCH METHODS). The advantage of such a large sample size
is greater reliability, but the cost can be a loss of richness, due to a certain detachment or distance from
the phenomenon. For example, the work of a large number of managers can be studied by the diary
method, in which they fill out forms of predetermined categories for each of their activities (e.g.,
Stewart, 1967) (see MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR). But when the pace of their work gets hectic, or
their work itself is highly nuanced, managers may have difficulty filling out such forms. The difficulties
may become even more severe when a mailed questionnaire is

Document
Page 55
used, which seeks to reduce all of the manager's work to some broad overall categories (see
SURVEYS).
Case study research forfeits large sample size for greater sample depth. The researcher selects one or a
few sites ("cases") and probes into each thoroughly. Data collection may be somewhat systematic –
certain aspects of the phenomenon can be documented carefully, such as the contacts a manager has
with his or her people – but never so structured that the researcher cannot probe aspects of the
phenomenon that did not occur to him or her before the work started. In other words, case study
research always maintains a certain flexibility. Another way of putting this is that the research tends to
be significantly, if not primarily, inductive, developing its interpretations from its findings and, in some
of the best of this work, often surprising the researcher. Often, though by no means necessarily, case
study research tends to be largely qualitative as well, and focused on the processes people in
organizations engage in more than the contents of their results.
The researcher may be physically present to watch behavior as it unfolds, which is known as
"participant observation" (see RESEARCH DESIGN; ETHNOGRAPHY) of managerial work (e.g.,
Mintzberg, 1973, 1993). Alternatively, the researcher may study the case through documents, which is
necessary when the behavior in question is either historical or simply inaccessible to an observer, such
as tracking the strategies of organizations across decades (e.g., Mintzberg & McHugh, 1985). Such
studies may be supported by interviews or, of course, be based on interviews in the first place.
What distinguishes case study research is the probing in depth into particular situations. Nuances can be
appreciated; the experiences of the actors can be recounted, in their own terms; unanticipated lines of
inquiry can be pursued; complex connections can be made; so that situations can be described
holistically. But all of this works only so long as the researcher is sensitive to what he or she hears,
reads, sees, or otherwise uncovers.
In effect, this is fundamentally idiosyncratic research, for better and for worse. It all depends on the
personal capabilities of the researcher (as, of course, does any research, only more transparently so here,
since there can be no hiding behind "sophisticated" techniques). The result, therefore, cannot be
predictable – it is not as if once the data goes into the computer, it will get processed in a predetermined
way.
That is why case study research tends to produce the best and worst of results. A number of our most
famous studies – the classics, that truly endure – are of this form, for example, Whyte's Street Corner
Society (1943), participant observation of a street gang during the 1930s, with some wonderful insights
on LEADERSHIP, or Chandler's Strategy and Structure (1962), which described the evolution of the
major American corporation by studying the histories of four firms in particular; and Crozier's The
Bureaucratic Phenomenon (1964, in English), an intense probe into two agencies of the French
government (see BUREAUCRACY). Needless to say, the failures of this method are not well known.
But, tricky though it may be, this is an exciting way to do research, and arguably the source of many, if
not most, of our really significant conceptual advances.

Document
A final word is necessary on what case study research is not. If true research marries empirical data
with conceptual insight, then, on one side, the so-called "case study method," in which experiences
from practice are written up for the pedagogical purposes of the classroom, is not research. Data may be
collected, sometimes even as much as in case study research, but there is no intent to draw the
conceptual lessons of the experience. On the other side, conceptual interpretations of experience per se
cannot be labeled case study research either. Such works can be greatly insightful, as in Barnard's
classic The Functions of the Executive (1938) about his own experiences as President of the New Jersey
Bell Telephone Company. But these are not usually based on probes into cases per se so much as the
drawing on general experience. Of course, when the author relates the conceptual interpretation to his or
her own experiences directly and somewhat systematically, then the label case study research may well
apply.
But in research, the object of the exercise is understanding, not methodological elegance and so it
hardly matters what the approach is called, so long as it is applied carefully and honestly, nor where the
ideas come from, so long as they are insightful.

Document
Page 56
See also Generalization; Levels of analysis; Validity
Bibliography
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1993). Rounding out the manager's job. Working Paper #93–04–05, Montreal: McGill
University.
Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 30 (2), 160–197.
Stewart, R. (1967). Managers and their jobs. London: Macmillan.
Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
HENRY MINTZBERG
Centralization
see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN; RESTRUCTURING
CEOs
The chief executive officer, or CEO, is the executive who has overall responsibility for the conduct and
performance of an entire organization, not just a subunit. The CEO designation has gained widespread
use since about 1970, as a result of the need to draw distinctions among various senior executive
positions in today's elaborate corporate structures. For example, sometimes a chief operating officer
(COO) who is responsible for internal operational affairs is among the executives who reports to a
CEO, who in turn is responsible for integrating internal and external, longer-term issues such as
acquisitions, government relations, and investor relations.

Document
In publicly traded corporations, sometimes the chairman of the board of directors is also the CEO, while
the president (if such a title even exists) is the COO. In other cases (particularly European companies),
the chairman is not an executive officer at all, but rather is an external overseer, while the president is
the senior-ranking employed manager or CEO. Other variations exist as well. Further complicating the
scholar's task of identifying the CEO of a company is that the label may not be explicitly bestowed on
anyone. Still, theorists and other observers of organizations are drawn to the idea that some one person
has overall responsibility for the management of an enterprise and that, in turn, that person's
characteristics and actions are of consequence to the organization and its STAKEHOLDERS.
The roles of a CEO are many and varied (Mintzberg, 1973; Kotter, 1982), including DECISION
MAKING (on major and sometimes minor issues), monitoring and transmitting information (both
inside and outside the company), and interacting with internal and external parties (many constituencies
believe they warrant the CEO's personal attention). Another way to think about CEO roles is as in the
domain of substance (tangible actions) and symbols (the intangible, added meaning that is attached to a
senior leader's behaviors, because of the position he or she holds in the organization). Far more research
has been done on CEO substantive actions than on SYMBOLISM, but recent theory and investigations
have pointed to the great significance of the latter (Pfeffer, 1981).
Most writings on senior executives, and CEOs in particular, have focused on the effects these
individuals have on the form and fate of their companies. Some of these works, often referred to as the
"Great Man" view, attempt to describe the traits and behaviors of CEOs who have achieved remarkable
successes (see LEADERSHIP, CHARISMATIC; TRANSFORMATIONAL/TRANSACTIONAL
THEORY). These inquiries are usually qualitative and, while rich in detail, are difficult to use as a
reliable basis for a generalizable theory of LEADERSHIP.
Some research has taken a more limited approach, seeking to understand the associations between
certain measurable CEO characteristics and specific actions taken or subsequent organizational profiles.
For example, research has documented the tendencies of new CEOs hired from outside the company to
make major immediate strategy and staffing changes; for CEOs with certain types of personalities to
adopt certain structural characteristics for the

Document
Page 57
organization; and for CEOs who are large shareholders of the company to take larger strategic risks
than CEOs who are only paid employees (see RISK-TAKING). In terms of quantity of significant
findings, this stream of research is mounting. But as the few ilustrations here suggest, the patterns are
diffuse and generally lacking a coherent theoretical framework, that is, unless the broadest possible
perspective is taken, in which case it can be said that CEOs matter.
Actually, the issue of whether (or how much) CEOs matter to organizational outcomes is of long-
standing debate among scholars. The earliest perspective, often called the strategic choice perspective,
posits that executives engage in major adaptive decisions in the face of shifting environmental
requirements and internal resources (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT). Namely, CEOs make big
choices and those choices matter. A contrary perspective, gaining currency in the 1970s and early
1980s, is that organizations are so confined by external constraints, institutional pressures, and internal
inertia, that CEOs are not allowed (or choose not to undertake) many major strategic actions – that
managers do not matter much.
A recent theoretical bridge between these two polar perspectives is the concept of executive discretion,
defined as latitude of action (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987). Executive discretion emanates from
factors in the environment, in the organization, and within the executive him- or herself; thus,
sometimes CEOs have considerable discretion, sometimes none at all, and usually somewhere in
between. This concept of executive discretion is proving very important for untangling the debate about
whether CEOs matter and is further shedding light on other phenomena such as executive pay levels,
executive TURNOVER, and executive demographic and PERSONALITY characteristics.
The prevailing literature on CEOs has focused on the effects they have on their organizations, but a
secondary and still notable stream has focused on the factors that affect CEO characteristics. Namely,
why do certain people get appointed to CEO positions? When and why do they get dismissed?
Theoretical perspectives for addressing these questions range widely. At the broadest level is the theory
of social elites, arguing that individuals of the highest socio-economic and educational backgrounds, as
well as those with the strongest connections with other elites, are chosen for CEO positions and are only
reluctantly dismissed (see STATUS). A related theory, but narrower in its level of analysis, argues that
successive CEOs are clones of each other – that there is a strong institutional tendency toward
continuity of leadership profiles; moreover, CEOs who depart on good terms are allowed to
INFLUENCE, if not CONTROL, the selection of their replacements, who often strikingly resemble
them. Finally, RESOURCE DEPENDENCE theory argues that specific identifiable pressures from
outside or from within the organization give rise to the appointment of CEOs with certain
characteristics. For example, trends in an industry may favor certain perspectives among top executives;
strategic plans for a company may necessitate a certain CEO profile; and so on. Unfortunately, the
actual processes of CEO selection, understandably very sensitive phenomena, are not well documented
or understood.
See also Top management teams; Governance and ownership; Fast-track development;
Succession planning; Managerial behavior

Document
Bibliography
Barnard, C. (1948). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fredrickson, J. W., Hambrick, D. C. & Baumrin, S. (1988). A model of CEO dismissal. Academy of
Hambrick, D. C. & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion. A bridge between polar views of
organizational outcomes. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior
(pp. 369–406). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kotter, J. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free Press.
Levinson, H. & Rosenthal, S. (1984). CEO: Corporate leadership in action. New York: Basic Books.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational
paradigms. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–52).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Document
Page 58
Romanelli, E. & Tushman, M. L. (1988). Executive Leadership and organizational outcomes: An

evolutionary perspective. In D. C. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for
studying top managers (pp. 129–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vancil, R. F. (1987). Passing the baton: Managing the process of CEO succession. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
DONALD C. HAMBRICK
Chain of Command
see CLASSICAL DESIGN THEORY; MANAGEMENT, CLASSICAL THEORY
Change, Evaluation
The field of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR needs effective methods for assessing organizational
change for two basic reasons – one related to practice and one related to theory. From a managerial
perspective, there is the need to assess validly the effectiveness of ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
programs. At the same time, understanding change phenomena and processes in complex human
systems can contribute to theory development in the organizational sciences (Woodman, 1989). In OB,
we have drawn heavily from the field of EVALUATION RESEARCH primarily developed by
sociologists and other social scientists (e.g., Sechrest & Figueredo, 1993).
There are a variety of issues surrounding the valid evaluation of organizational change. These tend to
center around: (a) what should be measured; and (b) how such assessment might proceed. These issues
sound deceptively simple – however, at their heart lie philosophically complex issues concerning the
nature of reality itself and how knowledge about that reality can be obtained (Legge, 1984). For
example, debates over positivistic versus interpretative research PARADIGMS are frequently found in
the literature on organizational change (see RESEARCH DESIGN). One manifestation of this debate
surrounds the well-known concern with alpha (behavioral change), beta (scale recalibration), and
gamma (concept redefinition) changes introduced almost 20 years ago by Golembiewski, Billingsley,
and Yeager (1976).
Often, in the assessment of change programs, evaluators have relied upon participant PERCEPTIONS
to evaluate organizational change. When dealing with individual cognitions and perceptions, the
concern becomes separating changes in external reality from changes in perceptions of that reality. It is
crucial that evaluators can distinguish among, for example.
(a) actual changes in behavior;
(b) recalibration of measurement scales; or
(c) redefinition of concepts in the minds of organizational participants.

Document
Many would consider an effective strategy of evaluation to be one that does not rely exclusively on
organizational member perceptions, but rather utilizes objective criteria (such as PRODUCTIVITY,
ABSENTEEISM, and so on) to assess change effort effectiveness. Logical as this is, it is unfortunately
no panacea. It is typically quite difficult in complex organizations to link outcome variables (such as
productivity or performance), which by their very nature are multidetermined, to specific change
methods and activities. Further, considerable disagreement exists concerning whether quantitative or
qualitative assessments of organizational change make the most sense (Legge, 1984; Sechrest &
Figueredo, 1993). Woodman (1989) has argued for combining the two. "Managing organizational
change effectively is both an art and a science, so perhaps our evaluation paradigms need to better
reflect this reality. . . . The nature of change . . . would seem to require research paradigms that, at least,
attempt to match the complexity that is being investigated" (Woodman, 1989, p. 177).
Regardless of the approach taken, evaluation of organizational change is likely to be most useful, for
both practice and theory, when the following criteria are met:
(1) When feasible, assessment should be based not upon ad hoc choice of outcomes and other variables
to be measured, but rather upon some theoretical model of organizational behavior and change (see
THEORY).
(2) To the extent possible, an assessment program should rest upon information obtained in a
describable and replicable way.
(3) The design of the evaluation program should allow the elimination of plausible but invalid
interpretations of the findings (Lawler, Nadler, & Mirvis, 1983).

Document
Page 59
See also Organizational effectiveness; Change, methods; Validity
Bibliography
Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K. & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human
affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133–157.
Lawler, E. E., Nadler, D. A. & Mirvis, P. H. (1983). Organizational change and the conduct of
assessment research. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis & C. Cammann (Eds), Assessing
organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 19–47). New York: Wiley.
Legge, K. (1984). Evaluating planned organizational change. London: Academic Press.
Sechrest, L. & Figueredo, A. J. (1993). Program evaluation. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 645–674.
Woodman, R. W. (1989). Evaluation research on organizational change: Arguments for a 'combined

paradigm' approach. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds), Research in organizational change
and development, pp. 161–180 (Vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
RICHARD W. WOODMAN
Change, Methods
Specific methods used to change organizations are often referred to as interventions (see
INTERVENTION STUDIES) Interventions are the planned change activities designed to increase an
organization's effectiveness (Cummings & Worley, 1993, p. 163). In the ORGANIZATION
DEVELOPMENT paradigm, effectiveness includes both PRODUCTIVITY and QUALITY OF
WORKING LIFE.
Antecedents and Conditions for Effective Change
Effective change depends in large measure on valid diagnosis of organizational functioning and
problems (Woodman, 1990). A valid identification and exploration of what the organization does well
and poorly is a natural precursor to change. Argyris (1970), for example, has argued that effective
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE depends upon three things:
(1) valid and useful information about the organization and its problems;
(2) free and informed choice on the part of organizational members with regard to courses of action that
they might take; and
(3) internal commitment by participants in the change effort to the actions chosen (see DOUBLE-LOOP
LEARNING).

Document
Absent these antecedents, effective change is seen as quite problematic.
In a similar vein, Cummings and Worley (1993) see effective change management as based on the
following antecedents:
(1) motivating change by creating a readiness for change among employees and attempting to overcome
resistance to the change (see RESISTANCE TO CHANGE);
(2) creating a shared vision of the desired future state of the organization; and
(3) developing political support for the needed changes.
Porras and Robertson (1992) have reviewed the literature dealing with change methodology in order to
identify conditions that would seem to be related to effective interventions. In brief, these conditions
include:
(1) The organization's members must be the key source of energy for the change, not some external
consultant or change agent.
(2) Key members of the organization must recognize the need for change and be attracted by the
potential positive outcomes from the change program.
(3) A willingness to change norms and procedures, in order to become more effective, must exist.
Key members of the organization must exhibit both attitudes and behaviors that support new norms and
procedures (see GROUP NORMS).
Finally, recent meta-analyses (see VALIDITY GENERALIZATION) of systematically evaluated

organizational change programs (see CHANGE, EVALUATION), have provided strong support for the
notion that organizational change efforts are most effective when they are systemwide and
''multifaceted" (Macy & Izumi, 1993; Robertson, Roberts, & Porras, 1993). Multifaceted interventions
are those that take place in multiple subsystems of the organization, seek change in multiple variables of
interest, and/or employ multiple change methods.

Document
Page 60
Focus of Change Efforts
Managers and change agents must have some means to link the conclusions from the diagnosis with
effective action. Such attempts at identifying linkages have often taken the form of a model or typology
that would categorize interventions by their focus or change targets. The "classic" forerunner of such
categorization schemes is the dichotomy of human processual and technostructural interventions
developed by Friedlander and Brown (1974). Human processual interventions focus on processes, such
as COMMUNICATION, problem solving, and decision making, through which individuals accomplish
the organization's work (see PROCESS CONSULTATION). Technostructural interventions are
targeted on changing the organization's TECHNOLOGY (e.g., task methods and processes, work
design) and structure. A more recent example of such a categorization scheme is that used by McMahan
and Woodman (1992) in a survey of Fortune 500 industrial firms. McMahan and Woodman were able
to identify the change methods used by these organizations as falling into one of the four following
categories:
Human Processual
Emphasis on human relationships, TEAM BUILDING, work team interaction, process consulting, or
CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
Technostructural
Emphasis on sociotechnical systems, task and technology work designs, or organization and group
structure (see JOB DESIGN; SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY).
Strategic Planning
Emphasis on strategic business PLANNING processes, strategic change or visioning; primarily top
management involvement (see TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS; MISSION STATEMENTS).
Systemwide
Emphasis on organization-wide improvement activities; LEADERSHIP, CULTURE, quality

improvement, and transformation-type organizational change projects (see TOTAL QUALITY
MANAGEMENT; TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT).
Implementation Theory

Document
The applied theories that can serve to guide change methods are called implementation theories (Porras
& Robertson, 1992). (For a discussion of the theory domains involved in organizational change, (see
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT). Implementation theories can be further broken down into three
categories, each corresponding to a different level of specificity in terms of prescribing change actions.
At the most general level of specification are strategy theories, which describe broad strategies that can
be used to change human systems. Procedure theories, at a higher level of specificity, include
descriptions of major steps to be taken in order to complete a process of change. The most specific
category of implementation theories, called technique theories, focuses tightly on, say, a single "step"
identified in a procedure theory.
Weisbord's (1988) "practice theory" of OD provides an example of an implementation theory. Weisbord

proposes four guidelines for effective organizational change:
(1) assess the potential for action;
(2) get the whole system in the room;
(3) focus on the future; and
(4) structure systems tasks people can do for themselves.
The ideas and concepts in Weisbord's implementation theory are themselves theoretically grounded,
being drawn from the theory and practice of Fred Emery, Kurt Lewin, Douglas McGregor, and Eric
Trist, among others (see FORCE-FIELD ANALYSIS).
Many years ago, Kurt Lewin stated that there was nothing as practical as a good THEORY.
Implementation theories provide the field with a means for identifying important antecedents and
conditions necessary for effective organizational change. Further, implementation theories provide
guidance that can link the problems identified during organizational diagnosis with the solutions or
action steps needed to address them. In sum, implementation theory summarizes what the field knows
about change methods, why they work, and how they might be successfully used.
See also Consultancy intervention models; Restructuring; Politics

Document
Page 61
Bibliography
Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method: A behavioral science view. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (1993). Organization development and change, (5th edn). St. Paul,
MN: West.
Friedlander, F. & Brown, L. D. (1974). Organization development. Annual Review of Psychology, 25,
313–341.
Macy, B. A. & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design, and work innovation: A meta-analysis
of 131 North American field studies1961–1991. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds), Research
in organizational change and development, (Vol. 7, pp. 235–313). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
McMahan, G. C. & Woodman, R. W. (1992). The current practice of organization development within
the firm. Group & Organization Management, 17, 117–134.
Porras, J. I. & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice, and research. In
M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (2nd
edn, vol. 3, pp. 719–822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Robertson, P. J., Roberts, D. R. & Porras, J. I. (1993). An evaluation of a model of planned

organizational change: Evidence from a meta-analysis. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds),
Research in organizational change and development, (vol. 7, pp. 1–39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weisbord, M. R. (1988). Towards a new practice theory of OD: Notes on snapshooting and
moviemaking. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds), Research in organizational change and
development, (vol. 2, pp. 59–96). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Woodman, R. W. (1990). Issues and concerns in organizational diagnosis. In C. N. Jackson & M. R.

Manning (Eds), Organizational development annual, Vol. 3: Diagnosing client organizations.
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
RICHARD W. WOODMAN
Change Agents
see CHANGE, METHODS; CONSULTANCY; ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
Chaos Theory

Document
Social entities with virtually identical initial internal states, embedded in virtually identical
environments, can exhibit totally different, or chaotic, behaviors even though their behavior is governed
by the exact same set of rules or "laws." In social systems, there seem to be at least two useful
indicators of chaos:
(1) highly iterative recursive structures that change over time; and
(2) highly discontinuous behavior in the system.
Social systems that fit these criteria (e.g., NEGOTIATION processes, organizational decline, and
CAREER TRANSITIONS) will often exhibit chaotic behavior over some part of their domain. While
the study of chaos is new to social science, the examination of chaotic systems has made rapid progress
in the physical sciences (Gleick, 1987). Examples of systems that seem to exhibit chaos are turbulence
in fluid flows, stellar configurations, and human physiological patterns. Surprisingly, natural systems
such as these are best understood and simulated, but not predicted, by using very simple nonlinear
equations. Moreover, certain characteristics of chaotic systems in the physical sciences are similar to
characteristics of social systems, suggesting that many social systems may also be chaotic (Gregersen &
Sailer, 1993).
More importantly, knowing a social entity's state, its environment, and the "laws" which govern the
transformation of the state from one time to the next are not sufficient to guarantee that the long-run
behavior in some systems can be predicted. While an entity's behavior in a chaotic system can be
simulated ex post facto to understand it better, its behavior cannot be predicted a priori. This inability to
predict would occur even if no variables have been omitted, measurement has been perfect, and no
stochastic ERROR is present. As a result, future organizational behavior research may profit by relying
less on quantitative methods and more on simulations (see SIMULATION, COMPUTER) and
qualitative methods to understand chaos in social systems. In addition, collecting more data points and
knowing the behavior and environment of a larger number of extremely similar entities is also
insufficient to predict behavior in a chaotic domain. Unfortunately, such is the nature of chaotic systems
where traditional statistical analyses (e.g., means, regressions, etc.) are useless (see STATISTICAL
METHODS). Moreover, to understand a chaotic social system through quantitative analysis, thousands
of synchronic

Document
Page 62
observations would be necessary, spaced out over a long enough time period that potential divergent
behavior would manifest itself. Furthermore, these data points would need to avoid potential reactivity
BIAS from respondents providing information repeatedly over time.
Finally, chaotic systems can exhibit nonchaotic (i.e., predictable) behavior over much of their domain.
As a result, the social scientist's question is not simply whether or not chaos exists, but the degree to
which chaos occurs and the degree to which it is relevant to a particular study. At present, no systematic
methodologies exist to identify chaotic domains in social arenas (see RESEARCH METHODS). Thus
the future of chaos theory in organizational contexts would benefit from the development of diagnostic
methods for identifying the existence of chaos.
Until critical methodological and statistical challenges to examining chaos are overcome, chaos theory
in organizational behavior will continue to be used primarily as an explanatory, yet exploratory,
metaphor to describe phenomena exhibiting potentially chaotic characteristics. For example, numerous
recent books (e.g., Wheatley, 1992) have taken this metaphoric approach to explaining behavior in
organizations; however, without further advances in the identification and study of chaotic behavior in
organizational settings, the application of chaos theory will remain primarily at the conceptual level,
mimicking prior applications of physical science theories to organizational phenomena.
See also Systems theory; Theory; Fuzzy sets
Bibliography
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.
Gregersen, H. B. & Sailer, L. (1993). Chaos theory and its implications for social science research.
Human Relations, 46 (7), 777–802.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Group West.
HAL B. GREGERSEN
Citizenship
see ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP
Class
see LABOR PROCESS THEORY; OCCUPATIONS; STATUS; STRATIFICATION
Classical Design Theory

Document
Classical theory is often contrasted with CONTINGENCY THEORY, the latter attempting to specify
conditions under which particular ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGNS are most appropriate.
Classical design theory refers to the application of a number of tenets of management emanating mainly
from a diverse group of early twentieth century management thinkers and writers. They were usually
practicing managers (Gulick, Urwick, and Brech), often engineers (F. W. Taylor and H. Fayol), usually
American, but some were British and Fayol was French. Many also had a military background. These
theorists were particularly concerned to lay down grand principles of organizational design.
The tenets of classical design theory are not dissimilar to the theory of BUREAUCRACY and can be
summarized:
Universal Management Functions Exist
These are to forecast, plan, organize, coordinate, command, and control (see PLANNING).
Unity of Command
A subordinate should be accountable to one manager and there should be a clear line of authority. This
is also sometimes referred to as the scalar principle.
Specialization
An individual should perform one function only.
Span of Control
Should not exceed five or six.
Delegation
Duties should be delegated to as low a level in the hierarchy as possible.
The term SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT has been coined to describe the ideas of F. W. Taylor who set
out to measure work by timing component activities for jobs as diverse as cutting metals and shoveling
pig iron. It is from this work that time and motion study came to be widely used in industry. Taylor was
more concerned than the other theorists with the design of work in such a way to make the most
effective use of human resources. The term "Taylorism" is also used to describe Taylor's ideas of work
measurement.
Classical theory also presents a view of organization that is often typified by Henry Ford's original
factory which used the principles of MASS PRODUCTION and the assembly line. Hence the term
"Fordism" is sometimes used to describe the design of large-scale organizations based on repetitive
meaningless jobs (see REPETITIVE WORK; JOB DESIGN).

Document

Document
Page 63
The principles of classical theory have been extensively criticised (e.g., by March & Simon, see Pugh &
Hickson, 1989), on the basis that they are too simplistic for complex organizations, many are mutually
incompatible and that to restrict a worker to one activity only makes delegation difficult (see ROLE).
They are given as universal principles but no account is taken of the variation in situations found in
practice. Such a restricted view of management cannot survive more complex situations which have
arisen since these tenets were advocated. For example, the MATRIX ORGANIZATION requires
reporting to two bosses, the use of TEAMBUILDING requires a more flexible DIVISION OF LABOR.
Mary Parker Follett is another classical theorist who sought general principles but her emphasis upon
reciprocal coordination between people presented a more flexible approach to organization. Chester
Barnard's book The Functions of the Executive (1938) is a landmark in a move away from over-reliance
upon classical design principles. Barnard emphasized the problem of coordination under conditions of
COMPLEXITY and proposed a theory of organization based upon COMMUNICATION and
DECISION MAKING.
The classical theorists were writing from experience rather than from systematic scientific observation.
It is doubtful whether they ever intended these principles to be used in such a rigid way as is sometimes
suggested. Many also described the need for judgment in DECISION MAKING and to take into
account the needs of employees.
See also Human relations movement; Managerial behavior; Management, classical theory
Bibliography
Pugh, D. S. & Hickson, D. J. (1989). Writers on organizations (4th edn). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
RICHARD BUTLER
Coalition Formation
This state occurs when some but not all members of a group organize themselves to push their
perspective on an issue (see GROUP DYNAMICS; POLITICS). Thompson (1967, p. 126) wrote that
"coalition behavior is undoubtedly of major importance to our understanding of complex
organizations." But even though the concepts of coalitions and coalition formation have been used to
describe organizations and organizational action (e.g., Cyert & March, 1963; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978),
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR has paid little attention to the literature on coalitions in social
psychology, GAME THEORY, or political science (Murnighan, 1978; 1994).

Document
Early results found that the least endowed tended to coalesce and exclude the most endowed. These
"strength is weakness" findings, which suggested the supremacy of the underdog, were soon debunked.
New research showed that when POWER BASES vary, strength is weakness only when parties with
different resources are effectively interchangeable. Partners with just sufficient resources to do the job
appear optimal: Fewer resources may imply smaller outcome demands, and greater attractiveness.
When parties are not interchangeable, however, strength is extremely valuable, and no longer the
harbinger of exclusion (i.e., weakness). The political and the social psychological literature also suggest
that small but sufficient coalitions are most frequent.
Founders tend to possess a diverse network of weak ties, rather than strong links to only a few others
(see NETWORKING). Thus, a coalition's strength may rest on infrequent, nonrepetitive interaction
with many others, rather than on frequent, well-established interactions with a few close contacts.
Political models also suggest that coalitions form incrementally, as interconnected sets of interacting
dyads. Put simply, coalitions form one person at a time (Murnighan & Brass, 1991). Once a coalition is
successful at achieving a critical mass, continued growth becomes considerably easier.
Being surreptitious may be critical in the success of many organizational coalitions: Keeping quiet
helps blunt the formation of an organized opposition, i.e., counter-coalitions, which von Neumann and
Morgenstern's (1947) classic, original model assumed would be excluded parties' natural reaction to a
coalition forming. Successful coalitions tend to be fluid, forming quickly, expanding and bursting at
decision time, and quickly disappearing (Murnighan & Brass, 1991).

Document
Page 64
Political models suggest that founders add similar members to ensure their own centrality in the final
coalition. New parties are invited to balance each other's IDEOLOGY, on either side of the founder's
position. The coalition can grow until it is just large enough, keeping the range of its ideologies at a
minimum and increasing the likelihood that its final policy positions will most closely resemble the
founder's (see GROUP STRUCTURE). This kind of political strategy, which may be well understood
by astute organizational tacticians, has not found its way into the organizational literature.
Within an organization, executives who are involved in many productive projects (i.e., organizational
coalitions) are viewed as politically powerful (see POWER). A few organization members may be in
several dominant coalitions: They represent Thompson's (1967) concept of the inner circle, a select few
whose interconnectedness provides them with considerable influence. These are the people who wield
considerable coalitional and political influence in organizations (see INFLUENCE; LEADERSHIP).
See also Intergroup relations; Interorganizational relations; Joint ventures; Collaboration
Bibliography
Cyert, R. & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Models of coalition formation: Game theoretic, social psychological, and
political perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1130–1153.
Murnighan, J. K. (1994). Game theory and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Murnighan, J. K. & Brass, D. J. (1991). Intraorganizational coalitions. In Bazerman, M. H., Lewicki, R.

J. & Sheppard, B. H. (Eds), Research on negotiation in organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1947). The theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
J. KEITH MURNIGHAN
Codes of Conduct
A code of conduct is a formal document that communicates the organizations standards of behavior (see
COMMUNICATIONS). In response to concerns about unethical conduct, ethics code usage has grown
in recent years. According to one recent survey, 83 percent of large United States corporations, 68
percent of Canadian firms, and 50 percent of European firms have codes (Berenbeim, 1992).

Document
The most frequently stated code purpose is the encouragement of ethical conduct in the organization.
To accomplish this purpose, codes take a variety of forms ranging from short statements of values
(sometimes called credos) to lengthier specifications of rules and regulations in such areas as conflicts
of interest and customer/supplier relations.
Other, less explicitly stated code functions have also been acknowledged (Weaver, 1993). These
include attracting employees, managing a firm's public image, avoiding government regulation and
legal penalties, and boosting employee morale (see STAKEHOLDERS).
Code effectiveness is generally discussed in relation to how well it encourages ethical conduct.
Although honor codes have been found to be associated with reduced academic dishonesty in colleges
and universities, the minimal research that exists provides little support for an association between
codes of ethics and reduced unethical behavior in other types of organizations.
See also Government and business; Business ethics; Corporate social performance; Mission
statements; Values
Bibliography
Berenbeim, R. (1992). Corporate ethics practices. New York: The Conference Board.
Weaver, G. (1993). Corporate codes of ethics: Purpose, process, and content issues. Business and
Society, 32, 44–58.
LINDA TREVINO
Cognition in Organizations
This term includes PERCEPTION, INFORMATION PROCESSING, analysis, decision, learning (see
LEARNING ORGANIZATION; LEARNING INDIVIDUAL) and memory by individuals and groups,
and the

Document
Page 65
relationship of these COGNITIVE PROCESSES to organization activity. The basic definition of these
subjects is informed by work on cognition across the social sciences, but the organizational setting
requires specific theoretic and empirical attention.
The study of cognition in organizations can be divided into three streams of research. The first assumes
that cognitive processes result in rational DECISION MAKING (see RATIONALITY), although
researchers in this tradition have paid attention to the differential impact of the decision-maker's
cognitive style, the effects of GROUP SIZE, GROUP STRUCTURE, and ROLES. Even intuition
(Pondy, 1983) has been studied, but the basic assumption is that cognition is intentional,
representational, and computational (Stubbart, 1989). The second stream of work draws on
BEHAVIORAL DECISION THEORY and presumes that rationality is more difficult to achieve. Work
from psychology has been used to explain systematic ERRORS in individual judgments (Duhaime &
Schwenk, 1985); other research has considered the effect of social processes and POLITICS on
cognition. A third stream of work argues that through ENACTMENT (Daft & Weick, 1984) individual
cognition and action create the environment within which further cognition and action takes place. This
perspective focuses on the interpretive content of cognitive processes and the importance of shared
understanding for coordinated action (Smirchich & Stubbart, 1985).
A key distinction among these approaches has to do with the presumed impact of the organizational
setting. Those adopting a rational perspective often de-emphasize the importance of the organization
setting, but do recognize that coordination facilitates more, and more complex, problem solving. Those
taking a behavioral approach see the organization as a more influential, multifarious setting for
individual cognition; group settings and processes encourage BIAS but also provide diverse experience
and opinions that can be used to reduce bias. Some who follow this general line of thought argue that
the organizational setting dominates individual cognition so completely (especially through
organizational routines) that concepts like organization knowledge, organization learning, and even
organization mind, have meaning independent of individual cognition (see LEARNING
ORGANIZATION). An interpretive perspective does not allow such an easy dichotomy, because this
approach finds it impossible to explain either individual cognition or broader context without
simultaneously considering the other.
At present, one of the most important issues for all those interested in cognition in organizations is to
establish a stronger empirical link between cognition and action, paying special attention to LEVELS
OF ANALYSIS. Organization researchers have long claimed that what organizational members think
and believe has a profound impact on organization activities (Barnard, 1938), and interesting action
research is being done which maps cognitive information from organization members for use by
decision makers (e.g., Eden, 1992) (see ACTION/INTERVENTION RESEARCH). Nevertheless, the
relationship between cognitive processes and individual behavior, as well as the link between collective
cognitive processes and organization activity, have not been adequately explored empirically. A number
of interesting case studies have linked interpretation to ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE (e.g., Dutton
& Dukerich, 1991; Barr, Stimpert, & Huff, 1992), but much remains to be done to establish the impact
of cognition in organizations.

Document
See also Strategic management; Culture, group; Action theory
Bibliography
Barnard, C. I. (1938). Functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L. & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational
renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 15–36.
Daft, R. & Weick, K. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of
Duhaime, I. D. & Schwenk, C. (1985). Conjectures on cognitive simplification in acquisition and

divestment decision-making. Academy of Management Review, 10, 287–95.
Dutton J. E. & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.
Eden, C. (1992). On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 261–265.

Document
Page 66
Pondy, L. R. (1983). Union of rationality and intuition in management action. In Suresh Srivastava
(Ed.), The executive mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smircich, L. & Stubbart, C. I. (1985). Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of

Stubbart, C. I. (1989). Managerial cognition: A missing link in strategic management research. Journal
of Management Studies, 26, 4, 325–347.
A. SIGISMUND HUFF
Cognitive Appraisal
see COGNITIVE PROCESSES; JOB INSECURITY
Cognitive Dissonance
This is an element of ATTITUDE THEORY, which arises when there is an inconsistency among an
individual's attitudes, behaviors, and/or VALUES (see Festinger, 1957). For example, an individual
who strongly dislikes his or her job (i.e., who has a negative attitude toward his or her job) but who
must work long hours in order to perform that job (i.e., a job-related behavior) will likely experience
dissonance between intended behavior (as predicted by the negative attitude) and actual behavior
(working long hours).
A person who experiences cognitive dissonance will be motivated to resolve it in some fashion. For
example, the worker noted above may alter her or his attitude by focusing more on positive aspects of
the work. Alternatively, the worker may alter her or his behavior by working fewer hours. Prolonged
periods of dissonance tend to have dysfunctional consequences for the individual. For example, the
worker is likely to experience higher levels of STRESS, FRUSTRATION, and ANXIETY. Job
performance may suffer (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). Extreme dissonance may also cause
the individual to withdraw from the situation by being absent more frequently or resigning altogether
(see WITHDRAWAL, ORGANIZATIONAL).
See also Job satisfaction; Turnover; Absenteeism; Cognitive processes
Bibliography
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
RICKY W. GRIFFIN
Cognitive Processes

Document
This term refers to the internal cognitive operations involved in sensing and interpreting information,
encoding and storing information, retrieving information, and transforming information into more
meaningful or more useful forms. Cognitive processes are the basis by which environmental
information, memories, and SKILL are translated into ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. It is also the
basis for affective responses (see AFFECT). Thus, understanding cognitive processing lies at the heart
of understanding human behavior and emotions. Cognitive processes also provide the basis for SELF-
REGULATION in a number of domains.
During the 1980s and 1990s there was a dramatic increase in the application of INFORMATION
PROCESSING theories, principles, and methods (e.g., protocol analysis) to understanding
organizational behavior. Individual level phenomena such as PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS (Ilgen,
Barnes-Fanell, & McKellin, 1993), MOTIVATION and skill development (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989),
LEADERSHIP perceptions (Lord & Maher, 1993) and job simulations have all been explained in terms
underlying cognitive processes. Organizational level researchers have also effectively used such
concepts as mental models, cognitive maps, cognitive categories, and cognitive scripts to explain
strategy, competitor perceptions, and DECISION MAKING.
This varied and eclectic borrowing of principles, terms, and procedures has produced a diverse range of
findings and activities. Yet there are also useful integrative reviews. Lord and Maher (1989) summarize
and critique much of this research in terms of content areas, and these same two authors provide a
summary of developments in cognitive science (Lord & Maher, 1991). There are also excellent books
by cognitive scientists that explain information processing and cognitive science in terms geared for
more advanced readers (Newell, 1990; Posner, 1989).
A coherent approach to understanding cognitive processes is provided by conceptualizing information

processing as occurring within a cognitive architecture. Cognitive architectures define:
(a) the nature and organization of memory;

Document
Page 67
(b) easily performed (primitive) cognitive operations; and
(c) a control structure that sequences information processing operations (Lord & Maher, 1991).
Currently, debate exists in cognitive science over the level at which cognitive architectures should be
addressed.
The more established perspective is that architectures should be defined at a symbolic level, the level
involving conscious mental operations. Symbolic architectures describe processing in terms of serial
manipulations of symbols (e.g., language) as a way of solving problems or understanding environments
(see METAPHOR; SYMBOLISM). Processing activities involve accessing symbols from memory or
the external environment and manipulating symbols according to rule-based mental operations.
This approach has demonstrated a number of successes in terms of understanding problem solving
(Simon, 1990) and intelligent behavior (Newell, 1990). It is consistent with the emphasis in the OB
literature on mental models and conscious, deliberative information-processing activities. Symbolic
architectures represent LEARNING and skill development in terms of the accumulation of domain or
task specific rules. Performance results from a trade-off between accessing previous knowledge or rules
and composing new rules or insights on the spot (Newell, 1990). In terms of time, symbolic level
explanation is appropriate for processes taking on the order of one second or longer.
A contrasting perspective is to define cognitive architectures at a more basic, neurologically based

level. Connectionist or parallel distributed processing architectures conceptualize processing in terms of
the flow of activation and inhibition between networks of neuron-like processing units. Such processing
occurs in parallel rather than serial steps. It is comparatively fast, providing a reasonable explanation for
cognitive processes occurring in less than half a second. Connectionist processes are particularly useful
for understanding the control of motor activities, perceptions, and the regulation of mental or
motivational activities through processes such as spreading activation (priming) or spreading inhibition
(negative priming) (Lord & Levy, 1994). Learning in connectionist architectures is much slower than in
symbolic architectures. It involves changes in weights connecting units rather than changes in rules.
Connectionist processes also seem to provide a more natural explanation of preconscious implicit
processes associated with phenomena such as intuition and the more basic aspects of EMOTION.
Finally, changes in older workers such as a general slowing of information processing and reduced
inhibitory capacity are nicely explained in connectionist terms (see AGE).

Document
Current research in cognitive science and artificial intelligence is addressing the interface between
symbolic level and connectionist processes. Two fundamental areas of concern for the OB field pertain
to this interface. One area addresses the nature and extent of the cognitive (attentional) resources that
support symbolic level operations. The biologically based connectionist perspective implies that people
have multiple cognitive resources that can be used to perform organizational tasks. This view
emphasizes that evolution, not an engineer, designed the human brain, resulting in many distinct
processing units and capacities. Each processing capacity had significance for survival at one point in
time, but in modern man, these capacities interact in performing most tasks. The obvious implication is
that work tasks may be done in many ways and that human potential can be best used by designing jobs
and organizational systems that utilize these multiple human capacities.
In contrast, the symbolic perspective emphasizes the effective use of a limited attentional resource that
supports symbolic operations (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). There may be substantial differences among
individuals in the amount of attentional capacity or working memory they can use to hold or manipulate
symbols, and these differences are strongly related to general intelligence (see INTELLIGENCE
TESTING). From this perspective, increased performance largely results from greater attentional
resources or from substituting learning for on-the-spot processing (Newell, 1990). Further, as Kanfer
and Ackerman note, task and self-regulatory activities may compete for use of the same limited
attentional resources.
A second and related concern pertains to the nature of process control in connectionist and symbolic
architectures. Being concerned with

Document
Page 68
sequencing of activities, process control is critical to understanding coherence in thinking and task
activities. It involves the interface between selective attention and purposeful motivational activities.
Symbolic level approaches to process control emphasize the use of aggregate mental structures like
scripts and schema (see Lord & Maher, 1991). Connectionist approaches, on the other hand, emphasize
processes like the spread of activation and inhibition from highly activated cognitive units. A critical
function of process control is to protect current operating objectives from interference (Lord & Levy,
1994). Purposeful functioning and emotional regulation deteriorate if connectionist level, automatic self-
regulatory capacities diminish with age, FATIGUE, or disease.
See also Performance, individual; Perception; Ability; Cognition in organizations
Bibliography
Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L. & McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in
the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 54, 321–368.
Kanfer, R. & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-

treatment approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657–690.
Lord, R. G. & Levy, P. E. (1994). Moving from cognition to action: A control theory perspective.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43, 335–398.
Lord, R. G. & Maher, K. M. (1989). Cognitive processes in industrial and organizational psychology. In
C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1989.
New York: Wiley.
Lord, R. G. & Maher, K. M. (1991). Cognitive theory in industrial/organizational psychology. In M. E.

Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, (vol. II). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Lord, R. G. & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and
organizational performance. Cambridge, MA: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Posner, M. I. (Ed.), (1989). Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. In M. Rosenzweig & L. Porter (Eds), Annual
review of psychology, (vol. 41, pp. 1–19). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
ROBERT G. LORD
Cognitive Resource Theory

Document
The theory seeks to account for differences in leaders' performance in terms of their cognitive resources
and situational demands. Leaders who are intelligent, as measured by intelligence tests, but less
experienced, do poorly if they are stressed by conflict with their boss. Conversely, those leaders who
are experienced, but less intelligent, exhibit better performance under conditions of job STRESS and
CONFLICT with their boss. The reverse is also found. In the absence of job stress due to a hostile or
threatening boss, intelligent leaders do better and experienced leaders do worse. The theory has been
validated in field studies with army infantry leaders, fire service officers, coast guard officers, and petty
officers, and in-basket experiments. The theory explains these results by assuming that stress interferes
with the use of cognitive abilities on intellectual tasks. Experience provides overlearning. Experienced
leaders can also rely on their intuition.
See also Competencies; Leadership; Leadership contingencies; Cognitive processes; Intelligence,

testing
Bibliography
Fiedler, F. E. & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and
organizational performance. New York: Wiley.
Fiedler, F. E., Potter, E. H., III, Zais, M. M. & Knowlton, W., Jr. (1979). Organizational stress and the
use and misuse of managerial intelligence and experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 635–647.
BERNARD M. BASS
Cognitive Style
see COGNITIVE PROCESSES; PERSONALITY
Cohesiveness
see GROUP COHESIVENESS

Document
Page 69
Collaboration
The interest in the increasing array of collaborations in today's global economy is intense (Borys &
Jemison, 1989). These forms have become a permanent part of the business scene. Beyond rich
description, however, there is a lack of agreement on what theory provides the best basis for predicting
when collaborations should occur, or what makes some collaborations more strategic than others. Three
bodies of theory provide important, but limited, guidance on this issue: TRANSACTION COST
ECONOMICS, INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS (IOR), and the so-called RESOURCE
BASED THEORY of the firm.
Oliver (1990) explores the question of collaboration within an IOR framework. The IOR approach, in
general, however, does not provide enough guidance on where collaboration may not be likely, and the
reasons why this may be so. The resource based approach (Barney, 1991), combined with a
RESOURCE DEPENDENCE perspective in the interorganizational relations framework (Pfeffer &
Salancik, 1978), provides a basis for predicting collaboration based on the needs to gain access to the
kinds of resources that an organization may need to create a basis for sustained competitive advantage
(see COMPETITIVENESS).
Transaction cost economists argue that when a firm needs resources it has three basic choices: it can
acquire them in the market, it can make them itself, or it can transact for them through ''mixed" modes
(Williamson, 1991). To an extent, all three involve collaboration. In contrast to the IOR approach,
institutional economists largely have ignored mixed or hybrid forms of governance (in which a
collaborative effort is more likely to be found (see GOVERNANCE AND OWNERSHIP). This is one
of its obvious shortcomings, as Williamson observes.
The results of recent research seems to indicate that strategic collaboration occurs when one or more of
four elements is present. First, access to, or exchange of, organization specific assets (e.g., proprietary
TECHNOLOGY, human resources) is required by one or both parties to achieve sustained competitive
advantage. Second, country specific assets (e.g., raw materials) or the assets of a governmental agency
are needed because they can provide sustained competitive advantage. Third, collaborating
organizations face a common threat to their assets affecting their collective survival which cannot be
efficiently countered by a single organization. Fourth, market-based contracts cannot be employed in
transacting for the assets in question. In some cases, access to assets may not be available through arm's
length, contract-based market transactions because of home or host country policies. In other instances,
the assets simply cannot be sold; that is, they are not private property. The first three conditions imply
that strategic collaboration might take place between business firms and other kinds of organizations (e.
g., governmental agencies). Thus, strategic collaboration can be defined as an interorganizational
relationship not governed by arm's length, contract-based market transactions to create, exchange, or
protect assets essential to creating or preserving sustained competitive advantage.

Document
Strategic collaboration will either involve organizations operating within the same resource
environment or will occur between organizations operating within different resource environments (see
ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). Collaboration between organizations operating within the
same resource environment is commensualistic, while that between organizations from different
resource environments is symbiotic (Astley & Fombrun, 1983).
Commensualistic collaboration occurs when organisms place the same kinds of demands on the
environment. In business, those demands are reflected in the need for assets. Within a very specific
industry group we except that all firms will need the same kinds of assets in order to survive. As a
general rule, we should not expect to find collaboration among firms competing for the same or very
similar types of assets, because of the risk that one or more of the parties might engage in opportunistic
behavior.
Where the legal, regulatory, or normative regime designed to guard against unlawful appropriation of
assets is strong, however, we have conditions that favor commensualistic collaboration. First, a strong
regime dampens opportunistic behavior by competitors by providing a context in which it is possible to
design effective endogenous safeguards. Second, effective institutional guarantors typically are
available to the parties in strong regimes. Third,

Document
Page 70
industry norms may be strong enough to discourage opportunism.
Symbiotic collaboration occurs when the organizations involved make demands on their respective
environments for different types of assets. A symbiotic collaboration typically will be composed of two
or more firms from different industries; however, it also may be composed of firms from within the
same industry, but whose primary production activities are located almost exclusively at different points
on the industry's value chain. Symbiotic collaboration also may be composed of organizations from
different sectors of the economy, i.e., between firms and GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (see
GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS).
See also Strategic management; Strategic alliances; Strategic choice; Joint ventures
Bibliography
Astley, W. G. & Fombrun, C. J. (1983). Collective strategy: The social ecology of organizational
environment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 567–587.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–
120.
Borys, B. & Jemison, D. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in
organizational combinations. Academy of Management Review, 14, 234–249.
Oliver, C. (1990). The determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future

directions. Academy of Management Review, 16, 241–265.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource perspective. New
York: Harper & Row.
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36,

269–296.
PETER SMITH RING
Collateral Organization

Document
The first formal definition of collateral organization to appear in the organization's literature was
offered by Zand (1974; 1981), who defined it as a parallel, coexisting organization used to supplement
the existing formal organization. The utility of this structural adaptation was based on the notion that
different types of problems require different " modes" of organization. AUTHORITY/production-
centered organizations (e.g., the classic BUREAUCRACY) work best with "well-structured" problems.
"Ill-structured'' problems (i.e., problems in which key pieces of information are unknown or
unknowable) require a more flexible "knowledge or problem-centered" organizational form. Zand
argued that a collateral organization has different norms than those operating in the formal organization.
For example, using the collateral structure, managers and employees can communicate freely without
being restricted to the formal channels of the organizational HIERARCHY leading to a rapid and
complete exchange of relevant information on problems and issues. Further, managers can approach
and enlist others in the organization to help solve a problem; they are not restricted to their formal
subordinates. Zand proposed the collateral organization as a form of ORGANIZATION
DEVELOPMENT intervention intended to help managers create flexible, problem-solving
organizations (see FLEXIBILITY; LEARNING ORGANIZATION).
In their operation: "Collateral organizations are intended to be responsive, flexible, and adept at solving
ill-structured problems and to endow the full organization with these attributes." Collateral
organizations coexist side by side with the formal organization; they are permanent – or relatively so;
they are staffed by members drawn from several or all strata of the formal organization, using no new or
"extraorganizational" people. The collateral organization consists of a web of fresh problem-solving
linkages, mainly vertical, that slice through the formal structure" (Rubinstein & Woodman, 1984, p. 3
(see VERTICAL INTEGRATION)).
Most recently, the term collateral organization is perhaps being supplanted by the label of "parallel
learning structures." Bushe and Shani (1991) define the parallel learning structure as a generic label to
cover interventions where:
(a) a 'structure' (i.e., a specific division and coordination of labor) is created that;
(b) operates 'parallel' (i.e., in tandem or side-by-side) with the formal hierarchy and structure; and
(c) has the purpose of increasing an organization's learning (i.e., the creation and/or implementation of
new thoughts and beha-

Document
Page 71
viors by employees (1991, p. 9) (see ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING).
There is a genre of OD interventions which proceed by the creation of collateral or parallel

organizational structures to aid in problem solving, learning, and change. Somewhat unfortunately,
these supplemental structures go by a variety of names. The reader is referred to the work of Bushe and
Shani (1990; 1991) for a deeper understanding of these structural interventions.
Most evaluation of the efficacy of collateral organizations has been qualitative in form. Improved
PRODUCTIVITY, DECISION-MAKING quality, INNOVATION, employee satisfaction (see JOB
SATISFACTION), and ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS are among the outcomes reported (e.
g., Bushe & Shani, 1990; 1991). However, little systematic empirical work has been done to evaluate
the effectiveness of this structural adaptation. Based upon case experience, linkage of the collateral
structure with the formal organization would appear to be a key criterion for success.
See also Organizational boundaries; Organizational design; Subunits
Bibliography
Bushe, G. R. & Shani, A. B. (1990). Parallel learning structure interventions in bureaucratic

organizations. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds), Research in organizational change and
development, (vol. 4, pp. 167–194). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bushe, G. R. & Shani, A. B. (1991). Parallel learning structures: Increasing innovation in

bureaucracies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rubinstein, D. & Woodman, R. W. (1984). Spiderman and the Burma raiders: Collateral organization
theory in action. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 1–21.
Zand, D. E. (1974). Collateral organization: A new change strategy. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 10, 63–89.
Zand, D. E. (1981). Information, organization, and power: Effective management in the knowledge
society. New York: McGraw-Hill.
RICHARD W. WOODMAN
Collective Action

Document
When there is CONFLICT between workers and managers, collective action is one means of resolving
the difference. In comparison with other forms of conflict, collective action reflects more explicit
demands or grievances and requires more deliberate organization (Hyman, 1989). The best-known form
of such action is the strike, but there are many others including bans on overtime and "sick-
ins" (coordinated ABSENTEEISM). Much research sees action as an indicator of workers' protest, but
the role of the employer is equally important. In some countries, the lock-out, the employer's equivalent
of the strike, is a significant tactic. More generally, employer tactics are crucial in whether a dispute
reaches the stage of overt action.
Most research examines strikes, with systematic information on other action being much harder to
produce. However, workplace surveys in Britain and Australia suggest that other forms are at least as
common as the strike.
Research on strikes (Kaufman, 1992; Shalev, 1992) reveals dramatic differences in patterns between
countries (with very long and quite large disputes in North America; large but short strikes in Italy; and
very low levels of action in Austria, the Nordic countries, and Japan). This reflects the role of
institutions which bring together TRADE UNIONS, employers, and the state to regulate conflict (see
CONFLICT RESOLUTION). Where such institutions are weak, strikes remain weapons of leverage or
protest; they are less necessary where means to coordinate the interests of the parties have developed.
Strikes have also occurred in waves, with peaks of activity in many countries around the First World
War and during the 1960s (Edwards, 1992). Rates declined rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s in many
countries, notably the United States and Britain, though they also rose in others such as Sweden. Main
reasons for the decline are economic conditions (with recession tending to make collective action more
difficult to sustain), the shift of employment from manufacturing, a weakening of trade unions, and new
managerial initiatives to promote individualism (see INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; HUMAN
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT).
Connections between collective action and conflict or morale have to be made with care. There are
alternative means of protest such as Absenteeism and TURNOVER. In some cases one form can be
substituted for another but there is

Document
Page 72
no straightforward correlation. Japanese firms, for example, are low on both dimensions. Whether or
not there is a correlation depends on the wider system of employment relationships.
The effects of collective action can be immediate or broader. On specific effects, the time lost in strikes
is much less than that due to absence or ACCIDENTS, and there are few clear-cut effects on
PRODUCTIVITY. More broadly, major waves of strikes have symbolized substantial industrial and
political change, as in the United States in the 1930s or many European countries in the 1960s. At the
level of the enterprise, high levels of action can reflect a "low TRUST syndrome." Concerted action is
one means by which employees can use "voice" mechanisms to indicate their concern on an issue and it
thus has important implications for the functioning of the enterprise.
See also Collective bargaining; Intergroup relations; Interest groups; Interorganizational relations
Bibliography
Edwards, P. K. (1992). Industrial conflict. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 30, 361–404.
Hyman, R. (1989). Strikes, (4th edn). London: Fontana.
Kaufman, B. E. (1992). Research on strike models and outcomes in the 1980s. In D. Lewin, O. S.
Mitchell and P. D. Sherer (Eds). Research frontiers in industrial relations and human resources (pp. 77–
130). Madison: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Shalev, M. (1992). The resurgence of labour quiescence. In M. Regini (Ed.), The future of labour
movements (pp. 102–132). London: Sage.
Wheeler, H. N. (1985). Industrial conflict. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
PAUL EDWARDS
Collective Bargaining
This is the term applied to those methods of managing the employment relationship which explicitly
acknowledge a role for TRADE UNIONS (Clegg, 1960; 1976). In contrast with the approach of, say,
autocratic paternalism or worker COOPERATIVES, the employer who engages in collective bargaining
accepts the right of independent representatives of employees, acting as a collectivity, to argue their
point of view on matters that affect their interests. The most obvious outcome will be a collective
agreement, which may be anything from a single, written document to an accumulation of agreed rules
and common understandings of varying degrees of informality and precision. Pay, HOURS OF WORK,
and WORKING CONDITIONS are the most common subjects, but collective bargaining can deal with
any aspect of management (see PAYMENT SYSTEMS).

Document
Webb (1897) coined the term in 1891, later contrasting it with individual bargaining, in that the
employer, instead of making separate deals with individual workers, " . . . meets with a collective will
and settles, in a single agreement, the principles on which, for the time being, all workmen of a
particular group, or class, or grade, will be engaged." The most influential modern treatment of the
subject has been that of Flanders (1975). He emphasized that collective bargaining is best seen as a
political, rather than an economic process. It is joint regulation. The two sides meet in the awareness of
their POWER relationship, of their ability to inflict mutual damage, in order to establish for the
forseeable future the rules governing work. The collective agreement commits no-one to buy or sell any
labor; it only specifies the terms on which such a transaction must be conducted.
The character of collective bargaining owes much to two essential features of the employment
relationship. They are its open-endedness and its continuity. It is open-ended because the recruitment of
an employee does not ensure the performance of work. The employee has to be motivated, by whatever
means, to perform to the required standard. Since proximal SOCIAL COMPARISONS play an
important part in the MOTIVATION and demotivation of labor, the standardization of terms of
employment, which is a necessary feature of collective agreements, tends to fit well with bureaucratic
personnel techniques (see BUREAUCRACY). The continuity of the relationship is significant because
employer and employees are bound together for an indeterminate duration, with normally intermittent
and incremental changes to the workforce. Of the myriad potentially contentious issues in the collective
relationship, only a minority will be at issue at any moment, many affecting a minority of the
workforce. Any one

Document
Page 73
issue of grievance cannot be dealt with in isolation; it is no more than a single fiber in the rope of
regulation maintained through collective bargaining.
The coverage of collective agreements is generally wider than is implied by the extent of trade
unionism. Employers often follow the terms of collective agreements even when their workforces are
not unionized. But for most industrialized Western countries, after a high tide of both coverage and
unionization in the 1960s and 1970s, both have ebbed in the 1980s and 1990s. In Britain, for example,
the proportion of all employees covered by collective agreements fell from around three-quarters to
under a half over the course of the 1980s. Among the many causes of this worldwide decline are
increased international competition, the decline of mass-employment manufacturing, shrinkage of
public sector employment, a shift to more individualistic employment practices, and changes in the
structure of bargaining.
The most conspicuous feature of the structure of collective bargaining is the organizational level at
which the bargaining takes place. This is directly related to the unit of bargaining, that is, the group of
employees covered by a particular agreement. The crucial decision that has faced employers over the
years has been whether, on the one hand, to bargain with unions alone in what is now called "enterprise
bargaining" or, on the other hand, to group together in an industry-wide employers' association and, by
confronting labor together through a single, national, or regional industry-wide agreement, to "take
wages out of competition."
The European tradition had been one of industry-wide bargaining, whereas in Japan and the United
States enterprise bargaining became established earlier. Over the past 20 years establishment bargaining
has gained overwhelming importance in Britain and is steadily spreading elsewhere, driven as much as
anything by the internationalization of markets. Against the advantages offered by enterprise bargaining
for more flexible employment practices has to be balanced the disadvantages of the loss of orderly
national training arrangements and of nationwide wage restraint which are generally favored by
industry-wide bargaining (see FLEXIBILITY). The crumbling of national employer solidarity under the
impact of international competition is forcing firms to put more resources into managing their own
enterprise-based bargaining.
Bargaining structure has been demonstrated by Clegg (1976) and Crouch (1993) among others to have
substantial implications for a country's industrial relations experience and its economic performance
(see COMPETITIVENESS). The reform of this structure is, however, hard to achieve. Employer
strategy is of prime importance but slow to change. The legislative framework, which establishes
fundamental conditions such as trade union security, the status of the employment CONTRACT, and
limits on the right to strike, is also crucial (see COLLECTIVE ACTION). But for most countries the
principal labor legislation was enacted at some historic period of crisis – war, defeat, depression, or
extreme industrial unrest – and in more serene times the accretion of voluntary institutional structures
makes it hard to alter these underlying legal foundations.

Document
Viewed in this longer perspective, collective bargaining can be seen to have a deeper political
significance. The victorious Allies ensured that collective bargaining would play a central part in the
recovery of Japan and Germany after the Second World War because they saw it as a grass-roots
democratic institution that might inhibit the return of militarism. Although it has been under challenge
in Britain, the United States, and some other countries recently, there has been a deeply rooted view in
most Western countries that collective bargaining offers the best means of achieving a practical form of
industrial DEMOCRACY. In the central tradition of pluralism, acknowledging that there can never be
identity of interest between employer and employee, collective bargaining offers an orderly means to
modify employer actions in the light of employee interests, insofar as their organized power permits.
Collective bargaining may never regain the significance it enjoyed in the third quarter of this century,
but its roots and its rationale will ensure that its decline is not terminal.
See also Industrial relations; Intergroup relations; Labor process theory; Negotiation; Trust

Document
Page 74
Bibliography
Clegg, H. A. (1960). A new approach to industrial democracy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Clegg, H. A. (1976). Trade unionism under collective bargaining. Oxford UK: Blackwell.
Crouch, C. (1993). Industrial relations and European state traditions. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Flanders, A. (1975). Management and unions. London: Faber and Faber.
Kochan, T. A. (1980). Collective bargaining and industrial relations. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Webb, S. & B. (1897). Industrial democracy. London: Longmans Green.
WILLIAM BROWN
Commensalism
see COMMUNITY ECOLOGY
Commitment
This is concerned with the level of attachment and loyalty to an organization amoung its employees.
Organizations increasingly compete to attract and retain the most able staff and those committed to the
organization might be expected to have longer tenure. Demands to compete through high quality require
a workforce willing to display the MOTIVATION, flexibility, and belief in product or service that
produces high performance, and commitment should help to ensure this. Indeed, Walton (1985) has
contrasted a traditional relationship between employer and employee based on control with one based
on commitment, arguing that all organizations need to pursue a high commitment approach if they are
to survive. This has been one of the factors behind advocacy of HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT.
Despite its intuitive appeal, commitment is a complex phenomenon. Interest has focused on four main
issues. These are: the focus or target of commitment; the definition and measurement of commitment;
the causes of variations in levels of commitment; and the consequences of commitment. The picture is
made more complex by the presence of two rather different strands of scholarship, one concerned with
commitment as an attitude, the other with commitment as behavior.
Attitudinal or Organizational Commitment
Interest in commitment as an attitude has been mainly concerned with commitment to an organization.
It is equally plausible to consider commitment to a job, a work team, a profession, to one's family, or to
a range of other foci. Indeed, the possibility of multiple and potentially competing commitments has led
to a strand of research on dual commitment (see COMMITMENT, DUAL).

Document
In their influential work on organizational commitment, Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) define it as
"the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in an organization." They
elaborate this to incorporate: belief in the VALUES and goals of the organization, willingness to exert
effort on behalf of the organization, and desire to be a member of the organization. They have
developed a widely used scale, the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) to measure these
elements. Both the definition and the measure have been criticized for conflating commitment with
outcomes such as effort and propensity to stay.
Meyer and Allen (1991) have proposed alternative definitions and measures, distinguishing affective
and continuance commitment. Affective commitment emphasizes identification with the organization
and is predicted to impact on job performance. Continuance commitment borrows from the work of
Becker (1960) and others who have given emphasis to the exchange component inherent in the concept
of commitment. Individuals will wish to stay with an organization as long as they gain a positive
exchange. This exchange may be financial but over time "side bets" such as pensions, career prospects,
and friendship develop. For both financial and nonfinancial reasons, staff cannot then "afford" to leave.
Continuance commitment therefore predicts tenure. There is some support for the distinction between
continuance and affective commitment, and this approach holds out promise for the future.
Much research has sought to identify antecedents of organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990). The evidence is inconsistent but supports the importance for high commitment of providing jobs
with some AUTONOMY and scope for self-expression and policies which ensure fairness of treatment
and, particularly for newcomers to the organization, confirmation of expectations about working in the
organization.

Document
Page 75
The general theory of organizational commitment predicts that high commitment should result in
greater motivation and performance, lower ABSENTEEISM and lower labor TURNOVER. Despite the
more specific predictions of Meyer and Allen and evidence from at least one study linking
organizational commitment and PERFORMANCE (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson,
1989), most research shows that organizational commitment has little impact on performance or on
absenteeism but does have some ability to predict labor turnover. In general, the impact of
organizational commitment on a range of outcomes has been less than theory would predict (see
PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL).
Behavioral Commitment
The second main strand of research is concerned with the process whereby individuals become bound
or committed to their actions. Drawing on cognitive dissonance theory, Salancik (1977) proposed that
the propensity to act will be greater when an individual volunteers to act, when the action to be taken is
explicit, when it is done in the presence of other people, and when the decision is hard to revoke. This
approach underpins organizations such as Weightwatchers and Alcoholics Anonymous but can equally
well be applied to decisions to join an organization or to decisions taken in WORK GROUPS and
committees. A commitment to act is expected to increase the probability of subsequent action and of
attitudes moving in line with behavior. This approach has been successful in predicting tenure based on
analysis of the circumstances surrounding the process of CAREER CHOICE (Kline & Peters, 1991).
Indeed, insofar as comparisons are possible, behavioral commitment appears to have more impact on
performance than organizational commitment.
After two decades of research on organizational commitment, evidence about the causes remains
blurred and evidence on the effects of organizational commitment remains disappointing. One reason
for the initial interest of some researchers was disillusion at the failure of JOB SATISFACTION to
predict behavior. Yet in many studies where the two have been compared, commitment has fared no
better than job satisfaction as a predictor of performance and tenure. It appears that the concept may
need further unbundling to build on the work of Meyer and Allen in separating out the various
components and to clarify the focus of commitment. More attention also needs to be paid to the
dynamics of commitment and the processes through which levels of organizational commitment can be
changed among long-tenure workers. Ethical questions associated with commitment should not be
ignored; the "exchange" may become very one-sided and the temptation to enhance quit rates through
policies to reduce commitment may appeal to some managers irrespective of its impact on worker well
being. Finally, current trends in employment, including the decline in job security (see JOB
INSECURITY) and rapid RESTRUCTURING and delayering of organizations presents a growing
challenge to the viability of organizational commitment, increasing the possibility of a shift in the focus
of individual commitment to their profession, their work-group, or even to themselves.
See also Joining-up process; Psychological contract; Employee involvement; Professionals in

organizations

Document
Bibliography
Becker, H. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32–42.
Kline, C. J. & Peters, L. H. (1991). Behavioral commitment and tenure of new employees: A replication
and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 34, (1), 194–204.
Mathieu, J. & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, (2), 171–194.
Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.

Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J., Allen, N. & Gellatly, I. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization:
Analysis of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied
Meyer, J., Paunonen, S., Gellatly, I., Goffin, R. & Jackson, D. (1989). Organizational commitment and
job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152–
156.

Document
Page 76
Mowday, R., Porter, L. & Steers, R. (1982). Employee–organizational linkages. New York: Academic
Press.
Salancik, G. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw
& G. R. Salancik (Eds), New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St Clair Press.
Walton, R. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63, 76–84.
DAVID GUEST
Commitment, Dual
Can a worker be committed to both company and trade union? A traditional INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS perspective would argue that the different interests and values of employers and workers
makes dual COMMITMENT difficult. Consequently, unions have been suspicious of the rise of human
resource policies (see HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) designed to generate organizational
commitment at a time when union membership is declining.
One of the key questions is whether the causes of union and company commitment are the same. If they
are different, then it should be possible to manipulate the causal variables independently and therefore
be high or low on both. If the causes are the same, but at opposite ends of a dimension such as, for
example, perception of fair treatment by the company, then dual commitment is impossible. The
balance of the research to date suggests that the causes are largely different and therefore dual
commitment is possible. Angle and Perry (1986) have highlighted the importance for dual commitment
of a positive industrial relations climate (see ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE). This is reinforced by
evidence suggesting that dual commitment is higher in countries such as Germany and Sweden where
institutional arrangements foster a positive industrial relations climate.
Although dual commitment has been mainly concerned with commitment to company and union, there
is growing interest in the possibility of multiple and potentially competing foci of commitment both
inside and outside the company, making dual or multiple commitment a challenging research and policy
issue.
See also Identification; Socialization; Trade unions
Bibliography
Angle, H. J. & Perry, J. L. (1986). Dual commitment labor–management relationship climates.

Academy of Management Journal, 29, 31–50.
DAVID GUEST
Commitment, Escalating

Document
Escalation is the degree to which an individual commits to a previously selected course of action
beyond a level that a rational model of DECISION MAKING would prescribe. Research suggests that
decision makers committed to a particular course of action have a tendency to make subsequent
decisions which continue that COMMITMENT beyond the level that RATIONALITY would suggest is
reasonable. In Staw's initial (1976) study of escalation, one group of subjects (labeled the high
responsibility subjects) was asked to allocate research and development funds to one of two operating
divisions of an organization. The subjects were then told that after 3 years the investment had either
proved successful or unsuccessful, and that they were now faced with a second allocation decision
concerning the same division. A second group (labeled the low responsibility subjects) was told that
another financial officer of the firm had made a decision that had been either successful or unsuccessful
(both groups were provided the same information regarding success or failure) and that they were to
make a second allocation of funds concerning that division. When the outcome of the previous decision
was negative (an unsuccessful investment), the high responsibility subjects allocated significantly more
funds to the original division in the second allocation than did the low responsibility subjects. In
contrast, for successful initial decisions, the amount of money allocated in the second decision was
roughly the same across subjects.
There are multiple reasons why escalation occurs (Bazerman, 1994). First, the individual's
PERCEPTION may be biased by his/her previous decision (see BIAS). That is, the decision maker may
notice information that supports his/her decision, while ignoring information that contradicts the initial
decision. Second, the decision maker's biased judgments may cause him/her to perceive information in
a way that justifies the existing position. Third, negotiators often make

Document
Page 77
subsequent decisions which justify earlier decisions to themselves and others. Finally, competitiveness
adds to the likelihood of escalation; unilaterally giving up or even reducing demands may be viewed as
a defeat, while escalating commitment leaves the future uncertain.
See also Behavioral decision research; Risk taking; Game theory; Decision making; Negotiation;
Persistence
Bibliography
Bazerman, M. H. (1994). Judgment in managerial decision making (3rd edn). New York: Wiley.
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course
of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27–44.
MAX H. BAZERMAN
Communication
Through communication, organizations and their members exchange information, form understandings,
coordinate activities, exercise influence, socialize, and generate and maintain systems of beliefs,
symbols, and VALUES (see SYMBOLISM). Communication has been called the "'nervous system' of
any organized group" and the "glue" which holds organizations together.
Claude Shannon's classic mathematical theory of communication defined seven basic elements of
communication (Ritchie, 1991): a source which encodes a message and transmits it through some
channel to a receiver, which decodes the message and may give the sender some FEEDBACK. The
sender and receiver may be individuals, machines, or collectives such as organizations or teams. The
channel is subject to a degree of noise which may interfere with or distort the transmission of the
message. Other distortions may come during encoding or decoding, if errors are introduced or if the
source and receiver have different codes. The process of communication occurs through a series of
transmissions among parties, so Shannon's single message is only the basic building block of larger
interchanges among a system of two to N entities. This system may be represented as a communication
network in which communicators are nodes and the various types of communication relationships links
(see NETWORK ANALYSIS). Distortion may also be introduced as the message passes through
multiple links, with small changes at each node. Communication is dependent on its context; many
scholars argue that the interpretation of messages is only possible because the receiver has contextual
cues to supplement message cues.
Due to the complexity of the organizational communication process and the many levels at which
communication occurs, there is no generally agreed theory of organizational communication. Different
positions have been advanced on several issues.

Document
A major controversy concerns what is communicated, i.e., the substance of communication. One
position assumes that messages transmit information, defined as anything which reduces the receiver's
uncertainty (Ritchie, 1991). This stance, first advanced in Shannon's theory, portrays communication as
something amenable to precise analysis. The amount of information in a given message can, in theory,
be measured, and messages compared on metrics of uncertainty reduction. This view has been adopted
metaphorically by a wide range of analysts who view organizations as INFORMATION PROCESSING
systems or focus on uncertainty reduction. The information perspective has been criticized for reducing
ideas, feelings, and symbols to a set of discrete bits pumped through a conduit from sender to receiver
(Axley, 1984). An alternative position is that the essence of communication is meaning, encompassing
ideas, EMOTIONS, VALUES, and SKILLS which are conveyed via symbolization and demonstration.
Meaning cannot be reduced to information, because it depends on associations among symbols
grounded in the surrounding CULTURE and the communicators' experience. The meaning of a message
or interaction is grasped through a process of interpretation which requires communicators to read
individual signs in light of the whole message and its context, but simultaneously understand the whole
by what its constituent signs signify. This hermeneutic circle implies that meaning can never be
established finally or unequivocally. Interpretation is a continuing process, always subject to revision or
qualification. The information-centered and meaning-centered conceptions of communica-

Document
Page 78
tion represent two quite different approaches, the former being favored by empirical social scientists
and the latter by ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE and critical researchers (see CRITICAL THEORY).
There are also at least two positions on the role of communication in organizations. One regards
communication as a subprocess which plays an important role in other organizational processes. For
example, communication serves as a channel for the exercise of LEADERSHIP or for the maintenance
of interorganizational linkages (see INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS). The other position
argues that communication is the process which constitutes the organization and its activities. Rather
than being subsidiary to key phenomena such as leadership, communication is regarded as the medium
through which these phenomena and, more generally, organizations are created and maintained. This
viewpoint is reflected in a wide range of organizational research, including Herbert Simon's
Administrative Behavior, analyses of leadership as a language game, and most studies of organizational
culture. The two positions have quite different implications for practice. For example, in the case of
leadership communication the subprocess view implies that a leader should make sure that leadership
functions are conveyed effectively, while the constitutive view implies that the leader should try to use
communication to create and maintain leader–follower relationships and to generate a shared vision.
Another way of describing the role of communication is to delineate the functions it plays for
organizations and their members. While the list is potentially endless, at least seven critical functions
can be distinguished. Communication serves a command and CONTROL function in that it is the
medium by which directives are given, problems identified, MOTIVATION encouraged, and
performance monitored (see UPWARD COMMUNICATION). The Weberian BUREAUCRACY
emphasizes this function of communication, and the first wave of formal information systems for
accounting attempted to automate it, with mixed results. The linking function of communication
promotes a flow of information between different parts of the organization, enabling the organization to
achieve a degree of coherency among disparate units and personnel (see BOUNDARY SPANNING).
The linking function plays a key role in INNOVATION and in the diffusion of innovations within
organizations (see INNOVATION DIFFUSION). Important to linking are upward and lateral
communication flows. A third function of communication is enculturation, which refers to the creation
and maintenance of organizational cultures and to the assimilation of members into the organization.
Rituals, myths, METAPHORS, MISSION STATEMENTS, and other symbolic genres contribute to this
function (see RITUALS).
In addition to the three intraorganizational functions, communication also serves two additional
interorganizational functions. The fourth function is interorganizational linking, which serves to create
and maintain interorganizational fields. This linking function is accomplished via BOUNDARY
SPANNING personnel and units and through shared information systems used to monitor
interorganizational ventures. The fifth is organizational presentation, which defines the organization to
key audiences, such as potential customers, other organizations, the state, and the public at large. This
function contributes to the maintenance of an organization's institutional legitimacy. It is carried out
through such diverse activities as public information campaigns, corporate advocacy advertisement, and
maintenance of proper records and certifications.

Document
Two functions of communication apply to both intra- and interorganizational situations. The ideational
function of communication refers to its role in the generation and use of ideas and knowledge in the
organization (see GATEKEEPERS; IDEOLOGY). Simon's description of decision premises and their
circulation through the organization is one example of the ideational function. This function is critical
to the processes of social reasoning and ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING which contribute to
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. There is also an ideological function of communication: it is
the vehicle for the development and promulgation of ideologies, systems of thought which normalize
and justify relations of POWER and CONTROL. Postmodern analysis of organizations asserts that the
reigning discourse in organizations defines what is correct and incorrect and who is able to decide
matters of truth and

Document
Page 79
falsehood (see POSTMODERNISM). This arbitrary allocation of power leaves some groups with
unquestioned control and omits others from consideration. Such processes are hard to uncover and
change, because they occur in the course of normal, everyday communication and thus seem natural and
nonproblematic.
Organizations have two distinct communication systems, formal and informal. The formal
communication system is a part of the organizational structure and includes supervisory relationships,
WORK GROUPS, permanent and ad hoc committees, and management information systems. In
traditional organizations the major design concern was vertical communication, focusing on command
and control; more contemporary forms such as matrix or networked organizations also focus on formal
lateral communication (see MATRIX ORGANIZATION). Formal channels, especially vertical ones,
are subject to a number of communication problems. These include unintentional distortion and
omission of information as it is passed up the HIERARCHY, delays in message routing, and intentional
distortions by subordinates attempting to manipulate superiors or protect themselves.
The informal communication system emerges from day-to-day interaction among organizational
members. Ties in the informal network are based on proximity, friendship, common interests, and
political benefits more than on formal job duties (see POLITICS). The informal system includes the
"grapevine" and the "rumor mill." The informal communication network is usually more complex and
less organized than the formal network. Messages pass through the informal network more rapidly, and
members often regard them as more accurate and trustworthy than those from the formal system. An
organization's informal communication system is important for several reasons. First, it often
compensates for problems in formal communication. Members can use informal channels to respond to
CRISES and exceptional cases rapidly. They can use informal contacts to make sense of uncertain,
ambiguous, or threatening situations. Second, use of informal networks may improve organizational
decision making, because it allows members to talk "off the record" and "think aloud," hence avoiding
the negative consequences of taking a public position. This is especially valuable when problems are ill
defined or solutions unclear. Third, informal networks foster innovation, because they are more open
and rapid, and because they often connect people from different departments or professions.
The nature of communication channels exerts an important influence on its functions and effectiveness.
The archetypal communication situations occur in face-to-face interactions or in public speeches to
large audiences. However, communication occurs through many other MEDIA, including written
formats, telephone, fax, electronic mail, teleconferencing, computer conferencing, and broadcast
technologies. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES such as electronic mail and computer networks
vastly increase the connections among members and may stimulate a greater flow of ideas and
innovations and change power relations. Studies have shown that the nature of the medium used affects
the communication process; for example, NEGOTIATION generally is more effective through face-to-
face and (to a lesser extent) audio media than through video or written media. In order to guide
communicator's media choices, researchers have attempted to rank order these media in terms of their
social presence, the degree to which they convey a sense of direct personal contact with another, and in
terms of media richness, the degree to which a medium allows immediate feedback, multiple channels,

Document
variety of language, and personal cues. Generally, face-to-face communication is classified as the
richest and highest social presence medium, followed by meetings, videoconferencing, telephone and
teleconferencing, e-mail, written memos, and, finally, numerical information. Achieving the correct
match between media richness and the communication situation is an important determinant of
effectiveness. Variables governing media choice include a degree of equivocality and uncertainty in the
situation (the more uncertain, the richer the medium needed), sender and receiver characteristics, and
organizational norms (see GROUP NORMS). Also important in media choice is what the medium
symbolizes; a personal meeting might signal the importance the convener attaches to an issue, whereas
an electronic mail message might suggest the same issue is less critical. While social presence, richness,
and symbolism are

Document
Page 80
important to consider, studies have shown variations in the ranking of media on these dimensions; so,
media choice is also dependent on the nature of the organization.
Numerous prescriptions and recommendations have been offered to improve organizational

communication. Perhaps the most common is that the organization's communication system should be
as open as possible. However, more communication is not necessarily better communication. At the
personal level open communication can be threatening and exhausting to those who have to deal with
difficult issues and personal problems they might otherwise avoid. At the organizational level open
communication can result in communication overload and in CONFLICT. Another common
prescription emphasizes the importance of clarity and uncertainty reduction, but this too may be
somewhat overrated. Eisenberg (1984) discusses the value of purposefully ambiguous communication.
Its uses include the downplaying of differences in order to build consensus and masking negative
consequences of ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE in order to promote acceptance of innovations. A
final common admonition is to promote rational argumentation and discussion. While this certainly is
good currency, overemphasis can blind us to the creative potential of inconsistency and logical jumps
and to the importance of the emotions (see CREATIVITY). Like many things that seem simple and
straightforward, communication conceals considerable complexity.
See also Communications technology; Integration
Bibliography
Axley, S. (1984). Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor.
Conrad, C. (1990). Strategic organizational communication (2nd edn). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication

Monographs, 51, 227–242.
Jablin, F. M., Putnam, L. L., Roberts, K. H. & Porter, L. W. (1987). Handbook of organizational
communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ritchie, L. D. (1991). Information. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, J. M. & Barrios-Choplin, J. R. (1992). A dual-capacity model of communication

media choice in organizations. Human Communication Research, 18, 563–598.
Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
MARSHALL SCOTT POOLE

Document
Communications Technology
COMMUNICATION is the glue that binds organizations. As a result, there has been great incentive to
develop and apply technologies that might enhance and speed communication. Communication
technology refers to the hardware, software, organizational structures, and social procedures by which
individuals collect, process, and exchange information with other individuals (Rogers, 1986).
While it is natural to think of it in terms of modern electronic communication systems, communication

technology has a long and complex history (Yates, 1989). The oldest communication technology,
writing, fostered ancient empires and commerce. Later, the printing press laid the groundwork for
literacy and education which made Weber's BUREAUCRACY possible. In the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, techniques for systematic storage and retrieval of documents, such as vertical filing
systems, greatly enhanced the ability of businesses to marshall information, while the evolution of
communication genres such as the memo and the business letter changed the way in which internal and
external communication was handled.
The first electronic technologies, the telegraph and the telephone, had profound effects on
organizations, allowing them to spread over much greater distances and work more rapidly. Originally
intended primarily as a business tool, the telephone also transformed interpersonal communication in
general, changing both work and social relationships in organizations.
Videoconferencing came next, but it remained largely unsuccessful until the late 1980s, when the
technology finally matured. The most recent wave of communication technologies involve computer-
supported communication (see INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY). The earliest entries – electronic
mail and computer conferencing – have already changed

Document
Page 81
the nature of organizational communication. More recent developments – WORKGROUP support,

multimedia systems, virtual reality – promise even more profound changes (Grant & Wilkinson, 1993).
Communication technologies are becoming so important to modern organizations that some theorists
have ventured that they are the limiting factor on ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN and growth.
This brief overview hints at the complex nature of communication technologies. Their most obvious
aspect is the ever-expanding array of hardware. However, reflection indicates that the hardware
operates within a broader context of social norms which define adequate communication, organizational
structures which influence the application of the hardware and motivate members to use it, and the
larger societal and international systems within which technologies develop and standards for their
design are set. This context is as essential to the communication technology as the hardware.
Media choice theories have attempted to define dimensions that help organizational members select
among the wide variety of communication modes available to them. Communication technologies can
be characterized in terms of their social presence, the degree to which they convey a sense of direct
personal contact with another, and in terms of media richness, the degree to which a medium allows
immediate FEEDBACK, multiple channels, variety of language, and personal cues (see entry on
COMMUNICATION for a more complete discussion). A related dimension is interactivity, which
describes the degree to which a communication technology supports active PARTICIPATION in
interchanges and interaction among users.
The expanding array of new communication technologies have had major impacts on organizations, and
these should increase in the future. These technologies have greatly influenced organizational design.
The capacity of electronic mail, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, and fax to enable coordination
and collaboration at a distance permits organizations to adopt more dispersed forms. For example,
Hewlett–Packard product development teams are often spread around the world at several facilities and
do much of their work via electronic media. Various new organizational forms, such as the dynamic
network and federated organizational structure (see DECENTRALIZATION), rely on new
communication technologies to hold them together and to give them the ability to restructure rapidly
(Sproull & Keisler, 1941). Combined with accounting and other information technologies,
communication technologies greatly enhance the ability to coordinate and control a wide variety of
contracting and JOINT VENTURE relationships among individual firms. This has promoted the
increasing use of ''modular" organizations composed of temporary aggregations of firms and contractors
which pursue a limited term project. Communication and information technologies also permit
telecommuting and outsourcing of work to the home, both of which promise to alter the nature of work
fundamentally.

Document
New communication technologies also affect organizational behavior. If members are permitted to use
technologies such as electronic mail with few restrictions, the result is often an "opening up" of the
organization. Ideas flow more freely and INNOVATION increases. Boundaries between different levels
or parts of the organization become more permeable, and lower level members feel freer to engage in
UPWARD COMMUNICATION. The downside of this is that those at the top of the organization are
often overloaded.
Communication technologies such as group-decision support systems and computer conferencing alter
DECISION-MAKING, meeting, and NEGOTIATION processes. Their effects include:
(1) the possibility of enhanced member participation in meetings;
(2) more thorough consideration of options, alternatives, and ideas;
(3) greater surfacing of differences and CONFLICT;
(4) greater difficulty in achieving CONSENSUS if the systems do not have features which support
CONFLICT RESOLUTION, but greater ability to resolve conflict if the systems do have CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT features; and
(5) more organized meetings and negotiation processes.
Accompanying these group level impacts are several on the individual level. Initially users tend to
report lower satisfaction with these

Document
Page 82
technologies than with more traditional group methods, though this difference fades with continued use.
Computer-mediated communication technologies also seem to alter the individual's attentional focus,
centering it more on the self and less on others. However, the widely discussed phenomenon of
"flaming," the use of exteme, abusive, and negative language in computer-mediated communication, is
not as widespread as was originally presumed; generally, organizations and user communities develop
norms which control or prohibit it (see GROUP NORMS).
With the exception of the telephone, new communication technologies are not yet fully integrated into
society. From the onset, unmediated, face-to-face communication has been taken as the standard which
should be emulated and achieved by communication technologies. However, as was true for the
telephone, over time, new norms develop and the ideal standard of effective communication changes.
Novel communication technologies promise to change the nature of communication and of
organizations in the coming years.
See also Human–computer interaction; Information processing; Integration
Bibliography
Grant, A. E. & Wilkinson, K. T. (1993). Communication technology update: 1993–94. Austin, TX:
Technology Futures.
Rogers, E. M. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in society. New York: Free Press.
Sproull, L. & Keisler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization.
Yates, J. (1989). Control through communication: The rise of system in American management.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Community Ecology
An organizational community is a collection of interacting organizational populations. The community

ecology of organizations investigates the evolution of community structure in terms of patterns of
community succession – the process by which new organizational forms emerge and replace old ones.
Community ecology considers how interactions among organizational populations affect the likelihood
of survival of the community as a whole.

Document
In ecological theories, organizations are thought to be interdependent when they affect each other's life
chances. The interdependence between and among organizational populations may be neutral (growth
in one population has no effect on growth in the other), competitive (the presence of one population
suppresses the other's growth), or mutualistic (growth in one population stimulates growth in the other).
Interdependence among organizational populations is conceptualized in terms of niche overlap, defined
as a pattern of jointly occupied positions in a resource space (see RESOURCE BASED THEORY).
The impact of American TRADE UNIONS on the vital dynamics of American trade associations
provides an illustration of neutral interdependence between organizational populations. Aldrich, Staber,
Zimmer, and Beggs (1994) show that trade unions' density had no effect on the founding and
disbanding of trade associations during the twentieth century.
In their study of organizational mortality in the populations of American national craft and industrial
labor unions from 1836 to 1985, Hannan and Freeman (1988) found evidence of asymmetric patterns of
interpopulation competition. While density of craft unions had a significantly positive effect on the
disbanding rate of industrial unions, no consistent effect of industrial union density was found on the
disbanding rates of craft unions. Apparently, craft unionism suppressed industrial unionism, but the
reverse was not so.
In his classic statement of the principles of human ecology, Hawley (1950) distinguished two different
bases for mutualism: commensalism – or positive interdependence based on supplementary similarities
– and symbiosis – or positive interdependence based on complementary differences. Commensalism
and symbiosis are important ecological relations because they give unitary character to organizational
communities.
In contemporary organizational ecology research, commensalism between two populations is defined as

a situation where one population benefits from the presence of the other without affecting it directly
(Brittain &

Document
Page 83
Wholey, 1988). Examples of commensalism are the presence of small photocopy shops in the vicinity
of a college campus, and of street orchestras performing for people in line at the ticket counter of
concert halls.
Symbiosis can be defined as a situation where each organizational population benefits from the
presence of the other. Examples of symbiosis include institutes of management and executive
development located within hotels, and liquor stores located in the proximity of unlicensed restaurants.
Mutualistic and competitive interdependence may be direct – i.e., it may occur between pairs of
organizations each identifiable to the other – or diffuse – i.e., it may occur among many anonymous
competitors. For example, Barnett and Carroll (1987) found evidence of diffuse competition among
early telephone companies in Southeast Iowa. Barnett and Carroll also found that mutual telephone
companies – companies owned by their subscribers and located in dispersed rural areas – were
commensal with neighbouring companies and decreased their death rate. Evidence of symmetric
symbiosis was found between mutual and commercial forms of telephone companies, with each
organizational form increasing the other's probability of offering long-distance service.
See also Population ecology; Organization theory; Strategic management; Organizational change
Bibliography
Aldrich, H., Staber, U., Zimmer, C. & Beggs, J. (1994). Minimalism, mutualism, and maturity: The
evolution of The American trade associations population in the 20th century. In J. Baum & J. Singh
(Eds), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 223–239). New York: Oxford University Press.
Barnett, W. & Carroll, G. (1987). Competition and mutualism among early telephone companies.
Brittain, J. & Wholey, D. (1988). Competition and coexistence in organizational communities:

Population dynamics in electronic components manufacturing. In G. Carroll (ed.), Ecological models of
organizations (pp. 195–222). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. (1988). The ecology of organizational mortality: National labor unions,
1836–1985. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 25–52.
Hawley, A. (1950). Human ecology: A theory of community structure. New York: Ronald Press.
ALESSANDRO LOMI
Compensation
see PAYMENT SYSTEMS; REWARDS

Document
Competencies
The word "competency" has been given various meanings by different researchers and practitioners. In
general, it is used to denote the qualities needed by a job holder, as in Boyatzis' (1982) definition: "A
job competency is an underlying characteristic of a person which results in effective and/or superior
performance in a job." The different competency approaches usually begin by identifying the attributes
of individuals who occupy a given type of ROLE – such as managerial or clerical jobs. Hence, jobs are
classified into different types, and possibly subtypes, and the individual attributes applicable to each are
then identified. For some practitioners, such as Boyatzis (1982), a wide range of attributes – including
motives, traits, aptitudes, and behaviors – are identified by job competency analysis (see JOB
ANALYSIS). For others, and this is the direction taken by the most recent research, attention is focused
on the behaviors enacted by job holders. In addition, as Boyatzis' definition suggests, a very important
distinction is drawn between "relevant" behavior and "performance-related" behavior. Relevant
behavior is used by job holders. Performance-related behavior is both used by job holders and is
associated with superior job performance. For example, in his work on the competence of managers,
Boyatzis (1982) found "Concern with Close Relationships'' (the behavior of spending time talking with
subordinates and coworkers when there is no particular task requirement) to be behavior used by
managers but not associated with superior performance. Concern with Close Relationships can be
regarded, therefore, as relevant behavior. In contrast, Boyatzis found "Conceptualization" (the behavior
of developing a concept to recognize a pattern or structure in a set of information) to be both used by
managers and to be associated with superior performance. Hence, Conceptualization is performance-

Document
Page 84
Table 1 Definitions of the Eleven High Performance Managerial Competencies.

HPMC BEHAVIORAL DEFINITION
Information search Gathers many different kinds of information and uses a wide variety of sources to
build a rich informational environment in preparation for decision making in the
organization.
Concept formation Builds frameworks or models or forms concepts, hypotheses or ideas on the basis of
information; becomes aware of patterns, trends, and cause/effect relations by linking
disparate information.
Conceptual flexibility Identifies feasible alternatives or multiple options in planning and decision making;
holds different options in focus simultaneously and evaluates their pros and cons.
Interpersonal search Uses open and probing questions, summaries, paraphrasing, etc., to understand the
ideas, concepts, and feelings of another; can comprehend events, issues, problems,
opportunities from the viewpoint of others.
Managing Involves others and is able to build cooperative teams in which group members feel
intervention valued and empowered and have shared goals.
Developmental Creates a positive climate in which staff increase the accuracy of their awareness of
orientation their own strengths and limitations; provide coaching, training, and developmental
resources to improve performance.
Impact Uses a variety of methods (e.g., persuasive arguments, modeling behavior, inventing
symbols, forming alliances, and appealing to the interest of others) to gain support for
ideas and strategies and values.
Self-confidence States own "stand" or position on issues; unhesitatingly takes decisions when required
and commits self and others accordingly; expresses confidence in the future success
of the actions to be taken.
Presentation Presents ideas clearly, with ease and interest so that the other person (or audience)
understands what is being communicated; uses technical, symbolic, nonverbal, and
visual aids effectively.
Proactive orientation Structures the task for the team; implements plans and ideas; takes responsibility for
all aspects of the situation even beyond ordinary boundaries – and for the success and
failure of the group.
Achievement Possesses high internal work standards and sets ambitious, risky, and yet attainable
orientation goals; wants to do things better, to improve, to be more effective and efficient;
measures progress against targets.
related behavior. Usually, relevant behaviors are called "Threshold" or "Basic" Competencies, whilst
performance-related behaviors are called "Competencies'' or "High Performance Competencies".

Document
A significant trend is for increasing attention to be given to the identification, validation (see
VALIDITY), and development of behavioral High Performance Competencies (HPC). An example is
the work of Schroder (1989) and Cockerill (1989), identifying and validating eleven High Performance
Managerial Competencies or "HPMC" – see Table 1. A major reason for the interest in HPC is the
contribution it can make to raising organizational performance to very high levels – a matter of
increasing concern as the environment of organizations becomes increasingly dynamic, complex, and
competitive on a global scale (see COMPETITIVENESS). These environmental conditions have led
organizations to become very dissatisfied with traditional approaches to the

Document
Page 85
development of people which are usually unable to demonstrate empirically their efficacy in raising
organizational performance (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS). As McClelland (1973) has
observed, the growth of the (HPC) approach in response to an increasing demand for organizational
improvement has resulted in a fundamental shift in methodology. Traditionally, the first step in research
is to identify and measure INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES. Then researchers strive to find out whether
these characteristics are able to explain any variations in job performance. The results of these
endeavors have been very disappointing in general, as Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, and Kirsch (1984)
demonstrate. As Klemp (1978) explains, job competency analysis works in reverse. First, measures of
job performance are established. Next, two samples of job holders are drawn – one whose performance
is outstanding, the other whose performance is adequate. Lastly, the attributes (i.e., High Performance
Competencies) which distinguish outstanding from adequate job performers are identified and
validated. An example of this approach being applied to the job of school principal can be found in the
Florida Council for Education Management study of Huff, Lake, and Schaalman (1982).
The attributes identified by job competency analysis are classified to form discrete dimensions which
can be measured reliably (see RELIABILITY). Until recently, the very notion of competencies existing
as relatively durable dimensions of behavior has had very little empirical support – see Robertson,
Gratton, and Sharpley (1987) and Sackett and Dreher (1982). However, the factor analytic study of
Cockerill, Schroder, and Hunt (1993) into the structure of the eleven HPMC dimensions and the
confirmatory factor analysis of these data by Chorvat (1994) using the LISREL procedure show that the
HPMCs are relatively stable dimensions of behavior. In the 1993 study, experienced managers
performed general management roles in a simulated business organization and their behavior in a
variety of settings was assessed by highly trained and experienced observers using the framework
provided by the HPMC definitions and rating scales. In this study, considerable attention was placed on:
(a) the design of the competency definitions and rating scales;
(b) the design of the simulated business organization; and
(c) high levels of inter-rater reliability.
The study provides the first empirical support for the notion of competency and highlights the
importance of both methodological clarity and rigor. It points to the need for a change in the way
competency analysis and development is applied in practice.
Competencies are often clustered together by means of statistical analysis to form more general groups
of attributes. For instance, when factor analysis is applied to the eleven HPMC, four groupings emerge
– these are the Cognitive (Information Search, Concept Formation, and Conceptual Flexibility), the
Motivating (Interpersonal Search, Managing Interaction, and Developmental Orientation), the
Directional (Impact, Self Confidence, and Presentation) and the Achieving (Proactive Orientation and
Achievement Orientation) groupings.

Document
Job analysis shows that several competencies are needed to perform each activity, function or role
contained within given job type. Furthermore, each competency will be applicable to several, if not all,
of the various activities, functions or roles that makes up a given job type. For illustration, take the
managerial roles proposed by Mintzberg (1973) (see MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR). Each role requires
the use of several HPMC – so the role of Negotiating highly demands the six HPMC included in the
cognitive and directional groupings. At the same time, the cognitive and directional HPMC are
demanded by several of the managerial roles.
A consequence of the HPC methodology is a shift in research away from simply describing what job
holders do typically toward prescribing what job holders ought to do based on the behaviors which
distinguish outstanding performers. A second consequence is the stimulus that has been given to the
creation and application of new models and measures of job performance (see PERFORMANCE,
INDIVIDUAL). A third consequence of the HPC approach has been the creation of models to explain
how situational variables influences the relationship between behavior and performance. For example, it
is clear that the rate of change

Document
Page 86
(dynamism) of an organizational unit's environment significantly affects the relationship between the
eleven HPMC and organizational unit performance. Essentially, the HPMC are associated with unit
performance in a dynamic environment but not in a stable environment.
An alternative approach to competency which is receiving attention, has been provided by the U.K.
Government Employment Department. Here, the definition of competency is wider than the attributes
of job holders – in fact, these attributes are not the prime focus of attention. Instead, the approach
identifies the outcomes expected from a job when it is performed adequately. Outcomes are divided into
"units of competence" which are subdivided into "elements of competence." For example, a unit of
competence for managers is, "Maintaining and improving service and product operations" which is
subdivided into two elements: (1) "maintaining operations to meet quality standards"; and (2) "creating
and maintaining the necessary conditions for productive work.'' The competence of individuals is
judged by their capacity to produce the job outcomes specified by the relevant units and elements of
competence.
To conclude, the word "competency" has currently a variety of meanings and no accepted consensus on
its definition has emerged. It represents a new avenue of inquiry based on assumptions and methods
different from those used traditionally and which stem from a concern for organizational performance
rather than CAREER advancement, dynamic rather than stable environmental conditions, and
normative rather than descriptive social science. The emergence of competency research and practice
has been resisted and opposed vehemently by many individuals and groups. The approach has been
described by many as the latest fad and it is often marginalized by commentators who put it into a
restricted conceptual box that has not been integrated with any other aspect of ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR. In truth, much competency work has been conducted with these conceptual restrictions.
The best work, however, perceives competency as one, yet a critical, part of an emerging organizational
PARADIGM which challenges the economically based orthodoxies of management and organizations.
The new paradigm is based on interconnected concepts which have emerged from the study of TOTAL
QUALITY MANAGEMENT, organizational CORE COMPETENCE and ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING (see LEARNING ORGANIZATION) and the stages of team and organizational
development (see GROUP DEVELOPMENT). Its focus is on the organizational processes and
behaviors which lead to superior performance in globally competitive environments. In this context,
competencies are the relatively stable behaviors which create continuously the processes that enable the
organizations to learn, adapt to new environmental demands, and change the environment so that it is
better suited to the needs of STAKEHOLDERS (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). The
diversity of competency research and practice is to be expected at this point in its development. The
continued application of relevance, reliability, and validity criteria will lead to consolidation without, it
is to be hoped, constraining the creativity which has been the hallmark of the competency approach to
date.
See also Management development; Skill; Interpersonal skills; Transformational/transactional

theory
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/www.netlibrary.com.ezpro...Reader/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_86.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 02:06:11]

Document
Bibliography
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager. New York: Wiley.
Chorvat, V. P. (1994). Toward the construct validity of assessment centre leadership dimensions: A
multitrait-multimethod investigation using confirmatory factor analysis. University South Florida.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.
Cockerill, A. P. (1989). Managerial competence as a determinant of organisational performance.

University of London. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
Cockerill, A. P., Schroder, H. M. & Hunt, J. W. (1993). Validation study into the high performance
managerial competencies. London Business School: Centre for Organisational Research.
Huff, S., Lake, D. G. & Schaalman, M. L. (1982). Principal differences: Excellence in school
leadership and management. Boston: McBer.
Klemp, G. O. (1978). Job competence assessment. Boston: McBer.
McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for "intelligence." American
Psychologist, 28 (1), 1–40.

Document
Page 87
Robertson, I., Gratton, L. & Sharpley, D. (1987). The psychometric properties and design of managerial
assessment centres: Dimensions into exercises won't go. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 187–
195.
Sackett, P. R. & Dreher, G. F. (1982). Constructs and assessment centre dimensions: Some troubling
empirical findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 401–410.
Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A. & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analysis of validity studies
published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology,
37, 407–422.
Schroder, H. M. (1989). Managerial competence: The key to excellence. Iowa: Kendall Hunt.
Taylor, D. & McKie L. Final Report on Personal Competence Project, MCI, 1990.
A. P. COCKERILL
Competitiveness
A company builds competitiveness through either timing, differentiation, or scope (Porter, 1980;
Mintzberg, 1988). It competes through timing either by being first to develop and market new products
or designs, or by quickly imitating an innovator (see INNOVATION). First-movers build advantage
through technological leadership: They invest heavily to secure patents and then take aggressive action
in setting up production and distribution arrangements that enable them to move quickly down the
learning curve and stay ahead of rivals (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988).
Imitators shy away from the complexities of maintaining a first-mover position. In many industries,
patents and R&D offer only weak protection to innovating firms, and new products are easily imitated
(see RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; ENTREPRENEURSHIP). To quickly
imitate pioneers and capture market share, astute followers develop proficient information gathering.
By cultivating competitor intelligence, constantly scanning environments, and rapidly responding to
opportunity, imitators often can capitalize on the large investments made by pioneers in R&D, buyer
education, and personnel TRAINING. Because imitators rely on other firms to pioneer, they invest little
in basic research and dwell more heavily on product development in related technologies. Competitive
intelligence enables them to avoid the technological mistakes made by pioneers, and to incorporate into
their product designs the timely FEEDBACK of the product's initial consumers (Porter, 1985).
Companies can gain advantage by differentiating their products and services. They achieve
differentiation by offering either lower prices, better quality, or better service than rivals. Price leaders
stress tight control of operating costs in order to achieve greater efficiency and PRODUCTIVITY.
Successful price leaders constantly look for ways to standardize products and activities in order to
capture a large component of the market with a basic configuration of their product.

Document
Companies might also differentiate themselves by offering either better quality products and services,
or unique features – making products of greater reliability, durability, or superior performance.
Producing better quality products generally goes hand-in-hand with providing improved levels of
support and service: They prop up a company's products by bundling valuable complementary
characteristics into every sale. The most common means of gaining a service advantage involves
providing credit terms, rapid delivery, user training, repairs, or instructional materials. A strategy of
improving quality is generally costly, while a strategy of cost-reduction often drives down quality.
Hence the recent surge of interest in "value-marketing" – a better ratio of quality to price to the
consumer by bundling guarantees, 800 numbers, and frequent buyer plans – that is, service – as key
product features.
Finally, companies can build competitiveness through scope: The decision to customize products for a
narrow or broad market niche. Rather than standardize products for large markets, the company targets
a niche with customized offerings that can better meet local needs. A narrow focus can be risky:
Customizing is costly and requires specialized packaging, individualized marketing, and strong support.
Insofar as rivals keep improving their standardized products, they can underprice the niche company.
Maintaining competitiveness is a top priority for companies in rapidly changing environments

(Fombrun, 1992). It requires skill at deploying resources in ways that build mobility barriers

Document
Page 88
against rivals and sustain advantage (Caves & Porter, 1977).
See also Organizational effectiveness; Excellence; Reputation; Diversification; Total quality

management; Strategic management; Strategic types
Bibliography
Caves, R. & Porter, M. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 91, 421–434.
Fombrun, C. J. (1992). Turning points: Creating strategic change in corporations. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Lieberman, M. B. & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First mover advantages. Strategic Management

Journal, 9, 41–58.
Mintzberg, H. (1988). Generic Strategies: Toward a comprehensive framework. Advances in strategic

Management, 5, 1–67.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
CHARLES FOMBRUN
Complexity
The concept of complexity has been extremely important within organizational sociology although
relatively ignored in the management literature. For many but not all organizational sociologists,
complexity represents one of the most important structural properties of an organization because it is
highly related to a number of other structural properties, the choice of coordination and CONTROL
mechanisms, and the relative emphasis on the performance of product INNOVATION, that is, it has
systemic effects.

Document
The concept of complexity has several different names and alternative ways in which it can be
measured. Hage (1965) was one of the first to emphasize the importance of complexity which he
defined as the amount by which TRAINING lengthens as the tasks of an occupation become more
complex. This definition is quite similar to that for the DIVISION OF LABOR. In subsequent research,
Hage and Aiken (1970) broadened the definition to include the amount of professional activity as well
as the level of training. This definition reflects the investment of knowledge in the organizational
structure. In contrast, Blau (1970) and his students (Blau & Schoenherr, 1971) have stressed counts of
job title and the number of departments and levels of the organization. When these measures are
employed, they reflect the extent of structural DIFFERENTIATION that has occurred, that is how
many distinct parts of the organizational structure are there (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). There
is some relationship between the number of job titles in a professional organization such as a university
and the variety of OCCUPATIONS but this relationship breaks down in organizations with large
numbers of unskilled labor, e.g., where there is a job title for each distinct position on the assembly line.
The idea of structural differentiation has also been used, however, to mean the distinctive differences
between departments such as in the speed of FEEDBACK of information about the environment or the
extent of FORMALIZATION in the department, as well as other characteristics (Lawrence & Lorsch,
1967). This line of research has also implicitly included number of departments because those
organizations with, for example, both a basic research and a development department are considered to
be more structurally differentiated (see DEPARTMENTALIZATION). Much more rarely, complexity
is also defined in terms of spatial organization, for example, the number of physical units such as
offices, plants, research sites, etc. (Hall, 1992).
During the late 1960s and the 1970s, a considerable amount of research was done on the relationship
between ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE and the number of job titles, departments, and levels. Most of this
research found a strong positive relationship: larger organizations are much more complex by these
measures (for a review, see Hall, 1992).
In 1980, Hage advocated that complexity be defined as the proportion of the work force with extended
training or who are recognized as distinct occupations, thus suggesting that the number of diverse
occupations be standardized. The reasoning here is that a large organization such as Ford may have
many workers but not many distinct occupations for which formal training is necessary, while a
university can be quite small and yet have a much higher proportion of trained personnel. He called this

Document
Page 89
idea the concentration of specialists so that it would not be confused with the earlier research on
complexity, which was usually a raw count of either the number of different occupations or job titles.
In a review of a number of diverse studies including research by Blau and Schoenherr, the Aston group,
and Azumi, the concentration of specialists was generally related to the amount of
DECENTRALIZATION and STRATIFICATION of the organizational structure. One major exception
was in Japan. Subsequent work suggests that length of training is more critical because many workers
fill a large variety of jobs.
Complexity, simply defined as the variety of occupations and the amount of professional activity, is
also related to the choice of coordination and control mechanisms, being associated with high
COMMUNICATION rates and the absence of formalization (Hage, 1980). Finally, both complexity and
the concentration of specialists appear to also be strongly related to the emphasis on either product or
process INNOVATION.
More recently, complexity has been used to refer to the task complexity of networks of organizations
that are working together to perform some quite complex goals (Alter & Hage, 1993) (see NETWORK
ANALYSIS). In this context, the complexity of the interorganizational network is measured by the
number of different kinds of organizations that are involved in the network (see
INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS).
Finally, complexity, or the concentration of specialists, is a critical variable because the long-term
tendency has been for organizational structures to become more complex as a response to the more
complex environments in which they are located. This later dimension, the complexity of the
environment (Mintzberg, 1979) has been somewhat more important in the management literature (see
ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT).
See also Bureaucracy; Matrix-organization; Job design
Bibliography
Alter, C. & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Blau, P. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35,
210–218.
Blau, P. & Schoenherr, R. (1971). The structure of organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Hage, J. (1965). An axiomatic theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 289–320.
Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organizations. New York: Wiley–Interscience.
Hall, R. H. (1992). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes, (5th edn). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Document
Lawrence, P. & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and
integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
JERALD HAGE
Compliance
This is the change in an individual's publicly stated attitudes and publicly observable behaviors which
occurs under group pressure while the individual privately maintains his/her initially held beliefs (Nail,
1986; Festinger, 1953).
Like CONFORMITY and IDENTIFICATION, compliance is a response to social influence. However,

unlike these other two responses, compliance reflects a major discontinuity between the individual's
public and private personae. While compliant individuals change what they say or do in public, they
maintain their initial beliefs and do not internalize or accept as valid the group's influence attempts. For
example, lower POWER employees often comply with their supervisors' requests not out of true
concurrence with those requests but out of fear of reprisal if they do not comply.
The term compliance also has connotations of coercion (Kelman, 1961). The compliant individual is
seen as changing his/her publicly observable statements and behaviors to avoid PUNISHMENT from
group members, to escape further interaction with INFLUENCE agents, to escape from an unpleasant
situation, or to obtain REWARDS from those with whom the individual disagrees.
While compliance of individuals to social influence has often been seen as a desirable outcome of
organizational activities like sales, bill collecting, and criminal investigations

Document
Page 90
(Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991), compliance in the context of GROUP DECISION MAKING has been seen as
considerably more problematic (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969; Janis, 1972). If individuals comply solely
because of group pressure, they may be less likely to enthusiastically implement and execute a group's
decision. Moreover, if multiple members publicly concur with a group decision while privately
disagreeing with it, the group's decision-making effectiveness is likely to diminish in the long run as
well (Hackman, 1976; Janis, 1972).
See also Minority group influence; Group norms; Culture, group; Conformity
Bibliography
Festinger, L. (1953). An analysis of compliant behavior. In M. Sherif & M. O. Wilson (Eds), Group
relations at the crossroads (pp. 232–256). New York: Harper.
Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial

and organizational psychology (pp. 1455–1525). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos.
New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.
Kiesler, C. A. & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Nail, P. R. (1986). Toward an integration of some models and theories of social response.
Rafaeli, A. & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence: Lessons
from criminal interrogators and bill collectors. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 749–775.
DANIEL C. FELDMAN
Computer-Aided Design
The term refers to the use of computers in the activity of design or redesign. Early systems date from
the 1960s but the most rapid developments have been over the last decade. A typical CAD system
comprises a graphics display terminal, a digitizing tablet (equivalent to a drawing board), an input
device (such as a light pen), a keyboard, and a printer/plotter. Modern applications include the design of
buildings, manufacturing processes, and commercial products.

Document
CAD systems allow the user to undertake the conceptual design of an artifact on the computer screen,
examining it from different perspectives in three dimensions. The user can then zoom in to parts of the
design filling in more complete detail. Electronic storage enables rapid editing. Advanced systems
facilitate an engineering analysis of the design. For example, when designing an aeroplane part, the
system may incorporate an engineering database that allows the designer to analyze whether the new
design is mechanically and structurally sound.
CAD systems have particular scope in small batch, complex, high quality engineering environments.
There have been heavy investments in industrial sectors such as aerospace industries, and in many cases
CAD workstations are replacing the use of traditional drawing boards. Potential benefits from the use of
CAD include quicker design, enhanced designer PRODUCTIVITY, improved product quality, and
fewer ERRORS (e.g., arising from transcription).
Increasing investments are being made linking CAD with computer-aided manufacture whereby the
detailed drawings and geometric data are transmitted direct to the manufacturing engineers who use
them to plan manufacturing processes. There is huge potential here for reducing overall lead times, for
improving PRODUCTIVITY, and for improving integration between design and manufacture, two
traditionally differentiated domains.
The introduction of CAD raises a number of individual and organizational issues (Barfield, Chang,
Majchrzak, Eberts, & Salvendy, 1987). Designers may spend long periods of time working at their
computers; ERGONOMIC and health and SAFETY considerations, along with the quality of HUMAN-
COMPUTER-INTERACTION and decisions about the allocation of functions between designer and
computer, may all influence user productivity and well being (see STRESS; QUALITY OF WORKING
LIFE). Reduced use of drawing boards may be interpreted as JOB DESKILLING; on the other hand,
new computer-based skills are required. There may also be repercussions for work organization, for
example away from a traditional functional organization toward a product-based structure (see
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). The RECRUITMENT, SELECTION, and TRAIN-

Document
Page 91
ING of staff to operate and use CAD systems are of importance for organizations making such
investments, as are the more general issues surrounding implementation and the management of change.
As with other forms of INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, the list of individual and organizational
issues arising from the introduction and use of CAD is extensive. Unfortunately, the evidence is that
most of these implementations are dominated by technical concerns and this is held to be a key reason
for their disappointing performance (Symon & Clegg, 1991). Regarding such new technologies as
simply a change in medium may lead to improvements in local efficiency but fundamental
reorganization (BUSINESS PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING) may be required to achieve significant
improvements in effectiveness. A sociotechnical approach is required (Blackler & Brown, 1986) (see
SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY).
See also Operations management; Advanced manufacturing technology; Software ergonomics;

Total quality management
Bibliography
Barfield, B., Chang, T., Majchrzak, A., Eberts, R. & Salvendy, G. (1987). Technical and human aspects
of computer-aided design. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 1617–1656). New
York: Wiley.
Blackler, F. & Brown, C. A. (1986). Alternative models to guide the design and introduction of the new
information technologies into work organizations. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 287–313.
Symon, G. J. & Clegg, C. W. (1991). Technology-led change: A study of the implementation of

CADCAM. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 273–290.
CHRIS W. CLEGG
Computer Modeling
Computer models of organizations are symbolic representations of organizations in executable

computer code. They differ from discursive theories by the use of restricted, formal languages, and they
can exploit the computational power that such languages make available. Computer models are helpful
as a tool of analysis when the problem is too complex for thought experiments (see SIMULATION,
COMPUTER); also, they can simulate experimental designs when the domain resists real-life
experiments. Computer models are at their best when they help to discover the counter-intuitive roots of
an ordinary problem, and explain it as the result of systematic interaction effects.

Document
The first methodology for computer modeling of organizations was proposed by Jay Forrester
("Industrial Dynamics", later: "System Dynamics") (see LEARNING ORGANIZATION). Other
classical contributions to the field were made through Cyert and March's model of organizational
decision making (1963), Cohen, March, and Olsen's GARBAGE-CAN MODEL (1972), and Burton and
Obel's model of organizational forms (1984). All these models are based on numerical difference
equations such that an equation describes the state of a variable at a given point in time as a function of
the states of the same, or other, variables at previous points in time. The set of equations is solved
iteratively along the time axis: a set of equations is initialized for t0, and the outcomes for t1, t2, etc., are
computed successively. More recently, techniques from Artificial Intelligence have become popular that
can avoid the restriction of equational theories to numerical formulation and allow for computation with
qualitative concepts. Masuch and LaPotin built an AI-version of the garbage-can model (1989), Baligh,
Burton, and Obel synthesized mainstream ORGANIZATION THEORY as an Expert System (1990),
and Carley used Newell's SOAR (a general-purpose program for solving problems) for simulations of
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING (1992). In the new models, a logical inference machine drives the
simulations, and one is no longer confined to assumptions in numerical terms. The latest trend is to treat
discursive theories directly as computer models by representing them in a logical language and
evaluating them by means-suitable applications ("theorem provers") (Péli, Bruggeman, Masuch, & Ó
Nualláin, 1994).
Computer models are sometimes thought to have special properties that distinguish them from ordinary
theories, a view which is based on the fact that the models "run" on a computer, and seem to represent
reality more vividly than

Document
Page 92
a written text or a mathematical formula. From an epistemological point of view, however, this view is
ill-founded, since the computer code that embodies the model differs from other representations only in
the choice of formal constraints on the description language. As a consequence, the VALIDITY of
computer models remains as problematic as the validity of any other empirical THEORY.
See also Research methods; Human–computer interaction; Information technology
Bibliography
Baligh, H. H., Burton, R. M. & Obel, B. (1990). Devising expert systems in organization theory. In M.
Masuch (Ed.), Organization, management, and expert systems. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Burton, R. M. & Obel, B. (1984). Designing efficient organizations. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Carley, K., Kjaer-Hansen, J., Newell, A. & Prietula, M. (1992). Plural-SOAR: A prolegomenon to
artificial agents and organizational behaviour. In M. Masuch & M. Warglien (Eds), Artificial
intelligence in organization and management theory (pp. 87–118). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage car model of organizational choice.
Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Masuch, M. & LaPotin, P. (1989). Beyond garbage cans: An AI model of organizational choice.
Péli, G., Bruggeman, J., Masuch, M. & Ó Nualláin, B. (1994). A logical approach to organizational
ecology. American Sociological Review, 59, 571–593.
MICHAEL MASUCH
Conceptual Frameworks
see THEORY
Conditioning
Operant conditioning is the modification of some dimension of an operant behavior (e.g., topography,
force, speed, accuracy, duration, and rate) by REINFORCEMENT, EXTINCTION, and SHAPING.
The most direct representation of operant conditioning as a general model of behavior change due to
experience involves the following procedures:

Document
(a) specification of the behavior dimension(s) to be modified;
(b) observation of the behavior's occurrences; and
(c) scheduled administration of consequences [reinforcement(s)] contingent on occurrences of the

behavior.
Operant behavior rate is one measure of the interaction between the person and the person's
environment and typically serves as a dependent variable measuring learning as behavior (performance)
change (see LEARNING, INDIVIDUAL). Consequences that increase the rate of the operant behavior
they follow in a situation are called reinforcers. Reinforcers are defined as positive reinforcers when
they appear and negative reinforcers when they disappear or cease to occur contingent upon an
occurrence of the behavior. (Contingent and contingency here refer to conditional "if . . . then . . ."
dependencies, i.e., "If x then y" denoted in symbols by "x → y.")
An operant is defined as a class of behavior upon which a reinforcer is contingent. Operant behaviors
typically occur in a situation at some rate greater than zero before operant conditioning procedures are
employed to change the behavior's rate. This initial rate is called the baseline rate of operant responding
and serves as a standard against which effects of subsequent operant procedures are evaluated, e.g.,
reinforcement.
See also Influence; Feedback
Bibliography
Mawhinney, T. C. & Mawhinney, R. R. (1982). Operant terms and concepts applied to industry. In R.
M. O'Brien, A. M. Dickinson & M. Rosow (Eds), Industrial behavior modification (pp. 115–134). New
York: Pergamon Press.
THOMAS C. MAWHINNEY
Conflict
Conflict is a common phenomenon in virtually all societies and organizations. Many definitions have
been proposed. Some emphasize differences in perceptions or interests of the parties. Kolb and Putnam
(1992), for example, argue that conflict exists "when there are real or perceived differences that arise in
specific

Document
Page 93
organizational circumstances and that engender EMOTION as a consequence" (1992: p. 312) (see
EMOTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS). Others define conflict in terms of actual behavior where parties
interfere with each other's aims: Deutsch (1973) defines conflict as a phenomenon that "exists whenever
incompatible activities occur" (1993: p. 10). There are many other definitions relating to the concerns
and circumstances surrounding conflict.
Some definitions include both interest and behavior differences, as in the definition proposed here:
"Conflict is incompatible behavior among parties whose interests differ" (Brown, 1983, p. 4).
Incompatible behavior refers to intentional, purposeful behavior opposing the interests of the other
party rather than accidental actions. Interests refer to stakes affected by an interaction between parties.
This definition focuses attention on conflicts experienced both behaviorally and psychologically. What
of situations when one but not both elements are present? Sometimes the parties have different interests
but do not display incompatible behavior. Potential conflicts may remain latent or covert when parties
are unaware of or unable to express their differences in interest directly. Such hidden conflicts are quite
common, for example, when large POWER differences between the parties hinder open expression of
differences. It is common for subordinates to remain silent about disagreements with organizational
superiors, even when it would be beneficial for the organization as a whole for those differences to be
explicitly discussed.
In other situations, the parties may engage in incompatible behavior when their interests are not in
conflict. Such mistaken conflicts are often grounded in misperceptions of the various interests involved
by one or more of the parties (see PERCEPTION; ATTRIBUTION). It is quite common for parties with
a history of conflict to assume that their interests conflict even when their interests are in fact similar.
Union and management representatives, for example, may "assume the worst" and negotiate to impasse
even when both parties have stronger interests in cooperation than in conflict (see COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING; COLLECTIVE ACTION).
Paying attention to both interests and behavior in defining conflict clarifies the potential for future
interaction. Hidden conflict may easily evolve into overt conflict if the parties come to understand their
interests more clearly. Mistaken conflict may evaporate for the same reason.
The sources of conflict are legion. Among the most important are resource scarcities that lead to
conflict among rival claimants, task differences that generate conflict over coordination and priorities,
power inequalities that catalyze struggles over CONTROL and AUTHORITY, and CULTURE and
VALUE differences that produce struggles over identity and respect. For organizational purposes the
most explicit attention is often paid to resources, tasks, and power, though differences in less visible
cultural factors may sometimes produce the most explosive results. Conflicts that combine multiple
sources, such as tensions between individuals or groups that differ in power and cultural identity, may
be extremely hard to resolve (Brown, 1983) (see INTERCULTURAL PROCESS). Organizations often
have difficulty in coping with differences among ethnic groups that are unequal in social and
organizational power (see DISCRIMINATION).

Document
Is conflict a problem? Much of the early research on organizational conflict assumed that conflict was
basically dysfunctional (see Pondy, 1967). It is clear that conflict sometimes fosters suppression or
distortion of important information, strong feelings of hostility and antagonism, and behavior that is
destructive to the purposes of organizations and their members. Regulating extremes of conflict
escalation is important for ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (see CONFLICT RESOLUTION).
On the other hand, many investigators have suggested that conflict in some situations can be
constructive (e.g., Coser, 1956). In organizations, moderate levels of conflict encourage wide exchanges
of information, energetic PARTICIPATION in problem-solving, and generation of creative alternatives
for problem solving (see CREATIVITY; INNOVATION). Lack of conflict may in itself be a problem,
as in GROUPTHINK, for example.
Whether conflict is desirable or problematic depends on the situation. Finding new ways to

Document
Page 94
resolve differences among organizational subunits, such as maintenance and production units of a
manufacturing firm, may be vital to improving organizational performance. Such solutions may be
difficult to find if disagreements cannot be voiced. At the same time, managing conflict may require
regulating such disagreements so they do not escalate. CONFLICT MANAGEMENT may require
encouraging the expression of differences in some situations, and regulating that expression in others.
Conflict as a process is shaped by the perceptions of the parties, the GROUP COHESIVENESS within
parties, the COMMUNICATIONS between parties, and their behavior in response to each other. When
conflict is well managed, the parties regularly question their own assumptions to avoid
STEREOTYPING and groupthink. They communicate freely, and act as joint problem solvers instead
of adversaries. Too often, however, parties tend to develop stereotypes that favor themselves and
denigrate other parties, mobilize strong LEADERSHIP and group CONFORMITY within parties,
restrict their communications with others, and take pre-emptive action to counter expected aggression.
This combination of tendencies can easily lead to self-reinforcing patterns of conflict escalation, in
which parties can point to the other's behavior as justifying their own escalation. Thus initially
constructive conflict can easily escalate into excessive conflict. A similar pattern can produce too little
conflict: positive stereotypes that overemphasize common interests, high levels of cohesion across
parties, reduced communication about differences, and actions to avoid or suppress conflict can
combine in a self-reinforcing pattern.
Organizational conflict has been examined from several levels of analysis. Sheppard (1992) has argued
that much of the confusion of present conflict theory can be understood in terms of the different
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS and the perspectives associated with those levels. Much research has focused
at the level of specific disputes, and examined the behavior, tactics, and consequences of conflict
episodes. Analysis at this level produces ideas about the dynamics and tactics by which individuals deal
with specific problems (see NEGOTIATION). Other researchers have examined conflicts at the level of
the institutional context, and focused on the norms, rules, structures, and organizational
interdependencies against which conflicts are evoked or controlled (see INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS;
INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS). These investigations produce ideas about institutions and
policies within which conflicts can be controlled. Between the levels of the specific dispute and the
institutional context is the relationship level of analysis, which addresses the ongoing relations between
parties over a series of conflicts. Relationship analysis also deals with systems and strategies that enable
the management of conflict in an ongoing relationship. This level of analysis is affected by both
institutional contexts and events of specific conflict episodes – but it has received less attention than the
other two levels.
The study of conflict in organizations has evolved significantly over recent decades. Much research in
the 1960s focused on the growing functional specialization in organizations and the conflicts inherent in
the performance of organizational tasks carried out by diverse subunits. As organizations have
reconfigured themselves to deal with increasing environmental UNCERTAINTY and competition, the
importance of conflict among departments or project teams or interorganizational networks has focused
increasing attention on conflict handling as a critical capacity.

Document
Struggles over the allocation of organizational resources has also been the basis for increasing concern
with conflict rooted in political differences (see POLITICS). In part these struggles reflect tensions over
class differences in the larger society. They also reflect increased awareness of the dependence of
organizations on external resources and the demands from external constituencies (see
STAKEHOLDERS; RESOURCE DEPENDENCE). Conflict over power differences often generate
more communication difficulties, asymmetrical mobilization, and more unpredicted explosions than
conflicts over task differences (Brown, 1983).
More recently still, organizations have become concerned with conflicts produced by differences in
cultural background or roles. Conflicts between "identity groups" that define the self-concepts of their
members have become

Document
Page 95
increasingly relevant to organizations that are recruiting a workforce diverse in cultural, GENDER, and
ethnic identities (Alderfer, Alderfer, Tucker, & Tucker, 1980) (see MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY).
Cultural differences are often value-laden and poorly understood, and so may be the basis for rapid and
difficult-to-control conflict escalation, especially when they are closely correlated with power
differences (Kanter, 1977). Tensions across GENDER and ethnic differences have produced serious
misunderstandings and explosive conflicts in many organizations (see RACE).
Cultural differences also illustrate limitations to our existing understanding of conflict in organizations.
Organizational conflict has been studied in some depth in Western industrialized countries, but much
less is known about how it is experienced in other cultures. With increased interaction across national
and cultural boundaries within and between organizations, there is more scope for conflicts across
cultural divides. In cultures valuing competition and individualism (see INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES), like the United States (where much of the conflict research has been done),
differences may produce overt conflict and distributive processes. In cultures that place a higher value
on community welfare and COOPERATION, such as Japan, other ways of expressing differences and
integrating diversity may be more common.
The changing demographics of the workforce in some industrialized countries are giving new impetus
to the study of conflicts across gender and ethnic differences within societies (see
ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY). Attention to such conflicts is an urgent need, especially
where it is linked to gross discrepancies in wealth and power.
More attention is also needed for understanding conflicts that involve values, ideologies (see
IDEOLOGY) and emotional commitments that are not easily susceptible to "rational" analysis and
resolution (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992). Many of the most costly and intransigent organizational conflicts
have roots in incom-patible values and ideologies which have been resistant to resolution. Such
conflicts may not be resolvable – but they may be transformed to make their outcomes less destructive
(Vayrynen, 1991).
Conflict theorists have infrequently spanned the levels of analysis necessary to integrate institutional
and episodic perspectives to understand ongoing conflict that is rooted in systemic organizational
relations. Often they have also failed to account for the variety of interests at stake in important
conflicts. Many conflict theorists operate on the assumption that conflict is best understood in bilateral
rather than multilateral terms, so their theories provide little help for understanding conflicts that
involve many stakeholders, multiple interests, and complex forces operating at several levels of
analysis. Learning more about such conflicts and their management is increasingly urgent as global
interdependence expands. The most serious shortcoming of this definition is the restricted range of
global experience represented in currently available theory and research about conflict and its
organizational implications.
See also Intergroup relations; Interorganizational relations; Commitment, dual; Organizational

culture; Organizational effectiveness; Organizational neurosis

Document
Bibliography
Alderfer, C. P., Alderfer, C. J., Tucker, L. & Tucker, R. (1980). Diagnosing race relations in
management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, 135–166.
Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Carnevale, P. J. and Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43,
531–582.
Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Colophon.
Kolb, D. & Putnam, L. (1992). The multiple faces of conflict in organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13, 311–324.
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly,
12, 296–320.
Sheppard, B. H. (1992). Conflict research as schizophrenia: The many faces of organizational conflict.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 205–207.

Document
Page 96
Vayrynen, R. (1991). To settle or to transform: Perspectives on the resolution of national and

international conflict. In R. Vayrynen (Ed.), New directions in conflict theory: Conflict resolution and
conflict transformation. (pp. 1–25). London: Sage.
L. DAVID BROWN and ANDREW E. CLARKSON
Conflict, Intergroup
see INTERGROUP RELATIONS
Conflict Management
CONFLICT is an ever-present fact of organizational life (see CONFLICT). Given the diversity of
interests and concerns of organizational members and SUBUNITS and their interdependence for many
purposes, it is not surprising that conflicts within and between organizations are common. Conflict
management involves dealing with differences in interest and incompatibilities in behavior that might
otherwise undermine the health and PRODUCTIVITY of organizations and their members.
Much of the early work on conflict management emphasized its role in reducing destructive conflict.
This view of conflict management grew out of a conception of conflict as a fundamentally
dysfunctional phenomena in organizations that required regulation or resolution (Deutsch, 1973;
Thomas, 1976) (see CONFLICT RESOLUTION). More recently, investigators have recognized that too
little conflict may be as problematic as too much in some situations (Brown, 1983).
From this perspective, conflict management is best understood as the encouraging of a level of conflict
that is appropriate to the tasks and interests of the organization and its members. In some circumstances,
when expression of differences and disagreement will enable better understanding and more effective
solutions to complex problems, conflict management may require sharpening differences and promoting
more direct challenges. In other situations, when shared decisions and cohesive action are important,
conflict management may require emphasizing commonalities and regulating conflict escalation.
Factors such as the nature of organizational tasks, the realities of resource interdependence, and the
impacts of cultural diversity are all important factors in assessing the appropriateness of conflict levels
and the relevance of conflict management strategies (see MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY)
Conflict management interventions may focus at different LEVELS OF ANALYSIS and utilize
different kinds of leverage. Some interventions emphasize redirecting behavior and reframing the
perspectives of individual parties to disputes. Examples include strategies and tactics for de-escalating
conflicts, for determining fair outcomes, for avoiding the psychological traps involved in mutual
STEREOTYPING, for focusing on interests rather than positions, and for being creative in competitive
contexts (see Thomas, 1976; Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991).

Document
Other strategies restructure the organizational and institutional contexts in which conflicts are
embedded to make inappropriate levels of conflict less likely or to create procedures for dealing with
conflicts when they occur. Examples include INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS systems in many countries
that have been created to preserve industrial peace and productivity, or organizational structures like
task forces, grievance systems, or MATRIX ORGANIZATIONS that are designed to deal with ongoing
differences (see Ury, Brett, & Goldberg, 1988).
Still other interventions reallocate organizational resources to manage relationships shaped by important
conflicts. Examples include redefining ROLES to encourage more attention to liaison problems,
creating special interface organizations to manage conflict problems, or supporting the use of third
parties to enable more effective conflict management (Sheppard, 1984; Brown, 1983).
Organizational conflict is grounded in differences and interdependence. The challenges of growing

international competition, increasing global interdependence, and continuing social change and
turbulence are likely to place increasing demands on organizations to deal effectively with conflict in
many settings (see UNCERTAINTY).
See also Collective action; Intergroup relations; Power

Document
Page 97
Bibliography
Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New
York: Penguin.
Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third party intervention: A procedural framework. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 6, pp. 141–189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Ury, W., Brett, J. M. & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
L. DAVID BROWN and ANDREW E. CLARKSON
Conflict Resolution
This is the process by which disputes occur and are resolved. A dispute begins when one party makes a
demand or claim upon another who rejects it (Felstiner, Abel, & Sarat, 1980–1981). Dispute resolution
implies turning the opposed positions toward a single outcome (Ury, Brett, & Goldberg, 1988).
This definition focuses on disputes as specific manifestations of CONFLICT, which can be defined as
opposition or incompatibility in goals (or other concerns) of interdependent parties (Putnam & Poole,
1987). Disputes can be resolved, though they may not always be. Dispute resolution, however, should
not be expected to resolve underlying fundamental conflicts of interest between, for example, labor and
management, religious groups, functional areas within organizations, etc. (see INTEREST GROUPS;
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS). Fundamental differences in goals and means to achieve those goals will
continue to create disputes between the parties. However, the procedures and systems that support the
resolution of disputes provide the opportunity for parties to confront their differences and work together
to find a state of equilibrium in which they can effectively coexist and be productive (see CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT).

Document
There are three fundamental processes for resolving disputes: reconciling interests; determining which
party is right according to some standard of fairness, law, or contract; and determining which party is
more powerful (Ury et al., 1988). Interests are needs, desires, hidden agendas – the reasoning
underlying the position the party is taking. Reconciling interests may involve identifying creative
solutions that meet all parties' interests (Fisher & Ury, 1981), trading off low priority interests in order
to receive greater returns on higher priority interests (Neale & Bazerman, 1991), and making
concessions. Procedures like NEGOTIATION and mediation (third party assisted negotiation) are
appropriate for interest-based dispute resolution. Determining who is right is often difficult because
different, sometimes contradictory, standards may apply to the dispute. Third parties – judges,
arbitrators, or higher level managers are often called upon to provide either advisory or binding
judgments as to which party is right. POWER is the ability to coerce the other party to do something it
would not normally do. Power is typically exercised by imposing costs on the other party by acts of
aggression or the withholding of benefits. Power may be exercised in negotiation by the exchange of
threats or in power contests, for example, strikes or wars, in which parties take action to determine
which one will prevail (see COLLECTIVE ACTION; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING).
Ury et al., (1988) argue that interests-based resolution of disputes generates lower transaction costs and
higher benefits to the parties involved (see TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS), especially if they
must continue to interact, than rights or power-based resolutions in which one party wins and the other
loses. However, Ury et al., (1988) recognize that not all disputes can be resolved on the basis of
interests. For ongoing relationships, in which some disputing is inevitable, they advocate designing a
dispute resolution system in which interests-based procedures are backed up with advisory rights or
power procedures and ultimately binding rights or power procedures. The advisory procedures allow for
''looping back" to an interests-based resolution of the dispute.
Not all disputes will be resolved. The claiming party may decide to withdraw the

Document
Page 98
claim, or the granting party decide to give in to the claim. This is called "lumping it." Alternatively, one
or both parties may decide to withdraw from the relationship. These forms of avoidance may occur
before the claim has ever been made. They may also result from interests-based negotiation, for
example, if one party determines that it is no longer in its interests to interact with the other; or from a
rights or power contest, for example, when one party learns that it has neither a likely legal claim nor
the economic power to pursue the dispute.
Dispute resolution is not revolution. It provides a mechanism for a gradual shift in power. However,
dispute systems design, in which disputing parties achieve recognition and LEGITIMACY, as well as
regularized forums for making claims and bringing forward their interests, can be a powerful
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE mechanism.
See also Intergroup relations; Interorganizational relations; Justice, procedural; Justice,

distributive; Decision making
Bibliography
Felstiner, W. L. F., Abel, R. L. & Sarat, A. (1980–1981). The emergence and transformation of
disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming. Law and Society Review, 15, 631–654.
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Neale, M. A. & Bazerman, M. H. (1991). Cognition and rationality in negotiation. New York: Free
Press.
Putnam, L. L. & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds),
Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 549–599). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ury, W. L., Brett, J. M. & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut
the costs of conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
JEANNE M. BRETT
Conformity
This is the shift of an individual's behaviors and attitudes toward the perceived standards of the group as
a result of group pressure (Kelman, 1961; Asch, 1951; Sherif, 1936).
Substantial work has been conducted on distinguishing conformity from other responses to group
pressure and social INFLUENCE (see COMPLIANCE and IDENTIFICATION). For conformity to
exist, the following conditions should be present:
(a) the individual has a crystallized attitude or a regular behavior pattern before exposure to group
influence;

Document
(b) the individual's attitude or behavior changes as a result of group influence;
(c) the individual's attitude or behavior changes in the perceived desired direction of the group;
(d) the individual's attitude or behavior changes soon after exposure to group pressure; and
(e) the individual's private beliefs change as well as his/her publicly stated attitudes and publicly
observable behaviors (Nail, 1986) (see MINORITY GROUP INFLUENCE).
There has been considerable research on the factors which predispose individuals to conform to group
pressure. The classic Yale Obedience Study (Milgram, 1974) and Stanford Prison Study (Haney &
Zimbardo, 1973) suggest that individuals are more likely to conform when the work environment is
uncertain and individuals need the group for information, when individuals have low SELF-ESTEEM
and need the group for affirmation, when the group is prestigious and individuals value group
membership highly, when individuals have made a public COMMITMENT to the group, when
individuals are new in the group or at lower levels of the organization, and when individuals are alone
in their opposition to the group's position (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969).
In general, the research suggests that situational factors have a greater impact on an individual's
willingness to conform than individual PERSONALITY traits. For example, the Stanford Prison Study
suggests that an individual's role demands can completely overwhelm other aspects of his or her self-
identity under extreme social pressure (Haney & Zimbardo, 1973) (see ROLE-TAKING). Indeed, in
studies of the conformity of individuals to immoral or unethical demands, it has been found that
conformers are "ordinary people" who follow orders out of a sense of obligation to their leaders and not
from any peculiarly aggressive tendencies (Milgram, 1974).

Document
Page 99
While individuals' conformity to group expectations may make daily functioning of the group more
predictable and routine, there is substantial evidence that too much conformity can be detrimental to the
quality of group decision making (Janis, 1972) (see GROUPTHINK). In organizational settings, too
much conformity can result in the group's inattention to flaws in its planning and DECISION-MAKING
activities as well as intolerance of, and lack of acceptance of, fresh perspectives of new group members
(Feldman, 1984; Dentler & Erikson, 1959). For this reason, researchers and practitioners have been
investigating group process interventions (see ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT) and group
decision-making heuristics (see GROUP DECISION MAKING) to help groups build in safeguards
against overconformity.
See also Culture, group; Group dynamics; Affiliation, need for
Bibliography
Asch, S. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In M. H.
Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 117–190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Institute of
Technology Press.
Dentler, R. A. & Erikson, K. T. (1959). The functions of deviance in groups. Social Problems, 7, 98–
107.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management
Review, 9, 47–53.
Haney, C. & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Social roles and role-playing: Observations from the Stanford
Prison Study. Behavioral and Social Science Teacher, 1, 25–45.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos.
New York: Houghton Miffin.
Kiesler, C. A. & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.
Nail, P. R. (1986). Toward an integration of some models and theories of social response.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
DANIEL C. FELDMAN
Confrontation

Document
see INTERPERSONAL SKILLS; SENSITIVITY TRAINING
Conglomerate Diversification
This refers both to the process of achieving a series of diversifications, usually by MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS, which creates an organization with a wide variety of unrelated businesses in its
portfolio, and to the results of that process. Most DIVERSIFICATION is related diversification, not
conglomerate diversification.
The degree to which value can be added by having a portfolio of unrelated businesses under common
ownership, compared with operating them as a series of independent businesses is limited. While
financial and administrative synergies are possible, value creation through operating efficiencies or
knowledge transfer amongst the unrelated businesses are not (see SYNERGY; TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER). It is therefore not surprising that research usually shows that conglomerates provide
lower returns than other types of organizations, such as single businesses, dominant businesses, or
related diversified organizations (see COMPETITIVENESS).
The very few high performing conglomerates which survive for long periods of time are characterized
by effective financial control systems, which monitor the unrelated businesses through common
financial measures, small head offices, which minimize the overhead cost per business, and
DECENTRALIZATION of administrative and operational AUTONOMY to the operating businesses,
coupled with a narrow range of tightly-defined corporate policies.
Conglomerates generally have high leverage ratios, meaning that their returns are financially risky.
There have been two major waves of conglomerate diversification since World War II. The so-called
"go–go" conglomerates of the 1960s and a major part of the 1980s acquisition activity were both
facilitated by easy financing and rising stock markets which provided a cheap and plentiful supply of
both debt and equity.
See also Strategic management; Multinational corporations

Document
Page 100
Bibliography
Porter, M. (1987). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 67,
May–June, pp. 43–59.
GRAHAM HUBBARD
Congruence
This term refers to a condition where two elements match, fit with, or are in harmony with one another.
In ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, congruence has been applied to at least two different
phenomena – interpersonal COMMUNICATION and ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN. Congruence in
interpersonal communication means that a person's message – i.e., the words spoken – match exactly
the person's thoughts and feelings. Rogers (1961) claimed that the "fundamental law of interpersonal
relationships" is centered on congruence: the more congruence in an interpersonal relationship, the
stronger and more satisfying it is.
Congruence in organization design refers to consistency among various elements in an organization.

Authors have focused on different organizational attributes, but the basic assumption is that when these
elements are congruent, the organization is more effective (see Nadler & Tushman, 1980). The well-
known "SEVEN S MODEL," for example, proposes that effectiveness is enhanced when congruence
exists among seven elements: strategy, structure, systems, staffing, SKILLS, style, and shared
VALUES. This means that each element fits with, reinforces, or is consistent with all other elements.
To attain high performance, organizations and teams must strive to develop congruence among these
various elements.
See also Group cohesiveness; Organizational effectiveness; Organization theory
Bibliography
Nadler, D. A. & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A congruence model of organizational assessment. In E. E.

Lawler, D. A. Nadler & C. Cammann (Eds), Organizational assessment: Perspectives on the
measurement of organizational behavior and the quality of work life (pp. 261–278). New York: Wiley–
Interscience.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
KIM S. CAMERON
Consensus
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/www.netlibrary.com.ezpro...eader/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_100.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 02:06:32]

Document
Consensus refers to an informal process that groups often use to make decisions (see GROUP
DECISION MAKING). The typical pattern is for members to discuss various alternatives in an
unstructured process until one person, often the group's chairperson, decides that the issues have been
thoroughly aired and that one of the alternatives is clearly favored. This person then suggests that the
group has reached a consensus and asks whether others agree. If no one dissents, the decision is made.
The benefits of consensus include the possibility of relatively strong commitment to the decision and
strong GROUP COHESIVENESS (see COMMITMENT). The downside is that the process is so
unstructured that a variety of problems can surface, including:
(1) relatively few, low quality alternatives or ideas;
(2) potentially strong social pressure within the group, especially when someone with POWER states
the consensus and expects no dissent;
(3) low task orientation, when group members are motivated to spend more time interacting socially
than attending to the task; and
(4) a high potential for CONFLICT if people disagree (Murnighan, 1981).
Nevertheless, consensus has such positive connotations, implying agreement and informal unanimity,
that many organizational groups, even very large groups, use it for many if not all of their decisions.
See also Group norms; Decision making; Groupthink
Bibliography
Murnighan, J. K. (1981). Group decision making: What strategies should you use? Management
Review, 70, #2 55–62.
J. KEITH MURNIGHAN

Document
Page 101
Consideration
see INTERPERSONAL SKILLS; LEADERSHIP STYLE; MANAGERIAL STYLE
Construct Validity
see PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING; VALIDITY
Consultancy
The practice of consultancy has several distinguishing characteristics:
(a) it involves a voluntary relationship between a consultant and a client;
(b) it involves an attempt by the consultant to help the client; and,
(c) the relationship is perceived as temporary by both parties (Lippitt, 1969; Blake & Mouton, 1976).
Consultants may come from outside the client organization, or they may practice within the employing
organization provided they are outside a hierarchical AUTHORITY relationship with the client.
Consultancy is a way of practicing a profession rather than a profession itself (Holtz, 1993) (see
PROFESSIONALISM). Thus, one may be an engineer who does or does not practice consulting. Or,
one may be a marketing expert who does or does not practice consulting. The consulting process (see
CONSULTANCY INTERVENTION MODELS) may start with a diagnostic activity or it may begin
with service delivery. Finally, the actions provided will sometimes be a one-time event (e.g., directing a
reorganization) or may require a long-term recurrent service to the client (e.g., providing legal advice).
The extent to which the relationship between consultant and client is likely to be recurrent is influenced
by the following:
1. Clarity of goals. The search and selection of a key executive is more likely to be a single project than
a service goal defined as providing staffing services for key executives.
2. Depth of intervention. The installation of structure and systems is more likely to be a single project
than an activity involving change in interpersonal or intrapersonal relationships.
3. Degree to which SKILLS shift to client. With such a shift, the consultant serves as a training source;
without such a shift, the client must return when the skills are required.
4. The range of problems or skills covered by the consultant. Full service consultants are more likely to
be recurrent than single service specialists.
Consulting Process

Document
A typical consulting process is shown in Figure 1. The initial contact will occur either at the initiative of
the potential client or the consultant, with the possible next step of a formal discussion about the
consulting engagement, here called a "contract making" meeting. The "contract making" meeting is a
major determinant of the success of a consulting engagement. In it decisions are made by both the
consultant and the client about whether to work together, about what processes will be involved, and
about mutual expectations regarding outcomes. The meeting is also a decision point for electing to use a
diagnostic process to identify needs or electing to provide a service. Often, the client seeks a consultant
to have the consultant provide a service: provide a solution to a problem which may or may not be
defined. At the time of the "CONTRACT making" meeting, however, both parties may decide that
service delivery is premature and that the client's needs will be better served with a problem
identification (i.e., diagnostic) activity.
If the decision is made to engage in a diagnostic activity, the meeting is likely to cover details about the
boundary of the client system to be included, the methods of data collection, time required, billing
methods, personnel involvement, and reporting schedules. The outcome of the diagnostic activity is
typically an identification of needs and their priority. The verbal agreements of this meeting will
generally be restated in a letter of intent. Such documentation is recommended since it provides a clear
and verifiable statement of mutual expectations.
Either at the end of the diagnostic activity or directly following the "contract making" meeting,
decisions will be made between client and consultant about what will follow and who will

Document
Page 102
Figure 1
Consulting process
be responsible. For issues involving a substantial investment of time and resources, a formal proposal
will often be prepared. As with the "contract making" meeting, the proposal is of major importance in
determining whether or not the consultant will be considered a success when it is finished (Metzger,
1993).
Following the consultant's action, whether a simple advisory action or a complex project, there will be
an evaluation and termination. Evaluation may take a number of forms, but an important element will
be whether what was promised is what was accomplished and delivered. Beyond that, the evaluation
may include the delivery of lasting skills or programs to the client, perceptions of positive change, and
demonstrated accomplishment. Since client independence and commitment to change are considered to
be important criteria for effective consulting (Argyris, 1973) the form and process of termination is,
itself, an important element in the process.

Document
Future Trends
A review of books and articles about consulting reveals the following trends:
1. With outsourcing and DOWNSIZING, more firms are relying on contract services rather than
employing indirect labor themselves.
2. Management consulting services are increasingly differentiated by institution (e.g., schools, banks,
insurance companies) or by specialty (e.g., accounting, recruiting, total quality).
3. There is an emerging literature on: (a) internal versus external consulting practice; (b) how to select a
consultant; and (c) outplacement consulting.
4. It has become clear that training is not consulting; that is, the skills required for

Document
Page 103
training do not insure consulting skills as well.
See also Double-loop learning; Organizational learning; Organizational development
Bibliography
Wesley.
Bermont, H. (1992). How to become a successful consultant in your own field (3rd edn). Rocklin, CA:
Prima.
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1976). Consultation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Greenbaum, T. L. (1990). The consultant's manual: A complete guide to building a successful

consulting practice. New York: Wiley.
Greiner, L. E. & Metzger, R. O. (1983). Consulting to management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Holtz, H. (1993). How to succeed as an independent consultant (3rd edn). New York: Wiley.
Levinson, H., Molinari, J. & Spohn, A. G. (1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lippitt, G. L. (1969). Organization renewal: Achieving viability in a changing world. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Metzger, R. O. (1993). Developing a consulting practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
ALAN C. FILLEY
Consultancy Intervention Models
CONSULTANCY intervention models are concerned with the style in which the consultant and client
interact. If we consider consultancy in ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR or management, two
dimensions are commonly involved:
(a) the extent to which the activity is primarily one of diagnosis versus that of service delivery; and
(b) the extent to which the activity is primarily one of providing advice versus that of taking action.

Document
These dimensions are combined in Figure 1. Consultancy which emphasizes diagnosis will emphasize
problem identification while consultancy which emphasizes service delivery will emphasize providing
solutions or services to solve problems. In contrast, consultancy which provides advice involves
direction by the consultant to the client about proper action; consultancy which provides action involves
the performance of activities for the benefit of the client.
I. Diagnostic/advisory interventions. Consulting methods of this type are primarily concerned with
identifying problems through information gathering and analysis. An example of methods contained in
this class is "PROCESS CONSULTATION" which is an identification of obstacles to organizational
performance and JOB SATISFACTION obtained from organization members.
II. Diagnostic/action interventions. These methods combine problem identification with the
development of a formal plan to meet those needs. An example of such action is the development of a
strategic plan for a client based on an analysis of internal strengths and weaknesses as well as an
analysis of external opportunities and threats.
III. Service delivery/advisory interventions. Consulting methods of this type are illustrated in providing
prescriptive and expert advice by the consultant. Examples include directions to meet legislative or
legal requirements as well as teaching theory and models which become the standard for decisions by
the client.
IV. Service delivery/action. Consultations of this type require the consultant to act as a "pair of
hands" (Block, 1981, p. 20) for the client. Examples could include the employment of a consultant
charged with conducting a search and screen activity for a key position or employing a consultant to
design a compensation system.
Combined Styles
The four consulting styles described may, in fact, be combined. One such combination is to balance
responsibility for defining and solving problems between the consultant and the client. This is often
labeled a "collaborative" (Block, 1981, p. 21) role, but it is also suggested in the "confrontational" style
described by others (Blake & Mouton, 1976, p. 4). A second combination involves the staging or
sequencing

Document
Page 104
Figure 1
Consultancy intervention models
of styles, for example, process consulting followed by supervisory TRAINING if it is indicated.
Selection of Styles
The relative value of different consulting styles will depend upon the following:
1. The extent to which the consulting style generates valid information. Styles which spend relatively
more effort at problem definition are likely to provide more reliable and valid information.
2. The extent to which the consulting style provides for client independence vis-à-vis the consultant.
Independence is promoted by educating the client and by keeping responsibility of finding solutions
with the client (Brickman, Rabinowitz, Karuza, Coates, & Kidder, 1982, pp. 368–384).
3. The extent to which the consulting style enhances internal COMMITMENT by the client. Styles
which insure that actions by the client are based on his or her personal choice are more likely to
promote internal commitment than actions which are dictated by others (Argyris, 1970, p. 20).
4. The extent to which emotional barriers interfere with rational choice by the client. Styles which
provide for uncritical acceptance and support of clients may be needed before problem-solving actions
are possible.

Document
5. The extent to which the consulting style includes consultant support in problem solving. Consulting
styles which insure that the consultant will help with problem solving as well as problem identification
will meet this requirement, in contrast with styles which end responsibility with problem definition.
See also Double loop learning; Organizational learning; Organization development
Bibliography
Wesley.
Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1976). Consultation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Block, P. (1981). Flawless consulting. Austin, TX: Learning Concepts.
Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V., Karuza, J., Coates, D. & Kidder, L. (1982). Models of helping and
coping. American Psychologist, 37, No. 4, 362–384.
Holtz, H. (1993): How to succeed as an independent consultant. New York: Wiley.
ALAN C. FILLEY

Document
Page 105
Consultancy Style
see CONSULTANCY; CONSULTANCY INTERVENTION MODELS
Contingency Theory
This denotes a body of literature that seeks to explain the structure of organizations by analyzing their
adjustment to external factors, particularly changing circumstances that introduce UNCERTAINTY in
DECISION MAKING.
Prior to the development of contingency theory, organizations were usually understood as closed
systems (see SYSTEMS THEORY), with ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN based primarily on maxims
for organizing that emerged from literature on public BUREAUCRACY and military organization.
Contingency theory drew attention to the organization's environment and to its TECHNOLOGY both of
which were understood as outside the organization and as subjects of independent or exogenous
causation; hence, the term OPEN SYSTEMS (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT).
Contingency theory viewed organizations as reacting to the environments and technologies around and
within them rather than to the effects of organizations on their environments. Conceptualization of these
sources of contingency tended to be broad with frequent reference to "the environment" without
specifying the sources of such effects. So while open systems perspectives continue to figure
prominently in organizational research, most succeeding theory has focused on the reciprocal
relationship between internal organization and its context. In addition, contingency theory often viewed
organizations in a static way, assuming that adjustment to contingencies would happen in a
straightforward, often rationally designed and managed way.
The primary argument of contingency theory is that when activity in the organization is routinized,
bureaucratic organization prevails (see ROUTINIZATION). The fixed structure of bureaucracy is
undermined when contingencies generate high levels of uncertainty. This happens either when
technological factors or the environment is unstable, producing numerous unanticipated events
requiring a response, or when the pattern of inputs to the organization is complex. In either case,
structure becomes more complex with a finer DIVISION OF LABOR, more highly trained and skilled
personnel, fewer written rules, and less direct vertical SUPERVISION. Organizations in unstable
environments, or those using rapidly changing technologies, display patterns of interdependency that
are characterized by large numbers of nonroutine problems whose solutions have implications for many
parts of the organization. Because the parts affected by each problem differ, and the problems do not
repeat themselves in precisely the same way, a customized response is required. This leads to a fluid
mode of organization or an organic system as opposed to a mechanistic system (Burns & Stalker, 1961)
(see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC)

Document
Contingency theory was undermined when its empirical base was called into question. Technology
loomed less large to subsequent researchers when it was shown that research designs mixed partial
organizations, such as factories owned by larger corporations, with free-standing organizations with a
full complement of support functions (e.g., finance, marketing). Size seemed to matter as much as
technology and many effects that appeared to emanate from the technology were as much a function of
size (see ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE). In addition, the reactive nature of contingency theory drew
criticism from those who saw many issues of TECHNOLOGY and environment as subject to
managerial choice. Finally, the relatively undifferentiated conceptualization of the environment drew
criticism as subsequent researchers focused attention on the flow of resources and the tendency for
POWER in organizations to emanate from resource flows.
See also Resource dependence; Leadership contingencies; Strategic types; Organization theory;
Organizational change
Bibliography
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R. & Turner, C. (1969). The context of organization structures.

Document
Page 106
JOHN FREEMAN
Continuous Improvement
The view that organizations should strive ceaselessly to improve is a basic principle of TOTAL
QUALITY MANAGEMENT. Continuous improvement has long been advocated by the two leading
gurus of the quality movement, J. M. Juran and the late W. Edwards Deming. One of Deming's famous
Fourteen Points was "improve constantly and forever the system of production and service."
Japanese students of Deming and Juran readily embraced the concept, translated as kaizen, decades ago.
Continuous improvement today is a fundamental to the Japanese management style. Continuous
improvement "is a pervasive concept linked to all Japanese manufacturing practices" (Young, 1992, p.
684).
The notion of continuous improvement is not obvious from the perspective of ORGANIZATION
THEORY. For example, the concept of continuous improvement contrasts with the concept of dynamic
homeostasis in OPEN SYSTEMS theories. Open systems theories treat changes to the system as
disruptions or threats to survival. The system is seen as constantly striving to return to an equilibrium
state that preserves its basic character. By contrast, the idea of continuous improvement suggests that
there may be no state of dynamic equilibrium. Rather, organizational members consciously choose to
keep the organization in a chronically unfrozen state.
A number of texts provide specific tools and techniques for the practice of continuous improvement (e.
g., Imai, 1987; Robson, 1991; Schonberger, 1982). These tend to emphasize work analysis, production
techniques, and group problem solving techniques.
Employees do not always embrace the concept of continuous improvement. Some in the labor
movement characterize it as part of a pattern of "management by STRESS" (e.g., Parker & Slaughter,
1988), in which managers cajole employees into surrendering ideas that may eliminate their jobs.
Without employment guarantees, the PRODUCTIVITY increases that result from continuous
improvement may indeed threaten jobs (see also JOB INSECURITY). Thus, Young (1992)
hypothesized that continuous improvement will be adopted faster and will be more successful where
there is a lower likelihood that workers will be laid off from their jobs. It is also possible to reward
employees directly for offering suggestions leading to improvement. This is a common practice in
Japan (Imai, 1987). Young (1992) hypothesized that the availability of monetary and nonmonetary
REWARDS would enhance the adoption and effectiveness of continuous improvement efforts.
See also Operations management; International management; Innovation; Employee involvement
Bibliography

Document
Imai, M. (1987). Kaizen: The key to Japan's competitive success. New York: Random House.
Parker, M. & Slaughter, J. (1988). Choosing sides: Unions and the team concept. Boston: South End
Press.
Robson, G. D. (1991). Continuous process improvement: Simplifying work flow systems. New York:
Free Press.
Schonberger, R. J. (1982). Japanese manufacturing techniques: Nine hidden lessons in simplicity. New
York: Free Press.
Young, S. M. (1992). A framework for successful adoption and performance of Japanese manufacturing
practices in the United States. Academy of Management Review, 17, (4), 677–700.
GERALD E. LEDFORD, JR.
Contract
Macneil (1980) in The New Social Contract, defines contract as "the relations among parties to the
process of projecting exchange into the future." Stinchcombe argues that one can find in contract all the
elements of HIERARCHY; that is, all the elements of organization. For example, in contracts you can
find: command structures and AUTHORITY systems, incentive systems, administered pricing systems
(costs, qualities, prices), a structure for the resolution of conflict and standard operating procedures, all
elements of hierarchy. Clearly, an understanding of contract is essential to understanding organization,
and organizational behavior.
Moreover, understanding what is meant by the concept of contract has taken on even

Document
Page 107
greater importance in organizational literature in the light of increased reliance on economic-based

theories of organization such as TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS and AGENCY THEORY. As
contract's roots are embedded in law, a brief review of its legal elements will be helpful in
understanding the varied ways in which it is being used in improving our understanding of
organizations.
If they are to be legally enforceable, contracts must involve an agreement between competent persons.
Whether the parties are competent may be evident from the COGNITIVE PROCESSES they employ
and their cognitive styles. If they are not competent, their participation in the exchange governed by the
contract is not voluntary.
One of the cornerstones of our definition of organizations, however, is that those who join them do so
on a voluntary basis. Discussions of the JOINING-UP PROCESS frequently are built on explicit
assumptions of voluntary action, but always voluntary behavior is an implicit assumption in research on
relationships between organizations and their employees. For example, the reciprocal expectations and
obligations that underlie the PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS between organizations and those who
join them are premised on an unstated assumption of voluntariness. Thus, competence to contract is a
necessary, but by itself, not sufficient condition of organization.
Legally enforceable contracts also require consideration, which can be defined as a right, interest,
profit, or other form of benefit that accrues to one party; or, some detriment, disadvantage,
responsibility, or loss assumed by the other party. Consideration reflects a promise (or a set of
promises) to do or not to do something. To a large degree, the organizational literature describing
psychological contracts focuses heavily on issues related to consideration. Needless to say, a substantial
literature has evolved out of the need for consideration if a contract is to be legally enforceable.
Theories regarding pay (see PAY AND PERFORMANCE) and MOTIVATION, extrinsic REWARDS,
or PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY, to name but three of the many cited elsewhere in this text, all
stem from the need to provide consideration in employee contracts.
A case can also be made that consideration defines the minimal (if not the complete) authority and
command system requirements of an organization. That is, all employees of an organization promise
not to act in certain ways without consulting others, or cede the right to act independently to an
individual (the CEO) or to some other governing group (the Board of Directors) (see GOVERNANCE
AND OWNERSHIP).
The requirements of COMPETENCY and CONSIDERATION mean that legally enforceable contracts
are reasoned and the products of free and rational agents; that is, the parties are possessed with
AUTONOMY. These conditions are consistent with a third legal requirement in the design of a
contract: it is essential that both parties agree to the same thing in the same sense and that they enjoy a
meeting of the minds on the essential terms and conditions of the contract. This mutual consent must be
evident in the language that the parties employ, or from their words or actions.

Document
Obviously, good INTERPERSONAL SKILLS and bargaining ABILITY will be required of all parties
to an exchange if a meeting of the minds is to result. Interpersonal CONFLICT must be dampened
during the ex ante contract stages of a potential relationship.
Prior to commencing the ex ante contract stage of NEGOTIATION, the parties should have conducted
their own GOAL SETTING so that they are clear on what are their own objectives for the exchange,
and what they expect from their exchange partner(s).
Additionally, what parties promise must be valid subject matter. The goals pursued in voluntary
PARTICIPATION, or the things which represent consideration, should not be contrary to public law,
general policy, public justice, or violate provisions of federal or state constitutions, federal or state
statutes, or the common law. This necessity for legal subject matter exists in both the ex ante contract
and ex post contract stages of a relationship. In organizations, this explains the heavy emphasis on
ACCOUNTABILITY, the need for public scrutiny, and the increasingly frequent reliance on CODES
OF CONDUCT to facilitate ethical behavior (see BUSINESS ETHICS; CORPORATE SOCIAL
PERFORMANCE).

Document
Page 108
Contracts can be classified in one of two forms: explicit or implicit. Explicit contracts are easily
recognizable in classical or neoclassical contract law (Macneil, 1974; 1978). They are what we typically
think about as we consider the concept of contract. For example, the partnership agreement, or the
public corporation charter are explicit contracts. JOINT VENTURE agreements are explicit contracts,
as are COLLECTIVE BARGAINING agreements.
Contracts may also be implicit. In organizational terms we think of them as psychological contracts,
involving an ''unwritten set of expectations operating at all times between every member of an
organization" (Schein, 1970, p. 22). These expectations vary with the structure implied by explicit
contracts defining organizational purpose. Expectations address areas such as norms, the nature of
work, work ROLES, social relationships, or JOB SECURITY needs.
In frameworks based on the theory of transaction cost economics, contract thus contemplates a
relationship between at least two parties, in which there is reliance on a law of contract, accompanied
by an assumption that the parties will have access to institutions which John Commons has described as
institutional guarantors. Institutional guarantors are creations of a state that permit private parties to
employ the legitimized coercion of the state in the resolution of conflicts arising from transaction. The
prior existence of "the state" thus facilitates, but is not required for contract (see GOVERNMENT AND
BUSINESS).
In the economics literature, contract is the means through which transacting occurs under three types of
governance structure; what Williamson describes as markets, hierarchies (or other authority based
social structures), or so-called mixed modes of governance such as STRATEGIC ALLIANCES. A
contract developed for use in any of these generic governance structures may (or may not) contain
provisions that have been designed to protect the interests of the parties: safeguards. The general
objective of these safeguards is to protect the parties from problems that arise out of two key behavioral
assumptions made by many economists and organization theorists. First, parties to a contract are
assumed to experience limited or BOUNDED RATIONALITY; that is, they cannot foresee (perfectly
or otherwise) all possible states of nature and/or the performance obligations associated with each of
those states of nature. Second, all parties to contracts are assumed to be capable of acting
opportunistically (guilefully in their own self-interest), although they will do so in varying degrees.
Contractual safeguards become more essential in cases in which the object(s) of exchange – assets –
will be employed frequently under uncertain conditions and cannot easily be redeployed to equally
productive (profitable) uses: the assets are idiosyncratic to the transaction.
The contract is also likely to say something about how the parties will design and manage their
production function and its attendant costs. Alternative ways of defining these production costs are
likely to be weighed by the parties with and against the costs of transacting within the design of the
production function structure. Transaction costs economists assert that parties seeking economic
efficiency in their dealings will employ a governance structure minimizing the combined affects of
production and transaction costs, most of which are costs required to negotiate and agree to a contract
that will be legally enforceable if need be.

Document
Williamson (1985), one of the leading economic scholars involved in the development of a transactions
approach to organization suggests that three forms of contract may be observed. First, nonidiosyncratic
or general purpose assets may be employed by parties. Here, contracting approximates "classical market
contracting." Classical market contract implies the existence of a legal contract and that the coercive
force of a state is available to parties seeking remedies for breach. There may, however, be situations
where the parties will need to exchange idiosyncratic assets. Two choices are open to the contracting
parties here: they may contract (1) with, or (2) without, safeguards designed to protect those assets. An
implicit assumption here is that all necessary safeguards will be created by the parties and thus will be
endogenous to the contract.
Ring and Van de Ven (1989, 1992) offer an alternative perspective on contract, arguing that the
different types of contract described by transaction costs economists constitute separate,

Document
Page 109
and distinct, governance modes. They describe three types of contracting – discrete, recurrent, or
relational – and the conditions under which each is likely to be employed. Discrete contracts are part of
every day organizational life. Newspapers are purchased from vendors as employees enter the
workplace. The "coffee vendor" provides reasonable food and beverage at reasonable prices; or, is
replaced. Paper clips are exchanged for a "P.O." These exchanges tend to be simultaneous, the stakes
are not high, and substitutes are plentiful.
Recurrent contracts involve repeated exchanges between the same organizations (or the same
individuals) of assets that do not create great risks of opportunistic behavior. Parties using recurrent
contracts tend to define terms related to consideration with some degree of specificity; but some
contingencies may be left to future resolution when a complete meeting of the minds is not possible
because of UNCERTAINTY or bounded rationality. Temporally, the duration of these contracts is
relatively short term. The parties see themselves as autonomous, legally equal, but contemplating a
more embedded relationship.
Recurrent contracting is frequently used to explore outcomes driven by motives other than efficiency, to
experiment with safeguards, and with alternative methods for resolving conflict. Neoclassical contract
law (Macneil, 1974) provides the legal framework within which these, predominantly, market-based
transactions are governed, although as Macaulay observes, norms, more than law, governs much of this
form of transacting.
In contrast, relational contracts tend to involve long-term investments, stemming from ground work laid
by recurrent bargaining, in the production and transfer of property rights among these legally equal and
autonomous parties. The property, products, or services jointly developed and exchanged in these
transactions entail highly specific investments, in ventures that cannot be fully specified or controlled
by the parties in advance of their execution. As a consequence, the parties to these relational contracts
are exposed to a much broader variety of trading hazards than their counterparts employing either
discrete or recurrent contracts. When inevitable disputes arise, they are resolved through internal
mechanisms designed to preserve the relationship and insure that both the efficiency and equity
outcomes sought in the long-term relationship are realized (see CONFLICT RESOLUTION). In
contrast to the unified governance typically attributed to hierarchy, bilateral governance is employed in
relational contracts.

Document
A last type of contract relevant to organizations warrants a brief mention in closing. Implicit in
relationships between organizations and the CULTURE or governmental system in which they are
embedded, is the social contract. Changing societal expectations regarding the social contract have an
enormous impact on organizations, the ways in which they contract, and the substance of their contracts
with their stakeholders. The very recent interest in JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL and DISTRIBUTIVE,
within organizational studies stems from an earlier awakening of its importance in the realm of social
justice. Issues such as DISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, and corporate governance
addressed elsewhere in this volume reflect redefinition of the nature of the social contract and have had
a profound effect on organizations and their management. Issues related to COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING and TRADE UNIONS reflect similar shifting societal views about the scope of the
social contract.
See also Intergroup relations; Interorganizational relations; Politics
Bibliography
Alchian, A. A. & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization.
American Economic Review, 62, 727–795.
Cheung, S. (1983). The contractual nature of the firm. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 1–21.
Commons, J. R. (1950). The economics of collective action. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Goldberg, V. (1980). Relational exchange: Economics and complex contracts. American Behavioral
Scientist, 23, 337–352.
Llewellyn, K. N. (1931). What price contract. Yale Law Review, 40, 704–751.
Macaulay, S. (1963). Non-contractual relations in business. American Sociological Review, 28, 55–70.
Macneil, I. R. (1974). The many futures of contract. Southern California Law Review, 47, 691–816.
Macneil, I. R. (1978). Adjustments of long-term economic relationship under classical, neoclassical,

Document
Page 110
and relational contract law. Northwestern University Law Review, 72, 854–906.
Macneil, I. R. (1980). The new social contract. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ring P. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Legal and managerial dimensions of transactions. In A. H. Van
de Ven, H. Angle & M. S. Poole (Eds), Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota
studies (pp. 171–192). New York: Ballinger/Harper & Row.
Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations.
Strategic Management Journal, 30, 483–498.
Schein, E. (1970). Organizational psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1990). Information and organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
PETER SMITH RING
Control
The concept of control is of such wideranging significance and usage in almost all fields of inquiry, that
it almost defies definition. The core of the concept is represented by the study of cybernetics as the
application of an operator to effect an activity in relation to a standard. Note that this does not need to
imply conformance to a standard–control can be effected to depart from as well as to maintain a
standard. The essential notion is that some desired criterion exists or can be conceived, and that an
agent or operator can effect an activity (behavior, mechanism, strategy, etc.) with reference to it.
In psychology, the basic cybernetic model was influentially employed by Miller, Galanter, and Pribram
(1960) as a goal-oriented alternative to behaviorist models of human action (see LEARNING,
INDIVIDUAL). In everyday tasks, it was argued, cognition and intent effect behaviors through TOTE
cycles: Test-Operate-Test-Exit. The control sequence is exited when the results of behavior meet the
test standard via FEEDBACK (e.g., PERCEPTION). This model has been widely adopted and
elaborated to explain a variety of human functions, including learning, task behaviors, intention, and
SELF-REGULATION. Control theory typically conceives of nested cycles from the most basic, and
largely unconscious, perceptual-motor operations up to the most strategic or conceptual levels (see
ACTION THEORY) (Lord & Levy, 1994). Applications of control theory are used to diagnose and
correct dysfunctions in various contexts, such as ERRORS and SKILL acquisition (see HUMAN–
COMPUTER INTERACTION).

Document
Within ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR the concept of control has wide relevance. Feedback
processes and feedback seeking are of particular importance (Ashford & Cummings, 1983), since both
feedback and standards are required by organizational control systems. These concepts are especially
important in the field of MOTIVATION, since goals and intentions mobilize control attempts. Of
particular interest here are INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES in control-related motivation, such as
achievement, power (see ACHIEVEMENT, NEED FOR; POWER, NEED FOR) (Heckhausen, 1991),
and Locus OF CONTROL. Although the strength of need for control varies across individuals (see
PERSONALITY) it has long been recognized that a drive for competence is a normal human
characteristic. Indeed, so pervasive is this motive, coupled with the cognitive disposition to make causal
attributions in chance situations, that it is commonplace for people to believe they have more scope for
control than is actually feasible: the so-called "control illusion" (Langer, 1983). This is responsible for
many typical errors of management and LEADERSHIP (see ATTRIBUTION; BEHAVIORAL
DECISION RESEARCH; PERSISTENCE).
At the more general level of business operations, control theory can be of great practical value in
understanding system failures and how to enhance management effectiveness (see
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS; SYSTEMS THEORY). The notion of a control loop (see
Figure 1) can be applied to system performance at any level to inquire whether standards are
appropriate, whether operations affect behavior, whether results meet standards, whether sensors are
tuned to detect variances and whether they are positioned at appropriate positions in the system. The
results of this analysis can be used to reform any of the elements, e.g., DECISION MAKING,
environmental scanning, stategic goals, operating standards, measurement methods, REWARDS and
disincentives, resourcing and sources of disturbance,

Document
Page 111
Figure 1
Basic negative feedback loop in a control system
Source: R. G. Lord and P. E. Levy (1994). Reprinted by
permission of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd., Hove, UK.
or to question the constitution and focus of the control system overall (see DOUBLE LOOP
LEARNING). The model is thus a powerful aid to managerial control at various levels – from the
analysis and regulation of individual motivation (see VIE THEORY) to the STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT of the firm. The field has a potentially rich future, in which one can expect to see
increasingly sophisticated COMPUTER MODELING of control systems as an aid to their analysis,
design, and reform.
See also Conditioning; Cognitive processes; Knowledge of results; Objectives, management by;
Organizational learning
Bibliography

Document
Ashford, S. J. & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of

creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E. & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Control Theory
see PERSISTENCE; SELF-REGULATION
Co-Ownership
see COOPERATIVES; DEMOCRACY; GOVERNANCE AND OWNERSHIP

Document
Page 112
Cooperatives
A convenient definition distinguishes cooperatives from other types of organization, primarily the
conventional capitalist firm (CF), by requiring that:
(1) most services of a cooperative be provided or used by its members;
(2) the cooperative be the primary outlet for the provision or use of services by most members; and
(3) membership rights be held approximately equally.
Cooperatives may be organized by sellers of inputs or by buyers of outputs. The most prominent among
sellers' cooperatives are those organized by workers, called worker or producer cooperatives (PCs).
Other sellers' cooperatives include marketing cooperatives, especially in agriculture, where producers
combine efforts to sell their produce. The most prominent among buyers' cooperatives are consumers
cooperatives (CCs). Other buyers' cooperatives include, for example, purchasing cooperatives
organized by farmers, and some nonprofit organizations. In many cooperatives membership is well
defined and is related to the purchase of a certain number of shares. But members are rarely the only
providers (in a PC) or users (in a CC) of a cooperative's services. For example, many PCs employ hired
workers and many CCs allow nonmembers to purchase there.
In general, cooperatives come into existence when they can improve their members' welfare relative to
what they could expect in CFs. For example, workers in PCs may be able to obtain a combination of
better WORKING CONDITIONS and wages than they could in a CF in which management takes
advantage of its bargaining power or if workers do not express their true preferences for the fear that
this information will be exploited by management and will result in lower wages or worse conditions
than otherwise. Similarly, consumers are not exposed to exploitation of asymmetric information in CCs
as they may be in CFs. Effective and long lasting PCs and CCs therefore have mechanisms, such as
democratic DECISION-MAKING mechanisms (see DEMOCRACY) that allow members to express
their preferences, and limited trading of shares to prevent their concentration that may lead to
transformation into CFs.
These and other traits express (or are intended to preserve) the unique features of cooperatives that
distinguish them from CFs and provide their raison d'être in a market economy. The internal
organization of cooperatives differs from that of CFs, reflecting their unique traits. Cooperatives have
flatter hierarchies (see HIERARCHY), less formal monitoring of employees, considerable member
PARTICIPATION in decision making, rely less on individual financial incentives, wages are more
equal, and have more stable employment than comparable CFs. The little information about the
economic performance of CCs is mixed: U.S. consumer-owned electric power companies seem to enjoy
some advantage, whereas U.S. banking-like institutions owned by depositors appear to suffer some
disadvantage, as compared to CFs. As for PCs, evidence suggests that they perform at least as well as
CFs.

Document
Nonetheless, various obstacles connected chiefly to problems of collective action, limit the formation of
new cooperatives. The weight of PCs and CCs is most economies is quite limited, though related forms
(mainly employee-owned firms and nonprofit organizations) are gaining prominence in many countries
(see NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS). The economic weight of cooperatives as well as their
structure and behavior differs markedly across countries. This is due to differences in national laws and
CULTURE, and, probably more importantly, to the importance of national cooperative associations and
the services they provide to member-organizations (see CULTURE, NATIONAL).
See also Governance and ownership; Organizational citizenship; Cooperation
Bibliography
Ben-Ner, A., Montias, J. M. & Neuberger, E. (1993). Basic issues in organizations: A comparative
perspective. Journal of Comparative Economics, 17, (2), 207–242.
Bonin, J., Jones, D. C. & Putterman, L. (1993). Theoretical and empirical studies of producer
cooperatives: Will the twain ever meet? Journal of Economic Literature, 31, 1290–1320.

Document
Page 113
Brazda, J. & Scheding, R. (Eds), (1990). Consumer cooperatives in a changing world International
Cooperative Alliance.
Brown, L. (1985). Democracy in organizations: Membership participation and organizational

characteristics in U.S. retail food cooperatives. Organizational Studies, 6, (2), 313–334.
Cordell, L. R., MacDonald, G. & Wohar, M. (1993). Corporate ownership and the thrift crisis. Journal
of Law and Economics, 36, 719–756.
Peters, L. L. (1993). Non-profit and for-profit electric utilities in the United States: Pricing and
Efficiency. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 64, (4), 575–604.
AVNER BEN-NER
Core Competence
Prahalad and Hamel (1990) originated the term core competence. Without specifically defining it, they
described core competencies as:
the collective learning in the organization, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and
integrate multiple streams of technologies . . . (core competence) is also about the organization of work
and the delivery of value . . . core competencies . . . spawn unanticipated products. The real sources of
advantage are to be found in management's ability to consolidate corporate wide technologies and
production skills into competencies that empower individual businesses to adapt quickly to changing
opportunities (pp. 81–82).
As examples, Prahalad and Hamel suggested that Canon had core competence in optics, imaging and
microprocessor controls, Philips in optical-media (laser disks), Honda in engines and powertrains, 3M
in sticky tape, and Citicorp in systems.
Prahalad and Hamel considered that core competencies were analogous to the roots of a tree. The
existence of core competencies could result in the development of core products (the tree's trunk) which
could then create businesses (the tree's branches) and finally end products (the leaves on the tree).
Taking the optics example above, a core product that resulted from this was the laser printer engine,
which created the business of computer printers with end products of laser printers, color video printers
and bubble jet printers.
Prahalad and Hamel stated that a core competence must meet three tests. First, does it provide potential
access to a wide variety of markets? Second, does it make a significant contribution to the perceived
customer benefits of the end product? Third, is it difficult to imitate?

Document
The concept of core competence is consistent with the RESOURCE-BASED THEORY of

organizational success. Under this theory, resources – tangible and intangible assets–are combined
through organizational routines (Nelson & Winter 1982), creating organizational capabilities. If any of
these capabilities are valuable to the customer, difficult to acquire, difficult to replicate, difficult to be
appropriated by other parties, and are durable, they provide the basis for sustainable competitive
advantage and superior economic performance (see COMPETITIVENESS).
Selznick (1957) originated a similar term, "distinctive competence." This was defined as those things
that an organization does especially well in comparison to its competitors. The difference between these
terms is that a core competence is, necessarily, "core" to the organization whereas a distinctive
competence need not be. However, it is unclear exactly how "core" should be determined. Since core
competencies must be able to spawn products for a wide variety of markets, it seems that few
competencies could be "core'' for any particular organization. Further, for a core competence to be
valuable, organizations would need to be diversified to use it. This need not be so for distinctive
competencies or for the resource-based view in general (see DIVERSIFICATION).
There is little research available to demonstrate what core competencies are considered to exist in
organizations, how they have been identified, how they have been used, or how their existence can be
verified objectively. Nevertheless, in practice, the term "core competence" has become very common. It
is being used for all types of organizations, not just diversified ones, to describe what might previously
have been considered "distinctive competencies" or "capabilities."

Document
Page 114
All these terms emphasize the idea that business success can be built from within the organization. The
popularity of the core competence concept and the emerging resource-based theory reflects a swing of
concentration back to the organisation from the more externally-oriented industry analysis approach to
strategy which dominated the 1980s (see FIVE FORCES FRAMEWORK). In fact, both must be
addressed, if organizations are to exhibit superior performance.
See also Strategic management; Organizational effectiveness; Excellence; Strategic types;

Technology
Bibliography
Grant, R. (1991). Contemporary strategic analysis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Nelson, R. & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review, 68, May–June, 79–91.
Selznik, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
Stalk, G., Evans, P. & Shulman, L. (1992). Competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate
strategy. Harvard Business Review, 70, March–April, 57–69.
GRAHAM HUBBARD
Corporate Social Performance
Corporate social performance (CSP) is defined as a business organization's configuration of principles

of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and observable outcomes as they relate to
the firm's societal relationships (Wood, 1991, p. 693). CSP scholars envision societies as complex webs
of interconnected cause and effect, and business as a social institution with both POWER and
responsibility. CSP, then, has to do with the antecedents and outcomes of business organization
operations.
In the CSP model, three principles of corporate social responsibility – institutional legitimacy, public
responsibility, and managerial discretion – define structural relationships among society, the business
institution, business organizations, and people.
The principle of institutional LEGITIMACY states that society grants legitimacy and power to
business, and that business must use its power in a way that society considers responsible. General
institutional expectations are made of any business organization, and organizational legitimacy is
achieved and maintained by complying with these institutional expectations.

Document
The principle of public responsibility states that business organizations are responsible for outcomes
related to their primary (mission – or operations-derived) and secondary (related to, but not derived
from, mission or operations) areas of societal involvement (Preston & Post, 1975). Each business
organization has unique responsibilities because of the type of business it is – its size, industry,
markets, product/service mix, etc.
The principle of managerial discretion states that managers are moral actors and are obligated to
exercise all available discretion toward socially responsible outcomes (see MORAL
DEVELOPMENT). This principle of individual responsibility emphasizes that within various domains
of business activity (economic, legal, ethical, charitable; Carroll, 1979), managers are not completely
constrained in their choices. This principle acknowledges the creative tension between a manager's
DECISION-MAKING, autonomy and agency relationship.
Processes of corporate social responsiveness, the second dimension of CSP, represent characteristic
BOUNDARY-SPANNING behaviors of businesses. These processes, linking social responsibility
principles and behavioral outcomes, include:
(a) environmental assessment: gathering and assessing information about the external environment;
(b) STAKEHOLDER management: managing the organization's relationships with relevant persons,
groups, and organizations; and
(c) issues management: tracking and developing responses to social issues that may affect the company.
Observable outcomes, finally, go beyond narrow financial measures such as profit, share

Document
Page 115
value, or even market share. In the CSP view of organizations, outcomes are defined as consequences to
stakeholders, including persons, organizations, societies, and ecosystems; for example, product safety,
human rights, natural resource use, pollution, and effects of business activity on local communities.
Recent research has shown a link between corporate social and financial performance (Frooman, 1997;
Waddock & Graves, 1997). Current research focuses on linking CSP to theories of stakeholders, ethics,
and organizations; systematizing the assumptions and theoretical implications of the CSP model;
empirically testing ideas about how people perceive, interpret, and enact CSP; examining the validity of
the CSP model in crosscultural and multinational settings; and critiques of existing CSP theory.
See also Business ethics; Altruism; Values; Stakeholders; Reputation
Bibliography
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional model of corporate performance. Academy of Management

Review, 4, (4), 497–505.
Frooman, J. (1997). Socially irresponsible behavior and shareholder wealth. Business & Society, 36:3
(September).
Preston, L. E. & Post, J. E. (1975). Private management and public policy: The principle of public
responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Waddock, S. A. & Graves, S. B. (1997). Good management and good stakeholder relations: Are they
synonymous? Business & Society, 36:3 (September).
Wartick, S. L. & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model.
Academy of Management Review, 10, (4), 758–769.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, (4),
691–718.
DONNA J. WOOD
Counseling in Organizations

Document
There are a range of possible counseling activities in organizations, from those concerned with
personnel selection to CAREER guidance to STRESS counseling at work (see also VOCATIONAL
GUIDANCE). There is no clear-cut definition of counseling readily available, but it usually involves
two fundamental activities; "advice giving" and "supporting and helping." Most counseling whether
about careers or job stress is comprised of a number of SKILLS to achieve its objectives, as Dryden,
Charles-Edwards, & Woolfe, (1989) suggest in their Handbook of Counselling in Britain, "such as
listening actively to the other person's feelings, focussing on their problem rather than on our own
immediate concerns, and being accepting and uncritical."
There are a number of different schools of counseling, from the psychoanalytic to the humanistic or
experiential growth movement to the behavioral/cognitive therapies (Dryden et al., 1989). These range
from exploring early childhood experiences in the former movement to cognitive re-appraisal or
behaviorist approaches in the latter therapies.
In the workplace or organizational environment, the most common form of counseling is stress
counseling. As the pace of economic, technological and social change grows, so employees are
beginning to show increasing signs of job-related stress (Cartwright & Cooper, 1994). This is
manifesting itself in sickness ABSENTEEISM, labor TURNOVER, "presenteeism" (being at work but
not performing) and poorer organizational morale and PRODUCTIVITY (see WITHDRAWAL,
ORGANIZATIONAL). One way in which organizations are trying to deal with this problem is through
stress counseling. The movement toward organizational counseling has taken two forms; in-house stress
counseling and Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). In the former, counselors are employed within
either the occupational health service or the human resource department. The counselors in this context
make themselves available to all employees on a confidential basis and provide support and advice-
giving on a range of problems, from personal to marital to CAREER DEVELOPMENT. Recent
evidence indicates that these in-house programs are able to reduce sickness absence and improve the
mental well-being of employees (Cooper & Sadri, 1991) (see MENTAL HEALTH). The downside is
that some employees may feel inhibited from using them because

Document
Page 116
they are "in-house", that is, not in essence, confidential, with personal information possibly ending up in
their personnel records.
The other major form of counseling is the EAP. An EAP has been defined as: "A programatic
intervention at the workplace, usually at the level of the individual employee, using behavioral science
knowledge and methods for the control of certain work-related problems (notably alcoholism, drug
abuse, and mental health) that adversely affect job performance, with the objective of enabling the
individual to return to making her or his full contribution and to attaining full functioning in personal
life" (Berridge & Cooper, 1993) (see ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE). EAPs are out-house
forms of counseling. Counseling, clinical psychology or psychiatric organizations provide the
counseling for the private or public sector company on a consultancy basis. The organization may
determine policies defining the goals of the counseling service, but contracts its delivery to an external
EAP provider. Research in the United States shows them to be effective in reducing medical care costs.
For example, Feldman (1991) reported that the General Motors program saved $37 million per year by
assisting up to 100,000 employees. More detailed and systematic research needs to be done on both in-
house and EAP programs to confirm their impact on the individual as well as on bottom-line costs.
See also Quality of working life; Human resources management; Emotion; Performance,
individual; Emotions in organizations; Consultancy intervention models
Bibliography
Berridge, J. & Cooper, C. L. (1993). Stress and coping in US organisations; The role of the EAP. Work
and Stress, 7, 89–102.
Cartwright, S. & Cooper, C. L. (1994). No hassle: Taking the strain out of work. London: Century.
Cooper, C. L. & Sadri, G. (1991). The impact of stress counselling at work. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 6, 411–423.
Dryden, W., Charles-Edwards, D. & Woolfe, R. (1989). Handbook of counselling in Britain. London:
Tavistock.
Feldman, S. (1991). Trust me: Earning employee confidence. Personnel, 68, 7.
CARY L. COOPER
Creativity

Document
Organizational researchers and high-level managers in organizations have displayed growing interest in
creativity in recent years, perhaps because individual and team creativity is seen as the primary means
by which organizations can maintain competitive advantage (see COMPETITIVENESS). Creativity is
generally defined as the generation of ideas or products that are both novel and appropriate (correct,
useful, valuable, or meaningful). However, theorists and researchers have a long history of
disagreement over the definition of creativity. Gestalt psychologists and, more recently, cognitive
psychologists have focused on the creative process (the thought processes and stages involved in
creative activity). Other theorists have argued that creativity is best conceptualized in terms of the
person (the distinguishing characteristics of creative individuals).
Although many contemporary theorists think of creativity as a process and look for evidence of it in
persons, current definitions most frequently use characteristics of the product as the distinguishing signs
of creativity. Most product definitions stipulate that a creative product or response must be both novel
and appropriate. An additional criterion used by some researchers is that the task should be heuristic
(open-ended) rather than algorithmic (having a clear path to solution). Although many researchers
operationally define creativity as performance on creativity tests, most consider consensual product
assessment by experts as more appropriate; a product or idea is deemed creative to the extent that
appropriate observers agree it is creative. Similarly, in identifying particularly creative individuals in
work organizations, most researchers rely on the consensual assessment of managers and peers.
Prior to about 1980, the field of creativity research was dominated by a PERSONALITY TRAIT
approach that sought to identify reliable INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES between persons who
consistently produce highly creative work and persons who do not. As a result, some areas of inquiry
that are potentially important for

Document
Page 117
organizational studies were virtually ignored. There was a concentration on the creative person to the
neglect of creative situations; there was a narrow focus on intrapersonal determinants of creativity to the
neglect of external determinants; and, within studies of intrapersonal determinants, there was an implicit
concern with genetic influences to the neglect of contributions from learning and the social
environment. Contemporary theorists have begun to argue that creativity is best conceptualized not as a
personality trait or a general ABILITY but as a behavior resulting from particular constellations of
personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and environmental factors (e.g., Amabile, 1988).
Personal Characteristics
A cluster of personal characteristics has been repeatedly identified as important to high-level creative
behavior:
(a) self-discipline in matters concerning work;
(b) an ability to delay gratification;
(c) perseverance in the face of FRUSTRATION;
(d) independence of judgment;
(e) a tolerance for ambiguity;
(f) a high degree of autonomy;
(g) an absence of SEX-ROLE stereotyping;
(h) an internal LOCUS OF CONTROL;
(i) an orientation toward RISK-TAKING; and
(j) a high level of self-initiated, task-oriented striving for excellence.
Recently, creativity theorists and researchers have also shown an interest in the role of MOTIVATION
in creativity. Research suggests that INTRINSIC MOTIVATION (engaging in an activity because of
interest, involvement, or personal challenge) is more conducive to creativity than EXTRINSIC
MOTIVATION (engaging in an activity to achieve some external goal).
Although it is important for creative individuals to be skilled in their particular domain, several domain-
independent features of cognitive style appear to be relevant to creativity:
(a) perceptual FLEXIBILITY;
(b) cognitive flexibility;

Document
(c) understanding complexities;
(d) keeping response options open as long as possible;
(e) suspending judgment;
(f) using "wide" categories;
(g) remembering accurately;
(h) breaking out of performance scripts; and
(i) perceiving creatively.
Research on ENTREPRENEURSHIP has begun to examine the impact of the personality traits,
motivational orientations, and cognitive style of entrepreneurs on their creative activity.
Work Environment Influences
Social–psychological experiments on the effect of particular factors on the creativity of adults and
children have demonstrated that evaluative pressures, surveillance, contracted-for reward, competition,
and restricted choice can undermine intrinsic motivation and creativity by focusing the individual on
external reasons for doing the task (Amabile, 1988). Expanding beyond these experimental methods,
research in work organizations has utilized the observational methods of interviews and questionnaires
to examine the complex effects of work environment on individual and team creativity. Work
environments most conducive to the fulfillment of creative potential appear to be characterized by: a
high level of worker AUTONOMY in carrying out the work, encouragement to take risks from
administrative superiors, work groups that are both diversely skilled and cooperative;
COMMUNICATION and collaboration across WORK GROUPS, and a substantial degree of challenge
in the work. There appear to be four "balance factors" handled effectively by managers who promote
creativity: goals that are set clearly at the overall strategic level (see GOAL-SETTING), but left loose at
the operational level; REWARDS that are neither ignored nor overly emphasized; PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL systems that provide constructive, frequent FEEDBACK on work without generating
threatening negative criticism; and pressure arising from the challenging, urgent nature of the work
rather than from arbitrary time pressure or intraorganizational competitive pressure.
Current research on work environments is directed toward identifying the links between individual or
team creativity and overall organizational INNOVATION.

Document
Page 118
Creativity Enhancement in Organizations
Since the 1950s, a growing number of creativity-enhancement TRAINING programs have been offered
to organizations. The oldest and most widely used program, and the source from which most such
programs have been developed, is the Creative Problem Solving process. This process, developed
during the 1950s and 1960s from the BRAINSTORMING technique, involves the use of checklists and
forced relationships in addition to the brainstorming principles of deferred judgment and quantity of
idea generation.
Synectics, a somewhat similar process, relies more heavily on the use of metaphor and analogy in the
generation of novel ideas. The guiding principle of synectics is to "make the familiar strange and
strange familiar" – to use cognitive techniques for distancing oneself from habitual thought patterns,
and to also attempt to see connections between something new and something that is already
understood. The prescribed cognitive techniques include personal analogy, direct analogy, symbolic
analogy, and fantasy analogy.
Although research on the long-term effectiveness of creativity-training programs is limited, many

managers and HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT professionals utilize such programs for
employee development.
In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of creativity in organizational contexts,

contemporary theorists are attempting to integrate personality, cognitive, and work environment factors.
See also Self-actualization; Self-regulation; Interactionism
Bibliography
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Isaksen, S. (Ed.), (1987). Frontiers in creativity research: Beyond the basics. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.
Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (Eds), (1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), (1988). The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
TERESA M. AMABILE and MARY ANN COLLINS
Crises

Document
The terms crisis and disaster are frequently used but often not precisely defined. In common usage, a
crisis refers to a radical change in status while a disaster characterizes a sudden, often unforeseen,
misfortune. The terms evoke mixed interpretations concerning causality and intentions since crises and
disasters stem from known and unknown uncontrollable causes as well as from carelessness, ignorance,
and/or lack of due diligence.
Historically, analyses of crises and disasters have often attempted to isolate specific causal factors with
deterministic models (e.g., from engineering as in the WASH-1400 a.k.a., the Rasmussen Report,
1975). Lists of separable causal factors include such categories as human error (see ERRORS),
mechanical/electrical failure, external anomalies, design deficiencies (including systems, equipment,
and component designs), and procedural inadequacies (including technical procedures, administrative
protocols, and administrative controls). Analysts often attempt to isolate a proximate, primary cause as
well as contributing factors.
OB research recognizes that increasing numbers of crises and disasters are embedded in organizations.
Thus, Pauchant and Mitroff (1992) define a crisis in terms of disturbance to a whole system coupled
with challenges to the basic assumptions of that system (see SYSTEMS THEORY). One can envision
four severity levels of crises/disasters:
Level I: Dramatic reduction in financial and/or reputational well-being (see REPUTATION);

substantial destruction of property; serious injury to persons and/or the physical environment (e.g., the
1993 Pepsi product tampering case and the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident).
Level II: Death of involved individuals; injury to the general public or destruction of a habitat with
disruption of an ecosystem (e.g., the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill).
Level III: Death in the general public, extinction of a species or destruction of an

Document
Page 119
ecosystem (e.g., the 1982 Tylenol product tampering case and the 1986 Bophal chemical accident).
Level IV: Alteration of future generations such as by changes in the gene pool of a species (e.g., the
1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster).
Collectively, the literature presents a rich series of concepts to isolate dynamics within organizations
associated with dysfunctional outcomes. These concepts include both unintended and intended dynamic
patterns of interaction among elements of a complex system. Perrow (1984) was among the first to
emphasize a systems view in his analysis of "normal accidents." The concept of a normal ACCIDENT
stresses that "given systems characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are
inevitable" (p. 5). Perrow emphasized the inherent inconsistencies among technical requirements in
high-risk systems with their "tight coupling" and administrative capability (see LOOSE-COUPLING).
Using Perrow's terminology, for example, plants that transform raw materials into marketable products
may have numerous interactive ''tight couplings" among technical systems, equipment, and components
so that a small change in one part of the production process quickly alters another. To manage usual
conditions, administrative systems are often rigid, procedural-driven mechanistic systems with
sufficient detail to tell operators and supervisors what to do (see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC). When
an anomaly occurs, however, individual initiative, a keen sense of problem IDENTIFICATION, and
other individualistic attributes fostered by more decentralized organic systems may be necessary (see
DECENTRALIZATION). Since executives cannot now develop administrative systems that are
simultaneously mechanistic and organic, Perrow recommends that high-risk transformation systems
should be altered or abandoned if catastrophes are to be avoided.
Many scholars also stress the importance of multiple minor events and how they can quickly escalate
into a catastrophe with high-risk technologies. This theme was a central feature of Starbuck and
Milliken's (1988) analysis of the Challenger disaster (the 1986 explosion of a U.S. space shuttle). They
introduced the concept of "fine-tuning to disaster." As with "normal accidents," "fine-tuning-to-
disaster" attempts to explain a systems dynamic that underlies accidents. Starbuck and Milliken argued
that engineers and managers are expected to improve technical and administrative systems.
Unfortunately, these improvements may have unintended consequences because:
(a) specific improvements may be implemented in isolation but tightly coupled in operation; and
(b) the causal models linking prior success (failure) and future success (failure) are faulty.
Thus, partially contradictory attempts to improve different system features are continued even though
the effects of the changes cannot be completely understood. "Improvements" are continued until the
system mysteriously breaks. Both "normal accidents" and "fine-tuning-to disaster" emphasize
unintended consequences arising from the complexities and limitations of modern organizations. Both
are in the qualitative tradition of this literature where one or a few exemplary disasters are examined in
detail.

Document
In contrast, Osborn and Jackson (1988) suggest that high-risk systems may be prone to "purposeful
unintended consequences." Here, it is assumed that executives have an influence on administrative
systems. The concept of "purposeful unintended consequences" is based on a combination of
PROSPECT THEORY, institutional inertia, and AGENCY THEORY. Although executives claim they
make choices or at least modify recommendations by subordinates, they were found to purposively
deny: (a) potential trade-offs among economic, executive, and social outcomes; (b) organizational
inadequacies; and (c) their own risk biases (see RISK TAKING). Executives promulgated a series of
myths suggesting that: (a) efficiency and safety are positively linked (e.g., a reliable plant is a safe
plant); (b) their organizations are highly competent; and (c) they are risk neutral. Extensive data
analyses concerning the safeness of all operating United States commercial nuclear power plants
showed that not only were the myths inaccurate (e.g., safeness and efficiency measures were not
related), but that executive risk biases and organizational inade-

Document
Page 120
quacies combined to yield a potentially serious pattern of safety deficiencies. While the risk bias and
organizational inadequacies (e.g., Perrow, 1984; Starbuck & Milliken, 1986) are knowable, the threats
to the public may continue because executives continue to perpetuate the criteria myth (e.g., a reliable
plant is a safe plant).
Recent work by Pauchant and Mitroff (1992) also shows that mythology, in the form of rationalizations,
can combine with "VICIOUS CYCLES" (see ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING) to yield a crisis
prone organization. A crisis prone organization is subject to vicious cycles because it has:
(1) too narrow a strategic focus;
(2) an inappropriately rigid structure with few provisions to deal with a crisis;
(3) a CULTURE replete with rationalizations and myths; and
(4) a collective psyche filled with defense mechanisms, among other factors.
Pauchant and Mitroff (1992) argue that by reversing identified strategic, structural, cultural, and psyche
deficiencies, the firm can move toward becoming a crisis-prepared organization and be less subject to
vicious cycles.
The concepts discussed here were developed to help understand and prevent some of the most
deleterious consequences of organizational activity. However, these concepts also appear relevant to
examining ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE, ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN and, of course,
ACCIDENTS.
See also Organizational culture; Learning organization; Safety; Risky shift/group polarization;
Dilemmas, organizational; Turnaround management
Bibliography
Osborn, R. N. & Jackson, D. H. (1988). Leaders, riverboat gamblers, or purposeful unintended

consequences in the management of complex dangerous technologies. Academy of Management
Journal, 20 (4), 924–947.
Pauchant, T. C. & Mitroff, I. I. (1992). Transforming the crisis-prone organization. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic.
Starbuck, W. H. & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Challenger: Fine-tuning the odds unit something breaks.
Journal of Management Studies, 25, (4), 319–340.

Document
WASH-1400, a.k.a., the Rasmussen Report. (1975). Reactor safety study: An assessment of accident
risks in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
RICHARD N. OSBORN
Critical Theory
Uncritical theory, from the perspective of critical theorists, characterizes most of management and
ORGANIZATION THEORY. This is uncritical when it assumes that management and organizations,
and their understanding in theory, are disinterested, rational, and technical activities, rather than specific
instruments of domination (of employees, consumers, the ecology, etc.) that mask their POLITICS,
VALUES, and effects through a rhetoric of technique, neutrality, and service. The inspiration for
critical theory derives from the work of a number of influential scholars associated with the "Frankfurt
School" (see Jay, 1973) who sought to practice a form of "emancipatory" scholarship that was not
interested in sectional domination of one part of the social or natural world by another, but in the
emancipation of all elements from domination by any others. The impetus initially derived from
Western Marxism (Anderson, 1983).
Critical theory applied to management and organizations seeks to transcend the sectional limits of a
"managerialist" perspective, by representing the interests of other, often suppressed or marginalized,
voices. These interests may be many: women; the ecology; the workers; blacks (see GENDER; RACE).
What they have in common is their nonrecognition in, and lack of interest for, conventional
management theory, in terms that the repressed, marginalized, silenced, etc., interests, would find
authentic.
One problem is immediately evident: critical theory must assume that it knows what these other
interests "really" are better than conventional theory does. Not only must it know these interests better
than conventional theory: it must have some representational role that enables it to speak for these other
interests. Such an assumption, however, may be too much. To claim to speak on behalf of some

Document
Page 121
category, like "women," the "environment," or "workers," is fraught with the danger of representing as
an interest what is itself only another partial understanding, albeit one informed by a different theory to
that of managerialism. It is not clear that the categories of social identity map easily on to the theoretical
interests that are often assumed. Some critical theorists argue that this problem can be overcome
through using a democratic method of enquiry that invites all interests to participate in the research
process, opening up understanding so that a genuine consensus can emerge, rather than one that is
achieved through technically rational claims to authority (Habermas, 1984; Forrester, 1988).
Technically rational claims to AUTHORITY, based on expertise such as "management," can always be
seen implicitly to require a ''deauthorizing" or "delegitimation" of other views.
Critical theory seeks to ensure that these other views are heard. It does so from a radical and
emancipatory interest. The implicit view is that the repressed have a critical and emancipatory role
unfulfilled because of their oppression. It is assumed that they, and critical theory as their voice, are the
bearers of authenticity. There is the possibility that one may be mistaken, however. There are no
guarantees of the "correctness" of any political representation because all representations index a
shifting, unstable, and dynamic political context. They do not map on to anything outside the form of
their own practice and the effects that they produce. In which case, if there are no general interests
being either repressed or represented by management, much of the force of critical theory lapses. The
critique of it as a politics of knowledge that masquerades as technical, instrumental practice is correct.
Whether it does so to serve some general interests in repression or to block one of emancipation is more
debatable.
See also Feminism; Social constructionism; Postmodernism; Theory
Bibliography
Anderson, P. (1983). In the tracks of historical materialism. London: Verso.
Forrester, J. (1988). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society.
Boston: Beacon.
Jay, M. (1973). The dialectical imagination. London: Heinemann.
STEWART CLEGG
Culture

Document
Culture is a notoriously difficult concept to define. In what is still regarded as the seminal book on the
topic, Krober and Kluckholn (1952) identified 164 different definitions of culture proposed by
prominent anthropologists. Most organizational theorists employed the term "culture" only casually
until the 1980s when ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE became a topic of considerable interest and
when scholars began to examine cross-national differences in organizational life (Hofstede 1980). No
progress has been made since Krober and Kluckholn in either anthropology or organization studies
toward standardizing the meaning of culture. Nor is any standardization likely to occur in the future.
Nevertheless, one can identify several general notions of culture prominent in the ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR literature. The most common stipulates that culture consists of "shared meanings, values,
attitudes, and beliefs." Equally cognitive is the claim that culture consists of "interpretive schemes." The
distinction is best understood as the difference between a psychological and an anthropological
conception of sense-making (see COGNITION IN ORGANIZATIONS). The former focuses on a
distribution of individuals' cognitions and evaluations while the latter connotes an extra-individual
phenomenon. All else being equal, those who adopt the former definition are more likely to
operationalize culture as modal attitudes than are those who adopt the latter approach.
The weakness of cognitive definitions of culture is that they usually exclude behavior patterns and
physical artifacts which differentiate social collectives. A third notion of culture therefore stipulates a
broader definition: "the way of life of a people." This definition is most closely associated with
traditional cultural anthropology and ETHNOGRAPHY.

Document
Page 122
Culture is frequently used in contrast with structure, as in the phase: "the culture and structure of an
organization." The meaning of the contrast is unclear, since few scholars explicitly distinguish between
what they count as structure and what they count as culture. Moreover, many anthropologists treat
structural arrangements as culturally bound. In some usages, culture actually seems to subsume
structure.
Ultimately, however, culture (like structure) is perhaps best treated as a "sensitizing" concept whose
denotations and connotations are usefully ambiguous. Culture evokes any and all differences that
distinguish life in one social collective from life in another. The relevant social collective might be a
society, an organization, an occupation, a sect, or a group. From this perspective, defining culture is less
important than detailing the salient aspects of a way of life, particularly those that contrast with ways of
life found elsewhere.
See also Culture, national; Organizational climate; Intercultural process; International

management
Bibliography
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckholn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. New
York: Vintage.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
STEPHEN R. BARLEY
Culture, Cross-Cultural Research
Cross-cultural research is done with the intention of facilitating comparison, and by definition it
normally includes the gathering of descriptions from two or more cultures. The issues studied
comparatively have tended to focus on people's attitudes, VALUES, beliefs, sources of MOTIVATION,
satisfaction, etc., and are commonly assumed to predict behavior. It is normal to discuss results in terms
of mean scores and to assume that the average of a set of responses is an indicator of the position of a
particular culture on a scale of such attitudes.

Document
The literature contains much research of this nature and a number of comprehensive reviews have
tracked its progress over time (Child, 1981; Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Redding, 1994). As a result of
research, a great deal has been learnt which allows the description of national or ethnic differences in
attitudes to, beliefs about, and values surrounding work, AUTHORITY, and COOPERATION. Not
enough has been learnt about the societal origins of such differences, about their implications for
organization, or about their interaction with other factors surrounding organizational behavior.
Although alternative categorizations exist (e.g., Trompenaars, 1993) the most commonly used
description of cultural comparisons has been developed by Hofstede (1991). Derived from a very large
sample of statements about people's values, this theory explains cross-cultural differences as lying along
four dimensions. The two primary dimensions are: Power Distance, or a society's sense of
HIERARCHY; and Individualism–Collectivism, or the sense a person has of being psychologically
separate from and independent of others, or alternatively linked inextricably by bonds of obligation into
a network of others. These are deep-seated formulas or mental programs running through any society
which result from the universal needs for order.
The other two dimensions are called UNCERTAINTY Avoidance and Masculinity–Femininity. The
former reveals the extent to which members of a CULTURE feel threatened by uncertain or unknown
situations and tend to behave to reduce uncertainty. The latter separates "masculine" societies where
GENDER roles are distinct from "feminine" societies where they overlap. More recently, a fifth
dimension, long-term versus short-term orientation, has been added to the set.
A summary of the implications for organizations is given in Table 1. This shows contrasting attributes
of the extreme poles of these dimensions, their organizational relevance, and which countries tend to
score at either pole.
The use of dimensions such as these consolidates earlier work in sociology on the

Document
Page 123
Table 1
e.g., Israel e.g., Malaysia,
Small power distance Austria, Large power distance Philippines,
Denmark, Mexico,
New Zealand Indonesia
• Hierarchy in organizations means an inequality of • Hierarchy in organizations reflects the existential
roles, established for convenience. inequality between higher-ups and lower-downs.
• Decentralization is popular. • Centralization is popular.
• Narrow salary range between top and bottom of • Wide salary range between top and bottom of
organization. organization.
• Subordinates expect to be consulted. • Subordinates expect to be told what to do.
• The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat. • The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat or good father.
• Privileges and status symbols are frowned upon. • Privileges and status symbols for managers are both
expected and popular.
e.g., Venezuela, e.g., USA,
Collectivist Colombia, Individualist Australia,
Pakistan, UK,
Taiwan Canada
• Relationship employer–employee is perceived in • Relationship employer–employee is a contract
moral terms, like a family link. supposed to be based on mutual advantage.
• Hiring and promotion decisions take employees' • Hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be
ingroup into account. based on skills and rules only.
• Management is management of groups. • Management is management of individuals.
• Relationship prevails over task. • Task prevails over relationship.
e.g., Sweden, e.g., Japan,
Feminine Norway, Masculine Austria,
Denmark, Switzerland,
Netherlands Germany
• Work in order to live. • Live in order to work.
• Managers use intuition and strive for consensus. • Managers expected to be decisive and assertive.
• Stress on equality, solidarity, and quality of work life. • Stress on equality, competition among colleagues, and
• Resolution of conflicts by compromise and negotiation. performance.
• Resolution of conflicts by fighting them out.
e.g., Singapore, e.g., Greece,
Weak uncertainty Hong Kong, Strong uncertainty Japan,
avoidance UK, avoidance Portugal,
Denmark Uruguay

Document
• There should not be more rules than is strictly • Emotional need for rules, even if these will never work.
necessary. • Time is money.
• Time is a framework for orientation. • Emotional need to be busy; inner urge to work hard.
• Comfortable feeling when lazy; hard-working only • Precision and punctuality come naturally.
when needed. • Suppression of deviant ideas and behavior; resistance
• Precision and punctuality have to be learned. to innovation.
• Tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas and • Motivation by security and esteem or belongingness.
behavior.
• Motivation by achievement and esteem or
belongingness.
Source: Adapted from Hofstede (1991).
Note: The four principal dimensions identified in Hofstede's work are continual, and country scores do not
necessarily cluster at the extremes. The above must therefore be taken only as indicators of tendencies rather than
absolute positions. There is of course also great variety within societies and a wide distribution of any particular
tendency.

Document
Page 124
basic components of societal or national culture (see CULTURE, NATIONAL). There remain,
however, a number of major research questions, including: What are the ways in each society whereby
cultural components become shaped, remain stable, and self-replicate; What are the processes whereby
their influence is conveyed into organizations and affects ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR; Are
those dimensions now commonly used reasonably valid for all cultures and is the list reasonably
comprehensive? Surrounding those questions are many others about the interaction of such forces with
elements such as TECHNOLOGY, political system, and economic policies.
See also Stereotyping; International management; International human resource management
Bibliography
Boyacigiller, N. & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global
context. Academy of Management Review, 16, (2), 262–290.
Child, J. (1981). Culture, contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of organizations. In L.
L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behaviour (vol. 3), pp. 303–356.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.
Redding, S. G. (1994). Comparative management theory: Jungle, zoo or fossil bed? Organization
Studies, 15, 1.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture. London: Brealey.
GORDON REDDING
Culture, Group
The phenomenon of group culture is important to understand since it impacts the behaviors of
individuals within the group and ultimately, organization. CULTURE may be defined as the basic,
taken-for-granted assumptions and deep patterns of meaning shared by organizational participants and
manifestations of these assumptions and patterns. Culture is manifested in many forms, including
myths, rituals, symbolic artifacts, and structure (see RITUALS). Group culture is defined as a set of
shared meanings and VALUES that influence their members' behaviors. If individuals in a department,
group or team do not share these beliefs and values, then there is no group culture. Therefore, shared
assignment of meaning and values that are developed through social interactions and/or
SOCIALIZATION practices are needed for a group culture to form. Group cultures arise to help their
members interpret the formal structure and managerial folklore, reconcile individual differences, and
cope with the uncertainty surrounding the performance of tasks. Often times, competing group cultures
attempting to control the behaviors of their members coexist within the same department and/or
organization. This then produces alternative viewpoints on the fundamental nature of members'

Document
relationships to their group and organization.
Group culture in organizations is manifested in two components. The materials component consists of
tangible symbols (e.g., insignias, reward systems) that represent deeper layers of meaning. These
tangible symbols are interpretable only in their relation to the hidden meaning with which they
correspond. The material component of a group's culture is framed by structural components embedded
within the larger organization. The search for a group's culture requires that the group's ideational
component be understood. This leads to the study of shared beliefs about the organization's mission and
desirable standards of behavior. Members' personal characteristics (e.g., RACE; GENDER;
ETHNICITY), social histories (e.g., family background, social class membership), and their positional
characteristics (e.g., departmental assignment, time of day worked) play a major role in the formation of
a group's culture. A group's culture is also influenced by various contextual variables, such as a group's
life cycle (see GROUP DEVELOPMENT), processes and size, organizational ecology, and
technological interdependence, among others, affect shared parsimonious meanings that members
assign to key events in their group. It is through understanding these ideational and material
components that groups within organizations develop their own values, assumptions, and
interpretations, and even their own perspectives on the organization's mission and appropriate patterns
of conduct.

Document
Page 125
See also Group dynamics; Group norms; Organizational culture
Bibliography
Jermier, J. M., Slocum, J. W., Jr., Fry. L. W. & Gaines, J. (1991). Organizational subcultures in a soft
bureaucracy: Resistance behind the myth and facade of an official culture. Organization Science, 2,
170–194.
Kerr, J. & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1987). Managing corporate culture through reward systems. The Academy
of Management Executive, 1, 99–109.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of Management

Journal, 35, 1036–1056.
Trice, H. M. & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
JOHN W. SLOCUM JR.
Culture, National
One of the core problems in the study of national CULTURE has been the lack of agreement on a
definition of what culture is. This is now becoming less of a problem as people come increasingly to
accept Hofstede's (1980) definition of it as "the collective programing of the mind which distinguishes
the members of one group or category of people from another," or his more graphic metaphor of it as
the "software of the mind" (Hofstede, 1991; see also Keesing, 1974).
People grow up in strong or weak cultures. When the culture is strong, SOCIALIZATION will instill a
set of guidelines about behavior and appropriate thinking, and a "civilized" or acculturated person
conforms to those guidelines. The cost of deviance is exclusion and because human beings are
instinctively gregarious, they conform as the price of membership (see CONFORMITY). Many strong
culture societies, e.g., Japan, China, France, have worked out their particular combination of norms (see
GROUP NORMS) and VALUES in relative isolation from alternatives and there is no reason why all
such separate historical social processes should replicate each other: hence, cultural variety surrounding
the universal requirements to have a society which can apportion power acceptably and establish means
for cooperation.
In the context of organizational studies, the issues have been those of understanding:
(a) how culture affects the design and functioning of a society's organizations; and

Document
(b) whether and how the culturally derived values contribute to organizational, and eventually national,
performance.
The questions have been given impetus by the impact of Japanese management on Western markets and
the knowledge that Japan has a very distinct culture (see INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT).
There is much rich material available describing national cultural differences, making a case out for an
impact on ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. There is less clarity in explaining how this process
works, and even less on linking culture to national performance. This is because culture is one of a set
of influences and operates alongside development policies, education levels, institutional structures,
technological borrowing, trading patterns, etc., to affect national growth. It cannot be a sole determinant
of national success, or of the character of an organization.
The main organizationally relevant ways in which national cultures vary lie in:
(a) the way power and AUTHORITY are legitimized (see LEGITIMACY); and
(b) the way systems of cooperation are structured.
These two dimensions can be said to account for much of the international variation in organizational
behavior. Where a society has clear rules supporting HIERARCHY, its organizations tend to be
paternalistic and familistic with power focused at the top. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, is
associated with the pursuit of PARTICIPATION and the decentralizing of power (see DEMOCRACY).
Where the rules for cooperation begin with a strong sense of identity with a subgroup, as, for instance,
when an individual's identity is subsumed into that of a family, then those loyalties will condition how
other loyalties, e.g., to an organization, are expressed. By contrast, where individualism (see
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES) is strongly developed, as in most Western cultures, the rationalities of
task performance and legal

Document
Page 126
contractual relationships tend to drive out social obligations as rules for conduct.
See also Culture; Cross-cultural research; Intercultural process; Organizational culture;

International human resources management; Expatriates
Bibliography
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences. London: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Keesing, R. M. (1974). Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 73–97.
GORDON REDDING
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/www.netlibrary.com.ezproxy.m.../nlReader/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_126.html [2008-04-01 02:06:58]

Document
Page 127
Decentralization
For both organizational sociologists and management specialists, the distribution of POWER is
probably the single most important structural attribute. If most members of the organization participate
in its decisions, then the organization can be considered to be decentralized. In contrast, if most of the
decisions and especially the most important ones are made by one person, then the organization is
categorized as centralized.
Essentially, the problem of decentralization is a problem of power or of CONTROL. And there are a
variety of ways in which the organizational literature, this has been addressed including the topics of
HIERARCHY of AUTHORITY, closeness of SUPERVISION and of control.
There is much less agreement on how best to measure this concept and the field has basically three
different approaches. Tannenbaum (1968) pioneered in the structural study of power as distinct from the
study of POWER BASES with what he called the control graph. This measure, a general survey of the
members of the organization, reports how much influence, which he called control, each level in the
hierarchy has over the others. He found generally there are about four or five levels. With particular
shaped slopes, Tannenbaum could then define specific distributions of power as democratic (see
DEMOCRACY). In contrast, the research of the Aston group (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner,
1968) measured the level to which a decision was delegated (see DELEGATION) in a large battery of
decisions based on information from five or six informants. Likewise, the Blau measures (Blau &
Schoenherr, 1971) are essentially ones of delegation, although they did not include as many decision
areas. A third way of measuring the distribution of power is by asking individual members of the
organization how often they participate in decision-making (see PARTICIPATION), again where a
number of different kinds of decisions are listed. This approach has not been prominent in the research
of Hage and Aiken (1967).
All of the above research studies have tended to use averages either across decisions and informants or
individuals who have been surveyed. This methodological procedure assumes that participation,
influence, or delegation is approximately the same in all areas of decision-making and in addition
assumes that as one moves from the top of the hierarchy to the bottom, there is a steady increase in the
amount of centralization. The one exception has been the work of Tannenbaum, which did allow for
nonlinear arrangements but his approach has been little employed in the field. There are three
distinctive kinds of discontinuity that can be discerned.

Document
First, work decisions might be delegated, providing workers with a considerable amount of
AUTONOMY while strategic decisions are concentrated at the top. This is very common in traditional
organizations where crafts people or semiprofessionals work (see PROFESSIONALS IN
ORGANIZATIONS). These organizations are small and there is a strong sense of self-control (see
SELF-MANAGEMENT).
Second, strategic decisions and work decisions might be decentralized in some parts of the organization
and not in others. Most typically, research and development might be given considerable autonomy
while production, marketing, and finance/accounting might be much more centralized. These
organizations are

Document
Page 128
sometimes called mixed MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC.
Third, strategic decisions might be decentralized to divisions heads within the same organization as in
the famous studies of Chandler (1962) but then each of the divisions might be quite centralized. More
recently there has been a further step in this same process, namely the decentralization of strategic
decisions to what are called profit centers, that is SUBUNITS within divisions.
As yet, there has been little research on the patterns of decentralization across the levels of the hierarchy
and particularly between headquarters and the various divisions or profit centers and its consequences
for the performance of the organization. However, all of the evidence points to a steady movement
toward greater autonomy being given to smaller and smaller units, first as cost centers then as profit
centers. Another critical issue in this debate is the question of which functions if any are maintained at
the central headquarters beyond investment decisions, and what consequences does this have. Again,
there is wide variety of patterns, with marketing, research, and other functions in some large companies
being maintained at the corporate headquarters. Again, there has been a tendency to gradually
decentralize these functions.
It is quite another question whether or not decentralization really means effective sharing of power.
There are two lines of attack on this assumption in the literature. First, some such as Blau and
Schoenherr (1971) have argued that if the organization is highly formalized (see FORMALIZATION),
then decisions can be easily delegated, giving people the sense of participating without the reality. This
work has not, however, made much distinction between strategic decisions and work decisions. Second,
others such as Pfeffer (1981) argue that if the top executive or power elite control the agenda and the
criteria by which people are rewarded, then there may be the appearance of decentralization and
participation but, in fact, the power elite effectively controls the organization (see TOP
MANAGEMENT TEAMS).
Finally, we must conclude with a special comment about decentralization in Japanese organizations.
Considerable job autonomy is provided for the worker. Furthermore, there is extended discussion of
major decisions up and down the hierarchy. This pattern might be called a combination of centralization
and decentralization. What distinguishes it from the American or European discussions is the heavy
emphasis on delegation rather than a joint decision-making within the entire hierarchy (see
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT).
See also Decision making; Multinational corporations; Differentiation; Organizational design
Bibliography
Blau, P. & Schoenherr, R. (1971). The structure of organizations. New York: Basic.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of industrial enterprise.

Document
Hage, J. & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties.

Hall, R. H. (1992). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes (5th edn). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. London: Pitman Press.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R. & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968). Control in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
JERALD HAGE
Decision Making
Because the quality and the acceptance of organizational decisions is vital to a company's functioning,
this topic has traditionally been a focus of attention in the management literature. Alongside these
sources, with their often normative and typically rational approach, are more recent studies which tend
to take a more descriptive, analytic viewpoint. These studies clearly show that organizational decisions
generally take an entirely different course from the one recommended by the classical literature.

Document
Page 129
Depending on:
(1) various context factors;
(2) the topic of decision making; and
(3) the policy of management, organizational decision-making processes can assume very different
shapes (Koopman & Pool, 1990).
Decision making can show much or little centralization, and much or little FORMALIZATION.
Sometimes information plays an important role in the decision preparation, sometimes POWER
processes determine the contents of the decision and information primarily serves the purpose of
legitimating after the fact (see LEGITIMACY). On the whole, research results in this field show that
decision-making processes can vary primarily on four dimensions:
1. Centralization. The amount of centralization is one of the most important parameters of decision
making. Much research has been done of the manner in which decentralization and PARTICIPATION
take place in decision making and of the question of how effective participation is.
2. Formalization. A second important dimension is the extent to which the decision making is
formalized. Decisions can take place according to an established procedure set down in advance, or they
can proceed more flexibly, according to informal considerations of what is required or desirable.
3. Information. The way in which the substance of a decision comes about is important. On the basis of
what information is a decision made? What alternatives are developed or sought, and from where do
they come? Have important possibilities or consequences been overlooked?
4. Confrontation. The extent to which there is confrontation and CONFLICT in the decision making
process. This last dimension comes from models of decision making as a political process, in which
parties try to achieve their own interests on the basis of their power positions (see POLITICS).
Theoretically, classification based on the four dimensions would yield sixteen different models.
Koopman and Pool argued that, in practice, combination of these dimensions leads to a typology of four
basic models of decision making which can reasonably accommodate most literature in this field
(Koopman & Pool, 1990; see Figure 1). They distinguish in this order: the neo-rational model, the
bureaucratic model, the arena model, and the open-end model, in order to encompass as much empirical
research as possible, and models based upon it. For example, Hickson, Butler, Cray, Mallory, & Wilson
(1986) distinguished sporadic, fluid, and limited processes. Schwenk (1988) discussed the rational
choice perspective, the organizational perspective and the political perspective. Thompson and Tuden
(1959) distinguished decisions through computation, majority judgment, compromise, and inspiration.
Fahey (1981) reduced reality to two contrasting types of decision making: rational–analytical versus
behavioral–political. McCall and Kaplan (1985) spoke of quick versus convoluted action. Shrivastava
and Grant (1985) distinguished the managerial autocracy model, the systematic bureaucratic model, the

Document
political expediency model, and the adaptive planning model.
There is often a clear relationship between the various models and the context (organizational structure
and culture, environment) in which the decision making takes place. These relations are summarized in
Table 1.
The neo-rational model is characterized by strong centralization, combined with low formalization and
confrontation, when fairly simple decision making processes are guided and controlled from one point:
the top management. There is little power distribution in the organization. This is termed the neo-
rational model because it takes account of some fundamental characteristics relating to human
cognitions and emotions. Because of this the behavior of decision makers is characterized by
"BOUNDED RATIONALITY" and "SATISFICING" (as opposed to maximal) goal achievement.
This type of decision-making process may primarily be expected in the organizational type that
Mintzberg (1979) termed a "simple structure" or "autocracy." In terms of ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE, Harrison's (1972) "power culture" would be most conducive to this type of decision-
making process.
The model is rational in the sense that decision-making aims to maximize the goals of top management.
Intuition and quick decisions

Document
Page 130
Table 1 The four decision-making models and their hypothetical relationships with various context factors.
Neo-rational model Bureaucratic model Arena model Open-end model
Context factors
Environment:
Complexity low low high high
dynamics high low low high
hostility high low high low/high
Organization:
power distribution low low high high
type or org. (Mintzberg) autocracy machine bureaucracy professional bureaucracy adhocracy
type of culture (Harrison) power culture role culture person culture task culture
Characteristics of decision maker proactive, intuitive reactive, analytic autonomous, intrapreneur innovative, willing to
take risks
Type of subject:
complexity low high low/high high
dynamics high/low low high high

Document
Page 131
Figure 1
Four models of decision making
Source: P. L. Koopman and J. Pool (1990).
Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
are more typical of this model than extensive analysis and study of alternatives. A dynamic and/or
threatening environment can lead decision-making processes to follow the neo-rational model: they
demand quick reaction.
Characteristic of the bureaucratic model is that decision making is ''constricted" by rules and
regulations. They may be rules of the organization itself, such as JOB DESCRIPTIONS, tasks and
COMPETENCIES, meeting rules, etc., but also rules that are laid down outside the organization, as by
legislation or by directives from the head office. Different actors or groups are expected to make their
contribution at various stages, even if it merely means initialing a document. Various alternatives are
explored and officially documented. The selection of the best solution is conducted by way of existing
procedures. In contrast to the neo-rational model, the bureaucratic model usually involves fairly
complex decision-making processes. Its counterpart in Mintzberg's structural typology is the "machine
BUREAUCRACY" and in Harrison's culture typology the "ROLE culture." The environment is
characterized by stability and predictability. When time pressure or external threats increase, decision
making increasingly leans to the neo-rational model (temporary centralization). If innovation
requirements are central, then characteristics of the open-end model gain the upper hand.

Document
Decision making in the arena model is dominated by NEGOTIATIONS between various interested
parties, which form coalitions around certain subinterests (see COALITION FORMATION). These
groups defend a point of view or alternative as the only correct and legitimate view of reality. Power in
the organization is distributed; power differences are small. There is no central machinery that can
easily impose its will. Although there is a certain degree of coordination (primarily through professional
training), the organization must constantly contend with the problem of acquiring sufficient consensus
and acceptance for decisions. Mutual contention and lack of cooperation threaten the quality of the
decision making. This type of decision making, over controversial topics, is primarily found in
organizations composed of relatively independent units, such as universities or other "conglomerates."
Decision making sometimes takes place at two levels: at the first level a small group of insiders arrives
at the critical choices, which are subsequently legitimized for the constituency by the official bodies and
by means of arguments which are

Document
Page 132
accepted by these bodies. The natural counterpart in the structural typology of Mintzberg is the
professional bureaucracy; in the culture typology of Harrison we should think of the "person culture."
Decision making in the open-end model is characterized by a limited view of the goals or of the means
by which to achieve them. Chance circumstances and unpredictable events cross the path of this
approach. Again and again, people must adapt to new demands and possibilities. This forces them to
take a step-by-step approach (Quinn, 1980). Best known in this connection are the publications on the
GARBAGE CAN MODEL, which were preceded by studies of the "Carnegie School" (Cyert & March,
1963).
A characteristic of the open-end model is that, depending on the problem in question, expertise of
various types and locations must be gathered on a temporary basis (PROJECT MANAGEMENT). The
message here is: organize flexibly (see FLEXIBILITY). Gradually, by way of iterations and recycling,
the end product comes into view. Complex innovative decisions (e.g., automation) often take place in
this way (see INNOVATION). Mintzberg's adhocracy forms the organizational structure conducive to
this type of decision making. The environment is complex and dynamic. Such an organization generally
has a "task culture" (Harrison, 1972).
Context and "Strategic Choice"
Decision making does not take place in a vacuum, but in a certain context, which can be described at
various levels. From low to high aggregation levels, one can distinguish the decision maker(s), the
group, the organization, and the environment. Each of these context levels makes up part of decision
making and influences it. Furthermore, decision making is not a neutral exercise, but it is about
something. Subjects of decision making can differ in complexity, in controversiality, in political import.
Both of these factors (i.e., context and subject) are of importance for the manner in which the decision-
making processes can be structured and controlled and for the course that they ultimately take.
In particular, the organization as the context in which decisions are made influences the manner in
which decisions take place. The organizational context is, as Hickson et al. (1986) put it, "the rules of
the game." Decision-making processes are largely determined by structural characteristics of the
organization in which they take place (see ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN). Several researchers found a
relationship between the type of organization and the dominant types of decision-making processes.
However, a decision-making process does not only come about as the result of interaction of several
forces. Often one or more central actors (usually termed the "dominant coalition"), manage to give a
strong personal accent to the decision-making process. This does not take place in complete freedom. A
number of factors escape the control of management. No single party has complete control of the
steering wheels, even if a coalition is dominant. Other actors or parties will also try to influence the
direction the process takes. Nevertheless, a certain amount of leeway remains to give intentional form to
decision-making processes, within the contingencies formed by the topic and the context.

Document
A similar line of thought is used in the discussion of organizational structure as in Child's (1972)
concept of "strategic choice." The presence of leeway for strategic choices implies that, in addition to
the determining effects of environmental factors and TECHNOLOGY, opportunities still remain for
personal accents. As opposed to a complete determinism, it is stated, there are opportunities for the
management of a company to choose, without altering the determining influence of the contingency
factors mentioned.
The same can be said of decision-making processes: although they are partly determined by their
substance and the context in which they take place, the decision makers still have some discretion. The
amount of discretion can vary by case and by organization, but how it is used largely determines how
effective and efficient the decision-making process will be.
See also Strategic management; Institutional theory; Organization and environ-

Document
Page 133
ment; Top management teams; Group decision making
Bibliography
Child, J. (1972). Organization structure and strategies of control: A replication of the Aston study.
Hall.
Fahey, L. (1981). On strategic management decision processes. Strategic Management Journal, 2, 43–
60.
Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organizations character. Harvard Business Review, 50, 119–
128.
Hickson, D. J., Butler, R. J., Cray, D., Mallory, G. R. & Wilson, D. C. (1986). Top decisions: Strategic
decision-making in organizations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Koopman, P. L. & Pool, J. (1990). Decision making in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds), International review of industrial psychology, (vol. 5), pp. 101–148. New York: Wiley.
McCall, M. W. & Kaplan, R. E. (1985). Whatever it takes: Decision-makers at work. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pool, J. & Koopman, P. L. (1992). Strategic decision making in organizations: A research model and
some initial findings. In D. Hosking & N. Anderson (Eds), Organizational change and innovation:
Psychological perspectives and practices in Europe (pp. 71–98). London: Routledge.
Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Schwenk, C. R. (1988). The essence of strategic decision making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Shrivastava, P. & Grant, J. H. (1985). Empirically derived models of strategic decision-making

processes. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 97–113.
Thompson, J. D. & Tuden, A. (1959). Strategies, structures and processes of organizational decision. In
J. D. Thompson, P. B. Hammond, R. W. Hawkes, B. H. Junker & A. Tuden (Eds), Comparative studies
in administration. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
PAUL KOOPMAN

Document
Decision Modeling
see COMPUTER MODELING
Defence Mechanisms
see PROJECTION; ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSIS
Defenders
see STRATEGIC TYPES
Delayering
see RESTRUCTURING
Delegation
When a manager must depend on others to accomplish an objective, the notion of delegation of
authority comes into play. Delegation means conferring of AUTHORITY from an executive to another
to accomplish a particular assignment. Delegation gets the DECISION MAKING closer to the locus of
where the decision is actually implemented. Typically, delegation refers to granting authority in a
downward direction, although delegation can also be directed laterally or even upward. The idea of
delegation has been well established in the historical management literature, and was a prominent part
of the early principles of management (see Terry, 1972) (see MANAGEMENT, CLASSICAL
THEORY).
Delegation is closely associated with the term PARTICIPATION, and participative leadership.
Participation implies that the leader invites followers to participate actively in discussions, problem
solving, and decision making, but retaining final decision-making authority. Delegation is somewhat
stronger, implying the locus of decision making is in the hands of the follower.
Participation and delegation are points on a continuum, rather than discrete modes of leader behavior.
But whatever the degree, delegation does not mean that a leader abdicates responsibility. A manager
who delegates retains the overall responsibility, and must follow up to assure that the delegated task has
been carried out.
One of the more widely known prescriptive models of delegation is the Vroom–Yetton (1974) model.
The model attempts to answer the question of the conditions under which a leader should be directive
versus participative. Vroom and Yetton propose a direction-participation continuum ranging from
extreme leader decision making, through increasingly involving forms of participation, to pure
delegation. The

Document
Page 134
situational characteristics that define the conditions include such factors as: quality requirement,
sufficiency of information, problem structure, and importance of subordinate acceptance (see GOAL-
SETTING). Depending on the combination of these situational variables, the degree of decision-making
participation and/or delegation is recommended.
Delegation is also related to the more contemporary concept of SUPERLEADERSHIP (Manz & Sims,
1989) which means "leading others to lead themselves." A Super Leader is one who develops followers
to the point where they are capable of accepting a high degree of responsibility and decision-making
discretion. Manz and Sims would describe a follower to whom a leader would delegate as empowered
self-leaders. SuperLeadership is a more fine-grained and contemporary form of delegation. Also, today,
one is more likely to find the popular use of the term "EMPOWERMENT" (rather than delegation) to
represent a broad philosophy and practice of participation and delegation (see EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT).
Perhaps the most important contemporary form of real delegation are self-managing or self-directed
teams (Manz & Sims, 1993) (see SELF-MANAGED TEAMS). After development and experimentation
in the 1970s and 1980s, self-managing teams have become considerably more diffused in the early
1990s. Self-managing teams are a form of delegation where the WORK GROUP becomes empowered
with a very high degree of decision-making discretion. In an important meta-analysis (see VALIDITY
GENERALIZATION), Macy, Bliese and Norton (1991) have empirically shown the bottom line
contribution of self-managing teams to organizational PRODUCTIVITY. Also, at the professional or
middle level of organizations, empowered professional or KNOWLEDGE WORKER teams are
becoming more important (see PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS). These include teams such
as concurrent engineering teams, product improvement teams, office worker teams, and new venture
teams.
See also Self-management; Superleadership; Leadership; Path – goal theory; Power; Leadership
contingencies
Bibliography
Macy, B. M., Bliese, P. D. & Norton, J. J. (1991). Organizational change and work innovation: A meta-
analysis of 131 North American field experiments1961–1990. Working paper. Texas Technical
University.
Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1989). SuperLeadership. New York: Berkley.
Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are
producing high-performing companies. New York: Wiley.
Terry, G. R. (1972). Principles of management (6th edn). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Vroom, V. H. & Yetton, P. W. (1974). Leadership and decision-making. New York: Wiley.

Document
HENRY P. SIMS JR.
Delphi
The Delphi group format continues to be an important technique by which a wide array of expert
opinion can be generated to maximize the range of alternative solutions to issues and problems. In the
Delphi group format to DECISION MAKING, experts typically respond to questionnaires about issues
and problems, which is then used to generate multiple expert opinions, without the need for face-to-face
contact. Of course, the lack of face-to-face contact reduces the possibility of interactive discussion and
challenge, but Delphi groups can be adapted to enable the experts to react to a second round of opinion,
in response to the expert input from the first round.
The Delphi group technique for GROUP DECISION MAKING was originally developed by the Rand
Corporation for the United States' Air Force in the 1950s. It has since been adapted in business
organizations as an effective alternative to traditional methods of decision making, especially in relation
to complex and long-term issues, problems, and concerns (Tompkins, 1985). An example would be to
use the Delphi technique to gather the opinions of experts around the world about economic growth and
political conditions over the next 10 years, with the aim being better prepared for conditions which
might be substantially different from the present and require a substantially different organizational
response.
The Delphi group technique for decision making continues to serve business and governmental
organizations alike in a way that other

Document
Page 135
similar techniques, such as the nominal group, are unable to. These other techniques, however, should
be thought of not as competing alternatives, but rather complementary alternatives.
See also Nominal group technique; Brain-storming; Creativity; Innovation
Bibliography
Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. K., Delbecq, A. & Walster, E. H. (1973). A comparative study of
differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals in interacting groups, Delphi groups,
and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 280–291.
Tompkins, C. J. (1985). Forecasting business conditions. In L. R. Bittel & J. E. Ramsey (Eds),

Handbook for professional managers (pp. 337–367) McGraw-Hill. New York.
RANDALL S. SCHULER
Democracy
Within organizations democracy has the same general overtones as in POLITICS: the ability of
members of the organization to voice their opinions and to exercise influence over policy (see
EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT; EMPOWERMENT; PARTICIPATION). The means of expression are
different: political democracy rests on the ability to vote leaders out of office whereas this is not the
case in most organizations.
Various models of democracy have been proposed in the light of this. Some scholars (see
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING) as the main democratic instrument in modern societies: through it,
workers' representatives articulate interests and reach agreements with employers, and they can use
COLLECTIVE ACTION if agreement cannot be reached. Others argue that this makes TRADE
UNIONS an opposition that can never become a government and that bargaining covers only immediate
issues of pay and conditions, not wider questions such as investment policy and business strategy (see
Poole, 1978).

Document
One alternative is a legally-required system of "works councils." Most Continental European countries
have such a system, wherein managements are required to consult, and sometimes to share DECISION-
MAKING POWER, with elected representatives (see GOVERNANCE AND OWNERSHIP). This
approach is rare in Anglo-Saxon countries, with their traditional reliance on collective bargaining. Its
most developed form is codetermination as practised in Germany (Turner, 1991). In this system,
workers' representatives are appointed to company boards, while at establishment level there are works
councils which are elected by all workers and which have a variety of rights of consultation (for
example, on ACCIDENT prevention) and codecision (on hiring, dismissal, and TRAINING, for
example) with management. This system has been found to require management to communicate more
effectively and to strengthen strategic thinking. Thus the impossibility of dismissing workers without
consulting the works council removes the simple "hire and fire" option from management (see
REDUNDANCY). Some writers, however, believe that the system gives too little influence to the
individual worker (see Lane, 1989, pp. 226–39).
A second alternative to collective bargaining is the workers' cooperative, in which managements are
directly elected by members (see SELF-MANAGEMENT). Companies based on cooperative principles
have existed for many years, and some grow quite large. Without institutional support, however, they
are generally rare.
Other systems are more managerial in their initiative and operation. They include consultative councils
and joint labour–management committees. Some companies have for many years had such committees
alongside their collective bargaining arrangements. Evidence suggests that the committees could
become powerless and focused on relatively trivial issues, and it was argued that they would be
superseded by collective bargaining (Lane, 1989). In the 1980s, however, there was an upsurge in
interest in COMMUNICATION, as part of a concern to promote worker COMMITMENT. Some
writers see joint problem-solving as a means to promote genuine democracy (Heckscher, 1988).
Research shows that the key is managerial commitment at all levels, and that it is often hard to maintain
this. Other writers argue: that the sense of empowerment provided by a new experiment can fade away
over time; and that the appearance of democracy can mask a weakening of trade unions and of

Document
Page 136
autonomous organization which can effectively challenge managerial thinking (Wells, 1993).
See also Decision making; Group decision making; Representation
Bibliography
Heckscher, C. C. (1988). The new unionism. New York: Basic.
Lane, C. (1989). Management and labour in Europe. Aldershot, UK: Elgar.
Poole, M. (1978). Workers' participation in industry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Turner, L. (1991). Democracy at work (Ithaca, NY). Cornell University Press.
Wells, D. (1993). Are strong unions compatible with the new model of human resource management?
Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 48, 56–83.
PAUL EDWARDS
Density
see POPULATION ECOLOGY
Departmentalization
One of the most critical tasks in ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN is to decide which kinds of
departments should be the focal point at the top of the organization. Typically the choices are between
function (or process), product (or service), and area (or client). In manufacturing, this would mean
either an organization with departments of manufacturing, marketing, research and development – the
function choice; or departments of shavers, colognes, and shaving cream – the product choice; or
departments of Britain, France, and Germany – the geographic area choice. Within public service, the
parallel example from social welfare would be departments of intake, ASSESSMENT, treatment, and
coordination – the process choice; or departments of foster care, domestic violence, or frail elderly – the
service choice; or departments of acute, chronic or young chronic mental health services – the client
choice (see Alter & Hage, 1993).
The design rule is that one starts at the top of the organization with the greatest single source of variety
(static) or change (dynamic) relative to the goals of the organization. If there is more variety in the
TECHNOLOGY of the products or in the distribution and marketing of the products or in the demands
of the customer across geographical area, then one uses a function design, or a product design, or area
design in choice of departments. At the next lower level, what some would call the sectional level, then
the second greatest source of variety/change becomes the principle.

Document
Closely related to the problem of departmentalization is the question of divisionalization. For one might
ask what is the top of the organization? When companies manufacture 125,000 products as does
General Electric, then one finds what Chandler (1962) in his classic study referred to as the divisional
structure. Divisions represent distinct technological-market complexes that require separate
organizations. For example, General Electric has one division (or organization) to produce jet engines,
another to provide financial services, still another to make light bulbs, and still another to manufacture
steam turbines. Within each of these divisions, quite divergent principles of departmentalization might
be employed. Most countries have divided their military services into divisions called the army, the
navy, and the air force, illustrating the same logic.
Chandler's (1962) reasoning was that separate divisions were necessary when the tacit knowledge and
the rules of the game associated with the manufacturing of the product including customer service are
so different that the same management can not operate the disparate divisions. This led to the idea of
DECENTRALIZATION to the divisional level.
But while the principle of departmentalization on the basis of the greatest source of variation/change
appears unambiguous, in practice, and increasingly so, companies find that there are considerable and
equal amounts of variation in product technology and in customer demands. Given two equal sources of
variation, the tendency has been to move toward what is called the matrix structure (see MATRIX
ORGANIZATION), that is, where each individual belongs to two departments. Even more complex
matrix structures are now being established in high-technology industries such as semiconductors.

Document
Page 137
See also Loose-coupling; Division of labor; Multinational corporations
Bibliography
Alter, C. & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations Working Together. Beverly Hills, C.A.: Sag.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Daft, R. (1989). Organizational theory and design (4th edn). St. Paul, MN: West.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
JERALD HAGE
Deviance
see CONFORMITY; EMPLOYEE THEFT; GROUP COHESIVENESS; GROUP DECISION

MAKING; PUNISHMENT; SABOTAGE
Dialectic
see CONFLICT; LABOR PROCESS THEORY; THEORY
Differentiation
Perhaps the essential defining characteristic of what we mean by organization is that there is an internal
structure differentiated in form and function. To be organized is, by definition, to be differentiated. In
human work organizations differentiation can be defined as the horizontal and vertical DIVISION OF
LABOR into specialized subunits and departments. Horizontal differentiation can be based on
differences in task or function, or product, geography, or customer segment. Vertical differentiation is
based on the number of levels in the organization and the decision-making responsibility each level has.
Differentiation has also been defined as differences in underlying structural attributes such as
FORMALIZATION and PROFESSIONALISM as well as differences in cognitive, cultural, and goal
orientation.
Differentiation, paired with the concept of INTEGRATION, was made famous as a concept in
organization theory by Lawrence and Lorsch (1969). They argued that as organizations grow in size and
as their environments become more complex, the subunits of the organization would have to become
more differentiated to deal with varying aspects of the environment (see ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE).
They further argued that differentiation causes coordination problems and requires organizations to
integrate their activities if they are to perform well.

Document
See also Organizational design; Contingency theory; Classical design theory organization and
environment; Cooperation
Bibliography
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business, Harvard University.
ROBERT DRAZIN
Dilemmas, Ethical
These can be defined as situations requiring the decision maker to choose between two unsatisfactory
alternatives. They take on a moral dimension when the choices involve conflicting values (e.g., loyalty
and promise-keeping). For example, in DOWNSIZING situations, managers may have to choose
between keeping a promise of job security that could threaten the future of the firm and laying off
valued, loyal workers.
See also Business ethics; Decision making; values
Bibliography
Toffler, B. L. (1986). Tough choices: Managers talk ethics. New York: Wiley.
LINDA TREVINO
Dilemmas, Organizational
This term has its origins in the Greek word meaning "two propositions." The concept of dilemma, while
new to organizational theory and analysis, has deep historical roots in Western and Eastern philosophy,
as well as in other scientific disciplines. The basic concepts of personality theory, grounded in the work
of Freud and Jung, were based on the analysis of the tensions between what they conceptualized as
opposites in the psyche and personality of the individual.
While all organizations and individuals face dilemmas in the sense of the struggle to resolve opposites,
some organizational scholars believe that dilemmas are a key to the understanding of complex social
systems that must thrive in

Document
Page 138
dynamic and turbulent environments (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). They point out
that organizations today are visibly besieged by such dilemmas, such as the opposing pulls of
centralization (INTEGRATION) and of decentralization (DIFFERENTIATION), the short term and the
long term, individuality (individual performance and ACCOUNTABILITY), and teamwork. There is a
need to be organically loose for the purposes of INNOVATION and yet mechanistically tight for
execution, the call for change and the need for continuity in implementation, the necessity for
PLANNING and the desirability of FLEXIBILITY, the need for LEADERSHIP in the sense of doing
the right things, and of management in the sense of doing things right.
These opposites are called dilemmas by Hampden-Turner (1990), competing VALUES by Quinn (1990),
and dualities by Evans and Doz (1992), and the same concern is seen in studies of the paradoxical
nature of organizational effectiveness (see PARADOX). One of the essential postulates of this
emerging school of organizational analysis is that such opposites are not "either–or" choices but "and–
and" contrasts that must be reconciled. These scholars are critical of CONTINGENCY THEORY,
which has influenced traditional organizational analysis with its emphasis on fit, matching, and
consistency. They argue that excessive concern with fit or consistency leads to pendulum or seesaw
pathologies, alternating cycles of crisis/transformation, and complacency. A related idea is that positive
qualities taken too far become negative or pathological, and an increasing number of case studies of
corporations and individuals document this "failure of success'' syndrome (see ORGANIZATIONAL
NEUROSIS). One illustration is the limits of the prevailing concept of ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE, traditionally formulated in terms of shared patterns of values, assumptions, and beliefs. If
this sharing is taken too far and cultures become too strong, studies document that organizational
rigidities and conformism can result and engender crisis (the paradox of the weakness of strong
organizational culture) – (see CRISES).
Senior executives often talk about organizational leadership as a balancing act. For dilemma theorists, a
key to ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING and INNOVATION is constructively harnassing the tension
between these opposites, a tension that can either lead to virtuous circles of development, or to
VICIOUS CYCLES of CONFLICT and fragmentation. Indeed, dilemma theorists implicitly argue that
change, learning, and innovation must be anchored into ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY rather than
appendaged as a separate body of knowledge and know-how.
From this perspective, the dependent variable in organizational analysis is not so much profit, customer
satisfaction, employee satisfaction, or the like. These are partial parameters of organizational
effectiveness. The key dependent variable is tension, for example, the tension between short-term
profitability and longer-term investment in customer satisfaction, or the tension between centralization
and DECENTRALIZATION. An important question for research is under what conditions does tension
become destructive or constructive. When does it lead to dysfunctional outcomes such as fragmentation,
political infighting, conflict avoidance, or complacency, and under what conditions does tension lead to
innovation and organizational renewal?

Document
The analysis of dilemmas has been applied to MANAGEMENT STYLE, organizational diagnosis, and
the conceptualization of ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (Quinn, 1990), to STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT and the assessment of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE (Hampden-Turner, 1990),
to ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE and transformation (Pascale, 1990), and to the dynamics of the
centralization–DECENTRALIZATION dilemma and its implications for HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT (Evans & Doz, 1992). However, it is implicit in much other current work in the field
of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR.
See also Dilemmas, ethical; Decision making; Ideology
Bibliography
Evans, P. A. L. & Doz, Y. (1992). Dualities: A paradigm for human resource and organizational
development in complex multinationals. In V. Pucik, N. Tichy & C. Barnett (Eds), Globalizing
management: Creating and leading a competitive organization. New York: Wiley.

Document
Page 139
Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Charting the corporate mind: From dilemma to strategy. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Hedburg, B. L. T., Nystrom, P. C. & Starbuck, W. H. (1976). Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a
self-designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 41–65.
Pascale, R. T. (1990). Managing on the edge: How successful companies use conflict to stay ahead.
New York: Viking.
Quinn, R. E. (1990). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands
of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
PAUL EVANS
Disability
This term, in general, refers to any physical, sensory, or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more of the major life activities of an individual. Specifically, the World Health Organization defines
and distinguishes between three similar terms. Impairment is defined as an abnormality or loss of any
physiological or anatomical structure or function. Disability is defined as the consequences of an
impairment such as any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the range considered
appropriate for nonimpaired persons. Handicap refers to the social disadvantage that results from an
impairment or disability.
The concept of disability has become very important to management disciplines (see HUMAN
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT), at least in the United States, due to the passage of legislation, such as
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which outlaws DISCRIMINATION toward
qualified persons with disabilities. The act also covers anyone with a record of impairment, and anyone
regarded as having such an impairment. Qualified individuals with disabilities are defined as persons
who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position in
question, and reasonable accommodation is defined as making existing facilities used by employees
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Although the ADA generally provides a
definition of disability, the term is still used differently for different purposes such as employment,
disability insurance, worker's compensation claims, etc.
Multidisciplinary research on persons with disabilities has a long history (Meyerson, 1988), however,
the topic has been given relatively little attention by management scholars. Other fields which examine
disability include social psychology, economics, law, sociology, rehabilitation psychology, and political
science.

Document
Research concerning persons with disabilities at work has followed several trends. Much thought in the
area has been guided by Goffman's (1963) work on stigmas. Furthermore, persons with disabilities may
be considered as a minority group (Fine & Asch, 1988), and thus, conceptual models applicable to other
minority groups may be applied to research on persons with disabilities. However, application of other
models may be complex or problematic due to variance in the nature of disability on such factors as self-
concept of disability, functional impairments, degree of impairment, visibility, prognosis, aesthetic
qualities, origin, and peril associated with the disability.
One line of research in this area has been to conduct surveys to determine in general how well persons
with disabilities fare in the labor market. The results of this research indicate that persons with
disabilities are often underemployed and underpaid (McNeil, 1983). However, Greenwood and Johnson
(1987) reviewed the EVALUATION RESEARCH in this area and concluded that employees with
disabilities have consistently high performance, do not demonstrate greater incidence of employee
problems (e.g., ABSENTEEISM and poor SAFETY records), and do not place greater demands on
supervisors than workers without disabilities. Thus, many of the problems facing employees with
disabilities at work are thought to be the result of socially imposed discrimination (Stone, Stone, &
Dipboye, 1992) (see SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM).
Another line of research has been to examine the impact of disability on personnel decisions such as
selection and performance ratings (see ASSESSMENT, SELECTION METHODS; PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL). A review of this literature is provided by Stone et al. (1992). The results of this line of
research have been mixed. Some studies have found a bias against persons with disabilities. Others have
found no effect for disability on personnel judgments. While yet

Document
Page 140
other studies have found positive bias in favor of persons with disabilities. A related line of research has
also examined whether or not different disability factors influence subsequent reactions to persons with
disabilities. It is difficult to draw conclusions from these studies, primarily due to a lack of framework
for categorizing disabilities along important dimensions (e.g., functional impairment or visibility).
A third line of research, relevant to management, has examined the attitudes and reactions of persons
without disabilities toward persons with disabilities. This research has mainly been carried out by social
and rehabilitation psychologists, and thus, has not focused on work settings. The results of this work
point to several general findings. First, persons with disabilities may avoid interacting with or denigrate
persons with disabilities (see STEREO-TYPING). Second, this research also suggests the existence of a
"norm to be kind" to persons with disabilities (see GROUP NORMS). Research which has attempted to
integrate the norm to be kind with avoidance responses (e.g., Snyder, Kleck, Strenta, & Mentzer, 1979),
found that people are more likely to interact with persons with disabilities when the cost of interacting
with the person is low and/or the ability to conceal one's motive to avoid interaction is low. Finally,
research examining attitudes and performance expectations toward persons with disabilities has found
that:
(1) nondisabled people often do not know what to expect of persons with disabilities or how to
communicate with them (e.g., Hastorf, Wildfogel, & Cassman, 1979);
(2) employers have low expectations regarding the ABILITY of persons with disabilities to advance
and perform well in the organization (e.g., Krefting & Brief, 1976); and
(3) nondisabled persons may have unrealistically positive general expectations of persons with
disabilities which included the perception of these individuals as "saints" (Makas, 1988).
Research concerning persons with disabilities has been criticized on many grounds, both conceptual and
methodological. Some of the most commonly voiced concerns relate to the use of obtrusive
manipulations of disability, poor external VALIDITY, lack of appropriate control groups, negative
BIASES on the part of researchers, and a failure to examine the perspective and experience of persons
with disabilities. Future research should address these concerns as well as the many fruitful avenues
which have been relatively unaddressed. For example, research on social processes affecting employees
with disabilities is needed, as well as research examining issues involved in accommodation.
Theoretical and conceptual work is also called for which attempts to develop a taxonomy of disabilities
based on factors likely to influence various employment issues, so that this framework can guide and
integrate future research.
See also Management development; Performance, individual; Attribution; Equal opportunities
Bibliography
Fine, M. & Asch, A. (1988). Disability beyond stigma: Social interaction, discrimination, and activism.
Journal of Social Issues, 44, 3–21.

Document
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Greenwood, R. & Johnson, V. A. (1987). Employer perspectives on workers with disabilities. Journal
of Rehabilitation, 53 (3), 37–45.
Hastorf, A. H., Wildfogel, J. & Cassman, T. (1979). Acknowledgement of handicap as a tactic in social
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1790–1797.
Krefting, L. A. & Brief, A. P. (1976). The impact of applicant disability on evaluation judgments.
Makas, E. (1988). Positive attitudes toward disabled people: Disabled and nondisabled persons'
perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 44 (1), 49–61.
McNeil, J. (1983). Labor force status and other characteristics of persons with a work disability: 1982.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC: GPO.
Meyerson, L. (1988). The social psychology of physical disability: 1948 and 1998. Journal of Social
Issues, 44, 173–188.
Snyder, M. L., Kleck, R. E., Strenta, A. & Mentzer, S. J. (1979). Avoidance of the handicapped: An
attributional ambiguity analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2297–2306.
Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L. & Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Stigmas in organizations: Race, handicaps, and

Document
Page 141
physical unattractiveness. In K. Kelly (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 385–457). New York: Elsevier Science.
ADRIENNE COLELLA
Disasters
see CRISES
Discretion
see DECISION MAKING; JOB DESIGN; JOB ENRICHMENT
Discrimination
This concept can be generally defined as any behavior which denies persons certain rights because they
belong to specific groups. It includes verbal and nonverbal acts, whether intended or unintended. Most
theorists distinguish between discrimination at the individual level and institutional level (Katz &
Taylor, 1988). The former refers to actions carried out by individuals based on negative attitudes. For
example, a manager who will not hire women for middle management positions because of a belief that
women are less competent than men. Institutional discrimination pertains to institutional norms,
practices, and policies which help to create or perpetuate sets of advantages or privileges for dominant
group members and to the exclusion or unequal access of subordinate groups (Rodriquez, 1987).
Institutions can produce discriminatory consequences intentionally or unintentionally. For example, job
seniority practices implemented during a recession can yield negative consequences for minority
employees who have lower seniority because of their historical exclusion from certain jobs. Institutional
procedures such as hiring and promotion and evaluation are central features of institutional
discrimination (Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). The distinction between institutional discrimination and
individual discrimination is not unproblematic. First, it is important to point out that some scholars in
the field argue that the term discrimination should not be used in lieu of terms like racism (see RACE)
or sexism (see GENDER) because it underrates the significance of IDEOLOGY in the way systems of
domination are structured in society (Essed, 1991). Second, the concept of individual discrimination
detaches the individual from the institutions in which rules, procedures, and policies flourish.

Document
Theories of discrimination are centered upon explaining its continued persistence. Most of these
theories can be classified as order theories, person-centered theories, or POWER-CONFLICT and
structural theories (Feagin, 1989). Order theories tend to accent assimilation and concentrate on the
progressive assimilation of subordinate groups in to the dominant CULTURE. As groups are
assimilated, they should experience less discrimination. Person-centered theories focus on the argument
that there are real differences between majority group members and subordinate group members and
these differences explain the differential treatment of each group. A corollary strand of person-centered
theories is that discrimination is largely a function of prejudiced behavior of individuals (see
PREJUDICE). In contrast, power-conflict theories place emphasis upon economic stratification,
structural and power issues, and patriarchy in maintaining systems of domination (see CRITICAL
THEORY). Prominent among these latter group of theories are class-based theories, feminist theories,
and Marxist and neo-Marxist theories. These theories suggest the need to examine the policies and
practices in social systems or in organizations which create and perpetuate systemic barriers for certain
groups.
Since the passage of extensive civil rights legislation in many countries, the concept of institutional
discrimination has developed largely as a technical notion, particularly in the United States. Two
theories of discrimination growing out of this legislation, disparate impact and disparate treatment, have
heavily informed the way discrimination has been studied in organizational behavior and personnel
psychology. Disparate treatment theory holds that discrimination occurs when those belonging to a
protected category (women, racial minorities, the disabled, etc.) are in some way intentionally treated
differently regarding employment practices. For example, rejecting women applicants of childbearing
age for certain jobs. Under disparate impact theory, facially neutral employment practices (e.g.,
standardized tests, height and weight requirements) which have an adverse impact on members of a

Document
Page 142
protected group may constitute discrimination if they cannot be shown to be job related and essential to
the organization's operations.
Much organizational research on discrimination has involved a search for objective and quantifiable
evidence of discrimination in staffing, SELECTION predictors, performance evaluation ratings,
compensation, and promotion (see ASSESSMENT, SELECTION METHODS). Race and sex
discrimination have garnered the most attention, although more research is appearing on AGE and
DISABILITY discrimination (Avolio & Barrett, 1987; Yuker, 1988). The results across studies on race
and sex discrimination are often inconsistent with some studies reporting discriminatory effects and
others finding none. The failure to find consistent results may be a function of methodological
inadequacies, ranging from an overreliance on laboratory studies to underdeveloped theoretical frames
and weak measures (see RESEARCH METHODS; RESEARCH DESIGN). Additionally, the subtle
nature of modern discrimination may also contribute to the mixed results.
The literature on discrimination in organizations suggests that considerable progress has been made to
address discriminatory barriers to job entry for women and minorities. Yet current research reports that
subtle discrimination influences their chances for upward mobility where they encounter "glass ceiling"
effects on their careers (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990; Powell, 1993) (see WOMEN AT WORK;
WOMEN MANAGERS; CAREER DEVELOPMENT). For instance, women and minorities have less
access to many informal events in organizations and still suffer from the effects of solo and token status.
The persistence of discrimination in organizational settings, suggest that it is no longer adequate to

study discrimination as though it were purely a technical question or the sole product of attitudes,
stereotypes, or interpersonal relations (see STEREOTYPING). Some scholars have called for more
attention to research that explores the phenomenology of discrimination in organizations.
Understanding the process of discrimination and structural properties of exclusion are important toward
changing organizational policies and practices operating to the detriment of some groups (Cockburn,
1991). An approach that combines micro and macro influences is needed. In the case of discrimination
based on race, Essed (1991) introduced the concept of everyday racism to capture the structural–cultural
properties of racial discrimination as well as the microinequities that perpetuate the system.
See also Equal opportunities; Intergroup relations
Bibliography
Avolio, B. J. & Barrett, G. V. (1987). Effects of age stereotyping in a simulated interview. Psychology
and Aging, 2, 56–63.
Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women. London: Macmillan.
Essed, P. (1991). Everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Feagin, J. (1989). Race and ethnic relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Document
Katz, P. & Taylor, D. (1988). Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy. New York: Plenum Press.
Morrison, A. & Von Glinow, M. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American
Psychologist, 45, 200–208.
Pettigrew, T. & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for Black American inclusion.
Powell, G. (1993). Women and men in management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rodriquez, A. M. (1987). Institutional racism in the organization setting: An action-research approach.

In J. W. Shaw (Ed.), Strategies for improving race relations: The Anglo-American Experience (pp. 128–
148). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Yuker, H. E. (Ed.) (1988). Attitudes towards persons with disabilities. New York: Springer-Verlag.
STELLA M. NKOMO
Distributive Justice
see JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE
Diversification
As organizations grow, they tend to increase both the range of products and markets which they serve
and the range of businesses which they operate. The term "diversification" can be used for any of these
situations. Diversification is often divided into related diversification and unrelated diversification (see
CONGLOMERATE DIVERSIFICATION).

Document
Page 143
Related Diversification
Exactly what constitutes related diversification is one of the least clearly-understood areas in
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT. Abell (1980) argued that the relatedness of a particular product,
market, or business diversification could be assessed using three criteria – the similarity of the
customers, the functions served by the different products, and the technologies of production. However,
it is unclear whether a diversification should be considered related if a new product, market expansion,
or business is only similar on one or two of these dimensions.
Taking a different approach, Hatten and Hatten (1987) suggested that there are two general types of
related diversification. In related-constrained diversification, each diversification is closely tied to a
central core business, although diversifications themselves might be less closely connected with each
other (see CORE COMPETENCE). In related-linked diversification, each diversification is linked to at
least one other business in the group, but may have no direct or clear link to the center or main business
activities of the organization. Thus, related-linked diversification allows for much more loosely-aligned
groups, by comparison with related-constrained diversification.
These types of approaches to assessing the relatedness of a diversification can be performed by external
observers, independent of the actual organization. There is, however, no guarantee that managers think
about relatedness using these criteria.
Prahalad and Bettis (1986) suggested that, when managers think about the relatedness of a
diversification, they have a "dominant logic" or pattern of thinking which they apply to the business,
regardless of the apparent business-relatedness, as indicated by standard industrial classification codes,
which exists. Thus, for instance, an organization which is built around strong financial systems, or one
which specializes in strong consumer brand names may believe that diversification into an apparently
unrelated business in SIC terms may be quite "related," because the management SKILLS needed to
operate the new business are very similar to those needed for existing businesses.
Related diversification should create synergies from the combined activities of the existing business and
the new business. In this way, the combined businesses can operate more efficiently than they could as
independent operations. Synergies could occur from joint use of operating facilities, marketing skills
and resources, distribution systems, research and development facilities, or spreading of central
overheads. If diversification does not create shareholder value, there is little value in diversifying. It
would be better to operate the two (or more) businesses separately.
In practice, most organizations describe most diverisification activity as being "related." However,
research findings about the performance of related diversification have been quite mixed. The existence
of these varying definitions of relatedness helps explain why this might be so.

Document
Another form of related diversification is integration forward or backward in the business system (e.g.,
manufacturing, distribution, and retailing for a particular product range). This is usually referred to as
VERTICAL INTEGRATION. It may be considered related diversification because of the product or
service connection involved. However, the key success factors and important capabilities at different
levels of the business system are quite different, so that it is quite difficult to create value through
SYNERGY. The major reasons for this type of diversification are to capture the profit margin at another
stage in the business system and/or to obtain strategic control of a key component of supply or access to
distribution.
Unrelated Diversification
Unrelated diversification may be defined as diversification which does not qualify as related
diversification. Since the products, markets, and technologies will be different, it is less clear what
synergies can emerge. Administrative and financial synergies may be gained, but marketing and
operating synergies, by definition, are not possible.
Unrelated diversification may occur because the organization's existing set of products, markets, or
business(es) have unattractive futures and/or the organization wishes to move away from a particular
business area. Those organizations which have many unrelated

Document
Page 144
diversified businesses are known as conglomerates.
Diversification is often confused with merger or acquisition. Diversification is one of the possible goals
of an organization's strategy of the organization. MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS are the common
methods of achieving business-level diversification, since it is often difficult and time-consuming to
build a diversified business from within the organization. However, mergers and acquisitions do not
always lead to diversification, since they may occur between two similar organizations. STRATEGIC
ALLIANCES or JOINT VENTURES have emerged as alternatives to mergers and acquisitions in order
to diversify.
See also Organizational design; Organizational effectiveness; Competitiveness
Bibliography
Abell, D. (1980). Defining the Business: The starting point of strategic planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1987). Strategies and styles. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hatten, K. & Hatten, M. (1987). Strategic management: Analysis and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Lubatkin, M. & Chatterjee, S. (1991). The strategy-shareholder relationship: Testing temporal stability
across market cycles. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 251–270.
Prahalad, C. & Bettis, R. (1986). The dominant logic: A new link between diversity and performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 7, No. 6, 485–501.
Ramanujam, V. & Varadarajan, P. (1989). Research on corporate diversification: A synthesis. Strategic

Management Journal, 10, 523–551.
Rumelt, R. (1982). Diversification strategy and profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 359–
369.
GRAHAM HUBBARD
Division of Labor
There are various ways in which the concept of the division of labor is relevant to the study of
organizations. At the nation-state level, countries participate in a division of labor relative to which
products and services that they produce most efficiently. This macro meaning of the concept involves
such issues as comparative advantage, as in recent treatments of strategy (see STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT), utilizations of the concept beyond the scope of this discussion.

Document
More relevant is a micro definition that focuses on the way in which activities are divided and
combined into jobs (see JOB DESIGN). The history of industrial development has witnessed a general
tendency, called Fordism, to break work into very small repeatable tasks, called task specialization,
where there is a large volume of work and the tasks are relatively simple. The classic example is the
assembly-line in the manufacturing of cars. More recently, this concept of dividing work into small
tasks has been applied in the fast food industry by McDonalds. In contrast, when the volume of work
associated with any particular task is small, and there are a variety of tasks, then these are added
together in what is called person specialization. The typical illustrations are in the professions (see
PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS).
But the real point is that within the same industry, the same work can be divided into quite distinct
bundles of activities and aggregated into jobs in quite dissimilar ways. For example, in the United
States and Britain, many manufacturing companies have relied upon task specialization. In contrast, in
the same industries in Japan and Germany, many more activities have been combined into the same
position. A particular striking illustration of how work can be divided is the issue of who does quality
control. In the case of Japan and Germany, quality is frequently checked by the workers whereas in the
United States and in Britain, until recently this has been traditionally assigned to a special department
(see Womack, Jones, & Roos 1990). As yet, no one has studied what is the best constellation of
activities within certain jobs.
Part of the answer of what might be the best way of combining activities into jobs and jobs into
departments (see DEPARTMENTALIZATION) depends upon which performance criterion one wants
to maximize. The emergence of Fordism was dictated by the maximization of PRODUCTIVITY and
particularly in the short run where quality had little relevance. When quality becomes critical and when
constant product change is needed, then the division of labor into

Document
Page 145
more generalist, rather than specialist, jobs appears to be a better design principle. What has not been
stressed, however, in available evidence, is that particular combinations of activities might depend upon
the nature of the technical TRAINING that has been received. In other words, how one divides tasks
presupposes how people have been trained (see Hage & Garnier, 1993).
A particularly dramatic illustration of the complexities of how work is divided and its consequences for
performance is to be found in the studies of Pelz and Andrews (1979) (see COMPLEXITY). They
demonstrated that those researcher who spent less than 100 percent of their time in research were more
innovative and productive (see INNOVATION). Furthermore, whether the alternative activities
involved administration or teaching did not make a difference.
Maximal performance in INNOVATION as distinct from PRODUCTIVITY was achieved at about 80

percent of the time. This study raises profound questions about the nature of the division of labor,
questions that should be studied in the future.
See also Organizational design; Differentiation; Classical design theory
Bibliography
Hage, J. & Garnier, M. (1993). The technical training advantages. Center for Innovation, College Park:
University of Maryland.
Pelz, D. & Andrews, F. (1979). Scientists in Industry, (2nd edn). New York: Wiley.
Womack, J., Jones, D. & Roos, D. (1990). The lean machine. New York: Rawsen.
JERALD HAGE
Domain Defenders, Prospectors, Analyzers, and Reactors
see STRATEGIC TYPES
Dominance
In STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, the general term "dominance" refers specifically to market

dominance. This denotes the situation where the leading firm in the industry has a market share much
greater than any of its competitors, and which would remain greater, even if its competitors were to
cooperate or merge. Thus, a market share of 50 percent or more would entail dominance, unless there
were only one other major competitor, which might have close to 50 percent itself.

Document
However, in more fragmented markets, the term "dominance" is often used where the leading firm's
market share is simply much greater than that of any other firms, regardless of the absolute level. Thus,
if the leading firm has a market share of 10 percent and its nearest competitors have only 2 percent, the
firm is said to dominate its market. The term has also come to be used in situations where more than
one firm is said to dominate the market. For instance, if the first two firms together have 60 percent of
the market (say 30 percent each) and the next firm has only 10 percent, the first two firms are said to
dominate the market. In these latter cases, the term is being used very loosely compared with its original
intention.
The importance of a dominant market share came to prominence through two developments. The
Boston Consulting Group market growth/relative market share matrix (a technique developed for the
analysis of business portfolios) developed the concept of market share relative to competitors as being
an important competitive variable (see COMPETITIVENESS). The evidence of the Profit Impact of
Market Strategies (PIMS) studies showed a high correlation between profitability and relative market
share in many industries, encouraging firms to seek to market dominance.
See also Organizational effectiveness; Reputation; Strategic types
Bibliography
Buzzell, R., Gale, B. & Sultan, R. (1975). Market sharea key to profitability. Harvard Business Review,
53, January-February, pp. 97–106.
GRAHAM HUBBARD
Double-Loop Learning
Learning occurs whenever ERRORS are detected and corrected. An error is any mismatch between
intentions and actual consequences. Discovery of a mismatch is only a first step in learning. Additional
steps occur when the error is corrected in such a way that the correction is maintained. Further-

Document
Page 146
more, there are at least two ways to correct errors. One is to change the behavior. This kind of
correction requires single-loop learning. The second way to correct errors is to change the underlying
program, or master program, that leads individuals to believe as they do about their error correction
strategies.
Theories of action inform actors of the strategies they should use to achieve their intended
consequences. Theories of action are governed by sets of VALUES which provide the framework for
the action strategies chosen. Thus, human beings are designing beings. They create, store, and retrieve
designs that advise them how to act if they are to achieve their intentions and act consistently with their
governing values.
There are two types of theories of action. One is the theory that individuals espouse and that comprise
their beliefs, attitudes, and values. The second is their theory-in-use – the theory that they actually
employ.
Model I theory-in-use is the design we find throughout the world. It has four governing values: achieve
your intended purpose; maximize winning and minimize losing; suppress negative feelings; and behave
according to what you consider rational (see RATIONALITY). Model I tells individuals to craft their
positions, evaluations, and attributions in ways that inhibit inquiries into them or tests of them with
others' logic. The consequences of these Model I strategies are likely to be defensiveness,
misunderstanding, and self-fulfilling, and self-sealing processes.
Organizations come alive through the thoughts and actions of individuals acting as organizational
agents and creating the organizational behavioral world in which work gets done. If it is true that most
individuals use Model I, then a consequence of this use will be the creation of organizational defensive
routines (see ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSIS)
An organizational defensive routine is any action, policy, or practice preventing organizational

participants from experiencing embarrassment or threat and, at the same time, preventing them from
discovering the causes of the embarrassment or threat. Organizational defensive routines, like Model I
theories-in-use, inhibit double-loop learning and overprotect the individuals and the organizations.
Model II theories-in-use are hypothesized to produce double-loop learning. The governing values of
Model II are valid information, informed choice, and vigilant monitoring of the implementation of the
choice in order to detect and correct error. As in the case of Model I, the three most prominent
behaviors are advocate, evaluate, and attribute. However, unlike Model I behaviors, Model II behaviors
are crafted into action strategies which openly illustrate how the actors reach their evaluations or
attributions and how they craft them to encourage inquiry and testing by others. As a consequence,
defensive routines that are anti-learning are minimized and double-loop learning is facilitated.
Embarrassment and threat are not bypassed and covered up; they are engaged. Model II action will
interrupt organizational defensive routines and begin to create ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
processes and systems that encourage double-loop learning in ways that persist.

Document
For example, the director–owners of a professional firm wanted to reduce the destructive POLITICS at,
and eventually below, their levels. Through observations and interviews a map was developed of the
organizational defensive routines. Next, through the use of specially designed cases, the directors
became aware of their Model I theories-in-use. Then, they learned to make Model II an additional
theory-in-use. Five years of observations and tape recordings indicate that the dysfunctional politics
have been reduced significantly, that issues that were considered undiscussable (e.g., financial
ownership) have become discussable and alterable, and that the process is spreading at all levels of the
organization (Argyris, 1993).
See also Feedback; Evaluation research; Learning organization: Paradox
Bibliography
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
CHRIS ARGYRIS

Document
Page 147
Downsizing
This refers to a set of voluntary activities, undertaken on the part of the management of an organization,
designed to reduce expenses. This is usually, but not exclusively, accomplished by shrinking the size of
the workforce. However, downsizing is a term used to encompass a whole range of activities from
personnel layoffs and hiring freezes to consolidations and mergers of organization units.
In the early 1980s organizational downsizing came into prominence as a topic of both practical and
scholarly concern. Practically, this is because between one-third and one-half of all medium and large
size firms in North America and Western Europe downsized during the 1980s and early 1990s. Two-
thirds of the companies that engaged in downsizing did so more than once. The popularity of
downsizing has brought into question the common assumptions that increased size, COMPLEXITY,
and resources are inherently associated with ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. Smaller and
leaner have become associated with success, not largesse and over-abundance.
The concept of organizational downsizing has arisen out of popular usage, not precise theoretical
construction. In fact, identifying the definition and conceptual boundaries of downsizing is more
relevant for theoretical purposes than for practical ones. Cameron, Freeman, and Mishra (1993) found
that the terminology used to describe downsizing strategies was quite unimportant to practicing
managers, except for the negative connotations associated with decline (i.e., no manager wants to
implement a decline). A wide array of terms were found by Cameron et al. to be used interchangably,
even though each may have a different connotation.
For scholarly purposes, precise conceptual meaning is required in order for cumulative and comparative
research to occur. For example, on the surface, downsizing can be interpreted as a mere reduction in
ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE. When this is the case, downsizing is often confused with the concept of
organizational decline, which also can be interpreted as mere reduction in organizational size. Yet
important differences exist that make downsizing and decline separate phenomenon conceptually and
empirically. Several important attributes of downsizing also make it distinct from other related concepts
such as lay-offs, nonadaptation, or growth-in-reverse. These attributes of downsizing are; (1) intent; (2)
personnel; (3) efficiency; and (4) work processes.
Intent
Downsizing is not something that happens to an organization, but it is something that managers and
organization members undertake purposively as an intentional set of activities. This differentiates
downsizing from loss of marketshare, loss of revenues, or the unwitting loss of human resources that
are associated with organizational decline. Downsizing is distinct from mere encroachment by the
environment on performance or resources because it implies organizational action.
Personnel

Document
Second, downsizing usually involves reductions in personnel, although it is not limited solely to
personnel reductions. A variety of personnel reduction strategies are associated with downsizing such as
transfers, outplacement, RETIREMENT incentives, buyout packages, layoffs, attrition, and so on.
These reductions in personnel may occur in one part of an organization but not in others, but can still be
labeled organizational downsizing. Downsizing does not always involve reductions in personnel,
however, because some instances occur in which new products are added, new sources of revenue
opened up, or additional work acquired without a commensurate number of employees being added.
Fewer numbers of workers are then employed per unit of output compared to some previous level of
employment.
Efficiency
A third characteristic of downsizing, is that it is focused on improving the efficiency of the organization.
Downsizing occurs either proactively or reactively in order to contain costs, to enhance revenue, or to
bolster competitiveness. That is, downsizing may be implemented as a defensive reaction to decline or
as a proactive strategy to enhance organizational performance. By and large, downsizing in most firms
has been implemented as a defensive reaction to financial crisis, loss of COMPETITIVENESS, or
inefficiency. Proactive and anticipatory downsizing has been rare.
Work Processes
Finally, downsizing affects work processes, wittingly or unwittingly. When

Document
Page 148
the workforce contracts, for example, fewer employees are left to do the same amount of work, and this
has an impact on what work gets done and how it gets done. Overload, BURNOUT, inefficiency,
CONFLICT, and low morale are possible consequences, or more positive outcomes may occur such as
improved productivity or speed (Cameron, 1994) (see ROLE). Moreover, some downsizing activities
may include restructuring and eliminating work (such as discontinuing functions, abolishing
hierarchical levels, merging units, or redesigning tasks) which lead, of course, to some kind of work
redesign (see JOB DESIGN; RESTRUCTURING). Regardless of whether the work is the focus of
downsizing activities or not, work processes are always influenced one way or another by downsizing.
Note that the level of analysis is the organization itself, not the individual or the industry. For example,
a substantial literature exists on the psychological reactions individuals have to layoffs and job loss (see
JOB INSECURITY; REDUNDANCY). Impacts on financial well-being, health, personal attitudes,
family relationships, and other personal factors have been investigated by a number of researchers
(Kozlowski, Chao, Smith, & Hedlund, 1993). However, whereas laying off workers is by far the most
common action taken in organizations engaging in downsizing, it entails a much broader set of actions
and connotations. At the industry level of analysis, a large literature also exists on divestitures and
organizational mergers (see MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS). Market segmentation, divesting
unrelated businesses, reinforcing CORE COMPETENCIES, and consolidating industry structures are
among the topics addressed. The definition of organizational downsizing being described here,
however, may or may not involve selling off, transferring out, merging businesses, or altering the
industry structure. Much less research has investigated the organization level of analysis than the
individual and industry LEVELS OF ANALYSIS. That is, strategies for approaching downsizing,
processes for implementing downsizing, and impacts on organizational performance have been under-
investigated in the scholarly literature.
To summarize, organizational downsizing refers to an intentionally instituted set of activities designed

to improve organizational efficiency and performance which affects the size of the organization's
workforce, costs, and work processes. It is implied that downsizing is usually undertaken in order to
improve organizational performance. Downsizing, therefore, may be reactive and defensive or it may be
proactive and anticipatory. Ineffectiveness or impending failure are the most common motivations for
downsizing, but they are not prerequisites to downsizing. Downsizing may be undertaken when no
threat or financial crisis exists at all (see CRISES).

Document
Most research to date indicates that the impact of downsizing on organizational performance is
negative. Cameron (1995) reported that two-thirds of companies that downsize end up doing it again a
year later, and the stock prices of firms that downsized during the 1980s actually lagged the industry
average at the beginning of the 1990s. More than 70 percent of senior managers in downsized
companies said that morale, TRUST, and PRODUCTIVITY suffered after downsizing, and half of the
1,468 firms in another survey indicated that productivity deteriorated after downsizing. A majority of
organizations that downsized in a third survey failed to achieved the desired results, with only 9 percent
reporting an improvement in quality. These outcomes are not universal, of course, but organizations
whose performance improves as a result of downsizing have managed the process as a renewal,
revitalization, and culture change effort, not just as a strategy to reduce expenses or
ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE.
See also Organizational design; Turnaround management; Unemployment
Bibliography
Cameron, K. S. (1994). Strategies for successful organizational downsizing. Human Resource

Cameron, K. S. (1995). Strategic downsizing: The case of a U.S. Army Command. Working Paper,
University of Michigan Business School.
Cameron, K. S., Freeman, S. J. & Mishra, A. K. (1993). Downsizing and redesigning organizations. In
G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds), Organiza-

Document
Page 149
tional change and redesign (pp. 19–63). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Smith, E. M. & Hedlund, J. (1993). Organizational downsizing:
Strategies, interventions, and research implications. In C. L. Cooper I. T. Robertson (eds) International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 8, New York: Wiley.
KIM S. CAMERON
Dual Careers
see CAREER DEVELOPMENT; NONWORK/WORK; WOMEN AT WORK

Document
Page 150
Ecology
see COMMUNITY ECOLOGY; POPULATION ECOLOGY
Effectiveness
see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
Efficiency
see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
Elites
see CEOS; STATUS; TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS
Emergent Properties
This term refers to characteristics of a collective that cannot be understood simply in terms of
information about individual members. For example, an organization can be described by properties
such as FORMALIZATION, social cohesion, or DIFFERENTIATION – characteristics that cannot be
reduced to the properties of the individual members of the organization.
Similarly, a population of organizations has emergent properties that can be understood distinct from
knowledge of its member organizations. For example, adaptiveness might be an emergent property of
an organizational population, even when it is made up of individually-inert organizations. Such a
population adapts when better-fitting (but inert) organizations are born, replacing outdated (and inert)
organizations that die off. In this way, an emergent property can describe an organizational population
apart from the properties of its members.
Research on emergent properties attempts to understand collectives, such as organizations or

populations, as units in their own right (see LEVELS OF ANALYSIS).
See also Community ecology; Population ecology
Bibliography

Document
Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Menzel, H. (1961). On the relation between individual and collective properties. In
A. Etzioni (Ed.), Complex organizations: A sociological reader (pp. 422–440). New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
WILLIAM P. BARNETT
Emotion
This can be defined as a relatively intense feeling state which interrupts cognitive processes and/or
behaviors (see AFFECT). As in the case of affective states in general, there are two broad-based
dimensions of emotions, positive emotion and negative emotion. A positive emotional state is
characterized by affect descriptors such as active, elated, enthusiastic, excited, peppy, and strong; a
negative emotional state is characterized by descriptors such as distressed, fearful, hostile, jittery,
nervous, and scornful (Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Within each of the two most general dimensions of
emotion (e.g., negative emotion), distinctions between different types of emotions also can be made (e.
g., ANXIETY and hostility). Emotions signify not only intense feeling states but also ways of thinking
and relating to the environment.
Individuals differ in their propensity to experience positive and negative emotions. Individuals high on
the PERSONALITY TRAIT of positive affectivity are more likely to experience positive emotions and
individuals high on the PERSONALITY TRAIT of negative affectivity are more likely to experience
negative emotions. Positive affectivity and negative affectivity correspond to the dimensions of

Document
Page 151
extraversion and neuroticism, respectively, in the robust five-factor model of personality (see
PERSONALITY TESTING).
A wide variety of situational factors at work have the potential to impact the emotions workers
experience on the job, such as recognition for achievement acting as a cause of positive emotional
states. Factors related to the economic instrumentality of work such as diminished job security (see JOB
INSECURITY) and reductions in pay levels are pervasive causes of negative emotional states, since
they affect workers' well-being both on and off the job (see NONWORK/WORK). Nonwork factors (e.
g., marriage and divorce) also may impact emotions experienced on the job.
Self-report instruments are commonly used to assess emotional states, though care is needed in their use
since emotions can be assessed as traits or states. Emotion as a trait (i.e., positive affectivity and
negative affectivity) refers to a general tendency to experience a particular emotional state whereas
emotion as a state refers to how an individual feels in the short run. Emotion as a state varies and
fluctuates over time. Therefore the danger exists that researchers may think they are measuring
emotions as states when actually they are assessing underlying traits.
Emotions can be seen as both significant causes of thought processes and behaviors at work and as
consequences. As causes, for example, emotions impact the accessibility of material from memory,
categorization processes, and DECISION MAKING. As consequences, emotions can result from
attributions made about behaviors (see ATTRIBUTION). Additionally, attention has also been focused
on the expression of emotion in organizations (as opposed to the experience of emotion). For example,
research has explored how members of organizations use emotional expression to INFLUENCE others.
However, traditionally, emotion has not received that much attention from organizational behavior
researchers and there are many fertile areas for future research on the causes and consequences of
emotions in the workplace.
See also Mental health; Stress; Burnout; Emotions in organizations
Bibliography
George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence. Journal of
Rafaeli, A. & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. In B. M. Staw & L.
L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 1–42). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Simon, H. A. (1982). Comments. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds), Affect and cognition: The
seventeenth annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 333–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Document
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with
an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp.
681–706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive
emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.
Watson, D. & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98,
219–235.
JENNIFER M. GEORGE
Emotions in Organizations
The study of emotions in organizations stems from the acknowledgment that our experience of work is
often essentially about feelings, such as of hate, joy, tedium, jealousy, pride, anger. While this might
seem an obvious point, research in ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR has been slow to grasp the
emotional complexity of work life, focusing more on attitudes toward work, such as JOB
SATISFACTION, or extreme negative states relating to impaired performance, such as STRESS.
Although there is no strong consensus on the definitions of feelings and emotions, some useful
distinctions can be drawn. A feeling is essentially a subjective experience, a personal awareness of
some bodily state, perturbation or more diffuse psychological change. Some writers argue that certain
feelings of working have a special status, a flow-related experience where the self is absorbed – such as
getting ''lost" in one's work of writing, painting, repairing, or negotiating. This form of acquaintance-
knowledge is as yet unexplored in social science (Sandelands, 1988).

Document
Page 152
Importantly, emotions gain their significance and meaning from the social and cultural setting. We learn
how to display our anger, love, shame, or embarrassment according to culturally and organizationally
shared communicative signs – language, body movements, facial expressions (see CULTURE).
Emotion episodes and private feeling do not always correspond – one can "be" angry without feeling
angry. With dramatic skill, emotion display can be used strategically or politically in organizations to
attract attention or influence decisions or relationships (see IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT).
Emotions are also situationally/normatively defined – the "correct" emotions for an office party,
boardroom, meeting a client, job interview, or redundancy announcement. The social constitution and
construction of emotions suggests that people tacitly "negotiate" the form and boundaries of appropriate
emotional display, and that feelings can change on personal reflection, telling, and through argument
(see SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM).
Traditionally, emotional processes have been separated from cognitive, thinking, ones. It has been
claimed that RATIONALITY in organizations is achievable if interfering emotions can be controlled or
obliterated. For example, psychoanalytic theorists contend that personal anxieties, often stemming from
primitive, unconscious, vulnerabilities, are enacted in work life, and they hinder effective
LEADERSHIP and group processes (see ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSIS). People cope with these
anxieties by producing protective individual and social defenses – which prevent rational thought and
action (see ANXIETY). The task of the psychoanalytic consultant is to treat the organization like a
diseased patient, and bring it to healthy rationality (Kets de Vries, 1991).
Other writers suggest optimal rationality is unattainable. Hunches, acts of faith, and feelings will unlock
a problem or change the course of events. Feelings will steer us down some paths and guide us away
from others. Processes of emotions and rationality are still relatively distinct, but the former serve the
latter (Frank, 1993). A more radical approach goes a step further in insisting that emotions and
rationality are in fact inseparable, as is thinking and feeling. We have feelings about what we want and
what we want is infused with feelings; feelings are intrinsic, not residual to individual, interpersonal,
and group functioning (Kemper, 1993).
Given that SELF-REGULATION is a very large part of what makes organization possible, emotions
may be considered intrinsic to organizational order. They will influence a range of behaviors, from
loyalty and honesty to COMMITMENT and care. In a sense, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE is the
emotional order of the organization, features of which can be openly exploited, or engineered. Where a
"strong" culture is desired, an atmosphere of excitement, enthusiasm, or passion for the task or
company is orchestrated through social events, bonding rituals, and scripts reinforcing the company's
"way" (Van Maanen and Kunda, 1989).

Document
Company control of emotional performance can be seen to be relatively benign, even fun, "all about
good acting." The enthusiasm, smiles, and "have a nice day," common to many corporate office
encounters and service transactions, can be split off from private feeling – in order to sustain the
organizational act or social game. But some writers have argued that this is not always the case. The
"emotional labor" (i.e., being employed to smile, enthuse, be sincere, etc.) can be an onerous, identity-
disturbing, form of ROLE TAKING (Hochschild, 1983; Wouters, 1989).
Emotional labor is, to a degree, built into many professional jobs, where presented image or demeanor
has to be learned and sustained to maintain a proper role – such as nurse, doctor, lawyer, or banker (see
PROFESSIONAL IN ORGANIZATIONS). If the emotional mask slips, the professional encounter is
threatened. Emotional labor tends to be most onerous in jobs with low AUTONOMY, where one group
can impose their valuation of emotionality on another group (especially men on women) and where
people represent their companies to outsiders.
See also Affect; Emotion; Personality; Organizational climate

Document
Page 153
Bibliography
Fineman, S. (Ed.) (1993). Emotion in organizations. London: Sage.
Frank, R. H. (1993). The strategic role of the emotions. Rationality and Society, 5, (3), 160–194.
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California.
Fineman, S. (1996). 'Emotion and organizing'. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. Nord, Handbook of
Organization Studies. London: Sage.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (Ed.) (1991). Organizations on the Couch: Clinical perspectives on

organizational behavior and change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Pekrun, R. & Frese, M. (1992). Emotions in work and achievement. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7). Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Sandelands, L. E. (1988). The concept of work feeling. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 18,
(4), 437–457.
Van Maanen, J. & Kunda, G. (1989). 'Real feelings': Emotional expression and organizational culture.
Wouters, C. (1989). The sociology of emotions and flight attendants: Hochschild's 'Managed Heart'.
Theory, Culture and Society, 6, (1), 95–123.
STEPHEN FINEMAN
Employee Involvement
The term Employee Involvement (EI) has been used to describe a wide range of practices in
organizations. Common to all these practices, is the attention paid to increasing employee influence
over how their work is carried out or over other areas of organizational policy and practice.
The most common practices that aim to increase employee involvement are: COMMUNICATION
programmes (e.g., employee attitude SURVEYS), QUALITY CIRCLES, QUALITY OF WORKING
LIFE programmes, consultative committees, GAINSHARING, JOB ENRICHMENT/work redesign,
and SELF-MANAGED TEAMS.
Key dimensions on which EI efforts differ are:
individually based (e.g., job redesign) versus team based (e.g., quality circles, self-managing work
teams), or organization based (e.g., gainsharing);

Document
changes to core organization (e.g., self-managing work teams, job redesign) or COLLATERAL
ORGANIZATION (e.g., quality circles, attitude surveys). The distinction here is whether the EI effort
requires changes in the way the core work of the organization is carried out or whether the EI activities
are "added on"; and
direct involvement versus indirect (i.e., through representatives).
Research evidence concerning the outcomes of EI is mixed. The most consistent finding is of
successfully implemented EI leading to increased JOB SATISFACTION. Evidence for
PRODUCTIVITY improvements is weak, although stronger for self-managed work teams and some
forms of work redesign (see JOB DESIGN).
The most successful forms of EI are those that imply changes to the core work of the organization.
Collateral or parallel organization forms of EI, such as quality circles, often have a limited lifespan.
Their impact is often quickly absorbed by the more enduring organization structures and systems. There
is some evidence that direct forms of EI have significantly greater impact on employee attitudes than
indirect.
While many organizations have benefited considerably from the introduction of EI practices, in others
EI efforts founder or deliver only minor benefits.
Several barriers to the successful application of EI are frequently cited. These include lack of clearly
communicated COMMITMENT from top management, resistance from middle managers who see their
interests threatened, opposition from unions, and failure to adapt organizational systems to new ways of
working.
A frequent cause of EI failure is that organizational systems reinforce old ways of working rather than
the goals of EI. In particular, managerial performance measurement and REWARDS often focus on
short-term output measures of performance, and pay little attention to issues such as subordinate
development, the management of linkages across the organization, or facilitating the effective
performance of other organization members.
See also Participation; Survey feedback; Democracy; Continuous improvement

Document
Page 154
Bibliography
Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee involvement. London: Sage.
Dachler, P. H. & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions of boundaries of participation in

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 1–39.
Lawler, E. E. (1986). High-involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
MARK FENTON-O'CREEVY
Employee Participation
see PARTICIPATION
Employee Theft
This refers to any unauthorized appropriation of company property by employees either for their own
use or for sale to another. It includes, but is not limited to, the removal of products, supplies, materials,
funds, data, information, or intellectual property. This includes everything from pilfering a few pens
from the office to selling proprietary information to a competitor. It has been estimated by the US
Chamber of Commerce that employee theft, in its various forms, costs American businesses $40 billion
annually, although unofficial estimates are considerably higher. In fact, approximately 20 percent of all
US businesses fail because of excessive rates of internal theft (Greengard, 1993).
The causes of employee theft are numerous. At its core is temptation (i.e., human greed) coupled with
opportunity, triggered by the motive to steal. In some cases, theft is motivated by financial pressure,
making any employee a prospective target. However, employee theft is frequently triggered by
conditions encountered on the job, such as an ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE in which theft is
perceived as condoned. For example, theft often occurs when employees witness others stealing while
organizational officials turn a blind eye, failing to discipline the offenders (see PUNISHMENT).
Employee theft also occurs in conditions under which employees feel justified in retaliating against
their employers. For example, employees steal from their employers when they feel exploited by them,
such as when they are required to work too long, too hard, or under too harsh conditions (Hollinger &
Clark, 1983). In such circumstances employees perceive that their theft behaviors are not deviant, but a
morally justified form of RECIPROCITY – acts that not only "even the score," but that model the
seemingly-deviant behavior of the employers themselves (for a review, see Greenberg, 1990).

Document
In this vein, studies have applied EQUITY THEORY to understanding employee theft. For example,
Greenberg (1990) reasoned that underpaid employees would steal more from their employers than
equitably paid employees insofar as stealing would effectively raise the level of outcomes received. In a
field experiment comparing the shrinkage rates (i.e., percentage of unaccounted for inventory) in
manufacturing plants in which employees' PAY was cut 15 percent (the underpaid condition) to a
comparable plant in which employees' pay was not cut (the equitably paid condition), shrinkage was
found to be significantly higher in the underpaid condition. This study, and a follow-up laboratory
investigation (Greenberg, 1993) found that theft among underpaid employees was reduced when
employees were given a detailed and interpersonally sensitive explanation for the underpayment they
faced.
Attempts to control employee theft have focused on several different tactics. First, the security industry
attempts to tackle the problem by imposing procedures and devices (e.g., surveillance cameras) that
deter theft by increasing the chances of getting caught (Bliss & Aoki, 1993). Second, personnel
psychologists have attempted to develop employee screening procedures (e.g., tests and interviews) that
can identify potentially dishonest employees before they are hired (Murphy, 1993). Third, human
resources specialists have focused on ways of minimizing employees' MOTIVATION to steal, such as
avoiding underpayment.
See also Reinforcement; Human resources management; Payment systems; Justice, procedural
Bibliography
Bliss, E. C. & Aoki, I. S. (1993). Are your employees stealing you blind? San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay
cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.

Document
Page 155
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of
theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54,
81–103.
Greengard, S. (1993 April). Theft control starts with HR strategies. Personnel Journal, pp. 81–87, 90–
91.
Hollinger, R. D. & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
JERALD GREENBERG
Empowerment
Prior to its adoption as a management term, the word empowerment was most often used, in fields such
as politics, social work, feminist theory, and Third World aid (see FEMINISM). Writers in these fields
have taken it to mean providing individuals (usually disadvantaged) with the tools and resources to
further their own interests, as they see them. Within the field of management, empowerment is
commonly used with a different meaning: providing employees with tools, resources, and discretion to
further the interests of the organization (as seen by senior management).
Conger and Kanungo (1988) define empowerment as a psychological construct. They suggest that
empowerment is the process of fostering SELF EFFICACY beliefs among employees. This implies
both removing sources of powerlessness and providing employees with positive FEEDBACK and
support (see ALIENATION).
Empowerment, in this sense of a psychological construct, is a principal goal of most forms of

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT.
See also Participation; Decision making; Power: Influence
Bibliography
Conger, J. A. & Kanugo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.
MARK FENTON-O'CREEVY
Enactment

Document
The concept was first developed by Weick in his influential and innovative monograph, The Social
Psychology of Organizing (1969), to connote an organism's adjustment to its environment by directly
acting upon the environment to change it. Enactment thus has the capacity to create ecological change
to which the organism may have subsequently to adjust, possibly by further enactment. Weick discusses
this process in the context of active sense-making by the individual manager or employee, but also
notes how one may enact "limitations," for example, by avoidance of disconfirming experience, or
"charades," by acting-out in order to test understanding. Enactment is thus often a species of self-
fulfilling prophesy. It may also be deviation amplifying, where consequences are successively
multiplied by actions on the environment. Weick also identifies enactment as a form of SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTIONISM, the reification of experience and environment through action.
Since Weick's origination of the concept, it has found most use in STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, to
capture the dynamics of relations between ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT. Child (1972)
developed the analogous notion of STRATEGIC CHOICE with similar intent, i.e., to show how
organizational adaptation should not be seen as entirely exogenously directed, but can be endogenous in
origin and, in its effects, modify the contingencies bearing down upon the firm. This idea reinforces a
model of organizations as "purposeful systems" (Ackoff & Emery, 1972), akin to willful actors, a
construction which challenges the behaviorist PARADIGM of OPEN SYSTEMS' actions being
determined by environmental CONDITIONING.
One can expect enactment processes to be most visible in large and powerful organizations which have
market-making capacity, but they are no less relevant to the way smaller enterprises conceive their
contexts and make choices about how they will act in relation to them. Enactment alternatives to
accommodating environmental forces include creating buffers to diffuse impact, negotiating with
STAKE-HOLDERS, coopting influential agencies, and avoidance.
As an operational concept, enactment lacks precision and therefore cannot be expected to be much
further elaborated in organizational analysis. However, it embodies an important recognition of how
agency and constructive COGNITIVE PROCESSES are essential elements in

Document
Page 156
our understanding of the behavior of individuals and organizations.
See also Population ecology; Structuration
Bibliography
Ackoff, R. L. & Emery, F. E. (1972). On purposeful systems. Chicago: Aldine.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice.
Sociology, 6, 2–22.
Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Entrainment
This term means the adjustment of the pace, cycle, and rhythm of one activity to match that of another
(Ancona & Chong, 1993). A cycle is a pattern of events over time and a rhythm is a recurrent cyclical
pattern. Managers who shorten product development time or speed up their DECISION-MAKING
processes to match accelerated INNOVATION cycles within an industry are exhibiting entrainment.
Similarly, managers who consistently align ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE with major technological
discontinuities are entraining to their environment (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT).
Entrainment can be deliberate, as managers try to adjust pace, cycle, and rhythm to key environmental
patterns, or unintentional, as dominant cycles and rhythms "capture" other cycles. An example of the
latter is the coupling of PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL, budgeting, sales activity, and hiring practices
to the fiscal year.
Entrainment to cycles in the workplace is very common. Shift workers' families often change meal
times, leisure activities, and play patterns to accommodate sleep during the day (McGrath & Rotchford,
1983) (see HOURS OF WORK). Parents often sacrifice time with children to accommodate to intense
work periods in their careers.
Entrainment appears to be inertial and initial entrainment appears to be the strongest. Once set, pace,
cycles, and rhythm are hard to change. In a series of studies Kelly and McGrath (1985) showed that
individuals and groups that were given 5, 10, and 20 minutes, respectively, to complete a task learned to
work at decreasing rates of speed. The shorter the time limit, the higher the rate at which anagrams were
solved. McGrath, Kelly, and Machatka (1984) argue "that groups and individuals attune their rates of
work to fit the conditions of their work situations." Once established, this pace becomes inertial. The
groups maintained their initial pace even when the time limits were subsequently changed to 20, 10, and
5 minutes, respectively.

Document
Huygens was the first to write about entrainment in the seventeenth century (Minorsky, 1962). He
observed that when two pendulum clocks that separately ran at different speeds were both hung on the
same thin wooden board, they came to swing in perfect synchrony. The term entrainment is most
commonly used in biology, whereby endogenous biological rhythms are modified in their phase and
periodicity by powerful exogenous influences called external pacers. An example is the circadian
(meaning about 1 day) rhythm where most bodily cycles are entrained to the external light-dark, 24-
hour, cycle of the earth. Individuals who are isolated from these cycles revert back to their "natural"
periodicities, which are usually an hour or so longer than 24 hours.
As the pace of organization change quickens, the cycles of time to market and product development
shrink, and technological innovation accelerates, issues of speed and meshing of cycles become
increasingly important. Similarly, organizations are subject to variant cycles, such as the quarterly and
annual accounting cycles, the seasonal cycles of demand, and the roughly 4-year business cycle, and
contain processes with intrinsic response times that vary substantially (order fulfillment may take
seconds while capacity expansion may take years) (Sterman & Mosekilde, 1993). Organizations are
filled with individuals going through various CAREER and life cycles, and teams that pace themselves
to temporal milestones (see CAREER STAGES; LIFE STAGES). They exist in environments with
technological, market, and business cycles in which pace seems to be ever quickening. These
characteristics call for analysis through the entrainment lens.
Entrainment helps us to focus on how fast activities occur and the impact of how cycles and rhythms
interact. It focuses on nonlinear patterns whereby you may have to act quickly,

Document
Page 157
for if you wait too long the world will have changed and you have to do something different. It focuses
on multilevel phenomena; examining how CEO, team, organizational, and environmental cycles
interact over time. It also focuses on coordination by time rather than by activity; that is, rather than
looking at whose activities are interdependent and finding appropriate coordination mechanisms, it
specifies when activity must be completed, letting activities be reconfigured as necessary to meet
deadlines.
Research on entrainment is just beginning. Many issues remain unresolved including the mechanisms
that cause entrainment to occur, the methods that are best able to measure entrainment, and how
entrainment differs from related concepts of coordination, scheduling, and time allocation. Nonetheless,
society's increased obsession with speed and timing suggests an increasing role for entrainment in a
theory of organizations.
See also Cooperation: Organizational theory; Punctuated equilibrium; Vicious cycles
Bibliography
Ancona, D. & Chong, C. (1993). Time and timing in top management teams. MIT Sloan School of
Management Working Paper No. 3591–93-BPS.
Kelly, J. & McGrath, J. (1985). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and
interaction of four-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 395–407.
McGrath, J. E., Kelly, J. R. & Machatka, D. E. (1984). The social psychology of time: Entrainment of
behavior in social and organizational settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5, 21–44.
McGrath, J. E. & Rotchford N. L. (1983). Time and behavior in organizations. In L.L. Cummings & B.
M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.
Minorsky, N. (1962). Nonlinear oscillations. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand.
Sterman, J. D. & Mosekilde, E. (1993). Business cycles and long waves: A behavioral disequilibrium
perspective. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper No. 3528–93-MSA.
DEBORAH ANCONA
Entrepreneurship

Document
This a term which has been used in different ways. One usage views entrepreneurship as concerned
with the processes leading to new venture creation, without regard to the type or potential of the
organizations created. Another view sees entrepreneurship as primarily concerned with developing
innovative ventures, whether these are independent or occur within already established organizations.
Entrepreneurship inside organizations has sometimes been termed "corporate entrepreneurship" or
"intrapreneurship." Both usages emphasize the role of the entrepreneur as one who organizes a venture
and bears some degree of risk in return for rewards.
Interest in entrepreneurship has increased for several reasons. As large organizations have "downsized,"
much of the net new job creation has occurred in new and small firms (see DOWNSIZING). (One study
found that about 88 percent of the net new jobs created in the United States economy from 1981–1985
were in firms with less than 20 employees.) (Birch, 1987) New firms have served as centers of
innovation, developing products or services attuned to a changing environment (see ORGANIZATION
AND ENVIRONMENT). For many individuals, entrepreneurship has been the vehicle by which they
pursue personal goals and achieve independence. In countries which have been moving from state-
owned to private enterprise, entrepreneurship has been supported as a means to transform these
economies. In regard to corporate entrepreneurship, managements of large organizations have
recognized that one of their greatest challenges is to become more innovative and more responsive to
changes in markets and TECHNOLOGY (see ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE).
The entrepreneur seeking to develop an independent venture must recognize an opportunity; in fact,
some would regard the identification of opportunities as the essence of entrepreneurship. The
entrepreneur must then develop a strategy or way of competing, investigate the venture's requirements
and potential, assemble resources, and move forward to start and manage that organization. There is
some evidence that, at any point in time, about 4 percent of the adult population are nascent
entrepreneurs, but that only about 10 percent of

Document
Page 158
these actually proceed to the point of creating new firms (Reynolds & White, 1993). The new
organizations may differ widely in scale or potential as well as in the resources and technical or
management sophistication required. Small scale ventures may be started with the financial resources,
contacts, and "sweat equity" of the founder (see SMALL BUSINESSES). Large scale and high
potential ventures often involve founding teams and the attraction of outside resources, sometimes
provided by sophisticated investors. Although some FOUNDERS might be viewed as "habitual
entrepreneurs," many engage in this process only once, and therefore must learn how to put a venture
together and how to manage a particular line of business as they proceed.
New ventures start with ideas; the sources of these ideas are often previous jobs or personal interests, 43
percent and 18 percent, respectively, in one study (Cooper, Dunkelberg, Woo, & Dennis, 1990).
Strategies must be developed which take into account the limited resources available to the start-up and
the nature of existing competitors. The entrepreneur must then try to assemble resources, at a time when
risks appear high to potential investors, customers, employees, and suppliers. Entrepreneurs often
proceed sequentially – gathering information, revising plans, and making commitments in stages, with
attempts to minimize exposure at each stage (Stevenson, Roberts, & Grousbeck 1989).
Corporate entrepreneurship can involve efforts to encourage INNOVATION and RISK-TAKING

throughout the organization (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE). It can also focus upon developing
entirely new businesses, in which case it involves many of the same challenges that arise in starting
independent ventures. Opportunities must be identified; strategies must be developed; and resources
must be committed, all within the context of an existing organization. Important issues include whether
ventures "fit" with corporate strategy and how resources not directly controlled by the corporate
entrepreneurs can be accessed for the new venture. Other issues relate to how internal corporate
entrepreneurs should be rewarded. Should they have the same prospects for wealth (and failure) that
independent entrepreneurs experience, or should their REWARDS (and JOB SECURITY) be similar to
those of other employees? The corporate strategy, including the extent to which the organization is
expanding and diversifying, and the degree of personal sponsorship by influential senior executives are
among the major influences which bear upon whether venture activities are supported (Fast, 1978) (see
CEOs). It should be recognized that corporate entrepreneurship may take place in widely different
contexts. Some venture activities occur within relatively separate subsidiaries or venture departments,
which have control of their own assets and the freedom to depart from corporate policies. Others are
embedded in the existing organization, and involve shared resources and sponsorship by existing
departments.

Document
One stream of research on independent venturing has emphasized traits of entrepreneurs, seeking to
determine whether they are "different" in certain ways. Such PERSONALITY attributes as risk-taking
propensity, internal LOCUS OF CONTROL, and ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION have been
examined. There have been problems with this research stream, including lack of comparability of
samples, inappropriate test instruments, and lack of consideration of contextual factors (Shaver & Scott,
1991). Demographic characteristics have also been considered, including AGE, whether there were
entrepreneurial parents, and membership in particular subgroups. In general, some of the strongest
findings reflect relationships between entrepreneurial activity and achievement motivation, as well as
having had entrepreneurial parents. Some have urged that research should focus less upon traits and
more upon COGNITIVE PROCESSES or the behaviors of entrepreneurs (Gartner, 1989).
Other research frameworks have considered how environmental influences and resource availability
bear upon birth and survival (see POPULATION ECOLOGY). A considerable body of research has
sought to determine how founding processes, initial firm characteristics, business strategies, and
management methods influence later patterns of development. It appears that early venture
characteristics may "imprint" the firm and shape its later strategy. Findings relating to performance
have been

Document
Page 159
mixed to date, but research suggests that higher performance is associated with ventures started by
entrepreneurs who have a high need for achievement, who take explicit steps to manage risk, and who
engage in relatively systematic planning. Furthermore, ventures may do better if they are closely related
to the organizations which the entrepreneurs had left, if they are started by teams, entail larger amounts
of capital, and involve industries in the growth stage (Cooper & Gimeno-Gascon, 1992).
See also Competitiveness; Strategic management; Innovation adoption; Innovation diffusion
Bibliography
Birch, D. L. (1987). Job creation in America. New York: Free Press.
Burgelman, R. A. (1984). Managing the internal corporate venturing process: Some recommendations
for practice. Sloan Management Review, 25 (2), 33–48.
Cooper, A. C., Dunkelberg, W. C., Woo, C. Y. & Dennis, W. J., Jr. (1990). New business in America:
The firms and their owners. Washington, DC: NFIB Foundation.
Cooper, A. C. & Gimeno-Gascon, J. (1992). Entrepreneurs, processes of founding, and new firm
performance. In D. Sexton & J. Kasarda (Eds), State of the art in entrepreneurship research (pp. 301–
340). Boston, MA: PWS–Kent.
Fast, N. D. (1978). The rise and fall of corporate new venture divisions. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research
Press.
Gartner, W. B. (1989). "Who is an entrepreneur?" is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 13 (4), 47–68.
Reynolds, P. D. & White, S. B. (1993). Wisconsin's entrepreneurial climate study. Madison, WI:
Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority. Final report.
Shaver, K. G. & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (2), 23–45.
Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M. J. & Grousbeck, H. I. (1989). New business ventures and the
entrepreneur (3rd edn). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
ARNOLD C. COOPER
Environment
see CONTINGENCY THEORY; CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE; STAKEHOLDERS
Environmental Dependence

Document
see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT; RESOURCE BASED THEORY; RESOURCE

DEPENDENCE
Equal Opportunity
Legislation in most European countries is much less strict and proactive than in the United States.
(European Community law tends to be more equality-promoting than does that of most individual
member countries, and so may, in time, provide a significant force for change.) Many organizational
employees are therefore less likely to be aware of equality issues or able to identify overt or covert
discriminatory practices. Many companies do now have official Equal Opportunity Policies. These
seem, however, to have limited impact unless supported by Chief Executive and senior management
commitment (and understanding), major implementation effort, significant financial backing,
appropriate monitoring activities, and cultural change; unfortunately most are not.
According to the stated goal of the United States Civil Rights legislation, DISCRIMINATION based on
GENDER, RACE, color, religion, and national origin, has been illegal in the United States since the
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although various forms of discrimination were outlawed
earlier, this legislation marked the first statement of unified policy of nondiscrimination, especially as it
applied to work settings (Title VII of the Act). More recent legislation outlawed discrimination on the
basis of DISABILITY or AGE. Furthermore, some states have passed laws forbidding discrimination
on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. The goal of all these laws was stated to be that all
qualified persons would have the same access to jobs, and would be treated the same on those jobs, and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was established to enforce this legislation in work
settings.
This legislation, and its stated goal has had a major impact on HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
because, once evidence was presented that a policy or action had a disproportionate effect on members
of a given racial, sexual, etc., group (termed "adverse impact"), the burden of proof was on the
employer that he or she was not guilty of discrimination. Employers found guilty of such discrimination
could be liable for

Document
Page 160
large financial damages, and could be required to hire greater numbers of members of affected groups.
Charges of such discrimination led to the need for employers to demonstrate empirically that any
procedure (such as a test or an interview) that was used in making a personnel decision, was valid for
members of all affected groups (see VALIDITY). These cases resulted in a decreased reliance upon
certain types of tests and even questions which appeared to discriminate against members of certain
groups (see PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING). It has even resulted in less reliance upon stating physical
requirements for jobs (including height requirements), and educational requirements (such as a high-
school diploma) unless they could be shown to be related to performance on the job.
The laws have also changed the way that individual employees are treated. Employees who could
demonstrate that they were treated less favorably than other employees with similar qualifications or
performance levels have thus proved discrimination, even if no direct evidence of an employer's
discriminatory intent existed. In addition, the laws prohibit harassment of employees on the basis of
race, sex, etc., and both employers and individual supervisors have been required to pay large financial
damages when harassment has been proved (see SEXUAL HARASSMENT). These laws have
convinced human resource management professionals that consistency in applying employer policies
and thorough documentation of performance or discipline problems is essential to escape legal liability.
The legislation in question also led to a requirement (in some cases) for a policy of affirmative action,
where employers were to take active steps to recruit and hire qualified women and members of minority
groups. The policies established to promote equal opportunity have resulted in human resource
management practices in the United States being closely tied to legal requirements, and in legal issues
becoming a major factor in many decisions. These policies have also, however, led to a decreased
reliance upon human resource practices that, intentionally or not, did discriminate against members of
certain groups. Despite these efforts, however, most scholars would agree that true equal opportunity is
still a goal that has not been realized in US human resource management practices.
See also Assessment; Selection methods; Management of diversity; Corporate social performance;
Business ethics
Bibliography
Ledvinka, J. A. (1982). Federal regulation of personnel and human resource management. Boston,
MA: PWS–Kent.
Kirp, D. L., Yudof, M. G. & Franks, M. S. (1986). Gender justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
"The New Civil Rights Act of 1991 and What It Means to Employers". Employment Law Update, 6,
(December 1991), 1–12.
Willborn, S. (1986). Theories of employment discrimination in the United Kingdom and the United
States. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 9 (2), 243–256.

Document
ANGELO DE NISI
Equity Theory
Introduced by Adams (1965) as an extension of the distributive justice concept (see JUSTICE,
DISTRIBUTIVE), equity theory proposes that people's attitudes and behavior are affected by their
assessment of their work contributions (referred to as inputs) and the REWARDS they receive (referred
to as outcomes). Inputs may include such contributions as effort, SKILL, and seniority. Outcomes may
include such rewards as pay, STATUS, and recognition.
People are said to compare the ratios of their own perceived outcomes/inputs to the corresponding ratios
of other people or groups. Reference comparisons may be made to such others as: coworkers on the job,
industry standards, or oneself at an earlier point in time (see SOCIAL COMPARISON). The theory
focuses on individuals' perceptions of their own and others' outcomes and inputs rather than actual
states. When one's own outcome/input ratio is believed to be greater than another's, the individual is
theorized to experience a state of overpayment inequity, causing feelings of guilt. In contrast, when
one's own outcome/input ratio is believed to be less than another's, the individual is theorized to
experience a state of underpayment inequity, causing feelings of anger.

Document
Page 161
When one's own outcome/input ratio is believed to match that of other persons or groups, a state of
equitable payment is said to exist, resulting in feelings of satisfaction (see JOB SATISFACTION).
The negative emotions associated with inequitable states are undesirable, motivating people to alter –
either behaviorally or cognitively – their own or the other's outcomes or inputs (if possible) so as to
achieve an equitable state. For example, workers who feel underpaid may be motivated to lower their
own outcomes (a behavioral reaction), or to convince themselves that their work contributions are not
as great as another who is believed to receive higher outcomes (a cognitive reaction). Likewise, people
may respond to overpayment by raising their own inputs, or by convincing themselves that relative to
the comparison other, their own contributions are sufficiently great to merit the higher reward received.
Research has generally supported these claims (for a review, see Greenberg, 1982). Researchers have
used equity theory to explain a wide variety of work-related behaviors, such as reactions to job titles,
office assignments, pay cuts, and layoffs. Although early tests of equity theory were conducted in the
laboratory, more recent research has been successful in finding support for equity theory in a wide
variety of work settings.
Attempting to refine equity theory and extend it to a wide variety of social situations (beyond the work
context used by Adams), Walster, Walster, and Berscheid (1978) proposed equity theory as a general
theory of social behavior. For example, they used equity theory to explain behavior in marriage and
romantic relationships as well as parent-child relationships.
Equity theory has been criticized on several grounds, including the necessity of distress as a motivator
of attempts to redress inequities, uncertainties regarding the choice of a comparison other, vagueness
regarding the choice of a mode of inequity redress, and difficulties in quantifying inequities (see Adams
& Freedman, 1976).
See also Motivation and performance; Payment systems; Motivation
Bibliography
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Adams, J. S. & Freedman, S. (1976). Equity theory revisited: Comments and annotated bibliography. In
L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 43–90). New
York: Academic Press.
Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In J.
Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 389–435). New York:
Academic Press.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W. & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.

Document
JERALD GREENBERG
ERG Theory
Formulated by Alderfer (1972) as an alternative to Maslow's need hierarchy (see NEED THEORY),
ERG theory posits three categories of needs: existence, relatedness, and growth. All three needs can
affect behavior simultaneously and lower-order needs are predicted to increase in motivational
importance if higher-order needs are frustrated. The components of ERG theory are more amenable to
empirical test than those of Maslow's theory. Although early research was generally supportive of the
model, there has been little research interest in ERG theory since the mid-1970s, perhaps reflecting
general disillusion in constructs like growth needs and SELF-ACTUALIZATION.
See also Motivation; Growth need strength; Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation
Bibliography
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings.
New York: Free Press.
SEYMOUR ADLER
Ergonomics
This body of knowledge is concerned with the study of the interaction of humans with
TECHNOLOGY. Its aim is to maximize the safe and efficient utilization of technology for its designed
purpose. It is a

Document
Page 162
research discipline, drawing upon the sciences of psychology, physiology and anatomy. It is also a
problem solving discipline, involved in the application of ergonomics principles to design. Initially, the
topic was a multidisciplinary one, with individuals coming from different specialisms. University
courses began in the 1960s and interdisciplinary-trained graduates began to emerge. The current
situation has specialists and generalists working in both research and application.
The word ergonomics was coined by Hywel Murrell in the United Kingdom in 1949 to cover the field
that emerged from the war-time activities of scientists who had come together to tackle the problems
associated with the use of military equipment. These researchers were concerned to continue their
multidisciplinary approach of studying humans in their working environments. Similar developments in
the United States led to the adoption of the term human factors to cover much the same topics as
ergonomics. Mention should also be made of Wojciech Jastrzebowski, who in 1857, in Poland, also put
forward the term ergonomics to cover a science of labor. There are other related terms in current use.
One is engineering psychology, which refers to the study of human INFORMATION PROCESSING in
an applied context. Another term, COGNITIVE ERGONOMICS, has found favor in the human–
computer world, and refers to the cognitive psychology implications of computer use. Also in the latter
context, ''usability" is rapidly replacing the ubiquitous "user-friendly" as a more meaningful term. The
concept of "user-centred design" is also gaining wider acceptance, but is only another way of
expressing ergonomics.
The definition of technology in this context is very broad. It ranges from something as simple as a
warning symbol on a product's label to the complexity of the control room of a nuclear power station.
Any object built for human use will benefit from ergonomics being an integral part of design. Too much
emphasis was placed in the past on designers' intuitions or in design for the average person. In addition,
reliance was placed on the adaptability of the human to poor design. A number of developments in the
last 50 years have shaped where the emphasis has been in the subject. The immediate post-war concerns
were in traditional production industries. The march of AUTOMATION in both civilian and military
systems had led to the study of the ergonomics implications of new technology. Human ERRORS (see
SAFETY) and the consequences of ACCIDENTS, most notably in aviation and in high-risk industries
(e.g., nuclear power and petro-chemicals) have engendered interest in the subject. One contribution of
ergonomics here is the improved layout of displays and controls to produce arrangements that are easy
to understand and use and are not subject to confusion in stressful situations (see STRESS). This area
has been given added impetus with the increasing use of visual display screens to replace conventional
instruments. Unfortunately, established knowledge is still not always used, and human errors arising
from poor design are still being implicated in accident investigations.
There has been a growing concern, marked by legislation, for health and well being at work and this has
led to an increasing recognition of the role of ergonomics. The burgeoning use of computers in the
workplace and elsewhere, has meant that there has been rising interest in studies of HUMAN-
COMPUTER INTERACTION. Whilst the initial focus here has been on the design of the interface and
its usability, the problems of upper limb disorders resulting from continued keyboard use, often with
poorly designed and/or positioned equipment, is a current topic of ergonomics research.

Document
Interesting issues have arisen with increasing female participation in traditional male jobs (see
WOMEN AT WORK). Historically, the difference in average physical strength has led to females being
debarred from some work. However, a close examination of the demands of the work and the
capabilities of all the potential workers would show that stronger women might be capable of the work
and that some weaker men might be physically harmed by doing it. A better solution would be to
redesign the work in question, reducing its physical demands, to bring it within the capabilities of more
workers.
Consumerism has placed emphasis on the safety and ease of use of consumer products. The need to
involve the user in workplace design issues has given rise to participative ergonomics. The role of
ergonomics in devel-

Document
Page 163
oping countries is also a topic of current interest. The design of manuals, other documentation, forms,
symbols, and signs has also come under the scrutiny of ergonomics. In this latter area progress has been
made across a range of issues from the legibility of signs to the intelligibility of forms.
Ergonomics has necessarily developed strong links with other disciplines. There is often a close
working relationship with healthcare and safety experts. Similar links with the social sciences exist with
topics like JOB SATISFACTION and the study of team situations (see WORK GROUPS). The latter
topic has received renewed attention with the development of computer-supported cooperative work.
The application of ergonomics principles to ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN has emerged as a topic
termed macroergonomics.
The central underlying concept of ergonomics could be said to be "compatibility." This term was first
used in the context of making the response of a display (e.g., a dial) most naturally follow the
movement of a control (e.g., a knob). In this case, naturalness would be a clockwise movement on the
dial that followed a similar movement with the knob. However, the concept can be given a broader
meaning and can encompass such things as the compatibility of a computer interface with the user's
mental model, the compatibility of a car seat with the user's physical dimensions, and the compatibility
of the physical force needed to turn a bottle top with the user's strength. Compatibility should be the
goal of any design for human use, and in turn will depend on exact knowledge about the user population
and about the way in which tasks will be carried out.
See also Ability; Job design; Job analysis; Information technology; Hours of work; Working
conditions
Bibliography
Grandjean, E. (1988). Fitting the task to the man: A textbook of occupational ergonomics (4th edn).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Kantowitz, B. H. & Sorkin, R. D. (1983). Human factors: Understanding people-system relationships.

New York: Wiley.
Norman, D. A. & Draper, S. W. (Eds) (1986). User centred system design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oborne, D. J. (1995). Ergonomics at work (3rd edn). Chichester: Wiley.
Salvendy, G. (Ed.) (1987). A handbook of human factors. New York: Wiley.
Sanders, M. S. & McCormick, E. J. (1994). Human factors in engineering and design (7th edn). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd edn). New York: Harper
Collins.

Document
Wilson, J. R. & Corlett, E. N. (Eds) (1995). Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics
methodology (2nd edn). London: Taylor & Francis.
R. B. STAMMERS
Error
This term has two uses in statistics. In the first use, error is defined as any variation not assigned a
cause. In other words, error is any deviation of an actual value from that predicted by the deterministic
part of a statistical model. In experimental studies, of GOAL SETTING, for example, any variation, in
individual performance from the average for all those in a common condition, such as level of
FEEDBACK, is referred to as error. Similarly, in field studies of JOB DESIGN, the deviation of an
individual's value on an outcome, such as INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, from that predicted for all those
who share the same inputs, e.g., JOB CHARACTERISTICS, is also called error (see ERRORS).
The second use of the term occurs in hypothesis testing. In this sense, error is a logical condition in
which an inference drawn from a statistical procedure is incongruent with what is actually true – though
the latter may be unknown. There are two well-known kinds of error in hypothesis testing. An error of
the first kind, often denoted as a Type I error, occurs when a researcher rejects a hypothesis that is true.
The second kind, often denoted as Type II, happens if a researcher fails to reject a hypothesis when it is
false. For example, a researcher who, on the basis of a particular sample, rejects the hypothesis that
LOOSE-COUPLING increases INNOVATION, when it in fact does, would be making Type I error.
These kinds of errors in hypothesis testing can occur due to the probabilistic nature of statistical
inference. The probability of making an error of the first kind is referred to as the size of a hypothesis
test. The size can be chosen by the researcher. The probability of making an

Document
Page 164
error of the second kind is called the power of a hypothesis test. Power is a property of a second
hypothesis that is an alternative to the focal hypothesis. Due to the nature of hypothesis testing in
organizational research, in which an alternative is often not well-explicated, power is usually
indeterminate and subject to neither control nor scrutiny. Exceptions occur when concerns about sample
sizes lead to considerations of power.
Many statisticians also admit to a third variety of error. Any statistical method requires a model. A
model is a set of assumptions sufficient to specify a probability distribution for the statistic on which an
inference is to be based. An incorrect model invalidates any inference or conclusions drawn from the
associated method. This error propagates to mistakes in subsequent interpretation and use of the results.
Errors of this kind may be the most problematic in organizational research, since issues of model
selection and VALIDITY are often set aside in favor of convention and expediency. One criterion for
evaluating statistical models is the minimization of errors – in the first use of the term, above.
See also Reliability; Statistical methods; Bias; Research design; Research methods
Bibliography
Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., Beattz, J. & Kruger, L. (1989). The empire of
chance: How probability changed science and everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
KENNETH W. KOPUT
Errors
Error research has a place in both technical systems (e.g., computers, nuclear power plants) and
organizations. An error is defined as a goal not being reached and the erroneous behavior could have
been potentially avoided (Zapf, Brodbeck, Frese, Peters, & Prüemper, 1992). Reason (1990)
differentiates violations (doing something wrong on purpose) and unintentional behaviors (like spastic
movements) from errors and further subdivides errors into mistakes (errors in conscious behaviors) and
slips and lapses (errors in routinized behaviors).

Document
An error taxonomy is presented in Figure 1. A major part of this taxonomy was empirically tested in the
area of HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (Zapf, Brodbeck, Frese, Peters, & Prümper, 1992). It
differentiates errors according to where they appear in the action sequence (goal development,
information integration, etc.) and at which level of regulation (heuristic, intellectual, etc. (see ACTION
THEORY). The latter implies that errors are due to different cognitive processes. Errors appearing at
the heuristic level are, for example, related to general heuristics (rules of thumb) pertaining to how one
develops goals or plans. For example, an error may occur because one has misapplied a general
heuristic of not planning one's future actions. Errors at the intellectual level imply conscious processing
which results in errors because of limited processing capacity (e.g., not thinking about a plan of action
because one has too many other things to do). Errors at the level of flexible action patterns relate to
habits which are misapplied. In addition, there are knowledge errors shown in the Figure as a separate
box. The knowledge base for regulation is treated separately because knowledge is not directly
regulating actions but indirectly through goals, plans, etc.
In case of an error, people tend to assess who is at fault. This may be a "natural" response (see
ATTRIBUTION) but it is not a useful approach in organizations. Rather organizations should allow
their members to learn from errors. When designing systems (be they tools or organizations), one can
maximize either error prevention or error management. Error management is defined as an "approach
to errors with the goal of reducing future errors, of avoiding negative error consequences, and of
dealing quickly with error consequences once they occur." (Frese, in press, p. 2). Thus, the emphasis of
error management is to alleviate or avert negative error consequences. Error management means that a
system supports early error detection (when an error is detected early, is it less likely to have severe
negative consequences), learning from errors, which results in more error knowledge, better
explanations for errors (without blaming), and the development and use of error correction strategies.
The principle of ''kaizen" is similar

Document
Page 165
Figure 1
A taxonomy of action errors
Note: This taxonomy consists of two demensions – the action sequence and
the levels of regulation – plus the knowledge base for regulation (important
for knowledge errors). The reverse pyramid shape signifies that one cannot
differentiate the action sequence on the lower levels of regulation.
to such an approach (see CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT).
Error prevention in organizations has the disadvantage of decreasing the expectation of errors, little use
of systematic error detection strategies, concealment of errors because of negative sanctions, increase of
"latent errors" in the sense of a resident pathogen (Reason, 1990), and once errors occur a higher chance
of catastrophies (Perrow, 1984) (see CRISES).
Errors have expensive consequences. People working with computers spend 10 percent of their time
dealing with errors (Zapf et al., 1992) and management errors may lead to the death of an organization
(Hartley, 1991). Perrow (1984) specifies that errors lead to catastrophies in those organizations (or
technical systems) that are complex and consist of tightly coupled subsystems (see LOOSE
COUPLING). In terms of ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN, uncoupling of subsystems is useful, e.g.,
with low-level DECISION MAKING or independence between subsystems (e.g., product divisions).

Document
See also Accidents; Persistence; Safety; Learning, individual; Cognitive processes
Bibliography
Frese, M. (1995). Error management in training: Conceptual and empirical results. In S. Bagnara, C.
Zucchermaglio & S. Stucky (Eds), Organizational learning and technological change (pp. 112–124).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hartley, R. F. (1997). Management mistakes and successes (5th edn). New York: Wiley.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic.
Reason, J. T. (1990). Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zapf, D., Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Peters, H. & Prüemper, J. (1992). Errors in working with office
computers: A first validation of a taxonomy for observed errors in a field setting. International Journal
of Human–Computer Interaction, 4, 311–339.
MICHAEL FRESE

Document
Page 166
Ethics
see BUSINESS ETHICS; CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE; MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Ethnicity
This has been defined as belonging to and being perceived by others as belonging to an ethnic group.
Social scientists have favored either a very broad or very narrow definition (Feagin, 1989). A central
factor in these competing definitions is an attempt to make an absolute distinction between ethnic
groups and racial groups. Those favoring a narrow view define ethnic groups as "a group socially
distinguished or set apart, by others or by itself, primarily on the basis of cultural or nationality
characteristics" (Feagin, 1989, p.9). Broader definitions also include RACE, religion, or national origin
as distinguishing factors or race seen as a special case of ethnicity (van den Berghe, 1981). Still another
view concludes that attempts to distinguish between racial and ethnic groups should be set aside in
favor of a focus on the criteria that are used to construct and maintain social BOUNDARIES.
Despite these conflicting conceptions and the myriad of theories of ethnicity (see Thompson, 1989),
there are fundamental elements. First, ethnicity like race is foremost a social construct determined by
both outsiders' and groups' self-definitions. Second, ethnicity does not have independent explanatory
power and should be understood within its historical, economic, political, and cultural context (see
CULTURE, NATIONAL).
Ethnicity is particularly complex from an ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR point of view because it

requires a multilevel perspective that simultaneously focuses on individual, group, intergroup, and
societal dimensions (Ferdman, 1991). At the individual level, ethnicity is a central element in an
individual's social identity and contributes to a person's sense of who they are and their feelings about
their IDENTIFICATION. Group level analysis requires attention to both between group differences and
within-group diversity (see INTERGROUP RELATIONS). Issues of POWER and STATUS
differentials among groups become salient because of ethnic differences in CULTURE and history,
stratification patterns, and the stereotypes and beliefs groups hold about each other (Feagin, 1989) (see
STEREOTYPING). At the societal level, attention must be given to the kind of society in which the
organization operates, prevalent attitudes regarding ethnicity, and overall ethnic relations (Ferdman,
1991).

Document
For the most part, when ethnicity has been studied in organizations it is included as simply one of the
many group-based variables that can impact organizational behavior (Ferdman, 1991). Research has
followed two paths. One path focuses on social categorization and social identity and its implications
for attitudes and behaviors. The other path focuses on culture and on between group cultural differences
on a host of psychological processes and organizational behaviors including SOCIALIZATION,
attitudes, MOTIVATION, JOB SATISFACTION, JOB DESIGN, LEADERSHIP STYLE, and GROUP
DYNAMICS (e.g., see Hofstede, 1980). For example, ethnic differences in nonverbal
COMMUNICATION and interpersonal styles seem to be well documented (see MANAGERIAL
STYLE; INTERPERSONAL SKILLS). Differences in ethnic cultural traditions have been shown to be
related to cooperative and competitive behavior in work teams (see CONFLICT). Some scholars have
called for integrative paradigms that integrate both social categorization and cultural frameworks
(Ferdman, 1991). In recent years, the growing heterogeneity of the workforce and continued
globalization has spurred a new interest in how best to incorporate and manage ethnic diversity (see
MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY) in organizations.
See also Expatriates; International management; Intercultural process; Discrimination
Bibliography
Feagin, J. (1989). Racial and ethnic relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ferdman, B. (1991). The dynamics of ethnic diversity in organizations: Toward integrative models. In
K. Kelley (Ed.) (1992), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 339–
384). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.

Newbury, CA: Sage.
Thompson, R. H. (1989). Theories of ethnicity: A critical appraisal. New York: Greenwood.

Document
Page 167
van den Berghe, P. (1981). The ethnic phenomenon. New York: Elsevier.
STELLA M. NKOMO
Ethnography
This has traditionally been the methodology of choice in cultural anthropology, although numerous
sociologists and an increasing number of organizational theorists have pursued ethnographic research
(see RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH METHODS). The aim of ethnography is to comprehend and
portray the CULTURE of a collective, or the activities that occur in a circumscribed setting from the
point of view of an insider. Accordingly, ethnographers rely heavily on participation and observation as
means of data collection. Doing ethnography requires a researcher to spend long periods of time
observing, interviewing, and interacting with the people he or she studies. Ethnographers therefore
measure periods of fieldwork in months and even years. Most ethnographers collect data in the form of
fieldnotes – written records of the activities they have observed and the conversations in which they
have engaged. Ethnographers may supplement their observations with data from surveys, archives,
video tapes, audio tapes, and formal interviews. Although ethnography is frequently equated with
"qualitative" research, the equation is misguided. Many forms of qualitative research, such as textual
analysis, conversational analysis, and interpretive deconstruction (see POSTMODERNISM) do not
qualify as ethnography because they have little to say about the way of life in a social collective.
Moreover, numerous ethnographers make use of quantitative data. For instance, ethnographers were
among the first social scientists to make extensive use of graph theory and NETWORK ANALYSIS
(Hage & Harary 1983). The distinguishing marks of ethnography are therefore long periods of
fieldwork and the intent to portray the culture of a group or setting from the inside.
As documents, ethnographies can be divided into two broad types: emic or etic. The terms derive from
"phonetic" and "phonemic" and were coined by Pike (see Pike (1990) for a review of the history of and
debate on the distinction). An emic ethnography attempts to communicate the "native's point of view,"
to portray a culture or setting entirely from the perspective of an insider. Emic ethnographies frequently
organize information using the terminology and conceptual systems of a participant. In contrast, etic
ethnographies organize information according to an analytic scheme developed by the researcher and
tend to make more liberal use of concepts drawn from sociological or anthropological theory. In both
cases, however, the analysis is presented in a discursive or narrative form. Van Maanen (1988)
explicated several genres of ethnographic narrative that reflect ontological stances ranging from realism
to interpretive relativism. The particular power of ethnography for organization studies is its ability to
reveal processes and phenomena largely ignored by the field. Exemplary ethnographies in this regard
are Kunda's (1991) study of the contradictions of life in a high-technology company and Jackall's
(1988) investigation of how managers conceptualize and handle moral dilemmas (see DILEMMAS,
ETHICAL).
See also Organizational culture; Social constructionism; Symbolism

Document
Bibliography
Agar, M. H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. New York:
Academic Press.
Hage, P. & Harary, F. (1983). Structural models in anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Kunda, G. (1991). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Pike, K. (1990). Emics and etics: The insider–outsider debate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
STEPHEN R. BARLEY
Ethnomethodolgy
see SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM; RESEARCH METHODS
Evaluation of Training
see TRAINING

Document
Page 168
Evaluation Research
This involves the formal assessment against implicit or explicit criteria of the value of individuals,
objects, situations, and outcomes, where choices have to be made "rationally" and decisions taken in a
world of scarce resources (see DECISION MAKING; RATIONALITY). Traditionally, in the late
1960s and early 1970s, evaluation research was seen as having two defining characteristics: the use of
scientific method to measure the impact/outcome of a change programme ("summative" evaluation), by
professional evaluation researchers (see QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN). It was recognized that
evaluation research served a range of manifest and latent functions: informing decision making,
facilitating learning and control, but also rallying support/opposition to a change programme,
postponing a decision, evading responsibility, fulfilling grant requirements (see FUNCTIONALISM).
In the late 1970s and 1980s this model of evaluation research came under widespread criticism.
Commentators argued that in practice its findings were not used, its favored RESEARCH METHODS
did not produce "true" findings and that, far from facilitating change, evaluation research supported the
status quo. Furthermore, the ethics of many of its practitioners were questionable. Criticisms about
utilization focused on concerns about the irrelevancy and unresponsiveness of findings to those who
might be in a position to use them (Patton, 1978). Disquiet about methods concerned the practicalities
of using experimental and quasi-experimental methods in field settings, the tension between the
requirements of internal and external VALIDITY in such designs (see RESEARCH DESIGN), and the
legitimacy and appropriateness of a realist ontology and positivistic epistemology for uncovering truths
about human action. Criticisms about values raised questions about the in-built conservatism and power-
serving nature of evaluation research, particularly evident in the prevalence of evaluations focusing on
goal achievement (whose goals?), using inherently conservative positivistic designs. Evaluation
researchers' financial dependence on those with a vested interest in the "right" results was considered to
have deleterious effects on their independence and, in extreme cases, their probity.
The "solutions" to these difficulties have resulted in a new orthodoxy. Some commentators suggest that
no "real" utilization crisis exists because findings are used, but in subtle, climate-changing ways, rather
than to achieve dramatic change. To have expected the latter was merely political naivety. Others
recognize that a utilization crisis does exist but suggest that the answer lies in developing "utilization-
focused" or "responsive" evaluations that serve the functions that STAKEHOLDERS in the evaluation
wish them to serve. It is considered that if faith has been lost in positivistic evaluations the solution is to
supplement them by the use of qualitative, interpretative methods, often embedded in a ''formative"
design, concentrating on providing programme designers and implementers with regular systematic
FEEDBACK, in order that they might modify and develop the programme in an ongoing fashion. Such
methods and designs are often easier to apply in field work settings as many of the control requirements
of quasi-experimental approaches are no longer necessary. Furthermore, interpretative designs are
claimed to be more democratic than the élitist experimental methods of positivism (see
DEMOCRACY). Finally, if evaluation researchers are in the pay of, or likely to be subject to, undue
influence from power holders in organizations, they can protect their independence and safeguard any
liberal values they might possess through the development of professional associations and the

Document
collective adherence to ethical codes (see CODES OF CONDUCT).
Using the "deconstruction" analysis of POSTMODERNISM, Legge (1984) has called into question this
new orthodoxy by identifying a series of paradoxes it contains (see PARADOX). For example,
• positivistic designs prosper largely through acting as a rhetoric for an evaluation ritual, whereby the
lack of rationality of decision making and the ACCOUNTABILITY and responsibility demanded of the
idealized decision maker are reconciled;
• interpretative designs may act as a rhetoric for an evaluation ritual whereby the appearance of
democracy and non élitism serves to disguise greater room for manoeuvre accorded to powerful
decision makers; and

Document
Page 169
• the call for ethical codes may serve as a vehicle for reformist aspirations and as both a justification
and a mask for present conservative practice.
See also Consultancy; Business ethics; Machiavellianism; Power; Professionalism; Consultancy;

Intervention studies; Ideology; Action research
Bibliography
Annual handbook(s) of evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Legge, K. (1984). Evaluating planned organizational change. London: Academic Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilisation-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
KAREN LEGGE
Evolution
see COMMUNITY ECOLOGY; POPULATION ECOLOGY
Excellence
Companies are deemed effective when they meet the expectations of their key STAKEHOLDERS,
namely their owners, customers, employees, and the local communities in which they operate (Cameron
& Whetten, 1983). Companies are judged to be excellent when they exceed the minimum standards of
effectiveness set by their rivals. Excellent companies develop internal practices and external
relationships that demonstrate superior ability at fulfilling stakeholder demands. Over time, excellence
brings REPUTATION – a company becomes highly regarded in its industry.
Excellent companies are high-performing companies: Economic performance indicates the merits of a
company's strategy and is necessary to its survival (Peters & Waterman, 1982). Owners and creditors
demand financial performance, either as a return on their investments or to service their loans. To
achieve excellence therefore requires efficiency – the ability to transform inputs into outputs at
minimum cost. It also requires COMPETITIVENESS – the ability to maintain financial performance
over time (Porter, 1980).

Document
In achieving efficiency, excellent companies rely on internal practices that attend to the human needs of
employees. RECRUITMENT policies, PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL systems, REWARD programs,
and TRAINING opportunities rely on merit as a discriminating criterion for judging individual
contributions. And companies judge their own actions with a view, not only to improving the
company's financial performance, but also to enhancing employee growth and fulfillment (Fombrun,
Tichy, & Devanna, 1984).
Customers are also vital stakeholders. They expect a company's products to meet their expectations of
quality, service, and reliability. Excellent companies show their commitment to fulfilling customer
demands by initiating and enforcing internal practices that improve product quality and customer
service (Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984).
Finally, companies rely heavily on the social, environmental, and educational infrastructure of local
communities. Since they draw freely on many of those resources, excellent companies recognize a
responsibility to meet the expectations of those communities that they will put back at least as much as
they take out, and that their actions will conform to a community's moral standards (Etzioni, 1988) (see
BUSINESS ETHICS; CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE).
Jointly, it means that an excellent company acts to fulfill a broad mandate that recognizes the
company's close involvement, not only with its owners, but also with its customers, employees, and the
communities in which it operates. The excellent company achieves this mandate at least as well as its
leading rivals.
See also Learning organization; Organizational effectiveness; Total quality management
Bibliography
Cameron, K. S. & Whetten D. A. (Eds) (1983). Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple

models. New York: Academic Press.

Document
Page 170
Fombrun, C., Tichy, N. & Devanna, M. A. (1984). Strategic human resource management. New York:
Wiley.
Hayes, R. H. & Wheelwright, S. C. (1984). Restoring our competitive edge: competing through
manufacturing. New York: Wiley.
Peters, T. & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
CHARLES FOMBRUM
Exchange Relations
This refers to a theoretical perspective which provides formal analyses of interpersonal interactions by
focusing on costs and benefits individuals may receive in their relationships. People's constant
interactions with one another can be conceptualized as a series of exchanges, with all parties
contributing and receiving something from their interaction. Their exchange relations can be analyzed
to determine who has POWER over whom, and how much power they have.
Early exchange theorists (Homans, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1961; Blau, 1964) assumed that people
attempt to maximize their own utilities by weighing the potential outcomes of their various courses of
action. Analysis included both sides of the exchange, i.e., the costs and benefits of both parties. The
power in an exchange relationship can then be determined by the mutual interdependence of the
involved parties. If person X, for instance, depends upon person Y for his/her positive outcomes, and
person Y does not depend on X, then exchange theory would say that Y has considerable power over X
(e.g., Cook & Emerson, 1978).
Organizationally, supervisors may not only control the financial outcomes of their employees (termed
"fate control" by Thibaut and Kelley, 1961) but they can also influence employees' behavior ("behavior
control"), by making one and only one set of behaviors most rewarding. At the same time, employees
can organize and generate additional alternatives for themselves, and thereby control their employers'
outcomes ("mutual fate control"; see Mechanic, 1962).

Document
Thibaut and Kelley's (1961) analysis suggests that people use comparison levels (alternative states) to
determine how happy or satisfied they are: They compare their current situation with alternative states,
including their own past or their anticipated future (see SOCIAL COMPARISON). People also use
what they called "a comparison level for alternatives," which determines how satisfied they might be if
they changed (their job, their spouse, their home, etc.). When a person's comparison level for
alternatives is so much better than his/her current state that a change will provide benefits that more
than compensate for the costs of moving, then the person will move. Thus, people should only change
jobs when an alternative is sufficiently better to cover the costs of changing (see COMMITMENT;
TURNOVER). When employees do not have such alternatives (e.g., during poor economies or job
scarcity), employers' fate and behavior control increases. The opposite is true when jobs are plentiful.
See also Game theory; Prisoner's dilemma; Negotiation; Resource dependence
Bibliography
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Cook, K. S. & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity, and commitment in exchange networks.
American Sociological Review, 43, 721–739.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative

Thibaut, J. & Kelley, H. H. (1961). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
J. KEITH MURNIGHAN
Expatriates
For organizations operating internationally, there is a need to recruit, select, and deploy individuals on a
worldwide basis (see INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT). Typically, these
organizations utilize three types of international employees: expatriates, third country nationals, and
local nationals or host country nationals. While there might be some exceptions, generally firms seeking
global operations utilize these three types of employees in some typical ways. Thus, for example,

Document
Page 171
utilizing Bartlett and Ghoshal's (1991) framework, as firms move from being international to
multinational to transnational their need for employees operating internationally increases. As a
consequence, their utilization of employees goes from predominately expatriate to predominately host
country and third country nationals. With this perspective, one can describe each of these three
categories of international employee.
Expatriates are staff recruited and selected in the country where the organization is head-quartered and
then sent abroad to work. These individuals are usually sent for a limited time period and with a specific
duty to fulfill. While there is relatively minor variation in expatriate treatment by firms headquartered in
different countries, there are differences by the type of assignment being given to the expatriate. For
example, a technical specialist might be assigned to work on specific project for 6 months in another
country and then return to head-quarters (or at least the country in which the firm is headquartered). A
manager, on the other hand, responsible for the operations of a regional facility, typically is given an
assignment of between 3 and 5 years (Fontaine, 1989).
To make expatriate assignments attractive, firms typically remunerate individuals quite handsomely
(see PAYMENT SYSTEMS). In addition to receiving normal remuneration, additional payments and
benefits provided can include: allowances for food and housing; education allowances for the children;
travel allowances for trips home; and hazardous duty pay if the location is particularly undesirable or
poses dangerous or unsafe conditions. A major goal in developing remuneration schemes for expatriates
is to keep the employee "whole," i.e., living in the style to which (s)he is living in the home country.
This is very costly to the firm and may prove detrimental to the firm's operating success abroad. From
the expatriate's viewpoint, assignments can be risky in one's career if "out of sight" means "out of
mind," or entails one's suspension from the normal paths for promotion in the firm. There is also a risk
that the firm will fail to utilize fully the skills and experiences of the expatriate upon repatriation to the
home country. Firms seek to minimize these risks through the careful and preparation of expatriates and
their families; MENTORING and providing buddy systems which reduce the difficulty of repatriation
adjustment (see CAREER TRANSITIONS, SELECTION METHODS).
Research, while limited, suggests that expatriates are more likely to succeed in their assignments if they
have a high tolerance for AMBIGUITY, low level of ethnocentric thinking, possess professional
SKILLS to a high degree, and have the ability to translate, adapt to, and understand different
CULTURES (Brewster, 1991). It is also the case that most expatriates are male and married, and one
repeated finding is that spouse adjustment is the strongest and most reliable predictor of expatriate
adjustment. However, surprisingly perhaps, prior years of expatriate experience is a poor predictor.
Quality of prior experience is more important (Brett, Stroh & Reilly, 1992).
As alternatives to the use of expatriates (or home country nationals), international firms can employ
individuals from the host country (local nationals) and other countries (third country nationals).

Document
The use of third country nationals (TCNs) enables firms operating internationally to draw upon a much
larger pool of potential employees than can be provided by just utilizing host country and expatriate
employees. It also enables a firm to locate the most qualified individual to perform the tasks, regardless
of location, and offers an environment which can be highly motivating to individuals who want to work
in diverse environments yet for a single organization (see MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY).
A major issue associated with the use of third country nationals, as with host country nationals, is the
development of a global-firm rather than just a regional or single country frame of thinking. As in the
case of expatriates, there is the need for adequate preparation of the third country national for the
international assignment and the carrer paths which may eventually lead back to headquarters.
In contrast to the use of expatriates, third country nationals are typically posted in foreign countries with
far less costly remuneration schemes. This alone can make the use of third country nationals an
invaluable part of the international firm's global labor force. Research indicates, however, that the firm
then needs to

Document
Page 172
devote more resources to developing the TCNs and integrating them into the global organization's
scheme of operations and its unique culture (Pucik & Katz, 1986) (see ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE).
Research also suggests that as firms utilize more TCNs, they develop greater diversity in their
management teams. As with the use of host country nationals, the use of third country nationals makes
it more functional for firms to offer MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT programs which include and
span all groups of individuals, helping them to develop a common understanding of the firm and a
common understanding of each other (see MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY). Research evidence
indicates that this is more likely to occur the longer the firm's experience in international business
operations.
By using host country nationals (HCNs), international firms obtain employees who know the local
conditions, the language, the laws, and customs far better than expatriates. They are also able to
remunerate them at levels which are consistent with the local conditions thereby avoiding the costly
schemes required for expatriates. However, when the required skills and competencies are not available
locally, use of expatriates is the most expedient remedy. Longer term, however, firms operating
internationally may find it in their interests to identify and develop talent in the countries they are
operating. This is particularly true in countries which insist upon foreign firms hiring a substantial
portion of employees locally. This makes it particularly imperative for firms to develop local talent at
all levels, professional and technical, nonmanagerial and managerial.
Major issues associated with using host country nationals include how to bring them into the operation
of the international firm (see INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT). If the firm is truly international, it
needs to develop a truly international labour force (especially at managerial, technical, and professional
levels). When utilizing host country nationals then, the firm must design international CAREER paths
and offer the means for host country nationals to remain in regular communication with one another.
All this, of course, becomes more challenging as the firm expands the number of countries in which it
operates. It is also problematic if the firm chooses to employ not only host country nationals but
individuals from other countries to work in the host country.

Document
Research thus far suggests that firms might best be able to integrate host country nationals into their
global operation through management development programs (Evans, 1992). Increasingly these
programs are being seen as an essential device for tying the various parts of the organization together. It
achieves this objective by use of common experiences, such as discussing worldwide strategy at an
international conference on a yearly basis. As the literature on social adjustment might suggest, the
more frequently individuals are in contact, the more likely they will develop supportive bonds which
facilitate subsequent communication once the conferences are over. Of course, these global
management programs also prove effective to the extent that global (cross-business and cross-national)
carrer paths are developed and utilized. As truly international management teams develop,
organizations will increasingly acquire very diverse top management profiles (see TOP
MANAGEMENT TEAMS). The growing literature on managing diversity and managing top teams will
thus have major applicability in this area of host country nationals.
See also Career transitions; Intercultural process; Management of high potential; Culture,
national; Culture, cross-cultural research
Bibliography
Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. (1991). Managing across boarders. London: London Business School.
Brett, J. M., Stroh, L. K. & Reilly, A. H. (1992). Job transfer. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Brewster, C. (1991). The management of expatriates. London: Kogan Page.
Evans, P. (1992). Management development as glue technology. Human Resource Planning, 15, 85–
106.
Fontaine, G. (1989). Managing international assignments. The strategy for success. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pucik, V. & Katz, J. (1986). Information control of human resource management in multinational firms.
Human Resource Management, 25, 121–132.
RANDALL S. SCHULER

Document
Page 173
Expectancy
see VIE THEORY; MOTIVATION
Expected Utility Theory
see GAME THEORY: EXCHANGE RELATIONS; PROSPECT THEORY
Extinction
This refers to a procedure and its effect as a behavior change process. As a procedure, extinction is
elimination of a contingency between a behavior and its previously reinforcing consequence(s). As a
process, extinction refers to the time course of an operant behavior rate during nonreinforcement of the
previously reinforced operant behavior. Sulzer-Azaroff and Mayer (1991) describe numerous
alternatives to extinction as a behavior rate reduction method, e.g., DRO, differential reinforcement of
other behavior.
See also Conditioning; Learning, individual; Reinforcement; Punishment
Bibliography
Sulzer-Azaroff, B. & Mayer, R. G. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. London: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
THOMAS C. MAWHINNEY
Extraversion/Introversion
This personality trait reflects whether an individual is (extraversion) or is not (introversion) oriented
toward interacting with others. Hans Eysenck identified extraversion/introversion as one of the central
dimensions of personality, rooted in psycho-physiological differences among people (Stelmack & Geen,
1992). Extraverts have lower levels of cortical stimulation and consequently seek arousal through
external stimulation. Consequently, extraverts prefer and perform more effectively in jobs that are
physically active, contain variety, and allow for more frequent social interaction, such as sales jobs.
Correspondingly, given their relatively high level of cortical stimulation, introverts prefer and perform
more effectively on routine tasks, executed alone, without social or other distractions. In particular,
introversion is associated with performance on vigilance tasks (Koelega, 1992). Extraversion is on
average moderately correlated with measures of job performance for managerial and sales populations
(see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). The strength of this relationship, however, varies a great deal
across specific sales and management positions. Research also suggests that extraverts are more
motivated by positive incentives (see REWARDS); introverts are more motivated by the threat of
PUNISHMENT. Interestingly, extraversion is predictive of academic achievement early in life but from
the teen years on, introversion is more predictive of academic success (Furnham, 1992).

Document
See also Personality; Individual differences; Personality testing; Assessment; Affiliation, need for
Bibliography
Furnham, A. (1992). Personality at work. London: Routledge.
Koelega, H. S. (1992). Extraversion and vigilance performance: 30 years of inconsistencies.

Stelmack, R. M. & Geen, R. G. (1992). The psychophysiology of extraversion. In A. Gale & M. W.

Eysenck (Eds), Handbook of individual differences: Biological perspectives. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
SEYMOUR ADLER
Extrinsic Satisfaction
see INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION; JOB SATISFACTION

Document
Page 174
Family Firms
Although there is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes a family firm, two major criteria are:
(1) ownership (see GOVERNANCE AND OWNERSHIP) – the extent to which business assets are in
the hands of an individual or several members of a single family; and
(2) control – the degree to which members or descendants of the founding family influence the running
of the enterprise.
Cut off points vary and are, to some extent, arbitrary given differing and complex relationships between
ownership and control. Families with relatively small ownership stakes and no direct managerial
representation, for example, may nevertheless exercise significant influence over both assets and
management. Influence can also be exercised via subtle and indirect mechanisms linked with factors
such as MANAGERIAL STYLE and ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. Thus large, publicly owned
corporations which inherit paternalistic management styles from FOUNDERS may often be described
as family firms. Here the defining criterion is simply influence – by a family or family relationship.
Research on family firms focuses upon the manner in which two social systems – the family and the
firm – overlap and interact. Three major issues have been addressed. First, the tensions between
ownership, control, and organizational expansion. Family owners are often keen to retain extensive
personal involvement in their businesses and may be unwilling to delegate control (see
DELEGATION); growth and higher economic returns may be sacrificed as a result. Second, the
management of succession (see SUCCESSION PLANNING). Founders must pass their businesses
from one generation to another to ensure survival; but this form of delegation is difficult and often fatal.
Third, the coexistence of affective and instrumental relationships. Family firms must balance the
continuing involvement of kin with the need for business ability if they are to avoid charges of nepotism
and to retain competent employees.

Document
Most SMALL BUSINESSES as well as a number of very large enterprises remain owned and
substantially controlled by private families. Indeed, the continuing reproduction of new family firms
and the successful growth of a minority is a remarkable feature of modern economies. Significant
sources of difference derive from structural, cultural, and family life cycle factors. The structuring of
ROLES within families – the extent and interconnectedness of kinship networks, for example – will
vary according to factors such as social class and ETHNICITY (see ROLE SET; NETWORKING).
Similarly, cross-national cultural variations (see CULTURE, CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH) shape
patterns of business startup and inheritance as well as the extent to which family and business networks
overlap and intersect. In differing ways, such networks help to explain, for example, the remarkable
vitality of family enterprises in economies such as Italy and Japan. Finally, patterned variations may
occur across generations – second and third generation members typically having different priorities
and motives to those of founders.
See also Organizational change; CEOs; Leadership; Entrepreneurship
Bibliography
Goffee, R. & Scase, R. (1985). Proprietorial control in family firms: Some functions of quasi-organic

Document
Page 175
management systems. Journal of Management Studies, 22, 53–68.
Leach, P. (1991). The family business. London: Kogan Page
Organizational Dynamics, Special Issue on Family Firms, 12, 1983.
Scott, J. P. (1986). Capitalist property and financial power. Brighton, UK: Wheatsheaf.
ROB GOFFEE
Fast Track Development
see MANAGEMENT OF HIGH POTENTIAL
Fatigue
In behavioral terms, this refers to the diminished capacity, PRODUCTIVITY, or ability of an organism
to perform a given activity because of previously expended energy. Fatigue can be sensory, muscular,
or psychological and is known to be a function of a number of variables including: energy intake–
output, working temperature, fluid balance, and prolonged activity – physical or mental. Fatigue
appears to affect performance in three main ways:
(1) simple decrement;
(2) performance disorganization; and,
(3) cumulative disruption of performance.
In the case of simple decrement, fatigue is characterized by a decrease in performance on particular

aspects of activity on a task. This usually occurs more in REPETITIVE WORK than in more complex
interlinked sequences of activity (see JOB DESIGN). In contrast performance disorganization caused
by fatigue tends to affect those activities that involve highly complex behavioral and cognitive activity.
The last type to affect performance is characterized by variation in one aspect of performance affecting
another response further down the chain sequence, e.g., slowness affecting accuracy of responding
where accuracy is speed-dependent. Fatigue is known to be related to arousal level, arousal duration,
and to stress. It also impairs vigilance, information processing, decision making, and the quality of
responding in general (see Singleton, 1989).
See also Age; Cognitive processes; Performance, individual; Stress; Accidents; safety; Role
overload/underload
Bibliography

Document
Singleton, W. T. (1989). The mind at work: Psychological ergonomics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
NOEL SHEEHY and A. GALLAGHER
Feedback
Information, provided to a person, which addresses the prior behavior of the person or the results of
their behavior. If provided by another person, feedback is usually intended either to reinforce behavior
or to suggest changes (see REINFORCEMENT).
The term may also be applied at the group or organizational level, although this use is less frequent.
Examples include operational feedback on the total performance of an organization or its subunits (see
Katz & Kahn, 1978, pp. 455–458), customer feedback to service organizations by means such as
SURVEYS, or feedback to a WORK GROUP from quality inspections of products for which all
members of the group are responsible.
The term "feedback" derives from engineering systems, where it refers to a signal indicating the status
of one part of the system (such as the flow rate of a fuel line) which was "fed back" into another part of
the system (such as the control on a fuel valve) in order that the system could maintain itself in some
desired state (such as a constant rate of fuel supply) (see SYSTEMS THEORY).
The concept of feedback as applied to people in organizations is shown in the figure. The main
difference is that, while in engineering systems feedback is generally used to maintain a particular state,
in organizations it is often addressed toward the CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT of behaviors (and
thus, effectiveness). The provision of feedback is considered by many to be a fundamental element in
achieving positive work outcomes (see Hackman & Oldham, 1980). At the same time it is generally
recognized to be one of the most difficult and poorly practised managerial SKILLS (see
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS).
Key Dimensions
Feedback may be characterized by its source, its content, its frequency, its valence, and its subsequent
use.

Document
Page 176
Figure 1
The feedback loop
Sources of feedback may include the individual actor him/herself, bosses, peers, subordinates,
customers, and sometimes other people such as family and friends. Data-gathering machines (such as
computers tracking rates or giving tests, simple gauges, or video cameras) are also potential sources of
feedback. Multiple sources of feedback can add breadth and depth and increase the perceived
VALIDITY of the information (the "360-degree feedback" described by London and Beatty (1993)).
Although subordinate and in particular peer feedback can be highly valid, they are less common than
traditional top-down methods (Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991).
Sources may provide feedback unbidden or only by request. Similarly, recipients may be constantly
attempting to obtain feedback (feedback-seeking) or they may be uninterested in or averse to it. Some
sources may be more willing than others to give feedback, which may not constitute the most
appropriate set of sources. The systematic identification of potential feedback sources and the careful
management of the process of feedback collection (who does it, how, and under what conditions)
increases the likelihood of accuracy and acceptance.
Content of feedback may vary in level of specificity, relevance to the work or actions in question, and
applicability (Is the individual able to apply the information to change their behavior?). Quality of
feedback is generally considered to be higher the more specific, relevant, and applicable it is. The
structured delivery of feedback is also important because of the psychological defense mechanisms
which are often triggered when the recipient's self-concept is threatened. Skilled feedback-givers are
sensitive to the recipient's level of defensiveness and often use a consultative approach, drawing out the
recipient on the subject in question and making the feedback a conversational dialogue. However, when
the information to be given is of a highly serious or immediate nature, more direct or confrontational
approaches may be more appropriate.
Frequency

Document
Most people in organizations believe that they should receive more feedback than they actually do.
Feedback is most effective when it is given often and close in time to the observed behavior. However,
feedback given constantly, or feedback given immediately after an unsettling event, may be less
effective.
Valence
Feedback may be generally categorized as positive or negative; positive feedback is aimed at

reinforcing desired behaviors while negative feedback is aimed at changing behavior. Positive feedback
is also important to the maintenance of SELF-ESTEEM; it is often under-utilized as a tool for
improving MOTIVATION. Negative feedback, even when presented constructively, usually presents a
challenge to self-esteem. Experienced feedback-givers often precede negative feedback with specific,
equally important positive feedback in order to effect a balance which allows recipients to remain
secure and open to changing their behavior.

Document
Page 177
Use
Feedback information may be used purely as developmental information for the recipient, or it may be
provided to others as input to formal PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL systems for determination of
rewards and promotion. Studies have shown that givers and receivers of feedback react differently
depending upon which of these is the case, but there is little consistency in the research as to which
provides the better long-term result. The implied dichotomy may be partly considered a false
distinction, if one takes the long-term view that what is aimed at in either case (whether or not rewards
are involved) is a set of changes in behavior.
See also Performance, individual; Motivation and performance; Management by objectives;

Trust; Self-regulation; Goal-setting; Knowledge of results
Bibliography
Bernardin, H. J. & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work.
Boston: Kent.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
London, M. & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a competitive advantage. Human Resource
Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organization perspective. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.
MAURY PEIPERL
Feminism
The label feminism covers many diverse perspectives linked by common themes. Feminists tend to
believe that women are rendered invisible, stereotyped, or devalued in male-dominated societies
(patriarchies), and want to change this situation to one of equality. They seek to value women's
experiences and express their viewpoints. Types of feminism differ in how they explain women's
devalued social position, how radically they critique current society, and what changes they seek.
Feminism is as much a social movement and development of consciousness as it is a set of ideas. It is
continually evolving.

Document
Despite its social importance, feminism has not had much influence on mainstream
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR (OB). The potential significance of GENDER is ignored, for
example, in most theories of LEADERSHIP, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, POWER,
COMMUNICATION (Marshall, 1993), and ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE. Calas and Smircich
(1992) suggest that there are taboos against mentioning "the F word."
The failure of mainstream OB to take more radical feminisms into account is not surprising, since they
challenge the founding assumptions of the social and organizational order with which THEORY deals
(Daly, 1979). They also critique how knowledge has been created in male-dominated societies, showing
that women's experiences have often been systematically omitted or devalued relative to men's, and that
research on men has been presented as theory about people generally. Taking radical feminisms
seriously would require fundamental revision of many areas of OB.
Neither is it surprising that many women in organizations do not identify with feminism. Prevailing
negative stereotypes of feminists may well discourage them. Ironically, the social unacceptability of
being feminist proves the feminist critique. It suggests that for women to voice opinions considered
disruptive by organizational power-holders, most of whom are men, involves great personal risk.
Some people, especially younger women, argue that we are in a post-feminist age, that full equality is
achieved, and further debate unnecessary. This optimism seems premature and misguided. Whilst some
changes have occurred, many deep structures of male-dominated society remain in place. There also
appears to be some backlash, from both men and women, against recent change (Faludi, 1991).
Feminism offers a rich source of perspectives and potential insights from which OB could do more to
benefit, although no easy integration of the two fields is appropriate at the moment. There is now a
flourishing of different voices within feminism – for example, those of black women (Hooks, 1989 (see
RACE), native peoples (Allen, 1992), lesbians and ecofeminists – which enrich its scope. In any
organizational analysis it is, then, worth considering what feminists might

Document
Page 178
attend to and how they would seek to interpret the behavior being studied.
See also Women managers; Women at work; Management of diversity; Postmodernism; Critical
theory
Bibliography
Allen, P. G. (1992). The sacred hoop: Recovering the feminine in American Indian traditions. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Calas, M. B. & Smircich, L. (1989). Using the F word: Feminist theories and the social consequences of
organizational research. In A. Mills and P. Tancred (eds) Gendering Organizational Analysis. Newbury
Park, CA Sage.
Daly, M. (1979). Gyn/Ecology. London: Women's Press.
Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against women. London: Chatto and Windus.
Hooks, B. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist – thinking black. London: Sheba.
Marshall, J. (1993). Viewing organizational communication from a feminist perspective: A critique and
some offerings. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 16 pp. 122–143). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
JUDI MARSHALL
Field-Dependence
see PERSONALITY
Five Forces Framework
Porter's (1980) five forces framework is designed to analyze the forces affecting the profitability of an
industry. In particular, it is designed to explain why some industries are more profitable than others and
what are the forces which sustain those differences in profitability.
The five forces framework revolutionized strategic thinking and has become the standard technique for
basic industry analysis. It introduced a systematic way of thinking about and analyzing organizational
relationships with competitors, suppliers, buyers, potential new entrants, and substitutes. Within each of
these categories, the framework covered economic, technological, behavioral, financial, and
psychological factors which could give POWER to each force.

Document
Traditional industry analysis focused primarily on competitors of the organization (termed ''industry
rivalry" by Porter) in assessing an organization's competitive position within the industry. Porter noted
that industry rivalry was affected by factors as diverse as the industry growth rate, the existence of
intermittent over-capacity, product differences, brand identity, firm concentration, the perception of
competitive balance within the industry, the diversity of competitors, and corporate commitment to the
industry.
To the traditional focus on competitor analysis, Porter added four other forces. "Threat of new entrants"
introduced the idea that industry rivalry was affected by the ease with which new entrants could enter
the industry, as well as by the competitive position of existing organizations. BARRIERS TO ENTRY
included economies of scale, the power of existing brands, the existence of switching costs from
existing rivals, capital requirements, access to distribution, absolute cost advantages of existing rivals,
government policy, and the likelihood of expected retaliation.
"Bargaining power of suppliers" suggested that suppliers to the industry can also be a potentially strong
influence on industry profitability. The power of suppliers is determined by factors such as supplier
concentration, the importance of the volume to the supplier and to the industry, the impact of a
supplier's input on either the final cost or the extent of final product differentiation and the threat of
forward integration by suppliers relative to the threat of backward integration by the industry.
"Bargaining power of buyers" (more commonly known as customers) indicated that buyers can also
influence the profitability of the industry. Buyer concentration, buyer volume, buyer information, the
ability of buyers to switch within the industry or to use substitute products, the power of brand
identities, buyer profitability, product cost relative to buyer's total purchases, and decision-maker
incentives were identified as determining buyer power.
Finally, the existence of "substitutes," their relative price and performance, the ease and likelihood of
buyer substitution can also influence industry profitability.
Porter's five forces framework suggests that an industry should be very profitable if there are few rivals,
which are content with their position within the industry, barriers to new entrants are

Document
Page 179
high, both suppliers and buyers have little power and there are few acceptable substitutes. Industry
profitability should be low if these characteristics are reversed.
Although Porter designed the five forces framework to analyze industry profitability, many
organizations use it to analyze their own competitive position, in order to try to increase their own
power relative to the other five forces.
While it has been extremely influential in the field of STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, the five forces
framework has been criticized for several reasons. It is a static analysis technique, assessing the existing
position within the industry, when dynamic analysis is required to understand the evolving potential
profitability of an industry and to develop strategy for the future. The framework also tends to
understate the role of government as it affects competitive behavior, particularly in countries outside the
United States (see GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS). In addition, use of the framework requires a
clear definition of "industry." Where TECHNOLOGY and regulatory changes are occurring, the
definition of industry may be far from clear and it may not be agreed by firms which appear, on the
surface, to be competitors.
More recent work by Porter (1990) has applied and expanded the concept to explain why successful
organizations in a global industry seem to come from only one or two countries.
See also Competitiveness; Dominance; Transaction cost economics
Bibliography
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
GRAHAM HUBBARD
Flexibility
This concept denotes pliability, adaptability and a responsiveness to change. In recent years, added
emphasis has been placed on the extent to which organizations can respond flexibly to a changing
environment. Intensified competition, and particularly increased market UNCERTAINTY, together
with the adaptive potential of new technologies, are commonly identified as key factors driving the
search for greater flexibility (see COMPETITIVENESS; EXCELLENCE).

Document
The notion of flexibility can be applied equally to the structure and processes of organizations (see
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). To date, however, most attention has been concentrated on workforce
flexibility, and at the macro level, on LABOR MARKET flexibility. In turn, this focus reflects the
greater attention given to flexibility on both sides of the Atlantic by INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and
labor market specialists, than by those with an ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR perspective (see, in
particular, Atkinson, 1984; Blyton & Morris, 1991, 1992; Laflamme, Murray, Berlanger, & Ferland,
1989.
Four principal sources of workforce flexibility have been identified: functional or task flexibility
(relating to the mobility and adaptability of employees to undertake a broader range of functions);
numerical flexibility (varying the volume of labor by such means as temporary contracts and the use of
subcontractors); temporal flexibility (varying working hours patterns); and financial or wage flexibility
(abandoning uniform pay structures in favor of more variable reward arrangements, more reflective of
performance) (see PERFORMANCE-RELATED PAY). Atkinson (1984), in an early discussion of
flexibility, put forward the notion of the "flexible firm" in which a "core" of skilled workers, operating
with a high degree of functional flexibility, are supported by a ''periphery" of semi- and unskilled
workers some of whom are deployed in a numerically flexible way via temporary contracts or working
variable hours.
The notion of flexibility continues to suffer from both conceptual and empirical problems.
Conceptually, the diversity of work arrangements sheltering under the umbrella of flexibility raises
doubts about whether a single concept can function as an index for such a wide range of developments.
Discussion on flexibility has also been too ready to subscribe to a managerial perspective on the subject
without taking sufficient account of employee interests regarding flexibility. There has also been a
tendency for flexibility to be discussed only as a

Document
Page 180
positive attribute. This is despite, for example, tensions which Blyton and Morris (1992) and others
have identified between numerical flexibility and other management approaches to increasing
COMPETITIVENESS, such as achieving increased levels of employee COMMITMENT and quality
output. Standing (1986) has also noted that too great an emphasis on flexibility tends to understate the
importance of organizational stability and continuity.
Empirically, flexibility remains problematic. There is little evidence of organizations strategically

adopting the flexible firm model. Further, several of the elements discussed under flexibility, including
temporary working, show little growth over the recent past.
Despite these problems, however, the factors identified as fueling the search for greater flexibility show
little sign of abating; if anything they seem set to intensify in the coming period. In the future, however,
the current discussion of workforce flexibility will hopefully be usefully augmented by significantly
greater interest in other aspects of organizational flexibility.
See also Flexitime; Hours of work; Organizational effectiveness; Skill; Competencies
Bibliography
Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower strategies for flexible organisations. Personnel Management, August
28–31.
Blyton, P. & Morris, J. (Eds) (1991). A flexible future? Prospects for employment and organization.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Blyton, P. & Morris, J. (1992). HRM and the limits of flexibility. In P. Blyton & P. Turnbull (Eds),
Reassessing human resource management. London: Sage.
Laflamme, G., Murray, G., Belanger, J. & Ferland, G. (Eds) (1989). Flexibility and labour markets in
Canada and the United States. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
Standing, G. (1986). Unemployment and labour market flexibility: The United Kingdom. Geneva:
International Labour Organization.
PAUL BLYTON
Flexitime

Document
This term refers to an arrangement whereby employees may vary their start and finish times provided
they are present during a "core" period. Most flexitime schemes allow employees to vary (within limits)
their quantity of daily work hours, provided contractual hours are worked over a preset period. Often,
however, some carry-over of credit or debit hours from one settlement period to another is allowed.
Besides formal flexitime systems, a significant minority of employees maintain informal arrangements
for varying their starting and finishing times.
Flexitime has tended to be introduced during periods of labor shortage, with employers offering
flexitime as an additional inducement to recruit and/or retain staff. Most flexitime systems involve
white-collar staff only. Studies have generally identified positive employee attitudes toward flexitime.
As Blyton (1985) points out, potential benefits for management include more positive employee
attitudes, reductions in minor absence, and a reduced requirement to enforce punctuality (see
ABSENTEEISM). Potential drawbacks for management include maintaining adequate cover in noncore
periods, and, as a result of employees taking time off to balance previously accrued credit hours.
See also Flexibility; Working conditions; Human resources planning; Labor markets; Hours of
work
Bibliography
Blyton, P. (1985). Changes in working time: An international review. London: Croom Helm.
PAUL BLYTON
Force Field Analysis
Force field analysis, attributable to Kurt Lewin (1951) as part of his general theory of change, is a
technique for organizing and analyzing information about the forces maintaining a situation in its
current state, such as a group's performance or an individual's relationship to his/her superior, and
planning what might be done to move to a more desirable condition. The current condition is considered
a quasi-stationery equilibrium, a changeable state maintained by a balance of dynamic (i.e., variable)
forces, much like an aircraft in level flight. Force, in Lewin's model, is a psychological construct, a
PERCEPTION of a factor and its influence. Forces have direction,

Document
Page 181
Figure 1
Force field diagram
driving or resisting movement toward the desired condition, and magnitude or intensity (see Figure 1).
Lewin proposed three fundamental propositions about force fields and change, which subsequent
research confirmed.
(1) Adding or increasing driving forces arouses an increase in resisting forces, the current equilibrium
does not change but is maintained under increased tension.
(2) Reducing or removing resisting forces is preferable because it will allow movement without
increasing tension.
(3) GROUP NORMS are an important force.
An individual with valued membership in a group will increase his/her RESISTANCE TO CHANGE to
the degree that s/he must deviate from the group's norms. The group is critical in a change effort. If
group norms can be changed, then this key source of individual resistance will be reduced.

Document
See also Organization development; Organizational change; Change methods; Stake-holders;

Organization and environment; Power
Bibliography
Burke, W. W. (1982). Organization development: Principles and practices. New York: Little, Brown.
Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.
(1958). Group decisions and social change. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds),
Readings in social psychology (pp. 197–211). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
DALE E. ZAND
Fordism
see CLASSICAL DESIGN THEORY; DIVISION OF LABOR; MASS PRODUCTION;

ROUTINIZATION

Document
Page 182
Formal Organization
This was developed as an alternative name for bureaucracies during the 1960s in sociology (see
BUREAUCRACY). Both of these terms were used to distinguish a structural appraisal from the Human
Relations idea of informal organization (see HUMAN RELATIONS MOVEMENT). Formal
organizations are assumed to have high goal specificity and relatively high FORMALIZATION, and it
is these qualities that make them highly rational. These properties should be seen as variables. Since the
term formal organizations is not limited to just public sector organizations, it has the advantage of
emphasizing the communalities across kinds of organizations. An alternative label is complex
organizations (see COMPLEXITY). Today, few researchers use either adjective and instead the
problem is to locate formal organizations as one type in some taxonomy.
See also Classical design theory; Decision making
Bibliography
Scott, W. R. (1991). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd edn). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
JERALD HAGE
Formalization
This is a property of the social structure of an organization and refers to the degree of specificity of
ROLES in that structure (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). This aspect allows for work behavior to
be defined independently of the personalities (see PERSONALITY) of the individuals who occupy the
work roles and thus is a mechanism of social CONTROL. Furthermore, formalization, that is, detailed
role descriptions (see JOB DESCRIPTION), rule manuals, or more generally programming are a way of
coordinating the DIVISION OF LABOR. Although in recent years, formalization of the organizational
structure has not been studied, it has reemerged in the study of CONTRACTS in interorganizational
relationships such as JOINT VENTURES (see INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS).
See also Bureaucracy; Classical design theory; Job design
Bibliography
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
JERALD HAGE
Founders

Document
Organizations do not emerge spontaneously; they are set up at a distinct point in time in order to
achieve a purpose. Founders are those who set up organizations of all kinds – political, social, religious,
or work. Their INFLUENCE on organizations is typically profound, shaping the behavior, attitudes, and
VALUES of other members. As such they have been the subject of much social, political, and
organizational enquiry.
Along with leaders (see LEADERSHIP), in general, and – in a business context – entrepreneurs (see
ENTREPRENEURSHIP), in particular, founders are often said to share a number of distinctive
personal attributes. Although there are variations according to factors such as CULTURE and
ETHNICITY, personal attributes typically include high levels of energy, determination, ambition, and
self-confidence (see PERSONALITY). Founders can be further distinguished by their high achievement
needs (see ACHIEVEMENT, NEED FOR) and clarity of purpose or vision; some may be said to have
charisma. But these may be the attributes of the successful; founders who fail are less well researched
and, plausibly, may look less distinctive.
Davis (1990) distinguishes three types of founders in FAMILY FIRMS:
(1) proprietors – who dominate the business on the basis of their ownership and allow little room for
others to develop;
(2) conductors – who orchestrate the involvement of other family members but are reluctant to
relinquish their paternalist role; and
(3) technicians – who build businesses on the basis of their creative or technical SKILLS and delegate
administration often to non-family members.
Much contemporary interest is focused upon the manner in which founders may shape the evolution of
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES.

Document
Page 183
According to Schein (1985) the process involves the following steps:
(1) the founder has an idea for a new enterprise;
(2) one or more other members are brought in to form a core group who commit to the founder's vision;
(3) this founding group act in concert to create an organization; and
(4) others are recruited and a common history begins to emerge.
The founders of family firms who wish to establish businesses which will survive them are thus
engaged in a process which involves more than simply DELEGATION. Successful founders, in this
sense, create and communicate a "workable" organizational culture which assists members in
integrating their activities as well as adapting to the external environment.
How, then, do founders embed their own assumptions within the thoughts and actions of others? The
process involves both conscious and deliberate action as well as that which is unconscious and possibly
unintended. Again, according to Schein (1985), "primary mechanisms" include:
(1) what founders attend to, measure, and control;
(2) reactions to critical incidents and CRISES;
(3) role-modeling and coaching (see ROLE TAKING);
(4) criteria for allocation of REWARDS and STATUS; and
(5) criteria for RECRUITMENT, selection, promotion, RETIREMENT, and excommunication [pp. 224
– 5].
Through such actions founders establish "dynasties." Both founders and their creations may exhibit the
characteristics of contemporary historical paradigms; they can be seen, in effect, as creatures of their
times. But the process of establishing a dynasty may not be without conflict or risk. The example of
Henry Ford is extreme but telling. His obsessive interference and desire for personal control almost
bankrupted Ford by the 1940s; only the very different style of his successor, Henry Ford II, saved the
business.
See also Organizational change; CEOs
Bibliography
Davis, P. (1990). Three types of founders – and their dark sides. Family Business [Feb] pp. 12–15.
Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain. London: Heinemann.

Document
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organisations. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School.
Scase, R. & Goffee, R. (1987). The real world of the small business owner (2nd edn). London:
Routledge.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
ROB GOFFEE
Frustration
Organizational frustration can be defined as any external interference with the individual's ability to
carry out his day-to-day duties in his job effectively. It can take a variety of forms, including deliberate
blocking by other people, petty and arbitrary rules, or simply lack of cooperation from work colleagues.
Although the individual's reactions to frustration have been extensively studied by social psychologists,
there is a dearth of studies on the causes and effects of frustration in organizational settings. The
frustration–aggression hypothesis, which postulates that a characteristic response to frustration is
aggression in one form or another, has had some support in social psychological studies. In line with
this hypothesis one or two studies of frustration within an organizational context have found frustration
to be associated with feelings of anger and latent hostility (e.g., Keenan & Newton, 1984). Since these
anger/hostility reactions to the stressful effects of frustration would appear to be quite distinct from the
anxiety reactions that are more typically investigated in STRESS research, future studies of
organizational stress should be broadened to include these variables.
See also Job satisfaction; Role conflict
Bibliography
Keenan, A. & Newton, T. J. (1984). Frustration in organizations: Relationships to role stress, climate,
and psychological strain. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 57–65.
TONY KEENAN

Document
Page 184
Functional Design
This particular principle of ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN divides work at the departmental level (see
DEPARTMENTALIZATION) on the basis of the major areas of management. Typically, within
manufacturing these include finance, production, marketing, and research and development. Although
in any particular instance, other departments such as transportation or purchasing or personnel may be
equally important, these three or four are considered to be the most critical. Since these divisions
represents distinct stages in the process of generating a product and selling it on the market, design on
this basis has been referred to as functional.
Within public service organizations, the process of providing services can have similar sounding names
but quite different kinds of functions. For example, in child protection services, reporting, investigation
and assessment, and service would be three major kinds of departments or functions that would have to
be performed.
See also Classical design theory; Differentiation; Technology
Bibliography
Daft, R. (1989). Organizational theory and design (4th edn). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
JERALD HAGE
Functionalism
This concept, derived from sociology and social anthropology, applies an organic analogy to social
institutions, conceptualizing elements of society as existing in a systemic interdependence, in which
their function or "purpose" is the stability of society as a whole. It explains elements of society or
subsystems in terms of their manifest (intended and recognized) and latent (unintended or
unrecognized) functions or consequences for another part of the system or the system as a whole. Social
activities or institutions are seen as having the function of satisfying basic social needs.
Criticism of functionalism center around the following issues. First, it cannot account for social
CONFLICT, because it sees all social activities as interacting to stabilize society. Functionalists counter
this criticism by arguing that: (a) conflict may have positive functions for social order; and (b)
introducing the concept of dysfunction (i.e., that some of a social activity's consequences may impede
the workings of another part of the system). Second, it cannot account for change, as there appears no
mechanism to disturb existing functional relationships. Third, it is teleological, in that it explains the
existence of a social activity or institution by its consequences. Fourth, it neglects the meanings
individuals give to their actions by its concentration on the consequences of behavior. Essentially, it is a
very conservative epistemology focusing as it does on regulation rather than radical change (see
CRITICAL THEORY).

Document
See also Manifest and latent functions; Systems theory; Institutional theory; Organization theory;
Organizational effectiveness
Bibliography
Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
KAREN LEGGE
Fundamental Attribution Error
The fundamental ATTRIBUTION error is the pervasive tendency of observers to underestimate the
importance of situational factors and overestimate the influence of internal dispositions and traits (e.g.,
ABILITY, effort, intelligence, and hostility) as the cause of actor behavior and outcomes (see
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; PERSONALITY). Thus, for example, in PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL situations, leaders often have a tendency to ignore the conditions surrounding the job and
explain performance in terms of the characteristics and dispositions of employees. Moreover, in
conditions of both success and failure, this bias suggests that supervisors tend to give their employees
more credit and blame than they deserve.
Explanations of the fundamental attribution error suggest that this BIAS occurs because the focus of the
observer's attention is on the actor rather than the situational constraints the actor may be experiencing.
Thus, because the actor is

Document
Page 185
the most salient aspect of the observer's attention, causation is attributed to the actor rather than less
salient situational influences.
Research suggests that this bias is particularly critical in leader-member interactions where leaders often
fulfill the role of observers. Performance appraisal processes and other evaluative situations such as
TRAINING, selection, and placement processes are often influenced by fundamental attribution errors
(see SELECTION METHODS).
See also Selection Interviewing; Cognitive processes; Perception
Bibliography
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic
Press.
MARK J. MARTINKO
Fuzzy Sets
The logic of fuzzy sets has yet to make an impact on the field of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR,
though it may be expected to do so in the future. It refers to the analytical methods emerging from
applied science and mathematics to encompass the imprecision inherent in various natural phenomena,
in much the same way as CHAOS THEORY has developed nonlinear modeling to represent the
patterned change in naturally occurring systems. Fuzzy logic has developed to cope with qualitative
distinctions, such as "very" and "few" which can be applied usefully to phenomena whose occurrence
cannot be specified with numerical precision. It deliberately fudges the rules of logic which insist that
categories are unambiguously applied and that there is an "excluded middle" between something being
or not being the case. Its applications have to date been mainly in the analysis of control systems in
engineering, greatly simplifying and improving their utility and predictive power. Its potential is also
being realized in expert systems where it makes possible the incorporation of people's tacit knowledge
(see PRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE) into their design.
See also Statistical methods
Bibliography
Alliger, G. M., Feinzig, S. L. & Janak, E. A. (1993). Fuzzy sets and personnel selection: Discussion and
an application. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 163–169.
Smithson, M. (1987). Fuzzy set analysis for behavioral and social sciences. New York: Springer-Verlag.
NIGEL NICHOLSON

Document

Document
Page 186
Gainsharing
This denotes an organization-wide involvement system that focuses attention on problem solving while
sharing gains in cost reduction, improvements in quality, and/or PRODUCTIVITY in the form of a
variable cash bonus (see BONUS PAYMENTS). Historically, its philosophy is one of industrial
cooperation. In 1937, Joseph Scanlon, a local union president, was instrumental in helping the Empire
Plate and Steel Company of Mansfield, Ohio, become more competitive by reducing costs via
collaboration between workers and management. Minimally defined, gainsharing is just a financial
formula paying broadly-based cash bonuses for increases in productivity.
Broadly-based bonuses are to be distinguished from individual bonuses (piece rate) in that most
gainsharing bonuses are distributed as a percent of earned salaries and wages for a particular time
period. As such, everyone receives the same percent which is then multiplied times individual earnings
to equal the bonus amount. Individual high and low producers in the same wage grades receive the
same bonus, if their earned hours are equal. Gainsharing philosophy reinforces cooperation and the
sharing of information among workers rather than competition and the pursuit of narrow self-interest
between workers.
Gainsharing is a generic term. However, it is known by a variety of proprietary and proprietary

sounding names, e.g., Improshare(R), Rucker Plan, and Scanlon Plan. The key distinctions between any
particular gainsharing plan are the type of financial formulas and the extent of the involvement systems
(see Graham-Moore & Ross, 1990). For example, Scanlon Plans always have a system of production
and screening committees to process suggestions. Rucker Plans may have suggestions systems.
Originally, Improshare(R) plans did not have involvement systems since its financial formula reinforced
quantity and not problem solving. However, contemporary organizations draw from any aspect of
gainsharing to create their own programs. Indeed, there is no one gainsharing plan as empirical
literature indicates that a successful gainsharing plan is adapted to fit a particular organization's culture
and objectives (Doyle, 1983).

Document
An estimated sixty (plus) years old, gainsharing has currently seen a rapid rise in interest and use. Much
is known about successful and unsuccessful characteristics of gainsharing (see Graham-Moore & Ross,
1995; Bullock & Lawler, 1984). Experts agree that the first year represents the most critical period for
learning new behaviors and the achievement of bonus opportunities. Most OB textbooks mention
gainsharing in their discussions of variable and contingent reward systems. Academic and practitioner
articles on gainsharing have increased in the last 10 years in part due to the growing interest in
rewarding SELF-MANAGED TEAMS. Gainsharing has moved from manufacturing to service
industries and even to the public sector. In the United States the states of North Carolina, Texas, and
Washington have passed laws or have established procedures permitting gainsharing in state agencies
(see GOVERNMENT AGENCIES). The federal government has permitted gainsharing since 1982. The
American Compensation Association instituted a certification course in gainsharing in 1992.
Often confused with PROFIT SHARING, gainsharing's bonuses are paid out of the difference between
expected costs and actual costs, not profits. If actual costs are lower during a given period of work
because of problem solving, increased effort, and/or

Document
Page 187
greater attention to quality, then the difference between expected costs and actual cost triggers a bonus.
Beliefs about the relation between performance and outcomes are sharpened under gainsharing which,
in turn, increases MOTIVATION (VIE THEORY).
See also Democracy; Employee involvement; Payment systems; Rewards; Performance related
pay
Bibliography
Bullock, R. J. & Lawler, E. E. (1984). Gainsharing: A few questions and fewer answers. Human
Resource Management, 23, (1), 23–40.
Frost, C. F. (1982). The Scanlon plan at Herman Miller, Inc.: Managing and organization by innovation.
In R. Zager & M. P. Rosow (Eds), The innovative organization. New York: Pergamon Press.
Doyle, R. J. (1983). Gainsharing and productivity. New York: AMACON.
Graham-Moore, B. & Ross, T. L. (1995). Gainsharing and Employee Employment. Washington, DC:
BNA Books.
BRIAN GRAHAM-MOORE
Game Theory
This theory analyzes how rational actors react to potentially conflictful interactions (see CONFLICT;
CONFLICT RESOLUTION). In particular, game theory attempts to identify strategies for all parties
such that each is optimal given the others' (see NEGOTIATION). Although such an endeavor seems
immediately relevant for the study of cognitions and behavior both between and within organizations
(see COGNITIVE PROCESSES), ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR has paid little or no attention to
game theory, even though game theory is currently undergoing exciting expansion, both theoretically
and empirically.
John von Neumann, an applied mathematician, and Osker Morgenstern, an economist, invented game
theory in their ground-breaking and amazingly comprehensive, Theory of Games and Economic
Behavior (1944). Since then, game theory has been used to analyze matters as weighty as international
nuclear strategy, local and global environmental concerns, and global trade and monetary issues. Its
models consider a variety of structural conflicts, ranging from cooperative to noncooperative games
(see COOPERATION), from two- to n-party games (see COALITION FORMATION), from complete
to incomplete information games, and from static to dynamic games (see GROUP DYNAMICS).

Document
"Games" refer to strategic interactions where the parties' outcomes are interdependent (Rapoport, 1973).
Game theory involves and has been defined as the problem of exchange (von Neumann and
Morgenstern's original definition, 1947; see EXCHANGE RELATIONS), decisions in conflict
situations (Rapoport, 1973), the interaction of rational decision makers (Myerson, 1991; see DECISION
MAKING; RATIONALITY), or multiperson decision problems (Gibbons, 1992). "The essence of a
'game' . . . is that it involves decision makers with different goals or objectives whose fates are
interwined" (Shubik, 1964, p. 8). Game-theoretic reasoning is "a mathematical shortcut" that theorists
use to determine what intelligent, adaptive players will do (Camerer, 1991).
Although its potential applicability is far-reaching, game theory restricts its analytic approach to two
overlapping domains: theoretical and empirical. A game theorist makes assumptions, considers their
logical consequences, and proves theorems which, given the assumptions, are true. Theoretical game
theorists: "examine what ultrasmart, impeccably rational, super-people should do in competitive,
interactive situations" (Raiffa, 1982, p. 21).
Theoretical game theory is precise and clean. Like the physical sciences, it investigates human
interaction as if it were in a vacuum. And also like the physical sciences, its greatest successes produce
truly beautiful, elegant models. Game theory's theoretical domain is neither descriptive nor normative:
It neither describes everyday people's actions nor does it tell them what to do. Instead, it is analytic:
"game theorists analyze the formal implications of various levels of mutual rationality in strategic
situations" (Aumann, 1991). By its very nature, theoretical game theory is not refutable: It analyzes
limited problems in specifically bounded domains and solves them mathematically (see THEORY).
As an example, game theory makes a strong prediction in ultimatum bargaining. Say that one person
receives an amount of money (say $50) and must offer some of it to another person. S/he can either
accept or reject the offer. If the second person accepts, s/he

Document
Page 188
receives the amount offered and the first person receives the remainder ($50 – the amount offered). If s/
he rejects the offer, both people receive nothing. Game theory uses backward induction (i.e., starting at
the end and working backward) to predict that, since something is better than nothing, the second
person should accept any positive offer and, therefore, the offerer should make a small offer that is
accepted. Not surprisingly, this strong theoretical prediction is upheld for few respondents and almost
no offerers. (Research indicates that some people will accept offers as small as a penny and that many
offers approach 50–50). Although game theory's prediction is not supported empirically, its logic is
unassailable (given its assumptions).
This example shows how game theory's empirical domain tests its theoretical principles. The messy
realities of everyday human interaction make the empirical domain (and most other social scientific
endeavors) less deterministic than the theoretical domain. Nevertheless, researchers are investigating
issues as diverse as bargaining, the efficiency of markets, fairness, preference formation and reversal,
LEARNING, and a plethora of other theoretically grounded topics.
Unfortunately, game theory has suffered considerable criticism (see Murnighan, 1994). Some social
scientists confuse the two game-theoretic domains; some are put off by game theory's difficult
mathematics; others reject game theory's rational approach. Although game theory may not describe the
behavior of the general public, its attention to sophisticated, experienced, knowledgeable, and strategic
actors, and its recent attempts to accommodate nonequilibrium behavior, provide us with insights that
are unattainable from more mundane strategists.
Current game theory is expanding its horizons to encompass the general analysis of potentially
conflictual interactions. Models are now being developed to accommodate the foibles and psycho-logic
of real, rather than strictly rational human actors (e.g., Raiffa, 1982). In addition, a number of easily
read treatments make game theory understandable without sophisticated mathematics (e.g., Gibbons,
1992; McMillan, 1992).
Most business strategy decisions fit within the broader scope of game theory (Camerer, 1991).
Dynamics, communication (see COMMUNICATIONS), and differential perceptions of the game are all
now part of game-theoretic investigations – making it much more appropriate for applicability to
research in organizational behavior and strategy. Game theorists' strong theory should provide
researchers with potent tools for advancing understandings of conflict and POWER. Its influence is
clearly evident in the frameworks it provides for analyzing the political dynamics of coalition behavior
and the dilemma of volunteering (Murnighan, 1994). These are just two examples of areas where little
progress has been achieved prior to the recent use of game-theoretic models.
Game theory has grown and become increasingly more useful throughout the social sciences. As
Myerson (1992, p. 62) noted "Game theory provides a fundamental and systematic way of thinking
about questions that concern all of the social sciences."

Document
See also Prisoner's dilemma; Behavioral decision research; Bounded rationality; Prospect theory;
Risk-taking
Bibliography
Aumann, R. (1991). Irrationality in game theory. In D. Gale & O. Hart (Eds), Economic analysis of
markets and games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Camerer, C. (1991). Does strategy research need game theory?. Strategic Management Journal, 12,
137–152.
Gibbons, R. (1992). Game theory for applied economists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Murnighan, J. K. (1994). Game theory and organizational behavior. In L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds), Research on organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.
Myerson, R. (1991). Game theory: Analysis of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Myerson, R. (1992). On the value of game theory in social science. Rationality and Society, 4, 62–73.
Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rapoport, A. (1973). Two-person game theory. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Shubik, M. (1964). Game theory and related approaches to social behavior. New York: Wiley.

Document
Page 189
Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1947). The theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
J. KEITH MURNIGHAN
Garbage Can Model
In the literature on organizational DECISION MAKING the ''garbage can" model denotes "organized
anarchies" characterized by unclear or inconsistent goals, a TECHNOLOGY which is obscure and little
understood by members and a highly variable member PARTICIPATION. Cohen, March and Olsen
(1972) based their description of this model primarily on experiences with decision-making processes at
universities. According to these authors, organizations can be viewed as collections of: (1) problems;
(2) solutions; (3) participants; and (4) choice opportunities; situations in which participants are expected
to link a problem to a solution, and thus make a decision. From this point of view, "an organization is a
collection of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which
they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be the answer, and decision
makers looking for work" (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972, p. 2).
These four elements are more or less randomly mixed together in the "garbage can." Combinations arise
almost unpredictably. There is no a priori chronology. Solutions can precede problems, or problems and
solutions can wait for a suitable opportunity for a decision. The traditionally assumed order:
"identification and definition of the problem," "generation of decision alternatives," "examination of
their consequences," "evaluation of those consequences in terms of objectives," and finally "selection"
is thus often a poor description of what actually happens (March & Olsen, 1976).
Labels such as "garbage can model" and "anarchy" can be misleading. The authors certainly do not
imply that no systematic decision making can be discovered in such organizations. On the contrary, the
central message of these authors is that the seeming anarchy has a structure and an organization which
form a reasonable, although not optimal, answer to the great environmental UNCERTAINTY in which
the participants find themselves. In order for decision making to progress, it is essential that the
organization manages to attract sufficient attention from the participants to solve the problems in
question. However, participants generally have more on their minds. Thus, it is not unusual for decision
making to take place without explicit attention to the problem, or by simply postponing the problem.
The authors, however, see it as the task of management to coordinate and steer the required attention in
a direction desired by the organization.
See also Managerial behavior; Rationality; Group decision making; Social constructionism;
Negotiated order
Bibliography
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice.

Document
Koopman, P. L., Broekhuysen, J. W. & Meijn, O. M. (1984). Complex decision making at the
organizational level. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, P. J. Willems & C. J. de Wolff (Eds), Handbook of
work and organizational psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway:
Universitetsforlaget.
PAUL KOOPMAN
Gatekeepers
Like many concepts in organizational behavior, gatekeepers is metaphorical. When thinking literally of
gate, one typically imagines a movable object that either stops or allows the flow of physical
movement. Gatekeepers, a term originated by Lewin (1952), are persons who either facilitate or impede
information flow between people. Gatekeepers are therefore at the nexus of exchange among
individuals interpersonally, in groups, or within and across organizations.
Middle managers may occupy the most important gatekeeping roles in organizations. They pass or do
not pass information up and down the HIERARCHY as well as horizontally in the organization. As
gatekeepers they can determine whether and what kind of information flows throughout the
organization.
The term has been used primarily in GROUP DYNAMICS. Gatekeepers are group members

Document
Page 190
who either help the well being and maintenance of the group or hinder such processes. By seeking
people's ideas and opinions and by asking members to participate (opening the gate for information
flow and PARTICIPATION), gatekeepers effectively facilitate the group's work toward its objectives.
When compared with the more peripheral group members, research has shown that gatekeepers in small
groups reported significantly higher feelings of participation, satisfaction, responsibility, and
COMMITMENT to the final group product.
See also Boundary spanning; Organizational boundaries; Organizational design; Managerial

behavior
Bibliography
Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb & E. L.
Hartley (Eds), Readings in social psychology (3rd edn, pp. 197–211). New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
W. WARNER BURKE
Gender
This term is used in a variety of ways to help people discuss aspects of interaction between women and
men. It marks a changing field as thinking and practice develop. Much has been written from women's
viewpoints, seeking to understand and change their previously devalued social position. How gender
issues affect men is now receiving more attention. Gender constructions and relations vary greatly with
culture, class, religion, and many other factors.
The question of whether women and men are "really" different, to which there is no definitive answer,
often lurks in the background of discussions about gender (see SEX DIFFERENCES and SEX
ROLES). Many scholars, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom, are unwilling to
conclude that differences exist because interpretations of equality have required women to prove their
likeness to men. Apparent differences have been viewed as faults or weaknesses on women's part,
making them, for example, unsuitable for management jobs. This equality for similarity model still has
much influence. However, an alternative view that women may be different from, as well as similar to,
men and also equal, is gaining ground. This view opens the way to welcoming diversity (of many
kinds) as potentially valuable to organizational life (see MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY).

Document
Research does frequently seem to find one apparent difference between men and women, viewed as
broad gender groups. Men often seem to operate from assumptions of hierarchy – for example, setting
up social systems organized by this principle, asserting their status in conversation, or using POWER in
competitive ways. Women, in contrast, seem more often to operate from notions of equality – favoring
participative management styles, and encouraging equal contributions in discussion. In her analysis of
conversation, Tannen (1991) depicts these tendencies as symmetrical, different but equal. Doing so
avoids the paradox that, as operating frameworks, hierarchy and equality incorporate unequal
assumptions about power. Someone working from an equality intent is vulnerable to the power moves
of somone who frames the world according to hierarchy. This potentially gender-related tension has
great significance for OB.
Many people now argue that women should be welcomed into organizations because of the potentially
different contributions they may bring. For whatever reasons, women currently have a different cultural
heritage from men, fostering different SKILLS and VALUES. It would therefore not only be equitable
but exciting and effective to work in gender-equal environments (Marshall, 1984).
Differences and similarities are constructed and interpreted from value frameworks. Valuing, and the
power to assign value, are therefore central issues in any consideration of gender. Until recently men
have held the vast majority of positions of public power in Western societies. Characteristics, activities,
and life patterns associated with men have been valued, and those associated with women devalued.
Critiques of this situation, and the resulting principles of "male as norm" and "male positive–female
negative," are now well established (Spender, 1980).
Much gender literature explores overt and covert processes through which unequal power relations
between women and men have been

Document
Page 191
maintained. This situation is only changing slowly. It is widely believed, for example, that "glass
ceilings" still prevent many women reaching senior decision-making roles (Greenglass & Marshall,
1993). Despite equality legislation, at most 5 percent of senior managers in most Western countries are
women, and corporate and governmental agendas continue to be shaped mainly by men.
The structures, norms of behavior, and values of most organizations are, then, still firmly male
dominated. Some STRESS literature implicitly reveals the possible negative consequences for men of
living in such environments. Gender stratification in employment remains prevalent, with women
largely found in low-level, low-paid work and in a limited range of employment sectors. Women who
escape these constraints by doing traditional men's jobs or by becoming managers are often judged by
double standards. They must prove themselves against dominant, male, norms of behavior, but not
offend stereotypes of femininity by being over-assertive or uncaring (see STEREOTYPING). A
significant theme in gender research is the potential silence and invisibility of women when they
encounter male-dominated cultures (Goldberger, Clinchy, Belenky, & Tarule 1987) (see
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE).
Any discussion of gender therefore has power as an integral aspect. Attention can be paid, for example,
to what NORMS are being used to judge behavior; whether some viewpoints are privileged and others
excluded; and what processes of power are affecting the issue studied.
Female role stereotypes have been searchingly questioned since the 1960s resurgence of FEMINISM.
Recently more men are criticizing their apparently advantaged social roles. For example, Keen (1992)
argues that most men are tacitly socialized to become soldiers, encouraging them to compete, suppress
emotions, and simplify issues to achieve action. He suggests this ideal-type has become a model for the
corporate executive, constraining men's (and women's) behavior.
Many people argue that gender stereotypes are now breaking down, but they may be recreated in
revised forms despite apparent change. For example, current advice to professional women about dress
and image may create new ideals of physical appearance – designed to ensure that men take women
seriously – to which women again have to conform (Wolf, 1991).
Some writers dismiss the idea of essential differences between women and men, concentrating instead
on how gender and associated power differentials are constructed, maintained, or challenged in social
interaction (Weedon, 1987). They make a valuable contribution to theory and considerations of action.
For example, patterns of domination and subordination can be played out or changed in a particular
social exchange. So, by controlling conversation, interrupting, ignoring the other party's contributions,
making demands for support and attention, and using physical signals of dominance such as touching, a
person can assert power. If individuals are aware of such processes they have more opportunity not to
collude with traditional gender scripting and to resist, although not necessarily easily, power being used
against them.

Document
Taking only a social perspective on gender has limitations. Male and female can also be understood as
complementary archetypal principles, akin to the Taoist concepts of yang and yin (Colegrave, 1991). In
interaction, dynamically, these map a full range of potential qualities. Western society can be depicted
as in transition from over-emphasizing the male principle to more appreciation of the female principle.
Various writers about gender critique mainstream OB for paying too little attention to the physical
aspects of life in organizations. People are bodies too. It seems possible that women are more aware
than men of themselves as physical beings, partly through the monthly rhythms of menstruation. But
such topics are seldom broached in organizational literature (nor are pregnancy and the menopause),
perhaps because any differences women exhibit may be interpreted as potential weaknesses until male-
dominated frameworks are superseded.
Recently, the de-sexualized impression of corporate life given by most organizational theories has been
strongly criticized (Hearn, Sheppard, Tancred-Sheriff, & Burrell, 1989). As a corrective, some attention
is now being paid to topics such as SEXUAL HARASSMENT, affairs in the workplace, sexual
attraction, sexual

Document
Page 192
joking as intimidation, pressures on women managers to mask their sexuality, and the implications for
lesbians and gay men of working in organizations which assume heterosexuality (Sims, Fineman, &
Gabriel, 1993). Awareness of such themes is underdeveloped in OB.
Whilst some theories rightly focus on gender, the trend is for more organizational analyses to
incorporate it as a potential theme. For example, any topic covered in this dictionary can be read
through a gender-aware lens and its gender-power aspects explored. This could involve, for example,
noticing if certain characteristics are assumed "natural" to people of a given gender, or those
stereotyped as masculine or feminine are attributed more value.
But it is no easy matter to see beyond traditional gender value patterns, partly because these are so
ingrained in the social fabric, and partly because doing so can be personally threatening, as gender is
typically a foundational aspect of individual identity.
See also Discrimination; Critical theory; Social constructionism; Women at work
Bibliography
Colegrave, S. (1991). The unfolding feminine principle in human consciousness. In C. Zweig (Ed.), To
be a woman: The birth of the conscious feminine (pp. 34–42). London: Mandala.
Goldberger, N. R., Clinchy, B. McV., Belenky, M. F. & Tarule, J. M. (1987). Women's ways of
knowing: On gaining a voice. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds), Sex and culture (pp. 201–228).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Greenglass, E. & Marshall, J. (1993). Special Issue: Women in Management, Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 42 (4).
Hearn, J., Sheppard, D. L., Tancred-Sheriff, P. & Burrell, G. (Eds), (1989). The sexuality of
organization. London: Sage.
Keen, S. (1992). Fire in the belly: On being a man. London: Piatkus.
Marshall, J. (1984). Women managers: Travellers in a male world. Chichester: Wiley.
Sims, D., Fineman, S. & Gabriel, Y. (1993). Organizing and organizations: An introduction. London:
Sage.
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Tannen, D. (1991). You just don't understand: Men and women in conversation. London: Virago.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Document
Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. London: Vintage.
JUDI MARSHALL
Generalization
The goal of much of organizational science is generalization. Scholars (and reflective practitioners)
wish to establish principles or theories of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR (OB) that are usually
correct for a class of cases (e.g., new workers, large organizations) or situations (e.g., during mergers).
However, the evidence or data available from research or experience is often limited. What we know
may derive from a single case, study, type of measure, investigator, even from a single nation. Thus
writers in OB (especially textbook writers) are usually making a generalization when they assert (or
teach) that a functional relationship exists between two factors, a practice will have a particular
consequence or a particular business policy will have a specified impact (see THEORY). The
correctness of any generalization will be a function of such factors as the: number and breadth of cases
for which there is particularized knowledge; consistency of the findings across such cases; degree of
Bias in the observer (see SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM); quality of the research (see RESEARCH
METHODS); or measures (see RELIABILITY); and degree of similarity between the instances on
which the inferences are built and the individual, organization, or situation to which the generalization
is being made (see VALIDITY).
See also Research design; Error; Statistical methods; Case study research; Levels of analysis
Bibliography
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. & Peracchio, L. (1990). Quasi experimentation. In M. D. Dunnette & L.
M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology (pp. 491–576). Palo Alto, CA:
Schmitt, N. W. & Klimoski, R. J. (1991). Research methods in human resources management.

Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
RICHARD KLIMOSKI

Document
Page 193
Goal Setting
This theory of MOTIVATION was originally developed by Locke (1968) to explain human action in
specific work situations. The underlying assumptions of the theory are that goals and intentions are
cognitive and volitional, and that they serve as the immediate regulators of human action. The two
major findings of the theory are that specific goals lead to higher performance levels than general goals,
and that difficult goals are positively and linearly related to performance. These effects are subject to
two conditions – FEEDBACK, and the acceptance of goals by the performers. Goals regulate behavior
through three mechanisms: choice/direction, intensity/effort/resource allocation, and duration/
persistence. The effect of goal-setting in complex tasks is regulated by a fourth mechanism of strategy
development, which is necessary for reaching the goal. The two unique characteristics of the goal-
setting theory that make it more effective than any other theory of motivation to date are its strong
empirical basis, and its continuous process of development.
The original goal-setting model (Locke, 1968) consisted of a sequential process of five steps:
Environmental Stimuli → Cognition → Evaluation → Intentions/Goal-Setting → Performance. Goal-
setting theory was developed by starting with goals and intentions as the two conscious motivational
factors closest to the action. It then worked backward progressively to the preceding stages of
evaluation, and cognition. The term goal refers to attaining a specific standard of proficiency on a given
task, usually within a specified time limit. Goals have two main attributes: content and intensity. Goal
content refers to the object or result being sought (e.g., producing 10 percent more units, reaching an
executive position within 10 years). Goal difficulty specifies a certain level of standard of task
proficiency. Goal intensity refers to the amount of physical and mental resources that goes into
formulating the goal or a plan of action to realize it (Locke & Latham, 1990). It is expressed by goal
COMMITMENT, effort, and attention. The parsimony of the early research paradigm which focused on
the relationship between goals and performance allowed us to establish the strong empirical support to
the effect of goal specificity and difficulty on performance. Once these basic relationships were
established, the focus shifted backward to the evaluation phase, and the next step of theory
development began. Four important variables that are evaluative by nature, serve to explain mediating
and moderating effects on the goal–performance relationship: feedback KNOWLEDGE-OF-RESULTS,
expectancies, SELF-EFFICACY, and goal commitment. Feedback pertains to performance evaluation
relative to the goal, and it was identified as a necessary condition for goals to affect performance (Erez,
1977). Feedback may have negative effects on performance when it shifts resources to off-task
processes of SELF-REGULATION, in particular, for individuals with low levels of self-efficacy
(Kanfer, 1990). Self-efficacy is a judgment of one's capability to accomplish a certain level of
performance (Bandura, 1986). Goal difficulty positively affects perceptions of self-efficacy, which
further affect intentions, personal goals, and performance. In a cyclical process past performance affects
self-efficacy, which further affects self-set goals and performance. Expectancies reflect the evaluations
people make of their chance to obtain goals. For a given level of goal difficulty, individuals with high
rather than low expectancies are more likely to attain their goals. Perceptions of self-efficacy, and
expectancies determine the level of goal attractiveness which influences goal acceptance. Goal

Document
acceptance refers to initial agreement with the goal, whereas goal commitment refers to adherence to
the goal, and resistance to changing the goal at a later point in time. Goal commitment both mediates
and moderates the effect of goal difficulty on performance. A significant drop-off in performance is
observed if and when goal commitment declines in response to increasingly difficult goals. Feedback
and goal commitment were identified as the two necessary conditions for goals to affect performance.
PARTICIPATION in goal setting was found to be one effective method for enhancing goal
commitment (Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988). Goal evaluation is guided by values, which determine
what people consciously consider beneficial to their welfare. VALUES mediate between needs and
goals which can be viewed as applications of values to specific situations (Locke, 1991). In parallel to
the continuous research on the evaluation phase there is a growing interest in

Document
Page 194
cognition which precedes evaluation. Cognition draws attention to paradigms of complex tasks, and
multiple goals. The magnitude of goal effects on performance decreases as task COMPLEXITY
increases. Goals of complex tasks affect performance to the extent that they lead to the development of
effective plans and strategies. However, very often, goals generate pressure for immediate results and
they become counter-productive when planning and strategy development is required. The negative
effect of goals on the performance of complex tasks is mainly observed at initial stages of SKILL
acquisition (Kanfer, 1990). The multiple goal PARADIGM is guided by the assumption that the human
organism has a pool of limited resources. As a result, there is a trade-off relationship in the performance
of multiple goals. More resources are shifted toward specific and difficult goals than general or easy
goals, and to the attainment of performance goals which are supported by feedback.
It seems that the most recent phase of theory development is that of examining goals in different
contextual levels – individual goals, group goals (Weldon & Gargano, 1988), visionary goals of leaders,
and the effect of cultural values on goal choice and goal commitment (Erez & Earley, 1993). Monetary
rewards is another situational factor which mediates, as well as moderates the effect of goals on
performance. REWARDS increase goal commitment, but at the same time they inhibit the attainment of
complementary goals which are not compensated for (Wright, George, Farnsworth, & McMahan,
1993). To summarize, the continuous development of the goal-setting theory integrates different
motivational theories into one coherent model which contributes to our understanding of how goals
affect the performance of multiple tasks, including performance quantity and quality, and at multiple
levels of analysis – individuals, groups, organizations, and cultures. In its present development, the goal-
setting theory is identified as a meta-cognitive theory of self-regulation, with a growing emphasis on the
underlying cognitive resource allocation processes (Kanfer, 1990).
See also Motivation and performance; VIE theory; Management by objectives
Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Erez, M. (1977). Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal setting-performance relationship.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 624–627.
Erez, M. & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette
& L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. (Vol. 1, pp. 75–170).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Latham, G. P., Erez, M. & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of
crucial experiments: Application to the Erez–Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting.
Journal of Applied Psychology (Monograph), 73, 753–77.

Document
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and
Performance, 3, 157–189.
Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task motivation. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weldon, E. & Gargano, G. M. (1988). Cognitive loafing: The effects of accountability and shared
responsibility on cognitive effort. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 159–171.
Wright, P. M., George, J. M. Farnsworth S. R. & McMahan, G. C. (1993). Productivity and extra-role
behavior: The effects of goals and incentives on spontaneous helping. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 374–381.
MIRIAM EREZ
Governance and Ownership
Organizational governance concerns how the organization's mission and objectives are defined in
structures, policies, and procedures – "how a corporation is structured, what policies and objectives it
seeks to fulfill, how it is managed, and which stakeholder interests it serves" (Wood, 1994). The term
"includes specific issues arising from interactions among senior management, shareholders, boards of
directors, and other corporate STAKEHOLDERS" (Cochran & Wartick, 1988, p. 4).

Document
Page 195
The basic questions of governance are of POWER, benefit, and ACCOUNTABILITY: Who controls
the mission and actions of an organization? For what purposes, and to whose benefit, does the
organization act? Who is held accountable for the consequences of an organization's actions?
Governance issues are particularly salient in many large business organizations because the separation
of stock ownership from management control (Berle & Means, 1932) changes the agent–principal
relationship between managers and owners, granting much AUTONOMY to managers and little voice
to owners. Managers can often avoid accountability for organizational actions, making it difficult for
stakeholders (including owners/stock-holders) or society at large to ensure that their legitimate interests
are being met.
Reviewing the governance literature, Cochran and Wartick (1988, pp. 22 – 23, paraphrased) offer this
list of board responsibilities:
• Strategic PLANNING – establishing long-range objectives and policies.
• Board renewal – nominating and orienting new board members.
• Supervision of the chief executive officer (CEO) – hiring, oversight, compensating, firing.
• Public image maintenance – guarding the firm's LEGITIMACY.
• Overseeing major organizational transformations such as divestments, MERGERS, AND

ACQUISITIONS.
• Guarding corporate assets – maintaining fiduciary responsibility for appropriate use of assets and
ensuring that controls and record-keeping practices do not allow for illegal acts.
Individual directors also have responsibilities:
(a) a duty of loyalty, expressed by placing the organization's interests above personal interests and
avoiding conflicts of interest; and
(b) a duty of care, expressed by acting prudently, in good faith, with the organization's best interests in
mind.
Current issues in governance have to do with changing definitions of who should control business
organizations and for whose benefit they should function. Governance issues include business–
government relationships (see GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS), accommodation of stakeholder
interests, executive compensation, the role of institutional investors, the balance and respective roles of
executive versus outside or nonexecutive directors on boards, stakeholder representation on boards of
directors, employee ownership, interlocking boards, proportions of external and internal directors, the
board's role in linking the organization's mission with structures and incentive systems, and the board's
role in monitoring CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE and BUSINESS ETHICS (see MISSION
STATEMENTS).

Document
Stakeholder pressures to reform corporate governance are likely to change many things about how
companies are run. For example, increased board oversight of the CEO, along with formalized
stakeholder representation on boards, could alter executive succession patterns dramatically.
Furthermore, many executives are accustomed to thinking of social responsibility as something to
attend after meeting profit goals, but governance reforms could legitimize the relationship between
social responsibility (or ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP) and day-to-day operating procedures. A
third example is found in the efforts of institutional investors such as large pension funds to gain a voice
on corporate boards and in management decisions. Finally, international social and political issues may
push closer coordination of governance and social performance in multinational business organizations
(Windsor & Preston, 1988).
See also Competitiveness; Trust; Organizational design
Bibliography
Cochran, P. L. & Wartick, S. L. (1988). Corporate governance: A review of the literature. Morristown,
NJ: Financial Executives Research Foundation.
Berle, A. A. & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York:
Macmillan.
Windsor, D. & Preston, L. E. (1988). Corporate governance and social performance in the multinational
corporation. In L. E. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 10, pp.
45–58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wood, D. J. (1994). Business and society (2nd edn). New York: Harper Collins.
DONNA J. WOOD

Document
Page 196
Government Agencies
These are public sector owned organizations which carry out the various functions of government,
including fiscal and monetary policies and regulation (see GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS). Until
the beginning of the 1980s, a distinction was drawn between state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and
government agencies. SOEs were defined as being owned by government in mixed economies, but
could raise investment capital from private investors and earn revenues; government agencies were both
publicly owned and publicly funded. Funds used by government agencies therefore had to be approved
by a legislative assembly, raised through fiscal policy and spent in accordance with strict regulations.
Government agencies fall into seven broad types (Dunleavy, 1991): delivery, regulatory, transfer,
contracts, control, trading, and servicing.
A series of market-based and managerialist public sector reforms from 1980 onward, pursued by the
governments of the major, developed, Western mixed economies, made these distinctions less relevant.
Some government agencies still conform to the old model, but many are now also required to behave
more like SOEs and raise funds through extra revenue-generating activities and may combine contracts,
trading, and servicing elements. Even some regulatory agencies have been required to try and become
self-funding. This has become an area of growing research interest for organizational theorists, raising
questions about complex relationships between these new, hybrid organizational forms.
See also Organization and environment; Organizational design; Stakeholders
Bibliography
Dunleavy, P. (1991). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
ELIZABETH O. MELLON
Government and Business
Government, through its agencies (see GOVERNMENT AGENCIES), manages the public sector of an
economy; business, in the form of privately owned firms, manages the private sector of an economy.
Another common phrase used is therefore "the public and private sectors" of an economy. Command
economies, formerly typified by much of Eastern Europe, are socalled because all significant economic
enterprise is run by government. Mixed economies, comprising most Western nations, are typified by a
debate about how large the public sector should be, with some writers proposing normative limits
(Rose, 1981). Ownership and funding are two key determinants of the allocation of organizations to the
public or private sectors of an economy (Walmsley & Zald, 1973) (see GOVERNANCE AND
OWNERSHIP). The boundary between the two sectors is not always clear (see NOT FOR PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS) and is considered by some to be a continuum (Dahl & Lindblom, 1953). For
example, some organizations are publicly owned but privately funded, competing with other suppliers
of competitive, or generic, services or goods, e.g., the United Kingdom and United States postal

Document
services. Some organizations are privately owned but publicly funded, e.g., defense firms funded
primarily through government contracts. A definition of government based on budgets enacted by a
political assembly has been proposed: "Public sector: Governmental consumption, investment and
transfers" (Lane, 1993, p. 14). However, Government legislation and regulation also have a significant
impact on society, omitted from a budget-based definition. For example, government is a significant
environmental factor to be considered when trying to understand how business organizations adapt to
changed circumstances, or may be an important stakeholder in a firm (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT; STAKEHOLDERS).
The main functions of government are to manage fiscal and monetary policies and regulation; to use
fiscal revenues to provide goods and services not provided by privately owned businesses; to transfer
payments from some individuals and organizations to others; and to regulate and control individuals
and organizations based on legislation passed by a ruling assembly. Gujarah (1984, p. 4) offers a
summary, shown in Figure 1.
Government policies therefore affect private sector business firms through all of these mechanisms.
Welfare economics assumes that under ideal conditions the perfectly competitive market can ensure
Pareto-optimal outcomes, i.e., no one becomes worse off because some-

Document
Page 197
Figure 1
The main functions of government
Source: D. Gujarah (1984).

Document
Page 198
body else becomes better off. The public interest theory of regulation however holds that government
must intervene in the market place to correct market failures which reduce Pareto optimality. Market
failures may occur because of the need to regulate natural monopolies, externalities, e.g., pollution,
inadequate information, erroneous decisions, the need to conserve natural resources, and an inadequate
supply of public goods. Public goods and services by definition must be available to all, but certain
recipients cannot pay (through taxes). This "free-rider" problem makes provision economically
unattractive to private sector businesses, held to be driven primarily by the profit motive, so the
government may intervene to ensure supply through wholly owned or controlled agencies.
The relationship a business firm has with government can therefore be multifaceted. A firm may
routinely scan government monetary, fiscal, and industrial policy as part of its strategic planning
processes and join pressure groups to attempt to change policies perceived to be deleterious to company
operations. Private sector firms specializing in, for example, parliamentary lobbying, have grown to
facilitate this interchange between government and business. A business which is privately owned but
publicly funded may "shadow" the organizational structure of its funder and will often recruit ex-
government employees to facilitate expert conversation. Firms which negotiate and win government
contracts, where provision was formerly inhouse, may purchase the unsuccessful public sector supplier,
or employ its staff, to aid efficient supply. Some government-owned natural monopolies, e.g.,
electricity, are being broken down (see PRIVATIZATION) with overall provision offered instead by a
mix of, often competing, private and public sector companies. This involves complex
interorganizational relationships (see INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS), with success for
both the public and private sector companies highly dependent upon complementary systems,
structures, and beliefs.
The range of options pursued is often ideologically determined by politicians. The period from 1980
onward was typified by a wave of strikingly similar reforms in the mixed economies of developed
Western nations. These were intended to reduce the size of the public sector, through privatization and
self-regulation, and to increase the efficiency of those elements remaining under public sector control
through policies grounded in welfare economics, e.g., open competition. These reforms have further
clouded the distinction between public and private enterprise. They have also increased the range and
scope of possible relationships between the public and private sectors, as provision of public goods and
services which transaction cost economics would have predicted should remain inhouse, were
contracted out to private sector firms (see TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS). The reforms have
also rendered the more "business-like" public sector suppliers of increasing interest in their own right to
organizational theorists.
See also Organization theory; Organizational economics; Corporate social performance
Bibliography
Dahl, R. A. & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare. New York: Harper & Row.

Document
Gujarah, D. (1984). Government and business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lane, J. E. (1993). The public sector: Concepts, models, and approaches. London: Sage.
Rose, R. (1981). What if anything is wrong with big government?. Journal of Public Policy, 1, 5–36.
Walmsley, G. L. & Zald, M. N. (1973). The political economy of public organizations. Lexington, MA:
Heath.
ELIZABETH O. MELLON
Graph Theory
This is a branch of mathematics concerned with analyzing structural relationships depicted as a set of
lines (or edges) mapped onto a set of points (or nodes). Such sets are known in mathematics as
"graphs," although sociologists frequently use the term "network." Network analysis, which has become
popular in organization studies, is based largely on graph theory.
Bibliography
Hage, P. & Harary, F. (1983). Structural models in anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Document
Page 199
Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
STEPHEN R. BARLEY
Graphology
see SELECTION METHODS
Group Cohesiveness
Cartwright (1968) defines group cohesiveness as how much its members want to stay in a group. The
concept of group cohesiveness was a central element in the literature on group dynamics, which
flourished in the 1950s and 1960s. McGrath (1984) observed that cohesiveness, COMMUNICATION,
and CONFORMITY became the focal processes in the heyday of group dynamics research.
Highly cohesive group members may take much of their personal identity from the group and will want
to contribute to its welfare. Thus, cohesiveness gives the group POWER to INFLUENCE its members
(see EXCHANGE RELATIONS): cohesive groups that decide to be productive can influence their
members to be more productive; conversely, cohesive groups that promote shirking tend to be relatively
unproductive (e.g., Roy, 1960; see MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE; PERFORMANCE,
INDIVIDUAL).
If people join groups to obtain positive outcomes, then joining and attraction to a group are driven by a
person's needs, what the group can offer, whether positive outcomes are likely, and what other groups
might offer. Once a group has formed, the internal forces that can increase cohesiveness include sharing
common goals, having similar visions of how to achieve those goals, and needing each other's help (e.
g., cooperative interdependence; see GROUP STRUCTURE). External forces that can increase
cohesiveness include threats and competition with other groups (Sherif, 1977); internal forces include
severe initiation and positive REINFORCEMENT. These forces are primarily perceptual: Staw (1975)
showed that groups who were falsely told that they were successful concluded that they were cohesive,
while comparable groups who were falsely told that they had failed concluded that they were not (see
PERCEPTION).
Perceptions of cohesiveness help contribute to uniformity of action within groups, and increase the
pressures directed toward and felt by dissenters to return to the fold. In addition, cohesive groups
provide members with a stable base for social comparisons, allowing them to resolve their social or
personal uncertainties by providing an attractive reference group of similar others. Thus, truly cohesive
groups give their members safe social havens in what might otherwise be perceived to be a threatening
external world.

Document
Organizational groups can benefit from cohesiveness, particularly when their members are similar and
attracted to one another, when they are small in size (see GROUP SIZE), when they have high entrance
standards, relative isolation, and AUTONOMY, combined with supervisor support, prestige,
PARTICIPATION, and REWARDS (see LEADERSHIP). Such forces can contribute to less tension
and less pressure (see STRESS), less conflict, and less variation among group member
PRODUCTIVITY.
See also Group development; Group norms; Culture, group
Bibliography
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds), Group
dynamics (2nd edn). New York: Harper & Row.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Roy, D. (1960). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18.
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the ''causes" of performance: A general alternative interpretation of

cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414–
432.
Sherif, M. (1977). Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
J. KEITH MURNIGHAN
Group Culture
see CULTURE, GROUP
Group Decision Making
A principal assumption behind the structuring of organizational functioning into WORK GROUPS is
that better decisions will be made than by group members working alone. However, a good deal of
research has shown that groups are subject to social processes which undermine their DECI-

Document
Page 200
SION MAKING effectiveness. While they make better decisions than the average of decisions made by
individual members, work groups consistently fall short of the quality of decisions made by the best
individual member (Brown, 1988). The implications of this for the functioning of boards and TO
MANAGEMENT TEAMS are considerable. Organizational behaviorists and social psychologists have
therefore devoted considerable effort to identifying the processes which give rise to deficiencies in
group decision making:
1 PERSONALITY factors can affect social behavior such as shyness of individual members, who may
be hesitant to offer their opinions and knowledge assertively, thereby failing to contribute fully to the
group's store of knowledge.
2 Group members are subject to social CONFORMITY effects causing them to withhold opinions and
information contrary to the majority view – especially an organizationally dominant view.
3 Group members may lack COMMUNICATION SKILLS and so be unable to present their views and
knowledge successfully. The person who has mastered IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT within the
organization may disproportionately influence group decisions even in the absence of expertise (see
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS).
4 The group may be dominated by particular individuals who take up disproportionate "air time" and
argue so vigorously with the opinion of others, that their own views prevail. It is noteworthy that "air
time" and expertise are correlated in high performing groups and uncorrelated in groups that perform
poorly.
5 Particular group members may be egocentric (such as senior organizational members whose
egocentricity may have carried them to the top) and consequently unwilling to consider opinions and
knowledge contrary to their own, offered by other group members.
6 STATUS and HIERARCHY effects can cause some members' contributions to be valued and
attended to disproportionately. When a senior executive is present in a meeting his or her views are
likely to have an undue influence on the outcome.
7 RISKY SHIFT/GROUP POLARIZATION is the tendency of work groups to make more extreme
decisions than the average of members' decisions. Group decisions tend to be either more risky or more
conservative than the average of individual members' opinions or decisions. Thus shifts in the extremity
of decisions affecting the competitive strategy of an organization can occur simply as a result of group
processes rather than for rational or well-judged reasons.
8 Janis (1982), in his study of policy decisions and fiascoes, identified the phenomenon of
GROUPTHINK, whereby tightly knit groups may err in their decision making, as a result of being more
concerned with achieving agreement than with the quality of group decision making. This can be
especially threatening to organizational functioning where different departments see themselves as
competing with one another, promoting "in-group" favoritism and groupthink.

Document
9 The SOCIAL LOAFING effect is the tendency of individuals in group situations to work less hard
than they do when individual contributions can be identified and evaluated. In organizations,
individuals may put less effort into achieving quality decisions in meetings, as a result of the perception
that their contribution is hidden in overall group performance.
10 Diffusion of responsibility can inhibit individuals from taking responsibility for action when in the
presence of others. People seem to assume that responsibility will be shouldered by others who are
present in a situation requiring action. In organizational settings, individuals may fail to act in a crisis
involving the functioning of expensive technology, assessing that others in their team are taking
responsibility for making the necessary decisions (see CRISES). Consequently, the overall quality of
group decisions is threatened.
11 The study of BRAINSTORMING groups shows that quantity and often quality of ideas produced by
individuals working separately, consistently exceed quality and quantity of ideas produced by a group
working together. This is due to a "production-blocking" effect. Individuals are inhibited from both
thinking of new ideas and

Document
Page 201
offering them aloud to the group by the competing verbalizations of others.
12 Another difficulty besetting group decision making is the tendency of groups to "satisfice" or make
minimally acceptable decisions (see SATISFICING). Observations of group decision-making processes
repeatedly show that groups tend to identify the first minimally acceptable solution or decision in a
particular situation, and then spend time searching for reasons to accept that decision and reject other
possible options. Groups tend not to generate a range of alternatives before selecting, on a rational
basis, the most suitable option.
This catalogue of deficiencies in relation to group decision making indicates that the process is more
complex and potentially more disastrous than is commonly understood within organizational settings.
Recently researchers have begun to identify ways in which some of these deficiencies may be
overcome. For example, research on groupthink suggests both that the phenomenon is most likely to
occur in groups where a supervisor is particularly dominant, and that cohesiveness per se is not the
crucial factor (see GROUP COHESIVENESS). Supervisors can therefore be trained to be facilitative,
seeking the contributions of individual members before offering their own perceptions.
Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell, & Lowe (1992), have offered a structured technique for overcoming some of
these deficiencies called "the stepladder technique." In this procedure each group member has thinking
time before proposing any decisions. Then pairs of group members present their ideas to each other and
discuss their respective opinions before making any decisions. The process continues with each
subgroup's presentation being followed by time for the group to discuss the problem and ideas
proposed. A final decision is put off until the entire group has presented.
Initial evidence suggests that such procedures can enable groups to make decisions of a quality at least
as good as those of their best individual members. This is consistent with the finding that fostering
disagreement in a structured way in organizations leads to better decisions (Tjosvold & Deemer, 1980).
Techniques such as this offer one solution to the problem that unless the most accurate group member is
assertive and confident, he or she does not influence the ratings of quality of group decisions. Finally,
there is some evidence that work groups which take time out to reflect upon and appropriately modify
their decision-making processes are more effective than those which do not (Maier, 1970).
While organizational behaviorists have contributed a great deal to the understanding of how individual
performance may be facilitated, research on the processes by which group decision making can be
optimized is still in its infancy. The potential pay-off for organizations in improving decision-making
quality throughout organizations is enormous.
See also Nominal group technique; Group dynamics; Group norms; Culture, group; Minority
group influence
Bibliography
Brown, R. (1988). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Document
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Maier, N. R. F. (1970). Problem solving and creativity in individuals and groups. Belmont, CA: Brooks
Cole.
Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L. & Lowe, C. A. (1992). The stepladder technique: An alternative
group structure facilitating effective group decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 730–
737.
Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L. & Davies, J. H. (1989). Influence processes and consensus models in decision-
making groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 279–326). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tjosvold, D. & Deemer, D. K. (1980). Effects of controversy within a cooperative or competitive

context on organizational decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 590–595.
MICHAEL A. WEST
Group Development
This term expresses the assumption that group behavior changes systematically over time. That means a
management committee will function differently after working together for a year than when first
convened; a project group will face different challenges near its deadline than mid-way through a task.
More importantly, it means

Document
Page 202
that these changes can be understood and predicted through general theoretical concepts. Most group
development research has sought to identify characteristic sequences of change, but efforts have also
been made to understand how, why, and when developmental changes occur. Such knowledge helps us
interpret team behavior accurately, and manage teams in ways that fit their needs.
Group development can be viewed in two ways. First, development can mean the path a group takes
over its lifespan toward the accomplishment of its main tasks. This is important for understanding how
temporary groups, with specific purposes to accomplish within time limits, progress from start to finish
(see PROJECT MANAGEMENT). Such research traditionally examined either short-term problem-
solving groups in the laboratory, or longer-term therapy or SENSITIVITY TRAINING groups. Most of
these studies portray group development as a gradual forward evolution through a universal series of
stages. For example, in their seminal work, Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) characterized group problem-
solving as a progression from orientation (problem definition), to evaluation (assessment of
alternatives), to control (solution construction). Tuckman's (1965) synthesis of group development
literature is representative of subsequently proposed sequences: In the "forming" stage, this model
suggests members explore and test task and social BOUNDARIES; in "storming," they battle over
interpersonal and task issues; in the "norming" stage, groups resolve differences and establish social and
work norms; finally "performing,'' members use the roles and norms they have built to carry out work
(see GROUP NORMS).
Some recent research on task groups has questioned the PARADIGM of group development as a
universal stage progression, and explored aspects of development other than those covered in traditional
stage models. Poole (1983) showed there are many sequences through which decisions can develop in
groups, not just one. Gersick (1988) found that project teams in organizations did not progress
gradually, through uniform stages, but in PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM – alternating periods of
momentum and disjunctive change. Soon after convening, each team formed a unique set of behavior
patterns and assumptions (largely implicit) about task, teammates, and outside STAKEHOLDERS.
Teams worked within these patterns for long portions of their time, and made major changes in compact
bursts, at temporal milestones – e.g., half way toward their deadlines. Groups' attention to time, pacing,
and deadlines, not the completion of given stages of work, regulated their progress.
A second way to view group development is different from, but compatible with, the first. It concerns
groups which last for significant periods of time, whether their life spans are temporary (as above) or
open-ended. Here, group development concerns change over time in groups' abilities to work
effectively. For example, research on therapy and Sensitivity Training groups examined the maturation
of groups' capacities for productive work, as moderated by their developing abilities to deal with
TRUST (openness and honesty of communication), CONTROL (competition for power), and
dependency (seeking direction from authority figures versus making decisions within the group) (see
GROUP DECISION MAKING).

Document
Longitudinal studies of WORK GROUPS in organizations are unfortunately rare. The potential value of
longitudinal research shows in such work as Katz' (1982) finding, based on cross-sectional study, that
research-and-development team effectiveness rises, then declines over the years as intrateam
COMMUNICATION waxes and wanes; or Hackman and Walton's (1986) observations on long-term
changes in SELF-MANAGED TEAMS' needs for coaching versus independence.
See also Consensus; Group dynamics; Socialization; Culture, group
Bibliography
Bales, R. F. & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 46, 485–495.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group
development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41.
Hackman, J. R. & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.),

Designing effective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Document
Page 203
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance.
Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups II: A study of multiple sequences of
decision making. Communication Monographs, 48, 1–24.
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.
CONNIE J. G. GERSICK
Group Dynamics
The term encompasses the processes that influence people when they interact in group situations. Group
dynamics is also "a field of inquiry dedicated to advancing knowledge about the nature of groups, the
laws of their development, and their interrelations with individuals, other groups, and larger
institutions" (Cartwright & Zander, 1968, p. 7). The field of group dynamics is interdisciplinary in
nature. Scholars with a sociological orientation are interested in how groups of people INFLUENCE
and are influenced by societal forces. Those with a psychological orientation focus on how individual
behavior is affected by a person's presence in and interaction with others in a group. Interest in group
dynamics can be traced to seminal scholarship in each of these modern disciplines. Some of the first
controlled studies of personal behavior, conducted by Norman Tripplett in 1897, examined how the
presence of others affected an individual's performance of simple tasks. This started a stream of
research, called SOCIAL FACILITATION, which continues to generate interest. Emile Durkheim and
Georg Simmel, two founders of modern sociology, paid critical attention to small group dynamics,
arguing that groups are the building blocks of society. Children learn society's norms, what is right and
wrong, and even what they consider real in a process called SOCIALIZATION that takes place as they
live in and interact with a variety of small groups, such as families, peer groups, school classes, and
religious congregations (see GROUP NORMS).
Building on these early roots in psychology and sociology, the study of group dynamics in
organizational settings began in earnest in the 1930s. Many of the ground-breaking works of
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, such as Barnard's (1938) The Functions of the Executive and Elton
Mayo's landmark studies of industrial behavior at Western Electric's Hawthorne Plant in suburban
Chicago, Illinois, paid particular attention to the effects that groups and group membership have on
employee behavior and organizational performance (see HUMAN RELATIONS MOVEMENT).
Kurt Lewin, another pioneer in the study of group processes, is generally credited with coining and
popularizing the term "group dynamics," and is also widely viewed as the "father" of the field because
of his extensive research addressing group processes in the 1930s and 1940s. Much of our current
knowledge and understanding of group processes was fundamentally shaped by Lewin's research and
theory.

Document
Lewin, who once said, "nothing is so practical as a good theory," was a strong proponent of developing
and testing THEORY by manipulating key elements of natural settings and carefully observing the
behavior that resulted (see ACTION RESEARCH). He and his colleagues learned how to change
people's attitudes and behaviors through the use of group discussion, LEADERSHIP, and
PARTICIPATION. He is perhaps best known for developing the Field Theory of human behavior,
which is based on the assumption that individual behavior is a function of a person's unique
characteristics and characteristics of the environment, including features of the group, the group
members, and the situation. Lewin's followers analyze personal and organizational change using a
technique called FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS, in which the driving and restraining forces generated by
these various characteristics are first identified and then acted upon to "unfreeze" the current situation.
This allows behavior to change (during the "transformation" phase) and become reestablished and
maintained by institutionalizing or "refreezing" the group dynamics present in the new situation. Many
of the theories and techniques that comprise the modern practice of ORGANIZATION
DEVELOPMENT are based on this orientation to ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE.
Lewin initiated research on many of the central issues of group dynamics, such as interpersonal
attraction, GROUP COHESIVENESS, CONFORMITY, and COMPLIANCE, INTERGROUP
RELATIONS, LEADERSHIP, and MAN-

Document
Page 204
AGERIAL STYLE, GROUP DECISION MAKING, and RESISTANCE TO CHANGE. In addition to

the areas pioneered by Lewin, group dynamics addresses issues of GROUP DEVELOPMENT and
socialization, the dynamics associated with POWER and OBEDIENCE, and the effects of GROUP
SIZE and GROUP STRUCTURE, that is, the ROLES, STATUS and AUTHORITY, POWER relations,
and COMMUNICATION and interpersonal attraction patterns present among group members.
Group dynamics also examines how individual behavior changes in group situations. Two basic
findings are:
(1) audiences tend to facilitate performance of simple, well-learned tasks but inhibit performance of
complex, novel tasks (see SOCIAL FACILITATION); and
(2) groups make riskier decisions when social norms favor risk-taking and more conservative decisions
in situations where risk is shunned (see RISKY SHIFT/GROUP POLARIZATION; RISK TAKING).
See also Workgroups; Task and maintenance behavior; Interactionism; Theory
Bibliography
Barnard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd edn). New York:
Harper & Row.
Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd edn). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics (3rd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
KENNETH L. BETTENHAUSEN
Group Norms
These are the informal rules which groups adopt to regulate and regularize group members' behaviors
(Feldman, 1984). They are used as social influence mechanisms to move members' behaviors toward
the group's preferred standards (see CONFORMITY and COMPLIANCE).
Norms are enforced to help the group more readily achieve its goals, to protect the group from potential
external threats, to simplify and make predictable what behaviors are expected from group members, to
help the group avoid embarrassing interpersonal problems, and to express and clarify what the central
VALUES of the group are (Feldman, 1984). Individuals who repeatedly or flagrantly violate group
norms are typically sanctioned by other group members.

Document
Most norms develop gradually and informally over time as group members learn what behaviors are
necessary for the group to function more effectively, although it is possible for norms to develop more
quickly (Hackman, 1976; Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1991) (see GROUP DEVELOPMENT). Groups
often have norms of RECIPROCITY, for example, which pressure individuals to return favors given to
them by other group members. Feldman (1984) suggests that the norm development process will be
accelerated to the extent that supervisors and team members explicitly address group process issues and
group members carry over shared behavior patterns from their previous work settings. The norm
development process will also be accelerated when critical events early in the group's history establish
important precedents and when initial behavior patterns prove effective and establish some primacy
effects.
Several taxonomies of norms have been developed. Wallace and Szilagyi (1982) make a distinction
between "behavior norms" and "performance norms"; behavior norms are rules that standardize how
people act at work on a daily basis, while performance norms are rules that standardize employee
output. March (1954) suggests there are three basic types of norms: preferred-value norms, unattainable-
ideal norms, and attainable-ideal norms. In "preferred-value norms," the group specifies a range of
acceptable behavior; both too little of the behavior and too much of the behavior are disapproved of by
other group members. With "unattainable-ideal norms," group members receive increasing approval the
more frequently and more intensely they exhibit desired behaviors. "Attainable-ideal norms'' encourage
members to engage in desired behaviors, but only up to a certain point; after a sufficient amount of the
behavior is engaged in, the group will not continue rewarding its members for more of that behavior.

Document
Page 205
The structural characteristics of group norms have been most precisely specified by Jackson (1966) in
his "Return Potential Model" (see GROUP STRUCTURE). Jackson's model allows researchers and
observers to characterize group norms by five indices: the point of maximum approval; the range of
tolerable behavior; the "potential return difference" (i.e., the amount of approval versus disapproval
associated with a behavior); the intensity of the norm; and the crystallization of the norm (i.e., the
degree of consensus among group members about the norm).
Empirical field research on how norms develop and are enforced has substantially lagged descriptive
and theoretical work. In large part, this may be due to the methodological problems of measuring norms
across time or across groups in organizational settings. Much more attention has been given as to how
to change group norms (see ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT), particularly in terms of
unfreezing groups from their existing behavior patterns, facilitating groups examining their own
interpersonal processes, and helping groups discover some of the dysfunctional consequences of their
current set of norms.
See also Group dynamics; Group cohesiveness; Group decision making; Resistance to change
Bibliography
Bettenhausen, K. L. & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an intragroup norm and the effects
of interpersonal and structural changes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 20–35.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management
Review, 9, 47–53.
Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial

and organizational psychology, (pp. 1455–1525). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Jackson, J. (1966). A conceptual and measurement model for norms and roles. Pacific Sociological
Review, 9, 35–47.
March, J. (1954). Group norms and the active minority. American Sociological Review, 19, 733–741.
Wallace, M. J. & Szilagyi, A. D. (1982). Managing behavior in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
DANIEL C. FELDMAN
Group Roles

Document
Within the study of GROUP DYNAMICS it has long been established that members may contribute in
different ways to the effectiveness of DECISION MAKING and problem solving. The pioneering
observational studies of Bales revealed that these could be principally broken down into task-related
and socio-emotional behaviors (see TASK AND MAINTENANCE BEHAVIOR). A series of studies
with managers led Meredith Belbin to elaborate the idea of group roles, developing a questionnaire
measure to identify eight preferred styles of group participation: Chairman (coordinating effort), Shaper
(directing activity), Plant (creating ideas), Team Worker (attending to group process); Monitor-
Evaluator (critically assessing products and activities), Resource-Investigator (seeking information and
resources), Company Worker (testing and implementing ideas) and Completer-Finisher (attending to
detail and progress chasing). Belbin subsequently added a ninth Specialist preferred role. He also
identified characteristic individual profiles from psychometric data associated with each preferred role.
The taxonomy has proved extremely popular in MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT and consulting, as
a tool to aid TEAMBUILDING and to seek high performance through achieving a balance of essential
group functions. This model has found little favor in academic writings, largely due to controversy
about the robustness and factorial structure of the measurement model (Furnham, Stale, & Pendelton,
1993). A similar taxonomy has been developed by Margerison (1990) and colleagues, also more widely
used in CONSULTANCY than in research.
The central idea clearly has intuitive appeal and practical utility, by helping groups to introspect about
potential inbalances in their modes of conduct, and will probably continue to be used widely by
practitioners for this purpose. However, a more solid body of impartial research evidence will be
needed before the taxonomy is accepted as a valid and reliable characterization of INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES

Document
Page 206
in preferred group roles and as a means of differentially predicting individual behavior in groups (see
RELIABILITY; VALIDITY).
See also Group decision making; Group structure; Groupthink; Role; Role taking
Bibliography
Belbin, M. (1993). Team roles at work: A strategy for human resource management. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Furnham, A., Steele, H. & Pendleton, D. (1993). A psychometric assessment of the Belbin team-role
self-perception inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 245–258.
Margerison, C. & McCann, D. (1990). Team management. London: Mercury.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Group Size
The group's size is one of the most fundamental factors that shape GROUP STRUCTURE and GROUP
DYNAMICS. Determining a group's size is not as straightforward as it first appears, especially in work
settings. In almost every case, one could break a given group into smaller subgroups or combine it with
other groups to form a larger entity that could also be considered a group. Research examining the
effects of group size must, therefore, carefully consider which group boundary is appropriate for the
theoretical issue being addressed.
In work and nonwork settings groups tend to be relatively small, ranging, on average, from two to seven
members. Even when larger WORK GROUPS are created, most interaction occurs in groups of two or
three. The dyad is unique in many ways. It is essentially stable and is, by definition, the only group that
no longer exists with the loss of a single member. With the introduction of a third member, more
intricate GROUP DYNAMICS emerge, especially those surrounding COALITION FORMATION,
NEGOTIATION, and POWER. As size increases, groups tend to become more complex and more
formally structured: ROLES, STATUS, and norms become more clearly defined and play a greater role
in group interaction (see GROUP NORMS).

Document
The relationship between group size and group performance depends largely on the group's composition
and the type of task undertaken by the group. The number and diversity of group members affect the
amount and range of resources, e.g., time, ability, knowledge, skill, range of opinion, etc., that can be
brought to bear on the group task (see ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY). Thus, resources
increase as the group gets larger. With increased size, however, come costs – coordination of effort
becomes more difficult, attraction to the group, GROUP COHESIVENESS, morale, and member
satisfaction tend to decline; COMMUNICATION among group members is more complex and less
frequent, fewer people participate in group discussions, members' MOTIVATION is generally lower,
and SOCIAL LOAFING increases.
See also Group decision making; Minority group influence; Management of diversity;
Organizational size
Bibliography
Hare, A. P. (1976). Handbook of small group research (2nd edn). New York: Free Press.
KENNETH BETTENHAUSEN
Group Structure
This is the stable pattern of relationships among the various unique positions occupied by members of
the group. It is constantly generated by, and therefore can be observed in, the ongoing interaction of
group members. It reflects the abilities and motivations of group members and the physical and social
environments of the group. Because it reflects the pattern of relationships among positions in the group,
group structure exists relatively independently of the individuals who occupy those positions. Group
structure, therefore, provides a key to understanding behavior in groups that cannot be explained in
terms of the traits, ATTITUDES, and personalities of individual group members (see PERSONALITY).
Group structure is defined along a number of interrelated dimensions, such as; the ROLES group
members occupy, the STATUS and AUTHORITY of the different positions in the group, and the
POWER relations, COMMUNICATION patterns and interpersonal attraction patterns present among
the positions. Group structure is embodied in and maintained by

Document
Page 207
NORMS which prescribe accepted and expected behavior for people holding various positions in the
group (see GROUP NORMS).
Any group which requires some DIVISION OF LABOR and coordination of effort establishes a
structure to reduce uncertainty and facilitate task accomplishment and efficient group performance.
Formal group structure is explicitly established and codified by the larger organization of which the
group is a part. Informal structure may or may not be explicitly recognized by group members. Even
when not explicitly stated, however, group members usually have little trouble identifying the roles and
relationships that structure their behavior in the group.
Group structure emerges sometimes incrementally, sometimes abruptly as the group moves through
successive stages of GROUP DEVELOPMENT. In mature groups a unique structure tends to persist
even as it evolves with changes in GROUP SIZE or composition, task requirements, or contextual
demands. This stability allows groups to function even as individual group members move in or out of
the group, or in or out of various positions within the group.
While group structure encompasses all the elements described above, most research examines what is
commonly called "single structures," that is, the effects of a single structural dimension, such as the
authority structure, communication structure, or power structure. Each of these issues is addressed in
greater detail elsewhere in this volume. A major managerial task is to establish formal group structures
and then to codify them through written JOB DESCRIPTIONS which help reduce STRESS brought on
by ROLE CONFLICT and ROLE AMBIGUITY. Newcomers learn their places in both the formal and
informal group structures through REALISTIC JOB PREVIEWS, TRAINING, and SOCIALIZATION
programs. The related issue of how individuals enact their ROLES within the group (see ROLE SET,
ROLE TAKING) is the focus of ROLE THEORY.
Effective groups develop a good fit between their structure and their members' abilities and
personalities (see ABILITY). For example, people with strong safety or security needs would more
likely feel and perform better in groups with an authoritarian structure while people with strong SELF-
ESTEEM needs would prefer groups with a more egalitarian structure. Likewise effective groups
develop a good fit between their structure and task demands. A centralized communication structure
facilitates the efficient performance of simple tasks. Complex tasks require a more decentralized and
redundant structure with multiple communication links among members.
See also Group decision making; Organizational design; Culture, group
Bibliography
Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics (3rd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
KENNETH BETTENHAUSEN

Document
Groupthink
This term was coined by scholars who were critical of the group dynamics movement in the 1960s and
1970s and it's impact on management theory, especially participative management (see
PARTICIPATION).
Management theory was dominated in these years by the writings of Douglas McGregor, Rensis Likert,
and Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (see MANAGERIAL GRID). All of these writers were influenced
by the emphasis on group dynamics (especially the T group and the laboratory method) (see
SENSITIVITY TRAINING) and a main focus of their analysis was that managers should involve
people in the decisions, goals, and plans which affect them, and that decisions should be made by
consensus (all members agreeing that the decision made sense and that they were willing to implement
the decision.)
This CONSENSUS emphasis, according to some, makes it possible for some powerful members of a
group to coerce less powerful group members to go along with a decision in public even though they
may have private reservations. The earlier work of Sherif and Asch had clearly demonstrated that many
naive subjects were willing to change their personal observations and judgments to agree with the
majority in group experimental situations (see GROUP DECISION MAKING). This whole critical vein
was ably summarized in a book by Janis

Document
Page 208
(1972) Victims of Groupthink. Janis pointed out, with cases from the current political scene, that
decision makers with power may handle STRESS situations by demanding CONFORMITY from
subordinates and isolating or threatening those who dare challenge the dominate position. Milgram
(1974) at Yale had also shown in his research that many subjects were willing to capitulate to the
demands of an AUTHORITY person and engage in behaviors that were in violation of some of their
own VALUES.
Additionally, these criticisms were augmented by data coming out of the Korean War about the use of
brainwashing techniques on American prisoners-of-war and other stories about the use of thought
control methods, in groups, used by the Chinese Communists.
Thus it is clear that the groupthink criticism of the use of groups in organizations had some solid basis
in fact from research and some emotional support from stories about the communists, the then most
significant "enemy."
These criticisms had a positive impact on the whole group-centered, participative management
movement. Almost all those who advocated participative approaches began to emphasize the
importance of open discussion, disagreement, contrary opinions, diversity, and even controversy.
There is good evidence to indicate that suppressed controversy, or difference, with no allowance for
open discussion and the sharing of contrary opinions was a major factor in the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs
under President Kennedy, the Challenger disaster in 1986, and some commercial airplane crashes. It
seems that all of these disasters could have been averted if all contrary ideas and information had been
openly invited and explored (see CRISES; ACCIDENTS; ERRORS).
Tjosvold (1991) reviews some of the situations above and summarizes the current position on
constructive controversy – the opposite view to groupthink – "Controversy, when discussed in a
cooperative context, promotes elaboration of views, the search for new information and ideas, and the
integration of apparently opposing positions."
See also Group norms; Culture, group; Group development; Team-building
Bibliography
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). Team organization. New York: Wiley.
WILLIAM G. DYER
Growth Need Strength

Document
This refers to the strength of an individual's needs for personal growth and self-direction at work
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Growth Need Strength (GNS) is a central part of JOB
CHARACTERISTICS Theory and is expected to affect the way individuals respond to complex,
challenging jobs characterized by high levels of AUTONOMY, variety, and personal DISCRETION at
work. Specifically, employees with high GNS are expected to appreciate and respond enthusiastically to
the opportunities for personal accomplishment provided by a complex, challenging job (see
COMPLEXITY). On the other hand, individuals with relatively low GNS may not recognize the
opportunities for growth provided by the job, or they may experience the complex job as threatening
and balk at being stretched too far by the work.
Numerous empirical investigations have demonstrated that high GNS employees exhibit higher
performance, attendance, and satisfaction on complex jobs than their low GNS counterparts (Kulik,
Oldham, & Hackman, 1987). Moreover, research has demonstrated that GNS relates strongly to an
employee's level of education – the more educated the employee, the higher the GNS (Hackman &
Oldham, 1976). Unfortunately, the effects of the work environment on an employee's GNS remain
unclear. That is, research has not yet established if individuals' growth needs are shaped by the
complexity of their jobs or if these needs are stable characteristics of people that are relatively
independent of work environments (see PERSONALITY).
See also Job satisfaction; Performance, individual; Job design; Need theory; Motivation; Self-
actualization; ERG theory; Motivation and performance

Document
Page 209
Bibliography
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R. & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person–
environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278–296.
GREG R. OLDHAM

Document
Page 210
Halo Effect
This is said to occur when people are assigned the same or similar ratings on different characteristics, i.
e., the ratings between the different characteristics are correlated. There is much research evidence to
suggest that raters are prone to make ERRORS by allowing their general impressions of a person to
influence ratings of specific qualities. If this happens during the completion of a rating form the
separate characteristics rated will be given more similar ratings than they should be and halo error will
be present. It is important to distinguish between the halo effect and halo error. One of the difficulties in
doing this is that many human qualities are indeed related and accurate ratings of these qualities should
correlate. Halo ERROR is present only when the observed correlations between the characteristics
involved are bigger than the true correlations. Unfortunately, it is often impossible to tell whether the
correlations between variables are a reflection of the true level of relationship between the variables or
due to error on the part of the rater (see RESEARCH DESIGN). Probably the best way to avoid halo
error is to train raters well and ensure that they are aware of the possibility of halo error, though this
does not always work. Traditionally halo error has been seen as a widespread problem with ratings.
More recent views suggest that this may not be so (Murphy, Jako, & Anhalt, 1993).
See also Psychological testing; Selection methods; Selection interviewing; Bias
Bibliography
Murphy, K. R., Jako, R. A. & Anhalt, R. L. (1993). Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 218–225.
IVAN ROBERTSON
Hardiness
In attempting to discover a personality trait that might protect managers from the effects of STRESS
Kobasa and Maddi proposed the concept of hardiness.
Hardy people were discovered to have three characteristics: a commitment to seeing stressful situations
as meaningful and interesting, to seeing such situations as potentially in their own control; and as seeing
change/threat as a challenge to be overcome. Many studies of hardiness have been carried out. Funk
(1992) identifies a number of issues which bear on the main question – Do some personalities
experience more or less strain under the same levels of stress?

Document
One issue is measurement. Early measures used 6 scales – 71 items with two scales for each of the three
subcomponents. Various shorter measures have been derived from these, some being reworded to
eliminate the problem that the items were all phrased negatively. Some new measures have also been
created.
Although the three subcomponents do not correlate very highly with each other it is normally the case
that scores are added to give a hardiness score. This is inconsistent with the conceptual definition which
assumes hardy people are high on COMMITMENT, control, and challenge. Many studies have shown
hardiness to be correlated (modestly) with illness and psychological symptoms, but most other
hypotheses (e.g., buffering) are not consistently found, and Funk shows that hardiness is correlated with
neuroticism which confounds the relationship with illness. In sum,

Document
Page 211
RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, and even conceptual clarity, have not yet been convincingly demonstrated.
See also Personality; Mental health; Burnout; Self-efficacy; Type-A
Bibliography
Funk, S. C. (1992). Hardiness: A review of theory and research. Health Psychology, 11, (5), 335–345.
ROY L. PAYNE
Hawthorne Effect
This effect, observed in field experiments, occurs when:
(1) one or more changes or manipulations are made by researchers in a field setting;
(2) the persons in the target sample experiencing the change(s) are aware of the experimental
manipulations; and
(3) the latter alter their behavior not because of the specific variables manipulated but because of the
attention they receive.
As a result, the researchers may falsely attribute the observed effects on behavior to the variables
manipulated rather than the attention. The effect gets its name from the research studies in which it was
identified and labeled.
In the late 1920s and early 1930s, several studies were carried out at Western Electric's Hawthorne
Works in Chicago, Illinois (see HUMAN RELATIONS MOVEMENT). The research, conducted by E.
Mayo, F. J. Roethlisberger, W. J. Dickson, T. N. Whitehead, and others from the Graduate School of
Business Administration at Harvard University, in cooperation with a number of persons at the
Hawthorne Works, began as an investigation of the effects of illumination intensity on employees,
particularly on employee performance. The goal of the research was to find the optimal level of
illumination for work involving the assembly and inspection of relays used in telephone equipment.
Therefore, the researchers simply varied the amount of illumination over time and measured changes in
performance, among other things. The unanticipated finding was that performance did not covary with
illumination but continued to improve over the course of the experiment, even when the level of
illumination was reduced to very low levels. The post hoc explanation for the observed pattern of
results was that the employees very much appreciated the attention that they received from the
researchers, management, and others for being part of the experiment, and their improved performance
was one way in which they expressed their appreciation. The explanation stuck, and the phenomenon
has been known as the Hawthorne Effect ever since.

Document
Ironically, the Hawthorne Effect was discovered only because, in the eyes of the researchers, their
research had "failed." Had performance decreased as the amount of light decreased and vice versa, the
Hawthorne Effect would not have been discovered. Since the effects on performance of illumination
and those of attention were in opposite directions, the pattern of results fit one explanation, that of the
Hawthorne Effect, and not the other.
Often in organizational behavior research in the field, the phenomenon of interest is manipulated in a
way that leads to predicted changes in behavior that are in same direction as those that would result
from the Hawthorne Effect. For example, interventions designed to empower workers, enrich jobs,
increase SELF-EFFICACY, focus on quality, or in some other way impact positively on performance
may be implemented in such a way that they create a Hawthorne Effect. In such cases, if performance
changes as is predicted, based on the construct of interest (empowerment, increased self-efficacy, etc.),
the tendency is to attribute the effect to the construct under investigation; the alternative explanation of
a Hawthorne Effect is often ignored. At the very least, when the Hawthorne Effect is a possible cause of
results that are found, it should be mentioned. Better yet, multiple studies and carefully designed
research should be conducted to insure that effects attributed to constructs of interest are, most likely,
caused by those constructs and not other common variables confounded with the constructs of interest,
particularly those variables considered to cause the Hawthorne Effect.
See also Performance, individual; Productivity; Research design; Research methods; Bias;
Working conditions

Document
Page 212
Bibliography
Roethlisberger, F. J. & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
DANIEL R. ILGEN
Hierarchy
This term is used in several different senses. One implies the STATUS differences that exist among
various individuals in an organization, sometimes referred to as the status pyramid (see
STRATIFICATION). This is commonly found in public sector organizations where ranks of individuals
are distinguished upon the basis of particular kinds of prerogatives (see GOVERNMENT AGENCIES).
More typically the term refers to the hierarchy of AUTHORITY, that is, the chain of command in an
organization. In formal organizations, each position is arranged so that it reports to another, higher in
the chain. Invested in each position is a set of rights and obligations, most of which refer to the ability
to give orders to subordinates and supervise them. This arrangement is considered to be a formal one
because the authority to give orders to others is based on the position that one occupies and not on any
personal characteristics. Weber referred to this as the rational–legal basis of authority. It is quite
different and not to be confused with informal sources of POWER that can accrue from control over
information or personal characteristics (see POWER BASES).
The concept of hierarchy of authority has also been distinguished from DECENTRALIZATION, which
is a more meso-level concept, concerned with PARTICIPATION of decision making or the
DELEGATION of decisions to a particular level such as the divisional level (see DECISION
MAKING). Hierarchy of authority, as has been interpreted in the literature, represents is more micro in
focus.
During the 1960s, Hall (1992) developed scales for measuring the hierarchy of authority so that it could
be distinguished from FORMALIZATION and kindred concepts associated with Weber's model of
BUREAUCRACY. His measures were then used in a series of studies of welfare agencies (see Hage,
1980).
These studies indicated that strong hierarchies of authority were highly and positively associated with
centralization of decision making POWER but equally strongly and negatively associated with morale
as measured by JOB SATISFACTION scales. Generally, hierarchy of authority is a less important
predictor of other organizational characteristics than centralization. And consistent with the more micro
operationalization of the concept in Hall's scale, hierarchy of authority predicts better to other micro
level concepts.
See also Differentiation; Classical design theory; Span of control; Organizational design
Bibliography

Document
Hage, J. (1990). Organizations: Form, process and transformation. New York: Wiley.
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
JERALD HAGE
Home Country National
see EXPATRIATES
Honesty Testing
This term refers to a broad category of tests, including polygraphs and paper-and-pencil "integrity"
tests, that have been used primarily by U.S. employers to screen prospective employees (see
SELECTION METHODS). Research has led to legislation restricting the use of the polygraph for
employee screening in the United States (Saxe, Dougherty, & Cross, 1985) and to the development and
increased use of paper-and-pencil examinations called integrity tests.
Integrity tests have been divided into two types (Sacket, Burris, & Callahan, 1989). The first type,
"overt integrity tests" generally include a section on attitudes toward theft and a section that asks the
individual to admit to theft. The second type, "personality-based measures," is more general and avoids
explicit references to theft or other illegal activities.
Evaluations of integrity tests vary depending upon the tests studied and the criterion predicted.
However, recent reviews acknowledge that:
(1) studies have improved;
(2) evidence supporting predictive VALIDITY is increasing (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt,

Document
Page 213
1993; Sackett, Burris, & Callahan, 1989); and
(3) integrity tests do not adversely impact protected groups (Sackett, Burris, & Callahan, 1989) (see
DISCRIMINATION).
Some important remaining issues include ethics in honesty testing (e.g., questionable marketing tactics),
the influence of faking and social desirability, the construct validity of integrity tests (Ones,
Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993; Sackett, Burris, & Callahan, 1989), and the relative influence of
individual traits versus organizational influences on employee honesty and dishonesty. Finally, Ones et
al. (1993) proposed that integrity tests tap a broader construct called conscientiousness, a potentially
important determinant of overall job performance that has been missing in previous motivational
research.
See also Business ethics; Psychological testing; Recruitment Employee theft; Justice, procedural
Bibliography
Ones, D. S. Viswesvaran, C. & Schmidt, F. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test

validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703.
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R. & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for personnel section: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 42, 491–529.
Saxe, L., Dougherty, D. & Cross, T. (1985). The validity of polygraph testing: Scientific evidence and
public policy. American Psychologist, 40, 355–356.
U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (1990). The use of integrity tests for pre-
employment screening (Report No. OTA-SET-442), Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
LINDA TREVINO
Host Country Nationals
see EXPATRIATES
Hours of Work

Document
Historically, most attention on working time has been paid to issues of duration and the effects of
shiftworking. From World War One onward, psychologists have examined the effects of the length of
the working period on fatigue and performance. More recently this has developed into a considerable
body of research on the relationship between shiftwork and health (see Mott, Mann, McLoughlin, &
Warwick, 1965; Folkard & Monk, 1985). It is widely agreed that individuals vary considerably in their
ability to adapt to shiftwork, but to nightwork in particular, adjustment is at best only partial (see
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES). Circadian rhythms are slow to adjust and do so only partially,
resulting in reduced physiological performance during night shifts. Rapid shift rotations and rest periods
which reinstate normal diurnal living patterns generally impede the degree of any adjustment to
nightwork (for a review of nightwork and its implications for social and physical well-being, see
Carpentier and Cazamian (1977). The amount of shiftworking is generally increasing, due to factors
such as the pursuit of increased capital utilization and changes in consumer behavior which impact upon
the hours of operation of service activities. The proportion of nightwork in the total of shiftwork is,
however, declining.
The average duration of weekly working time has fallen considerably over the twentieth century with
many workers in Europe now working a basic workweek of 35–38 hours. Hours of work are somewhat
longer in the United States and particularly South-East Asia (see INTERNATIONAL
MANAGEMENT). In Japan for example, this longer working time is the result not only of somewhat
longer weekly working hours but also of the tendency for many Japanese employees, particularly in
nonmanual jobs, not to take their full holiday entitlement (Blyton, 1989).
As the length of the working week has declined, there has been increased interest in compressed
workweeks, whereby individual weekly hours are performed in fewer than the normal number of
workdays. Employer interest in compression stems partly from a desire to maintain operating/opening
hours as the duration of the working week falls. An extreme example of this has been some renewed
interest in 12-hour shiftworking in a number of industries, including continuous process operations
(Blyton, 1994). In some cases, these are linked to the calculation of hours on an annual rather than a
weekly basis. Elsewhere, too, annual hours schemes appear to be spreading, not least in sectors which
have a predictable

Document
Page 214
seasonal variation in demand. By calculating hours on an annual rather than weekly basis, and by
arranging working weeks to be longer at busier times and shorter during slacker periods, employers are
potentially able to save on overtime costs and avoid over-production in nonpeak periods.
Reductions in working time are also focusing attention on the utilization of work hours. One common
development in assembly line operations, for example, has been the introduction of stricter supervision
of shift start and stop times (sometimes known as ''bell-to-bell working"). If duration of the working
week falls further (as can be expected toward a norm of 35 hours), employers are likely to look
increasingly for offsetting gains in both the utilization and arrangement of hours of work.
See also Flexitime; Working conditions; Productivity; Performance, individual; Psychological

contract
Bibliography
Blyton, P. (1989). Hours of work. In R. Bean (Ed.), International Labour Statistics (pp. 127–145).
London: Routledge.
Blyton, P. (1994). Working hours. In K. Sisson (Ed.), Personnel management: A comprehensive guide
to theory and practice in Britain (2nd edn, pp. 495–526). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Carpentier, J. & Cazamian, P. (1977). Nightwork. Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
Folkard, S. & Monk, T. H. (Eds) (1985). Hours of work: Temporal factors in work-scheduling.
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Mott, P. E., Mann, F. C., McLoughlin, Q. & Warwick, D. P. (1965). Shiftwork: The social
psychological and physical consequences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
PAUL BLYTON
Human–Computer Interaction
Human–computer interaction (HCI) is the descriptive and prescriptive study of how people use
computer systems and how computer systems are integrated into organizations (Frese, 1987; Shackel,
1991). It should help in the design process (Card & Polson, 1990) (with SOFTWARE ERGONOMICS
being one aspect of HCI).
Organizations may either design their technical systems with the workers in mind or they may attempt
to optimize the technical system in isolation. The latter strategy often leads to badly designed work
places, resistance by the workers, and jobs in which work has to be done that could not yet be
automatized (e.g., data typists) (see SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY; RESISTANCE TO CHANGE;
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY).

Document
Studies of the impact of the introduction of new TECHNOLOGY at the work place (technology
assessment, Björn-Anderson, Eason, & Robey, 1986; Kling, 1980) have shown that organizational
changes are quite gradual and they are usually not planned to go along with new technology. However,
POWER issues usually play an important role. Sometimes introducing new technology leads to
increased Taylorization but they are also countervailing forces (see SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT).
Clearly, the idea of technological determinism – the technology determining the organization – is
wrong, since, for example, both higher and lower workers' control can accompany the introduction of
computer systems (see INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY).
Introducing computers at the work place is smoother if PARTICIPATION in this process is used and if
TRAINING is well done. The issue of training has been revitalized in HCI (Frese, 1987). Research has
shown that training should be exploratory, allow the development of optimal mental models, and
integrate work tasks to increase transfer; people should be encouraged to make ERRORS and learn
from them (error training, see Frese, in press). Workers find handbooks difficult to use, therefore
minimal manuals (Carroll, Smith-Kerker, Ford, & Mazur-Rimetz, 1987, "slash the verbiage") should be
developed.
There has been some discussion of STRESS increasing with new technology. This depends on how
computer work is organized. While there are dangers that introducing computers leads to higher time
pressure, system response time, and breakdowns, the more important issue is whether or not the work
situation allow operators control, the use of SKILLS, and leaves the social network intact (Frese, 1987)
(see NETWORK ANALYSIS). In some jobs, for example, data typists, there is a correlation between
hours of computer work and psychosomatic complaints (particularly eye and back

Document
Page 215
strain) while in other jobs there is no relationship (e.g., computer programmers). The effects depend on
the work content (see JOB DESIGN; JOB DESKILLING). If the job provides little AUTONOMY,
FEEDBACK, and task significance, task identity, and task variety, there is a higher degree of strain
with longer computer hours (see JOB CHARACTERISTICS).
However, a general danger may be that computer work is more abstract (e.g., blue collar workers do not
know what really is happening in their computer driven tool and dye machine) and that this causes
stress.
The issue of changes to COMMUNICATION patterns in computer mediated work has also been
researched. In contrast to face-to-face communication, computer mediated communication reduces the
impact of etiquette, power and STATUS differentials and is more democratic and participatory (Kiesler,
Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). Furthermore, there is higher task focus and decision quality but longer
decisions times, lower consensus, and lower satisfaction (McLeod, 1992).
Computers are tools in organizational and work design. Concepts that go beyond this and attempt to
replace workers by machines (e.g., artificial intelligence, expert systems, etc.) have been shown to be
impractical. While undoubtedly, computers and software will become more powerful, strategies to
replace experts and workers have not been successful; rather computer systems should be used as tools
to support experts.
See also Information technology; Computer-aided design; Information processing; Cognitive

processes
Bibliography
Bjorn-Anderson, N., Eason, K. & Robey, D. (1986). Managing computer impact: An international
study of management and organization. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
Card, S. K. & Polson, P. G. (1990). Special issue on foundations of human–computer interaction.

Human–Computer Interaction, 5 (2), 3.
Carroll, J. M., Smith-Kerker, P. L., Ford, J. R. & Mazur-Rimetz, S. A. (1987–1988). The minimal
manual. Human–Computer Interaction, 2, 123–154.
Frese, M. (1987). Human–computer interaction in the office. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester: Wiley.
Frese, M. (1995). Error management in training: Conceptual and empirical results. In S. Bagnara, C. E.
Zucchermaglio & S. Stucky (Eds), Organizational learning and technological change, pp. 112–124.
New York: Springer Verlag.
Kiesler, S. Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated

communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.

Document
Kling, R. (1980). Social analyses of computing: Theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research.
Computing Surveys, 12, 61–110.
McLeod, P. L. (1992). An assessment of the experimental literature on electronic support of group

work: Results of a meta-analysis. Human Computer Interaction, 7, 257–280.
Shackel, B. (1991). Whence and where – a short history of human-computer interaction. In H.-J.
Bullinger (Ed.), Human aspects in computing (pp. 4–18). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
MICHAEL FRESE
Human Relations Movement
This body of theory and practice is popularly associated with the sociologist Elton Mayo (1880–1949)
whose basic idea was that workers had strong social needs which they tried to satisfy through
membership of informal social groups at the workplace. Managerial attempts to improve JOB
SATISFACTION and work MOTIVATION had to take account of these needs and could not treat
workers simply as economic individuals wanting to maximize pay and minimize effort (see
SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT).
Human relations thinking emerged from a series of experiments conducted between 1924 and the early
1940s in Chicago which claimed to have found positive associations between work-group cohesion (see
GROUP COHESIVENESS), participative supervisory styles (see MANAGERIAL STYLE), job
satisfaction, and job performance (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). These ideas led to a
substantial body of research on WORKGROUPS, on supervisory style, and on worker attitudes (mostly
in the 1950s and early 1960s) and the main impact of the movement in organizations was through
programmes of supervisory TRAINING.
Many OB theorists are suspicious of the concept of social need; research on SUPERVISION has shown
that a participative style does not always produce higher satisfaction and/or performance; and cohesive
groups can

Document
Page 216
promote low, as well as high, levels of performance: for these reasons the ideas of the movement have
largely fallen out of favor.
See also Motivation and performance; Management, classical theory; Participation; Theory X
and Y
Bibliography
Rose, M. (1988). Industrial behaviour: Theoretical development since Taylor (3rd edn).
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
JOHN KELLY
Human Resource Management
Although the term has been used for many years, human resource management (HRM) came to
prominence during the 1980s as pressure grew to give greater priority to the effective management of
people at work. In considering this topic, we need to understand why it has come to prominence, to
identify the distinctive characteristics of HRM, to assess its impact and, finally, to review its status
some years after it first attracted widespread attention.
The pressures which led to greater interest in HRM in the early 1980s, some of which still persist,
included growing market competition, changing expectations among the workforce, the growing
complexity of the management process, the declining pressure from traditional INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS and availability of models of "EXCELLENCE." Competitive market pressures,
demanding both fuller use of human resources and a higher quality of goods and services arguably
provided the main pressure, while a key trigger was provided in accounts of successful companies (see
COMPETITIVENESS). Analysis of Japanese companies appeared to demonstrate that they succeeded
through a distinctive approach to management of human resources (see INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT; INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT). The importance of human
resources was reinforced, this time through a distinctively American perspective, by Peters and
Waterman's (1982) book In Search of Excellence. This claimed that the best American companies
succeeded by emphasizing the "soft" side of management, that is, the management of human resources.
Reinforced by hyperbole and rhetoric, this message captured the popular imagination of industry, and,
building on the optimistic spirit of the times, seemed to offer a counter to the growing competition from
countries like Japan.
One of the distinctive features of human resource management (HRM), emphasized in particular by
writers from Harvard (Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Quinn Mills, & Walton, 1985), is that as a critical
success factor it is too important to be left to human resource specialists. What was needed was to
present HRM as an approach which appealed to line managers. This meant that traditional
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT had to be repackaged and extended.

Document
The Harvard approach identifies four generic human resource activities common to all organizations.
These they term employee influence, human resource flow, reward systems, and work systems.
Organizations have choices about how they want to pursue these according to the policy goals to which
they give priority. By implication they, like their colleagues from MIT (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1986) accept an OPEN SYSTEMS approach, indicating that a range of influences are likely to
determine policy priorities. The Harvard team suggest four HR policy outcomes – COMMITMENT,
COMPETENCE, congruence, and cost-effectiveness. Achievement of these should result in
improvements in organizational performance and individual and societal wellbeing (see
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS). While this approach is plausible, it is not clear why it
should hold particular appeal for line managers; nor is it distinctly different from what has been
advocated over the years for personnel management.
While some writers have delineated the territory, the content and the policy choices in HRM, others (e.
g., Fombrun, Tichy, & Devanna, 1984; Miles & Snow, 1984) have emphasized the role of HUMAN
RESOURCE STRATEGY, suggesting that the distinctive feature of HRM is that it links HRM policy
and HRM strategy to business strategy, shifting the emphasis from the traditional administrative, fire-
fighting, and problem-solving activities of personnel management to a more proactive and strategically
oriented role (see HUMAN RESOURCES PLANNING).

Document
Page 217
A third approach, reflected in the work of Walton (1985), presents HRM as an approach based on a
distinctive set of VALUES. The starting point for this is the contrast between traditional management
values which emphasize compliance and CONTROL of the workforce with HRM values based on
employee commitment and workforce AUTONOMY. This implies a different kind of
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT based on reciprocal commitment and high TRUST (see
RECIPROCITY). Employees have interesting and challenging jobs but at the same time are fully
utilized to the benefit of the company. Workers are encouraged to contribute to INNOVATION and
change in return for implicit guarantees of job security (see JOB INSECURITY). The contrast between
the more traditional values and those associated with this view of HRM are perhaps more marked in a
country like the United Kingdom rather than the United States because of the stronger United Kingdom
tradition of pluralist industrial relations with its heavy TRADE UNION influence. The HRM policies
pursued most notably in the 1980s by a number of American high-technology companies such as IBM,
Hewlett Packard, and DEC provided a vivid contrast and offered a distinctly different approach. Indeed
HRM attracted the suspicion of trade union sympathizers since, by inducing employee commitment to
the organization, it threatened to reduce commitment to the union and diminish the union role. This
distinctive approach to HRM, built around commitment to the organization differs from the more
pragmatic approach to HRM advocated by Beer and colleagues at Harvard and Kochan at MIT which
emphasizes the need to give greater priority to human resource issues and acknowledges multiple
STAKEHOLDER perspectives, including the possibility of DUAL COMMITMENT to both company
and union (see COMMITMENT, DUAL).
The approach to HRM taken by American high-technology companies had the policy goals of securing
a workforce highly committed to the company, highly flexible in skills and roles, and of high quality.
These goals were achieved through careful attention to key policy levers such as selection,
SOCIALIZATION, TRAINING and development, COMMUNICATION, EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT, and rewards systems. Success depended on achieving careful integration between
corporate and human resource strategy; integration between the various human resource policies and
practices; and integration of human resource and line management values. Line managers in these
organizations had internalized the human resource values, were eager to own them and make them
work. The question then arises as to whether these distinctive HRM values and the policy goals
associated with them should be advocated for all organizations or only under specific conditions.
Enthusiasts such as Walton believe that they should apply in all organizations. Others advocate generic
strategies such as those of Porter (1985) and Miles and Snow (1984) as a basis for determining when
this distinctive set of HRM goals might be appropriate (see STRATEGIC TYPES).

Document
One further element in the development of HRM has been the emergence of a number of techniques
with demonstrated benefits for performance. To take just a few illustrations, there has been major
progress through application of utility analysis in demonstrating the benefits of the use of selection tests
(see SELECTION METHODS); GOAL SETTING, when properly used, does appear, as its advocates
suggest, to be an effective motivational technique; and careful JOB DESIGN has a demonstrated
capacity to improve individual satisfaction and well-being (see JOB SATISFACTION). It is, of course,
possible to apply the techniques without pursuing distinctive HRM policy goals. The HRM argument is
that their impact will be greater if they are part of a coherent philosophy and strategy.
Given the powerful and enthusiastic case made for HRM by its advocates, what can be said about its
impact? Evidence taken from the United States (Lawler, Mohrmann, & Ledford, 1992) and from the
United Kingdom (Millward, Stevens, Smart, & Hawes, 1992) confirms that there has been a great deal
of innovative activity. However there appears to be a risk that HRM becomes the umbrella under which
a variety of techniques are tried and tested without ever achieving the strategic integration or
congruence which the more sophisticated models call for. One context within which it might be
expected that HRM would come into its own is in greenfield sites – newly built factories and offices –
where managers have an opportunity to

Document
Page 218
introduce the best contemporary practice with relative freedom for the constraints of custom and
practice. Evidence from the United States (Lawler, 1990) suggests that where this opportunity is taken,
it can result in sustained high performance over a long period. In the United Kingdom there are also
well-known cases, usually of foreign-owned manufacturing plants, which have successfully applied
HRM on greenfield sites. However, many managers still prefer the traditional approach, pursuing high
performance through efficiency and tight control rather than by using HRM to ensure full utilization of
human resources.
The impact of a number of techniques which might be expected to contribute to HRM policy goals has
sometimes been disappointing. For example QUALITY CIRCLES have rarely made a sustained
contribution and EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT initiatives have often failed to improve commitment
to the organization. Explanations for failure can be found in the short-term, partial, and unenthusiastic
application of these techniques. However a fuller explanation can be linked with the idea of strategic
integration. The case, advanced by Lawler (1986), is that the positive impact will only arrive when there
is real commitment to the philosophy of full utilization of human resources, to what he terms "total
involvement management." This requires comprehensive strategic integration to the point where HRM
is a core part of the business strategy. There is a critical mass of cohering and mutually supportive
HRM policies, and top management displays full commitment and ownership to ensure the culture
reinforces the application of HRM (see ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE).
Lawler and others acknowledge that achieving success through a full utilization model of HRM is an
extremely difficult long-term endeavor. The prizes are great but the organizations frequently cited as the
models for the success of this approach, the high-technology companies, are currently experiencing
huge problems in the marketplace. Any doubts this raises in the minds of some managers are likely to
be reinforced by fashions such as BUSINESS PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING or lean management
which place greater weight on efficiency. It may be that as the initial gloss wears off, it is time to
reshape the concept of HRM to reflect changing circumstances, in which speed of response is a key to
success. This requires a new kind of psychological contract. The bedrock of job security can no longer
provide the ground on which to build HRM. This means greater weight needs to be given to the new
forms of FLEXIBILITY and commitment as the basis for the future full utilization of human resources.
See also Management development; Strategic management
Bibliography
Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Quinn Mills, D. & Walton, R. (1985). Human resource
management: A general manager's perspective. New York: Free Press.
Fombrun, C., Tichy, N. & Devanna, M. (1984). Strategic human resource management. New York:
Wiley.
Kochan, T., Katz, H. & McKersie, R. (1986). The transformation of American industrial relations. New
York: Basic Books.

Document
Lawler, E. (1986). High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. (1990). The new plant revolution revisited. Organizational Dynamics, 19, (2), 5–14.
Lawler, E., Mohrmann, S. & Ledford, G. (1992). Employee involvement and total quality management.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ledford, G., Lawler, E. & Mohrmann, S. (1988). The quality circle and its variations. In J. Campbell &
R. Campbell (Eds), Productivity in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Miles, R. & Snow, C. (1984). Designing strategic human resource systems. Organizational Dynamics,
Summer, 36–52.
Millward, N., Stevens, M., Smart, D. & Hawes, W. (1992). Workplace industrial relations in transition.
Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.
Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York:
Free Press.
Walton, R. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63, 76–84.
DAVID GUEST
Human Resource Planning
This is the process of developing strategies for the acquisition, utilization, improvement, and retention
of an organization's human resources.

Document
Page 219
To understand the nature of human resource planning, we need to consider: the ways in which it is
different from other approaches to analyzing human resources; the subject matter it addresses; methods
of analysis employed; and the context in which it is used.
Human resource planning takes an essentially aggregate view of employees, grouping them according
to various parameters (AGE, length of service, qualifications, GENDER, etc.) and to the types of jobs
they perform (by level, function, location, etc.). This enables quantitative comparisons to be made
between the demand for different types of employees now and in the future with the current and
potential supply.
In addressing these central issues of supply and demand, human resource planning involves examining
a number of key areas. The expression of demand itself is perhaps the most difficult for many
organizations, as it requires assumptions both about the future of the business (involving huge
uncertainties) and how this will be expressed in staffing terms (involving a second set of assumptions
about ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN, JOB DESIGN, etc.). On the supply side, human resource
planning looks at the characteristics of the current workforce (see ORGANIZATIONAL
DEMOGRAPHY), sometimes called the manpower "stock." It then considers the ways in which this
stock will change over time as a result of the whole system of flows" into the organization
(RECRUITMENT), between job groups (promotions, transfers) and out of the organization
(retirements, natural wastage, or TURNOVER, other losses). In considering resourcing options, the
balance of supply and demand in the relevant external LABOR MARKETS are also evaluated.
For each of these elements of human resource planning, data are often looked at over the recent past,
and projected into the future. In its simplest form, human resource planning compares likely manpower
demand over some forecast period with possible options for supply, both from internal and external
labor markets. Strategies for the recruitment, retention, TRAINING, and career development of
employees are the result of such comparisons. In its more sophisticated form, as developed in the
United Kingdom and the United States in the early 1970s, operational research techniques were used to
develop computerized models to simulate the interaction of demand and supply over time under various
business scenarios (see COMPUTER MODELING; SIMULATION, COMPUTER). The use of such
techniques has mainly been restricted to large organizations with a specialized human resource planning
function at the corporate centre, and with comprehensive personnel information systems.
Human resource planning is not confined to looking at the human resource implications of corporate
business plans. The same approaches may be used, albeit more simply, by local line managers
examining their departmental requirements. They may also be turned to the analysis and solution of
specific issues or problems: poor retention rates, ABSENTEEISM, EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
monitoring, the requirements for MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT, and SUCCESSION
PLANNING, DOWNSIZING, etc. In some organizations, issues of work organization and staff
utilization are extremely complex, for example, in scheduling the movements of airline staff round the
world, and may become a major focus of human resource planning activity.

Document
See also Human resource management; Human resource strategy
Bibliography
Walker, J. W. (1980). Human resource planning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bramham, J. (1994). Human Resource Planning. London: Institute of Personnel Management.
WENDY HIRSH
Human Resource Strategy
The concept of Human Resource Strategy (HRS) integrates an organization's HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT (HRM) policies with a stable and strategic characteristic of organizational life, such
as the corporate strategy, employment philosophies, core values, organizational competencies, or
delivery of a value-added business process (see CORE COMPETENCE). It provides a "fixed point"
toward which HRM policies may be targeted and developed and involves two processes of integration.
Vertical integration identifies and shapes effective organizational behaviors across the hierarchy.
Horizontal integration ensures that all activities felt to

Document
Page 220
influence effective behaviors present a consistent and coherent picture, i.e., HRM policies send the
same messages and shape a mutually reinforcing set of behaviors within the organization. Approaches
to HRS differ in their LEVEL OF ANALYSIS (whether behaviors should be managed at the individual,
role, or organizational level) and in the scope to which the term human resources is used (individuals,
teams, key value-added skill groups, core versus peripheral employees, or the total pool of human
capital).
An HRS requires a wide territory of control, including " . . . all those activities affecting the behavior of
individuals in their efforts to formulate and implement the strategic needs of the business resulting from
the organization's strategy" (Schuler, 1992). The list of "activities" to be coordinated lengthened as our
understanding of organizational behavior developed. It includes traditional personnel activities; work
design, organizational structure and culture; control systems; and underlying business processes. All
send powerful signals to shape behavior. A single unifying theme is needed at some stage in the
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT process. Four perspectives dominate the field: linkage between
strategic and HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING (HRP) processes; contingency relationships between
strategies and HRM practices (see CONTINGENCY THEORY); political and management of change
processes; and the identification of organizational capabilities and competencies.
The first perspective considers the linkage between the HRP and the strategic plan. The HRS is
articulated through a planned process that identifies strategic business needs, which may be redefined as
organizations plan for survival, growth, adaptability, PRODUCTIVITY or profitability, and develop
actionable objectives. HRS theorists focus on the extent to which the strategic plan and HRP are
mutually developed and informed, seeing HRS as an umbrella concept created through strategic plans
and articulated through the organization's philosophies, policies, programmes, and practices.
A second approach considers the connection between HRM and organizational strategy itself (Fombrun,
Tichy, & Devanna, 1984; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 1988; MacMillan & Schuler, 1985) from a
"situational" perspective. The focus is on the translation of strategy into action, planning of resources,
design of organizational structures and systems, and the matching of "appropriate" HRM practices to a
specific organizational strategy (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). Managers make contingent
choices about the content of HRM policies and practice. These have to be coherent, consistent, and
linked to the strategy. Policies are aligned on the basis of "needed role behaviors'' in order to channel
behaviors and create a dominant value or culture in the organization. HRS becomes a social engineering
process based on two relationships. In "contingent" relationships, triggers have a predictable, systematic
influence on HRS (Schuler, 1992). Contingent relationships for HRS have been identified for: top
management goals, values and strategic intent; the basis of competitive battles; industry or business life
cycle; and the business sector. "Noncontingent" relationships trigger new developments in HRM, with
an unpredictable, undiscriminating, or unknown effect across countries or organizations. The size of
organizations, work flow layout, levels of profitability, structure and JOB DESIGN, socio-economic
pressures, legislative environment, national CULTURE, LABOR MARKET or customer
characteristics, and competitor behavior represent noncontingent factors. Contingency models have
strengths and weaknesses (Boxall, 1991; Hendry & Pettigrew, 1990). They bring implementation issues

Document
into clear focus and demonstrate the importance of coherence and consistency across HRM policies, but
they also lead to over-prescriptive theorizing and are highly culture-bound. HRS is cast in a reactive
mode, serving efficient implementation of a preconceived and rational strategy but ignoring
contributions to the formation of strategy. They underestimate CONFLICT and incremental processes
of strategy-making and strategy-change.
A third perspective focuses on political and management of change processes within HRS. The contours
of an HRS are unclear at the outset. Organizations follow different pathways to achieve the same
results. Sensitivity to historical and change processes is required. Sustained inputs of energy and
activity create a "critical mass" or point at which activity becomes self-reinforcing. Progress depends on

Document
Page 221
highly political considerations and the sophistication, competence, and credibility of key actors (such as
the HRM function) (see POLITICS). Corporate LEADERSHIP plays a significant role but business
change is the primary driving force behind HRS. Transforming HRS is easier in times of a crisis (see
CRISES), well-understood business performance gaps, charismatic leadership (see LEADERSHIP,
CHARISMATIC), or strategic redirection articulated by diverse, intelligent, and proactive TOP
MANAGEMENT TEAMS. HRS is the pursuit of board objectives realized through an imperfect,
opportunistic, and learning-by-doing process.
A fourth perspective considers how human resources (and their competencies) become a source of
competitive advantage. Theorists focus on COGNITION IN ORGANIZATIONS (the frames of
reference, mental maps, and dominant logic of managers involved in the strategic management process)
and the management of internal resources, capabilities, or competencies (Klein, Edge, & Kass, 1991;
Sparrow, 1994; Whipp, 1991). The topic of ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING – the ability to learn
faster than the competition and reconstruct and adapt the organization's skills, structures, and values –
links HRS to competitive advantage (see COMPETITIVENESS). HRS leads to competitive advantage
under four conditions: value, rarity, inimitability, and nonsubstitutability (Wright & McMahan, 1992)
(see RESOURCE DEPENDENCE). Value resides in organization-specific skills. When work designs
build the system around the individual the best predictor of organization performance becomes the
rarity of the individual's competencies. If competitors cannot identify the exact components of human
capital associated with a competitive advantage and cannot duplicate the competencies (or conditions
under which they are effective) then human resources become inimitable. Whilst employee behavior is
the direct way through which strategies are implemented, employees must also have the competencies
necessary to exhibit relevant behaviors. Human resources as individuals are distinguished from human
resources as the total pool of human capital within the organization. The HRS focuses on the
competency of the total pool of human capital within the organization (see COMPETENCIES).
Increasing theoretical sophistication will be sought in these four perspectives but practical questions
will dominate the field in the future. What are the organizational performance criteria that an HRS
should improve? Can positive links between HRS and organizational performance be demonstrated?
Does the existence of an HRS make the organization more likely to achieve effective performance or do
better-performing organizations simply have more opportunity to plan for the future? Is the HRS
sufficiently future-orientated, flexible, and culture-free? How should highly measurable and focused
approaches to HRS be balanced with the realities of facilitating change? As organization designs
change, is it desirable to create more than one HRS? At what levels in the design should an HRS be
developed, under whose ownership and at what stage in the business process? The field of HRS needs
much development in theoretical and practical terms.
See also Flexibility; Seven S model; Organization and environment
Bibliography

Document
Boxall, P. F. (1991). Strategic human resource management: Beginnings of a new theoretical

sophistication? Human Resource Management Journal, 2, (3), 60–79.
Fombrun, C. J., Tichy, N. M. & Devanna, M. A. (1984). Strategic human resource management. New
York: Wiley.
Hendry, C. & Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Human resource management: An agenda for the 1990s.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1, (1), 17–43.
Klein, J., Edge, G. & Kass, T. (1991). Skill-based competition. Journal of General Management, 16,
(4), 1–15.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1988). Strategic human resources management: A

review of the literature and a proposed typology. Academy of Management Review, 13, 454–470.
MacMillan, I. C. & Schuler, R. S. (1985). Gaining a competitive edge through human resources.
Personnel, 62, (4), 24–29.
Schuler, R. S. (1992). Linking the people with the strategic needs of the business. Organizational
Dynamics, 20, 18–32.
Sparrow, P. R. (1994). Organizational competencies: Creating a strategic behavioural framework for

selection and assessment. In N. Anderson & P.

Document
Page 222
Herriot (Eds), Handbook of assessment and appraisal. London: Wiley.
Whipp, R. (1991). Human resource management, strategic change and competition: The role of
learning. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2, (2), 165–191.
Wright, P. M. & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource
management. Journal of Management, 18, 295–320.
PAUL SPARROW
Hygiene Factors
see MOTIVATOR/HYGIENE THEORY

Document
Page 223
Identification
This is the part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his or her membership in a social
group (Tajfel, 1981). To the extent that individuals identify with a group, they experience the successes
and failures of the group as their own and incorporate the dominant attitudes and VALUES of the group
as their own (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The term identification is also used to refer to the process by
which this change in self-concept takes place (Kelman, 1961; Freud, 1949).
Traditionally, identification has been viewed as a voluntary response to group membership rather than
as a coercive or instrumental response (see CONFORMITY and COMPLIANCE). Individuals who
identify with their groups adjust to group expectations not out of fear of punishment or for instrumental
reasons, but because they find relationships with other group members intrinsically satisfying and want
to express attitudes that others in the group will find compatible. While identification has not been
closely linked to productivity outcomes, it has been more consistently associated with altruistic
behavior, cooperative behavior, and GROUP COHESIVENESS (Turner, 1984) (see ALTRUISM). For
example, in organizational settings, individuals with high identification may be more likely to volunteer
to work overtime, to recruit for the group, and to publicize the group in a positive way to outsiders.
Although there has been considerable theoretical speculation on the processes by which identification
takes place, there has been relatively little empirical research on this topic. Organizational behavior
research has concentrated on examining how identification results from escalating emotional investment
in the group (Burke & Reitzes, 1991; Ashforth & Meal, 1989) (see COMMITMENT, ESCALATING).
In contrast, clinical and development psychology has focused on how identification results from the
renunciation of the demands of competing groups and personal sacrifices for the group (Freud, 1949;
Eysenck, 1960).
See also Group norms; Group dynamics; Attitude theory; Groupthink; Group decision making;
Group development
Bibliography
Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Burke, P. J. & Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54, 239–251.

Document
Eysenck, H. J. (1960). The development of moral values in children: The contribution of learning
theory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 11–22.
Freud, S. (1949). An outline of psychoanalysis. New York: Norton.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK:
Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The
social dimension: European developments in social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 518–538). Cambridge, UK:
DANIEL C. FELDMAN
Ideology
This term typically refers to a reasonably coherent set of beliefs, attitudes, and opinions. The meaning is
frequently prejorative, with a contrast drawn between ideology and science. The former deals in
illusion, untruth, falsehood; the latter, with

Document
Page 224
that which is real, correct, and true. Marxist thinkers initially developed this contrast in order to show
how what people thought was real and objective and was the result of a "false consciousness," an
understanding rooted in systematic error and illusion perpetrated by the "capitalist class." Such views
have influenced some ORGANIZATION THEORY.
First, there is the suggestion that typical constructs, such as Weber's "ideal type" of rational
BUREAUCRACY, crystalized a specific view of the world rather than a general analytical tool.
Marxist critics deny the objective character of organization analysis. It has been seen as a projection of
"managerialist" and ''capitalist" ideology. Its function is to mask the exploitation of employees,
particularly the working class, within organizations, by the owners of these organizations – the
capitalists – and their appointed agents, the "managerial stratum." Critics such as Fergusson (1984) also
have embraced a similar view, with a feminist twist, seeing the public, rational, and calculative world of
the bureaucratic construct as a masculinist construct, against a more feminine world-view (see
FEMINISM).
Marxist and feminist emphases share a common view. Ideology is instrumental in both the
subordination of organization members and the partiality of organization theorists who mistake their
perspectives (bourgeois, masculine) for reality.
Second, there is the "dominant ideology thesis" associated with the work of Abercrombie, Hill, and
Turner (1980). The role of dominant ideology is not to subordinate lower strata, a role they believe
exaggerated in view of the conflictual and pluralist nature of modern societies. Rather more, it is to
organize dominant strata. From this perspective, organization and management theory are examples of
ideology because they provide seemingly neutral and technical accounts of organization processes that
dominant organization strata learn to apply in business schools. Using these tools, they are then able to
justify political actions (restructuring, DOWNSIZING, layoffs, etc.) in technical terms that admit of no
rational or alternative account. From this perspective there is little difference between Marxism as an
ideological theory that admits of no truth other than its theory and management accounts that function
in the same way. They merely articulate different interests.
Some writers influenced by the work of Michel Foucault suggest that ideology may be a meaningless
concept. To know what is false and erroneous or illusionary we must know what is true and correct.
Whereas once one might have thought that "science" could secure these conditions of knowledge,
Foucault argues that concepts of "truth" and "falsity," "science" and "ideology," require understanding
in terms of the social discourses that produce them. There are no absolutes, just provisional accounts.
All that can be certain is that there are different ways of ceding "truth" and "falsity," that change
historically and comparatively (Clegg, 1989).

Document
From this perspective an opposition between truth and falsity, science and ideology, is insecure. The
basis for a truth claim, as a judgment rooted in a particular THEORY, always will be susceptible to a
charge of "ideology," opening up the possibility that any theory that claims to be able to provide true
grounds for its analysis must of necessity be ideological, because it seeks to suppress the play of
different perspectives.
Finally, from this perspective, the way is clear to an analysis of all organization theories as necessarily
partial perspectives, such as those provided by Burrell and Morgan (1979) and Morgan (1985). No
organization theory can be wholly true. Hence, all organization theories, given the way that their
perspectives relate to different organizational interests, will always be partial. The best form of
organization theory will be one that takes all perspectives seriously, that tries to incorporate a variety of
viewpoints, because no one is adequate. The most adequate understanding will develop from the most
plural use of perspectives rather than the endorsement of one over all the others. If this perspective is
combined with some notion of empirical tests that can determine the relative strengths and weaknesses
of competing theories, then we may conclude that some theories, by some tests, under some
circumstances, may be more ideological than others. The problem remains, however, that there is no
neutral theory of theory: which tests are used in what circumstances will always be tied up in the
assumptions of the theory-in-use.

Document
Page 225
See also Social constructionism; Critical theory; Values; Postmodernism; Doubleloop learning
Bibliography
Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B. S. (1980). The dominant ideology thesis. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological theory and organizational paradigms. London:
Heinemann.
Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of power. London: Sage.
Fergusson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Morgan, G. (1985). Images of organizations. London: Sage.
STEWART CLEGG
Impression Management
Organizational theorists, researchers, and practitioners have increasingly recognized the importance of
impression management (also called self-presentation) as an explanatory model for a broad range of
organizational phenomena. Impression management refers to the many ways that individuals attempt to
control the impressions others have of them: their behavior, motivations, morality, and personal
attributes like competence, trustworthiness, and future potential. Individuals may also attempt to control
the impressions others form of entities besides themselves such as commercial products or a company
(Schlenker & Weigold, 1992).
The impression management framework employs a "life as theater" or dramaturgic metaphor to

describe social and organizational behavior. People are actors, taking many roles (e.g., parent,
employee, supervisor), and are keenly aware of audience reactions to their behaviors (see ROLE
TAKING). Thus, some actors' behavior is an attempt to control or modify the image that relevant
audiences have of them and win audiences' moral, social, and financial support. The impression
management framework assumes that a basic human motive, both inside and outside of organizations, is
to be viewed by others in a favorable manner and to avoid being seen negatively. Individuals act as
amateur publicity agents using enhancing impression management tactics (e.g. ingratiation, self-
promotion) to look good and protective or defensive impression management (e.g., excuses, apologies)
to minimize deficiencies and avoid looking bad.

Document
Impression management has increasingly become a recognized part of organizational behavior theory,
research, and practice. Two edited volumes (Giacalone & Rosenfeld 1989; 1991) have systematically
applied an organizational impression management perspective to topics such as SELECTION
INTERVIEWS, PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL, LEADERSHIP, CAREER strategies, exit interviews,
organizational JUSTICE, and the MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY. Impression management theory –
so popular today in organizational settings – had its roots in the pioneering work of sociologist Erving
Goffman. In his classic book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Goffman systematically
interpreted social behavior utilizing the terminology and methods of the theater. People were seen as
social actors attempting to establish (in conjunction with those with whom they were interacting), a
"working consensus" through their impression management behaviors. This reciprocal impression
management served as a social lubricant: it allowed actors to know how to act and what actions to
expect from others.
Beginning in the 1960s, experimental social psychologists (most notably Edward E. Jones' seminal
studies of ingratiation) increasingly began utilizing impression management to explain a whole host of
research areas including cognitive dissonance, reactance, ALTRUISM, and aggression. Rather than
having independent theoretical status, however, impression management was often an alternative
explanation for established social psychological laboratory phenomena (Baumeister, 1982).
The social psychological legacy of impression management theory also gave it a stigma that it still
struggles to overcome. Impression management for many became synonymous with unscrupulous,
nefarious, insincere, and deceptive actions. People who practiced impression management did not
necessarily believe in the impressions they were claiming, but were saying and doing things to gain
favor in the eyes of significant audiences as part of a general motive of manipulative social influence
(Tedeschi, 1981; see MACHIAVELLIANISM, POLITICS).
This pessimistic view of impression management has gradually moderated during the last

Document
Page 226
decade. The current thinking among most theorists is that impression management behaviors are often
sincere components of social and organizational behavior. As Tetlock and Manstead (1985, pp. 61–62)
noted, "although some writers have used the term impression management to refer to the self-conscious
deception of others (e.g., Gaes, Kalle, & Tedeschi, 1978), there is no compelling psychological reason
why impression management must be either duplicitous or under conscious control. Impression
management may be the product of highly overlearned habits or scripts, the original functions of which
people have long forgotten."
In an authoritative review, Schlenker and Weigold (1992) distinguished between restrictive and
expansive views of impression management. The restrictive view sees impression management as a
generally negative often deceptive set of behaviors aimed at illicitly gaining social POWER and
approval. The now more accepted expansive view sees impression management as a fundamental aspect
of social and organizational interactions. It is perhaps best to view impression management behaviors as
falling on a continuum ranging from sincere, accurate presentations to conscious deception.
The popularity of impression management in organizational scholarship is a relatively recent

phenomenon. While many of the concepts of impression management were utilized in areas such as
organizational politics, there were few organizational investigations of impression management before
the early 1980s. Not until the mid-1980s did the organizational impression management perspective
begin to gain an identity theoretically distinct from the earlier literature on organizational politics and
attain a degree of independent status. Thus, although popular in social psychology for over two decades,
it is only relatively recently that the organizational impression management literature has expanded into
the full range of organizational behavior topic areas. It seems fair to say that impression management
now provides explanatory power for a wide range of topics across the organizational sciences.
A number of challenges remain for organizational impression management. Three of note are:
(1) Can impression management be trained? Although training in impression management performance
and detection has been recommended (Giacalone, 1989), impression management has yet to have true
empirically derived practitioner applications. A first step may require viewing impression management
as a desirable set of skills rather than a deficit.
(2) Are impression management motivation and tactics applicable to an increasingly diverse,
multinational workforce? As organizations grow increasingly diverse and multinational impression
management may be crucial to members of racial/ethnic minority groups, women, immigrants, and
expatriates who often need to please majority group members in positions of greater social power.
Understanding how impression management behaviors are interpreted by others can also serve as the
basis for smoother interactions and a means for solving potential communication problems among
individuals from diverse backgrounds (Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 1994).

Document
(3) Does impression management play a role in functional and dysfunctional interpersonal
relationships? Little impression management research has been done with individuals in ongoing
personal and professional relationships. It would be of interest to know what types of impression
management behaviors are associated with stable, long-lasting relationships. At the same time,
organizations would benefit from understanding conditions that elicit impression management
behaviors that are dysfunctional or destructive from the individual or organizational point of view (e.g.,
substance abuse (see ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE), SABOTAGE, withholding of effort).
See also Interpersonal skills; Minority group influence
Bibliography
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91,

3–26.
Gaes, G. G., Kalle, R. J. & Tedeschi, J. T. (1978). Impression management in the forced compliance
paradigm: Two studies using the bogus pipeline. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 493–
510.
Giacalone, R. A. (1989, May). Image control: The strategies of impression management. Personnel, 52–
55.

Document
Page 227
Giacalone R. A. & Rosenfeld, P. (Eds) (1989). Impression management in the organization. Hillsdale,
NJ: Sage.
Giacalone, R. A. & Rosenfeld, P. (Eds) (1991). Applied impression management: How image making
affects managerial decisions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A. & Riordan, C. A. (1994). Impression management theory and diversity:
Lessons for organizational behavior. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 601–607.
Schlenker, B. R. & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and
management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 133–168.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1981). Impression management and social psychological research. New York:
Academic Press.
Tetlock, P. E. & Manstead, A. S. R. (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations

in social psychology: A useful dichotomy? Psychological Review, 92, 59–77.
PAUL ROSENFELD, ROBERT A. GIACALONE and CATHERINE A. RIORDAN
Incentives
see BONUS PAYMENTS; REWARDS; REINFORCEMENT
Individual Differences
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR is often conceptualized as focusing on three LEVELS OF

ANALYSIS: individuals, groups, and organizations. Individual differences refers to the first level of
analysis, and includes the study of personality, intelligence, attitudes, MOTIVATION, cognitions (such
as memory, learning, and perception), and other "personal" variables. It is especially concerned with
PERSONALITY and some would argue that personality embraces all the other aspects.

Document
Differences associated with demography, such as AGE, education, GENDER, and CULTURE, are
sometimes classed as group rather than individual differences. A more useful way of describing the role
of these variables is as mediating variables, i.e., they directly impact on the relationship between
individual differences and the organizational context. For example, most researchers have found a
positive linear relation between age and JOB SATISFACTION (White & Spector, 1987). Similarly,
research has shown that there are cultural differences in work motivation, with workers in Japan having
a stronger COMMITMENT to work because of a stronger emphasis on this value in Japanese society
(see CULTURE, NATIONAL; INTERCULTURAL PROCESS). In fact, some have argued that
Western psychology's interest in individual differences is a cultural phenomenon. We define ourselves
by our differences from other people. Guthrie (1980), among others, argues that not all peoples define
the self in this way. Instead, we could define ourselves in terms of qualities, attitudes, customs, or
history we share with our social group. Then the concern becomes "individual sameness" rather than
individual difference. This notion encourages OB to research and compare work cultures in different
parts of the world and challenges the Western emphasis on differences between people (see
MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY).
While most people find the topic of how individuals differ or are similar to others to be interesting and
important in everyday life, the question of whether individual differences matter in organizational life
has been debated in OB for a long while. Some have argued that the influence personality and other
individual difference factors have been greatly overstated in OB relative to situational effects (Davis-
Blake & Pfeffer, 1989). Others have taken the opposite view, emphasising the role of internal, personal
factors to the exclusion of external, contextual ones.
Much theory and research eschews these rather extreme positions. The increasingly influential
interactionist perspective stresses that it is the interaction between one's disposition and the situation
that determines behavior (Mischel, 1984) (see INTERACTIONISM). Pfeffer, who earlier maintained
that organizations are situations that swamp individual personality variables, has recently written that
individual factors such as energy, sensitivity, focus, and flexibility help people wield power effectively
(Pfeffer, 1992). There is accumulating evidence that individual characteristics influence both reactions
to environments and how environments are construed.
Aside from these broad issues concerning the importance of individual differences, there are many
different approaches to the way individual differences are studied. The main ones are the

Document
Page 228
psychoanalytic, phenomenological, social learning, social cognitive, and trait approaches. Each stresses
the personal, situational, or interactionist view to a greater or lesser extent. The psychoanalytic,
phenomenological, and trait approaches stress the dominance of internal factors as the major influence
on behavior. In contrast, the social learning approach emphasizes external or situational influences and
the social cognitive approach takes a more interactionist perspective.
Freud's psychoanalytic theory has had a great deal of influence on social scientists. He viewed human
behavior as governed by instinctual forces, many of them not conscious to the individual. Although the
psychoanalytic school is no longer as influential as it once was, the concepts continue to influence OB
(see PROJECTION, ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSIS).
Phenomenology contrasts sharply with traditional psychoanalytic views. It is concerned with how
people experience their world. The self is the prominent concept. It focuses on cognition, freedom of
choice, human values, and our capacity to construct meaning from our own experiences.
Phenomenological approaches have not been widely adopted in OB. However, they have contributed to
work in the areas of CAREER CHOICE, where counselors have made use of Kelly's concept of an
individual construct system, and where self awareness on the part of the client is important. Similarly,
CAREER DEVELOPMENT, theory, and practice, based on individuals' concerns at different stages of
their lives, is often informed by phenomenological approaches.
The social Learning approach has its origins in behaviorism and traditional learning theory, which focus
on observable behavior and the situations which elicit it, rather than inferring what is happening inside
the organism, and are concerned with how REINFORCEMENT (reward) leads to learning (see
LEARNING, INDIVIDUAL). Advocates of social learning have increasingly referred to their approach
as social cognitive (e.g., Bandura, 1989). They stress that behavior can best be understood by
considering it as a joint product of individual differences variables and environmental factors. Concepts
from social learning and social cognitive approaches have wide applicability in OB. The use of
REWARDS in TRAINING, learning by modeling the behavior of others. MENTORING,
organizational BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION (where rewards are used to reinforce desired behavior by
employees), and the concepts of Locus OF CONTROL and SELF EFFICACY are some of the
contributions from this approach.

Document
The trait approach describes people as characterized by sets of traits or dimensions along which they
differ from others and is the approach most often associated with the term individual differences,
especially in relation to studies of personality. It uses words such as tough minded, introverted,
confident, and innovative to describe the basic factors of personality. It therefore comes closest of all to
the approaches describing behavior in terms easily recognizable in organizations. Traits are viewed as
reasonably stable over time, indicating a certain predictability of behavior. Well-known trait theorists
are Eysenck (1970) and Cattell (1965) who have researched dimensions of personality and intelligence
based on data from experimental studies subjected to statistical analysis. Although there are literally
thousands of possible traits, recent research shows that five major factors (neuroticism,
EXTRAVERSION, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) have emerged from studies using
different approaches (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Intelligence is sometimes added as a sixth major factor.
The trait approach has been very influential in many areas of OB, notably PSYCHOLOGICAL
TESTING, INTELLIGENCE-TESTING, VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE, and SELECTION METHODS.
See also Person-job fit; Life stages; Managerial style; Assessment
Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.
Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
Davis-Blake, A. & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in
organizational research. Academy of Management Research, 14, 385–400.
Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd edn). London: Methuen.
Guthrie, R. (1980). The psychology of Black Americans: An historical perspective. In R. Jones (Ed.),

Document
Page 229
Black Psychology (2nd edn). London: Harper Collins.
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.
Mischel, W. (1984). Convergences and challenges in the search for consistency. American
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
White, A. T. & Spector, P. E. (1987). An investigation of age-related factors in the age-job-satisfaction

relationship. Psychology and Aging, 2, (3), 261–265.
VIV SHACKLETON
Industrial Economics
see ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS; PROSPECT THEORY; TRANSACTION COST

ECONOMICS
Industrial Relations
This term, in its broadest sense, is used to describe an interdisciplinary field concerned with all aspects
of employment relations. Industrial relations researchers draw eclectically on the academic disciplines
of economics, law, sociology, and, increasingly, psychology to describe, predict, and prescribe solutions
to observed problems. The focus of interest is the institutions involved in employment relations. Two
characteristics are present in much research. The first is that the prevailing assumption is that conflicts
of interest between employer and employee are endemic and nonpathological (see COLLECTIVE
ACTION). The second is that the analysis of TRADE UNIONS and COLLECTIVE BARGAINING is
central; although industrial relations research focuses on nonunion firms, it is distinct from HUMAN
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT in dealing primarily with collective organization and joint regulation of
employment contracts.
Early research, for example, by Commons in the United States and the Webbs in the United Kingdom,
embodied a collective focus, an atheoretical problem orientation and a tendency to prescribe policy
solutions as part of a reaction to neoclassical approaches to labor as a commodity. Commons (1934, p.
162) defined industrial relations as the study of the "transactions and working rules of collective
action." The Webbs (1907) focused on trade unions as remedies to inequalities of bargaining POWER
between employer and employee. Both deliberately mixed empirical research with prescription – often
involving advocacy of regulatory legislation – against the background of the emergence of high levels
of trade unionism and widespread collective bargaining.

Document
As Kochan notes (1980, pp. 1–22) the field of industrial relations emerged in isolation from
contemporary developments in psychology and management theory. Where theory has emerged, it has
tended to focus on trade unionism or collective bargaining (Poole, 1981; Clegg, 1976) rather than on
industrial relations. A major exception is the work of Dunlop (1958) who developed the idea of an
industrial relations system having certain active institutions, a context in which they operate, and certain
outputs. The "web of rules" within this system governing relations between institutions is the dependant
variable for the field of study. The rules are affected by:
(1) the environmental context;
(2) the IDEOLOGY of society; and
(3) the actors (labor, employers, and government) within the system. The approach was developed into
a comparative study of industrial relations systems which was used to support convergence theory, i.e.,
the proposition that, because of an underlying "logic of industrialism," industrial relations systems in
modern societies were becoming more alike (Kerr, Harbison, Dunlop, & Myers, 1960).
Although much criticized as a classification rather than an explanation, Dunlop's work was echoed in
the United Kingdom by the work of Flanders (e.g., 1975) who defined industrial relations as the study
of job regulation. However, with the rise of industrial CONFLICT and levels of union membership
internationally from the mid-1960s, the idea of the field as a circumscribed subsystem of society
became less appealing. Sociologists and economists concerned with strike activity, LABOR
MARKETS and incomes policies became once more interested in the field and, particularly in Europe,
industrial relations and industrial sociology converged around common concerns. Fox (1974) analyzed
the relationship between the institutions of industrial relations and those

Document
Page 230
findings from industrial sociology and psychology relevant to the employment relationship. He
developed the distinction between:
(1) "unitary" (i.e., consensus based) theories of organization, typical of the classical management
theorists (see MANAGEMENT, CLASSICAL THEORY);
(2) pluralist theories, typical of industrial relations approaches, which assumed conflict legitimate,
endemic, but manageable (see LEGITIMACY); and
(3) radical theories, developed by Marxist writers such as Hyman (1971) for whom it was axiomatic
that industrial conflict was a manifestation of wider potentially revolutionary class conflicts in society.
"Radical" industrial relations was sustained by the perceived links between union activity and wider
social or political crises in the 1970s. The behavior of the institutions of industrial relations became
central to analysis of corporatism and inflation. In addition, many Marxist theorists concerned with the
labour process became concerned with the rules of job regulation (see LABOR PROCESS THEORY).
However, in the 1980s, the decline in membership and influence of trade unions in many countries,
together with the rise of individualistic human resource management caused a decline of interest in the
institutions of job regulation. Traditional industrial relations research proved, because of its isolation
from the wider behavioral sciences, poorly equipped to explain the managerial actions which might
curtail the scope of unionism and collective regulation in favor of more individualistic approaches.
An exception was the emergence of the "new" institutional economics. The so-called "Harvard School"
used Hirschman's exit-voice model to analyze union–management relations. The central measurable
proposition was that one benefit of union organization was the establishment of a communicative and
remedial "voice" mechanism which could improve organizational performance if used by management
to outweigh the negative monopoly and feather-bedding activities of unions (Hirschman, 1971;
Freeman & Medoff, 1984].
A second strand of research with its origins in political economy focused on the relationship between
the institutions of job regulation and comparative economic performance. This related performance to
national level institutional differences (e.g., Maurice, Sellier, & Silvestre, 1986) or to differences in
shop-floor relations (e.g., Lazonick, 1990). The emphasis was, unlike the earlier work of Kerr et al., on
enduring national differences in evolutionary trajectories and performance, rather than in convergence.
In addition, the focus was on outcome measures rather than description of the institutions alone.
In summary, industrial relations has emerged as an academic field in response to perceived policy
problems emerging from union-management relations. Development of theory in the area has been
stalled by the empirical tradition this has encouraged and by the eclecticism involved. Interest in the
field has varied, both chronologically and internationally, in line with the perceived importance of
collective employee behavior for wider social issues. In the 1980s, however, the field tends once more
to support the institutional critique of neo-classical economics.

Document
See also Intergroup relations; Interorganizational relations; Representation; Trust
Bibliography
Clegg, H. A. (1976). Trade unionism under collective bargaining. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Commons, J. (1934). Institutional economics. New York: Macmillan.
Dunlop, J. T. (1958). Industrial relations systems. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Flanders, A. (1975). Management and unions. London: Faber and Faber.
Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract; Work, power and trust relations. London: Faber.
Freeman, R. & Medoff, J. (1984). What do unions do? New York: Basic Books.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hyman, R. (1971). Industrial relations; A Marxist introduction. London: Hutchinson.
Kerr, C., Harbison, F., Dunlop, J. T and Myers, C. (1960). Industrialism and Industrial Man.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kochan, T. (1980). Collective bargaining and industrial relations. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Lazonick, W. (1990). Competitive advantage on the shop floor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Document
Page 231
Maurice, M., Sellier, S. & Silvestre, J. J. (1986). The social foundations of industrial power.
Webb, S. & Webb, B. (1907). The history of trade unionism. London: Longman, Green.
PAUL WILLMAN
Influence
This terms means any social process in which an individual's actions or attitudes are affected by the
actual or implied presence of one or more others. It is essential to many features of group and
organizational functioning, including LEADERSHIP, CONFORMITY, and ROLE-TAKING (see also
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT). Two-way influence is necessary in all of these to achieve mutual
ends. Influence usually is distinguished from POWER (see also POWER BASES) by an emphasis on
persuasion rather than coercion or CONTROL. As Bierstedt put it in a classic phrase, "Influence does
not require power, and power may dispense with influence." In many ROLE relationships, power and
influence may coexist and be brought to bear variably, as appropriate. Supervisory, managerial,
administrative, and executive functions in organizations usually grant power based on authority (see
AUTHORITY; LEGITIMACY).
However, these LEADERSHIP roles also require what Katz and Kahn (1978) refer to as "the influential
increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organization," in the
nature of a following (p. 528). A demand for compliance can limit individual initiative and
CREATIVITY, with costs to individual satisfaction and the performance of the organization. Because
individuals can interpret and learn from new experiences, they have resources to resist influence and to
attempt means of counter-influence. This is exemplified by the upward influence (see UPWARD
COMMUNICATION) tactics used within hierarchies. These tactics are contingent upon individual
circumstances, such as one's level in the organization and years of experience (see, e.g., Kipnis,
Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980).
Depending upon various situational factors, different tactics are suitable for the achievement of the
influence objective within what is acceptable in the agent–target relationship. A questionnaire study of
how 128 managers used nine influence tactics was conducted in the field with each manager's
subordinates, peers, and boss (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). The results, regarding criteria of target task
commitment and manager effectiveness, showed rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, and
consultation to be most effective. Ingratiation and exchange were moderately effective with
subordinates and peers but not with superiors. Least effective in this study were pressure, coalition, and
legitimating.

Document
Influence also may result from imitation, as in modeling, where one or more persons pattern their
actions and attitudes on those of another. This process has utility in socializing newer members of an
organization into appropriate ways of behaving (see SOCIALIZATION). Associated with it is the
willingness of those in leadership roles to be influenced by followers through a recognition of mutual
interdependence and the development of their leadership skills (see Hollander & Offermann, 1990, p.
185).
See also Decision making; Interpersonal skills; Resistance to change
Bibliography
Hollander, E. P. & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in

transition. American Psychologist, 45, (2), 179–189.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd edn). New York: Wiley.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in
getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.
Yukl, G. & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and
the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535.
EDWIN P. HOLLANDER
Information Processing
Originally used to describe the operation of INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, information processing

has served as a METAPHOR for both individuals and organizations. The basic components of an
information processing system – devices for input, storage, operating on data, and output – describe a

Document
Page 232
general model for an individual or social system which must interact with its environment (see
SYSTEMS THEORY). The associated processes of representation, memory, transformation, and
response model well corresponding individual and organizational processes.
The modeling of human cognition as an information processing system dates from the 1950s with the
models of human problem solving by Newell, Simon, and others (see COGNITIVE PROCESSES). It
has eventuated in a new branch of research, cognitive science. This approach involves study of the
senses as input devices; exploration of the structure of human memory and knowledge representation;
modeling of problem-solving, DECISION MAKING, and judgment; and study of the link between
human action and information processing. It has led to advances in our understanding human decision
making, artificial intelligence, and improvements in the design of information technology, particularly
parallel processors and interfaces.
The information processing metaphor is also usefully applied to organizations. All organizations must
deal with UNCERTAINTY, and they do this by acquiring and processing information. A key
determinant of information processing effectiveness is ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN. As Weber
observed, a central purpose of the classical BUREAUCRACY is to manage the flow of information and
related decisions in a rational manner. Rules and HIERARCHY were, in essence, substitutes for
COMMUNICATION; they alleviated the need for consultation and left bureaucrats free to act in a
standardized fashion that made coordination easy. Of course, the bureaucracy is not the only possible
design, and other designs, such as the flat, organic organization, are appropriate for different
information processing needs (see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC). Additional design features, such as
the temporary task force and lateral linkages, could also be incorporated to address information
processing needs.
Galbraith (1977) developed an information processing contingency model for organizational design (see
CONTINGENCY THEORY). It posits that design should depend on two factors, degree of uncertainty
the organization faces and resource minimization. Uncertainty increases as a function of the
organization's task, ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE, and speed of environmental change. In general, as
uncertainty increases, more complex designs with more lateral communication linkages are needed to
meet information processing demands. For low levels of uncertainty the traditional bureaucratic
expedients of rules, hierarchy, and PLANNING will serve. As uncertainty increases, organizations must
either:
(a) utilize SLACK RESOURCES;
(b) subdivide their work among units or divisions, each of which handles a self-contained part of the
total information processing load;
(c) develop formalized organizational information systems; or
(d) develop lateral relations through mechanisms such as task forces, integrating roles, and in the
extreme, the matrix and dynamic network designs (see MATRIX ORGANIZATION).

Document
The particular mix of the four coping mechanisms an organization chooses determines its design.
Generally, that mix which handles requisite uncertainty while minimizing resource utilization is most
desirable.
Another method of adapting to uncertainty is choice of the appropriate communication medium. Media
choice is discussed in the entry on COMMUNICATION.
See also Cognition in organizations; Organization and environment, Communications technology;

Perception; Attribution
Bibliography
Galbraith, J. (1977). Organizational design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Huber, G. P. & Draft, R. L. (1987). The information environments of organizations. In F. M. Jablin, L.

L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds), Handbook of organizational communication: An
interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 130–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Information Technology
Information technology (IT) refers to computer-based systems used in the management of an enterprise.
IT is distinguished from ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY (AMT) in that the
former applies computing to accounting, PLANNING,

Document
Page 233
DECISION MAKING, and COMMUNICATIONS activities, whereas the latter applies computing to
the factory floor. (Increasingly, IT and AMT are merging, as managerial computing is integrated with
manufacturing machinery.) IT can be viewed in terms of the target level of the organization which the
TECHNOLOGY aims to support: transactions processing systems support ongoing exchanges between
the organization and external parties, such as customers or suppliers; reporting systems and decision
support systems support middle management; and executive information systems support upper
management. Whereas early applications of IT largely benefitted accounting processes, newer
applications aid in sophisticated decision analysis and global communication.
The impacts of IT can be assessed at organizational, group, or individual levels of analysis.

Organizational impacts include the effects of IT on JOB SATISFACTION, PARTICIPATION, and
centralization of management (see DECENTRALIZATION). At the group level, the impacts of IT on
interpersonal communication and team decision making are studied (see GROUP DECISION
MAKING). At the individual level, impacts of IT consider how use of a specific type or class of IT
changes decision processes, attitudes, or behaviors. Rarely are the impacts of IT purely deterministic.
More often, IT impacts are moderated by other organizational, group, or individual factors. For
example, studies showing the effects of IT on organizational decision show both centralizing and
decentralizing effects. Depending on a variety of factors, IT may lead to greater centralization or greater
decentralization; similarly, IT may raise PRODUCTIVITY or lower it. Increasingly, IT impacts are
considered to be multivariant and emergent. The effects of IT are a function of a range of organizational
and environmental factors, and effects vary over time.
Important research issues include identifying contextual and other variables that account for positive
and negative IT impacts; and describing the changes in IT impacts following adoption. HUMAN-
COMPUTER INTERACTION research considers how IT might be designed to improve the likelihood
of positive IT impacts. SOFTWARE ERGONOMICS research considers the design of IT to meet
individual, group, or organizational needs. Diffusion of INNOVATION is also a key issue, as the
adoption practices of organizations may influence the ultimate impacts of IT (see INNOVATION
ADOPTION; INNOVATION DIFFUSION).
See also Computer-aided-design; Automation; Information processing
Bibliography
Dunlop, C. & Kling, R. (Eds) (1991). Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social
choices. Boston: Academic Press.
Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational

design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management Review, 15, (1), 47–71.
Huseman, R. C. & Miles, E. W. (1988). Organizational communication in the information age:

Implications of computer-based systems. Journal of Management, 14, (2), 181–204.

Document
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in

organizations. Organization Science, 3, (3), 398–427.
Sage, A. P. (1981). Behavioral and organizational considerations in the design of information systems
and processes for planning and decision support. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
SMC-11, no. 9, 640–678.
GERARDINE DESANCTIS
Initiating Structure
see MANAGERIAL STYLE; LEADERSHIP STYLE
Innovation
Few subjects have received as much attention from social scientists, managers, and public policy
makers as innovation. It is the engine for novel changes in social, economic, and political arrangements
in organizations and society as a whole (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE). An innovation is the
creation and implementation of a new idea. The new idea may pertain to a technological innovation
(new technical artifacts, devices, or products), a process innovation (new services, programs, or
production procedures), or an administrative innovation (new institutional policies, structures, or
systems). The idea may be a novel recombination of old ideas, a scheme that challenges the present
order, or an unprecedented formula or approach (Zaltman, Duncan,

Document
Page 234
& Holbek, 1973). As long as the idea is perceived as new and entails a novel change for the actors
involved, it is an innovation. When the actors who develop and implement the new idea are members or
groups of an organization, the venture is considered an organizational innovation or an internal
corporate venture, in contrast to efforts undertaken by independent individuals
(ENTREPRENEURSHIP), or by organizations working collectively (see JOINT VENTURES).
Innovations can vary widely in novelty, size, and temporal duration. Some innovations involve small,
quick, incremental, lone-worker efforts. Some are unplanned, and emerge by chance, accident, or
afterthought. Although the majority of innovations in organizations may be of small scope, larger scale
innovations have attracted most attention from practitioners and researches. In particular, the scope of
innovations discussed below are those in which most managers and venture capitalists typically invest.
They consist of planned, concentrated efforts to develop and implement a novel idea in a climate of
substantial technical, organizational, and market UNCERTAINTY; entailing a collective effort of
considerable duration; and requiring greater resources than are held by the people undertaking the effort.
Studies of organizational innovation tend to examine two kinds of questions:
(1) What are the antecedent factors that influence innovativeness? and
(2) How are innovations created, developed and implemented?
The first question usually entails study of the contextual factors (independent variables) which explain
statistically variations in the number and kinds of organizational innovations introduced in a given
period of time (the dependent variable). The second question involves processual study of the temporal
order and sequence of events which unfold in the development of a given innovation. A brief overview
of research on these two questions is described below.
Factors Influencing Organizational Innovativeness
Tornatsky and Fleischer (1990) point out that a positive bias pervades the study of innovation.
Innovation is often viewed as a good thing because the new idea must be useful–profitable,
constructive, or solve a problem. New ideas that are not perceived as useful are not normally called
innovations; they are usually called mistakes (see ERRORS). Objectively, of course, the usefulness of
an idea can only be determined after the innovation process is completed and implemented. Moreover,
while many new ideas are proposed in organizations, only a very few receive serious consideration and
developmental effort. Since it is not possible to determine at the outset which new ideas are
''innovations" or "mistakes," it is important to understand what conditions motivate and enable
organizational innovation.

Document
Amabile (1983), Angle (1989), and Kanter (1983) and Tornatsky and Fleischer (1990) summarize a
large body of research indicating that innovative behaviors are more likely to occur in organizational
contexts that both enable and motivate innovation; it is less likely to occur where either enabling or
motivating conditions are absent. The design of an organization's structure, systems, and practices
influence the likelihood that innovation ideas will be surfaced, and that once surfaced they will be
developed and nurtured toward realization (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN; MECHANISTIC/
ORGANIC).
Several organizational structural features are empirically related to innovative activities. The more
complex and differentiated the organization, and the easier it is to cross boundaries, the greater the
potential number of sources from which innovative ideas can spring. However, as Kanter (1983)
discusses, organizational segmentation and bureaucratic procedures accompany increases in
ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE and COMPLEXITY (see BUREAUCRACY). These often constrain
innovation unless special systems are put in place to motivate and enable innovative behavior. Key
motivating factors include providing a balance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for innovative
behaviors (see INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION). While people work for pay to make a living,
incentive pay (i.e., monetary rewards contingent on performance and in addition to base salary) seems
to be a relatively weak motivator for innovation; it more often serves as a proxy for recognition (see
PAYMENT SYSTEMS; BONUS PAYMENTS). Angle (1989) found that individualized rewards tend
to increase idea generation and radical innovations; whereas group

Document
Page 235
rewards tend to increase innovation implementation and incremental innovations.
In addition to these motivating factors, the following kinds of enabling conditions are equally necessary
for innovative behavior:
• resources for innovation;
• frequent COMMUNICATIONS across departmental lines, among people with dissimilar viewpoints;
• moderate environmental uncertainty and mechanisms for focusing attention on changing conditions;
• cohesive WORK GROUPS with open CONFLICT RESOLUTION mechanisms that integrate creative
personalities into the mainstream (see GROUP COHESIVENESS);
• structures that provide access to innovation ROLE models and mentors;
• moderately low personnel TURNOVER; and
• PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS that legitimate and solicit spontaneous innovative behavior.
Angle (1989) concludes that normal people have the capability and potential to be creative and
innovative. The actualization of this potential depends on whether management structures an
organizational context to not only motivate but also to enable individuals to innovate.
Many innovations transcend the boundaries (see BOUNDARY SPANNING) of individual firms,
industries, and populations or communities of organizations. As a result, economics and organizational
researchers have examined innovation from an augmented industry LEVEL OF ANALYSIS (see Sahal,
1981). At this macro level, studies have focused on patterns of cooperation and competition among
organizations developing similar, complementary or substitute innovations, as well as the roles of
public and private sector actors in the development of an industrial infrastructure for innovation (see
GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS). This infrastructure includes:
(1) institutional arrangements that legitimate, regulate, and standardize a new innovation;
(2) public resource endowments of basic scientific knowledge, financing and insurance arrangements,
and pools of competent labor; as well as
(3) proprietary R&D, testing, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution functions that are often
required to develop and commercialize a technical or process innovation.

Document
The development of this industry infrastructure significantly influences the odds of innovation success
by individual organizations and entrepreneurs. This infrastructure does not emerge and change all at
once through the actions of one or even a few organizational actors. Instead, it develops through an
accretion of numerous events involving many public and private sector actors over an extended period
of time.
The Process of Organizational Innovation
Perhaps the most widely known model of the innovation process is that proposed by Rogers (1983). It
represents three decades of Rogers's own research and a synthesis of over 3100 published innovation
studies. This model portrays the process of innovation as consisting of three basic stages:
(1) invention of novel idea, which comes from a recognition of market or user needs and advances in
basic or applied research;
(2) its development, or the sequence of events in which the new idea is transformed from an abstract
concept into an operational reality; and
(3) implementation, or the diffusion and adoption of the innovation by users.
Specialized fields of study have emerged to examine each innovation stage in greater detail. For the
idea invention stage, an extensive literature has developed on individual and group CREATIVITY,
primarily by psychologists (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Angle, 1989), and on "technology push" versus
"demand pull" by economists (e.g., Sahal, 1981). Although less extensively studied than the other
stages, the development stage is gaining more research attention from management scholars (e.g.,
Kanter, 1983; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985; Van de Ven, Angle, & Poole, 1989). Finally, Rogers
(1983) notes that no area in the social sciences has perhaps received as much study as the
implementation stage (see INNOVATION DIFFUSION and INNOVATION ADOPTION).
While a conducive organizational context sets the stage for innovation, the developmental process itself
is highly uncertain, ambiguous, and risky (see AMBIGUITY; RISK-TAKING). Van

Document
Page 236
de Ven, Angle, and Poole (1989) report recent studies showing that the sequence of events in
developing innovations from invention to implementation do not unfold in a simple linear sequence of
stages or phases. Instead, the innovation journey tends to unfold in the following ways. In the
beginning, a set of seemingly coincidental events occur in an organization which set the stage for
initiating an innovation. Some of these gestating events are sufficiently large to "shock" the action
thresholds of organizational participants to launch an innovative venture. Soon after work begins to
develop the venture, the process proliferates from a simple unitary sequence of activities into a
divergent, parallel, and convergent progression. Some of these activities are related through a division
of labor among functions, but many are unrelated in any noticeable form of functional interdependence.
Many component ideas and paths that were perceived as being related at one time, are often reframed or
rationalized as being independent and disjunctive at another time when the innovation idea or
circumstances change. Problems, mistakes, and setbacks frequently occur as these developmental paths
are pursued, and they provide opportunities either for learning or for terminating the developmental
efforts. The innovation journey ends either when the innovation is adopted and implemented by an
organization, when resources run out, or when political opposition prevails to terminate the
developmental efforts (see POLITICS). These messy and complex processes that are being found in
recent real-time studies of innovation development are leading researchers to reconceptualize the
process of innovation, because the observed processes cannot be reduced to a simple sequence of stages
or phases as most process models in the literature suggest.
We may never find one best way to innovate because the innovation process is inherently probabilistic
and because there are myriad forms and kinds of innovations. In particular, the characteristics of the
innovation processes described above are more pronounced or more complex in innovations of greater
novelty, size, and duration.
Researchers have found the stages of the innovation process to be more disorderly for technically
complex innovations than they are for technically simple innovations. Statistical relationships between
the innovation processes and outcomes are much weaker for highly novel radical innovations than they
are for less novel incremental innovations. Some organizations appear more successful in developing
certain types of innovation. For example, an organization which values and rewards individualism (see
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES) may have the advantage in radical innovation, while a more
collectivist system may do better at an incremental one. However, across these organizations
differences, studies show that transitions from innovation invention to development to adoption
activities often entail shifts from radical to incremental and from divergent to convergent thinking. As
innovations approach the culminating institutionalization step, they become more structured and stabil-
ized in their patterns and less differentiated from other organizational arrangements.

Document
The developmental pattern and eventual success of an innovation is also influenced by its temporal
duration. Initial investments at the startup of an innovation represents an initial stock of assets that
provides an innovation unit a "honeymoon" period to perform its work. These assets reduce the risk of
terminating the innovation during its honeymoon period when setbacks arise and when initial outcomes
are judged unfavorable. The likelihood of replenishing these assets is highly influenced by the duration
of the developmental process. Interest and COMMITMENT wane with time. Thus, after the
honeymoon period, innovations terminate at disproportionately higher rates, in proportion to the time
needed for their implementation.
In terms of organization size, small organizations appear to have the advantage in starting up
innovations, but larger organizations with more slack resources have the advantage of keeping an
innovation alive until it is completed. Larger organizations can offer a more fertile ground for
sustaining and nurturing spin-off innovations. Yet, as organizations grow in size they seem to rely
increasingly on bureaucratic systems and procedures that may be efficient for managing ongoing
operations, but may inhibit innovative behavior. So the message to managers of large organizations is to
keep finding ways to remain flexible (see FLEXIBILITY), to permit sufficient attention and resources
to concentrate on

Document
Page 237
innovation, to build access to technical competence, and to listen attentively to the views of those
directly responsible for implementation – factors which Nord and Tucker (1987) found were critical
success factors for adopting innovations in large organizations.
See also Organization development; Turnaround management; Open systems; Risk-taking;

Technology transfer
Bibliography
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Angle, H. A. (1989). Psychology and Organizational Innovation. Chapter 5 in A. Van de Ven, H.

Angle, M. S. Poole (Eds.) Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. New
York: Ballinger/Harper & Row.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Nord, W. R. & Tucker S. (1987). Implementing Routine and Radical Innovations. Lexington; MA: D.
C. Heath.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd edn). New York: Free Press.
Sahal, D. (1981). Patterns of technological innovation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tornatzky, L. G. & Fleischer M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington, MA: D.
C. Heath.
Tushman, M. & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of

Convergence and Reorientation. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior
(vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., H. Angle & M. S. Poole (eds.) (1989). Research on the Management of Innovation:
The Minnesota Studies. New York: Ballinger/Harper & Row.
Zaltman, G. R., Duncan & J. Holbek (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.
ANDREW H. VAN DE VEN
Innovation Adoption

Document
The adoption of new ideas represents a major challenge for organizations since any INNOVATION
represents a departure from standard practice. It is somewhat immaterial whether the new idea is
indigenous to the organization or was imported from elsewhere. Innovation adoption, entails both a go/
no go decision event as well as its subsequent implementation; it can be discussed from the standpoint
of the adopter or from the object that is being adopted.
With some degree of exaggeration, it can be said that innovation amounts to a form of illegitimacy or
non-CONFORMITY, because new ideas challenge current beliefs and practices (see LEGITIMACY).
Four strands of work can be distinguished to alleviate the hurdles that innovations encounter before they
might become adopted by the organization. (1) Sponsorship by the senior management of any new idea,
whether a new production process, a new product, or new organizational arrangements will shield the
innovation against SABOTAGE, resistance, or deprivation of critical resources. The innovation needs
to be anchored in the strategic commitments, which are discernible from top managements deeds and
words (see TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS). Some authors (e.g., Burgelman, 1983), however, have
argued that top management can be part of the conformity problem, and that in fact many successful
adoptions occur in spite of top management's preferences and directions. Organizations which display
room for (2) internal venturing will have a greater capacity for fledgling ideas to overcome their initial
hurdles, and eventually to become an integral part of a firm's portfolio of product offerings. Such a view
stresses the surreptitious role of individuals who operate from the organization's "trenches" and who
create a context for new ideas to come to fruition (see ENTREPRENEURSHIP).
There is also a related view, which could be labeled the (3) "idea champion," which has strong political
connotation. Idea champions are those organizational members, who are associated with a new idea,
and who mobilize political support inside and outside the firm, are visible and often prominent political
actors, whose success makes or breaks their CAREER. Finally, there is the view, probably most widely
accepted, that an innovation adoption hinges on the presence of (4) collaborative relationships among
the key parts of the organization – as a minimum production, service, marketing, and research and
development (e.g., Cooper, 1986) – such that some degree of shared ownership emerges. Organizations
accommodate several subcultures (see CULTURE, GROUP). The suc-

Document
Page 238
cessful process of innovation adoption requires the pertinent subcultures to be merged so that their
interaction resembles a rugby game rather than a relay race in which each department passes the baton
to the next one. This meeting of the minds is widely practiced among Japanese organizations (see JUST-
IN-TIME) and is indicated by such expressions as "concurrent engineering". The meeting of the minds
is also crucial in linking the firm with external know-how. Boundary spanning activities facilitate the
adoption of external know-how and have clear implications for the connection between adoption and
diffusion (see INNOVATION DIFFUSION). Diffusion of innovation requires us to consider not only
the communication NETWORKING between organizations, their suppliers, customers and others, but
also the BOUNDARY SPANNING structures that channel external know-how into the core of the
organization, and which induce the various above mentioned adoption behaviors.
Innovation adoption should not only be viewed from the perspective of the adopter, but also with
respect to the attributes of the innovation itself. Those attributes include price, technical or
administrative character, degree of discontinuity or radicalness. Radicalness will provoke problems of
illegitimacy, but organizations differ with respect to their willingness to absorb new ideas. Normann
(1971) was one of the first authors to link degree of novelty to the tolerance of organizations to adopt
new and potentially upsetting ideas. Because pressures to conformity are strong, it is widely assumed
that adoption of innovation will only succeed when the new idea is in the vicinity of current beliefs and
practices. This accords with the notion that innovation amounts to creative destruction (of old ideas)
and that organizations have the tendency to innovate incrementally. This view is well conceptualized in
Nelson and Winter (1982) by stipulating that organizations are bundles of routines that govern the
addition of new routines. The implication is that adoption of discontinuous ideas is more likely to fail.
See also Creativity; Learning organization; Organizational change; Structuration
Bibliography
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm.
Cooper, R. G. (1986). Winning at new products. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Normann, R. (1971). Organizational innovativeness: Product variation and orientation. Administrative

Nelson, R. R. & Winter S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
JOHANNES M. PENNINGS
Innovation Diffusion

Document
Innovations originate "somewhere" and may subsequently spread. Diffusion of INNOVATION entails
the dispersion of a new idea, product, technology, or service. For example, Taylorism (see SCIENTIFIC
MANAGEMENT) came to life in the United States and diffused to Europe, while JUST-IN-TIME went
from Japan to the United States and firms in and EC countries. The diffusion can pertain to products or
services, to production methods, or to organizational practices and is discernible among groups of
individuals or organizations.
A variety of diffusion models has been developed. The most prominent among these have a marketing
provenance, simply because marketing science tries to explain buyer behavior and has been foremost
interested in the mechanisms that define the gradual acceptance of a new idea (e.g., Mahajan, Muller, &
Bass, 1990). In the marketing view, diffusion is often described as a chain, for example, the product life
cycle and the "s-curve". The curve shows the spread to have a slow beginning, then a "ramp-up" and a
leveling off.
Organizationally, these models are not too useful, because unlike individuals, organizations are
comprised of clusters of interdependent individuals, choices about adoption are very complex (see
INNOVATION ADOPTION), and communication networks are more multiplex. An early contribution
came from Rogers (1983) reviewing thousands of studies with mostly a sociological slant, and
culminating in a "three-stage model" from invention, application to adoption and diffusion. The latter
stage is subdivided into five "sub-stages": marketing, interest arousal, trial implementation, continued
use, and full implementation. The stages are

Document
Page 239
quite arbitrary and vague, which is probably the reason that others have adopted a more continuous
approach to diffusion research. Among more recent organizational approaches to diffusion, social
networks and institutionalization are interesting (see NETWORK ANALYSIS). Networks are
prominent in research of innovation diffusion, because they appear to explain the pathways along which
new ideas travel. The spreading of new ideas requires us to think in developmental terms, recognizing
the idea here versus the same idea there presumes some linkage.
COMMUNICATION instills pressures toward conformity and is induced by the presence of networks
(Burt, 1987). NETWORKING fosters the development of new norms and is therefore akin to
institutionalization theory.
This latter theory holds that innovations spread to the extent that they are defined and approved by
prevailing rationalized concepts of organizational conduct, are institutionalized in society (or in specific
markets, industries, or populations), independent of the innovation's efficacy. Abrahamson (1991) is a
clear exponent of this position and argues that most innovations find their way into organizations, not
on the basis of some rational calculus, but because of the presence of fads and fashions, which reduce
the uncertainty that surrounds a novel product, technology or practice (see GARBAGE CAN MODEL).
Both network and INSTITUTIONAL THEORY adopt a multilevel framework, stressing the
embeddedness of organizations. Unfortunately, they treat what happens inside the firm as a "black box,"
so that little is known about the propensity of organizations to become "contaminated" by innovations.
Recent studies (e.g., Pennings & Harianto, 1992) seek to address aspects of that black box, for example,
by treating the firm as set of CORE COMPETENCIES or skills to which new competencies are added
(see ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING). Further insights will emerge involving research being
longitudinal and covering a multitude of industries or populations.
See also Loose-coupling; Learning organization; Technology transfer
Bibliography
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashion: The diffusion and rejection of innovations.
Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American
Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287–1335.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E. & Bass, F. M. (1990). New product diffusion models in marketing: A review
and directions for research. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–26.
Pennings, J. M. & Harianto, F. (1992). Technological networking and innovation implementation.

Organization Science, III, 1992, 356–382.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovation (3rd edn). New York: Free Pres.

Document
JOHANNES M. PENNINGS
Institutional Theory
Much of the research on organizations since the 1970s focuses on the structure and composition of
organizational environments (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). In contrast to research
in micro OB or corporate strategy, which stresses the efforts of individual organizations to adapt, most
macro-level work maintains that ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE is shaped largely by changes in the
environment. The idea that organizations are deeply embedded in wider institutional environments
suggests that organizational practices are often either direct reflections of, or responses to, rules and
structures built into their larger environments. This line of institutional analysis traces its origins to
research by John Meyer on the effects of education as an institution (Meyer, 1977; Meyer & Rowan,
1977); work by J. Meyer, W. R. Scott, and colleagues (Meyer & Scott, 1983) on the dependence of
educational organizations on wider cultural and symbolic understandings about the nature of schooling
(see SYMBOLISM); research by Zucker (1977; 1983) on the taken-for-granted aspects of
organizational life; and work by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) on the social construction of
organizational fields (see SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM). In recent years, institutional theory and
research have developed rapidly and it presently represents a significant strand of work in macro OB.
Substantial collections of current research (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Scott & Meyer, 1994) present

Document
Page 240
a wide range of applications of institutional analysis to topics as diverse as differences between public
and private schools, internal LABOR MARKETS, art museums, the DIVERSIFICATION strategies of
large corporations, and types of accounting systems.
Although ecological and institutional approaches differ markedly in the weight they assign to
organization adaptation and managerial cognition, these approaches share a number of key insights.
Both focus on the collective organization of the environment, insisting that the environment of
organizations made up of other organizations and that processes of legitimation and competition shape
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR (see LEGITIMACY). But ecologists attend to demographic
processes – organizational foundings, transformations, and deaths (see POPULATION ECOLOGY).
Institutionalists, in contrast, analyze the diffusion of rules and procedures that organizations are
rewarded for incorporating.
Institutional theory combines a rejection of the optimizing assumptions of rational actor models popular
in economics with an interest in institutions as independent variables. The constant and repetitive
quality of much of organizational life results not from the calculated actions of self-interested
individuals but from the fact that practices come to be taken for granted. The model of behavior is one
in which "actors associate certain actions with certain situations by rules of appropriateness" (March &
Olsen, 1984, p. 741). Individuals in organizations face choices all the time, but in making decisions they
seek guidance from the experiences of others in comparable situations and by reference to standards of
obligation.
The unit of analysis in institutional research is the organizational field or societal sector. The
assumption is that organizations exist in socially constructed communities composed of similar
organizations that are responsible for a definable area of institutional life. An organizational field
includes key suppliers, consumers, regulatory agencies, professional and labor associations, as well as
other organizations that produce a similar service or product.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that the process by which a field comes to be organized consists of
four stages:
(1) an increase in the amount of interaction among organizations within a field;
(2) the emergence of well-defined patterns of HIERARCHY and coalition;
(3) an upsurge in the information load with which members of a field must contend; and
(4) the development of a mutual awareness among participants that they are involved in a common
enterprise.
Processes of Institutionalization

Document
How do organizational practices and structures become institutionalized within a field? Scholars have
posited several mechanisms that promote isomorphism, that is, structural similarities among
organizations within a field. Some of these processes encourage homogenization within a field directly
by leading to structural and behavioral changes in organizations themselves. Others work indirectly by
shaping the assumptions and experiences of the individuals who staff organizations. DiMaggio and
Powell (1983) posit three general types of institutional pressures:
(1) coercive forces that stem from political influence and problems of legitimacy;
(2) mimetic changes that are responses to uncertainty; and
(3) normative influences resulting from professionalization
These three mechanisms are likely to intermingle in specific empirical settings, but they tend to derive
from different conditions and may lead to different outcomes. Indeed, institutional pressures may be
cross-cutting and lead to CONFLICT.
Coercive influence results from both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other
organizations upon which they are dependent, as well as by strongly held cultural expectations in
society at large (see CULTURE). In some circumstances, organizational change is a response to
government mandate: manufacturers adopt new pollution control technologies to conform to
environmental regulations, nonprofits maintain accounts and hire accountants to meet the requirements
of the tax laws, restaurants maintain minimum health standards, and organizations hire affirmative
action officers to fend off allegations of DISCRIMINATION.

Document
Page 241
UNCERTAINTY is a powerful force that encourages mimetic or imitative behavior among the
members of an organizational field. When organizational technologies are poorly understand, that is,
when managers are unclear about the relationship between means and ends, or when there is ambiguity
regarding goals, or when the environment is highly uncertain, organizations often model themselves
after other organizations. The modeled organization may be unaware of the modeling; it merely serves
as a convenient source of organizational practices that the borrowing organization may use. Models
may be diffused unintentionally, indirectly through employee transfer or TURNOVER, or explicitly by
organizations such as consulting firms. In this view, the ubiquity of certain kinds of modern
management practices is credited more to the universality of mimetic processes than to any concrete
evidence that the adopted models enhance efficiency.
A third source of organizational change is normative and stems from the culture of
PROFESSIONALISM. Two aspects of professionalism are particularly relevant. One is the growth of
professional communities based on knowledge produced by university specialists and legitimated
through academic credentials; the second is the spread of formal and informal professional networks
that span organizations and across which innovations may diffuse rapidly (see INNOVATION
DIFFUSION). Universities and professional training institutions are important centers for the
development of organizational norms among professional managers and staff.
Empirical Results
Much of the initial research focused on public sector and nonprofit organizations in such areas as
education, health care, mental health, and the arts (see NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS). The
twentieth century has seen a large-scale expansion of the role of government and the professions in
these fields (see GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS). The more highly organized policy making has
become, the more individual organizations focus on responding to the official categories and procedures
specified by the larger environment. In order to be perceived as legitimate, organizations adapt their
formal structures and routines to conform to institutional norms. Hence to the extent that pressures from
the environment are exerted on all members of a field, these organizations will become more similar.
But pressures for fieldwide conformity may shape only an organization's formal structure (i.e., its
organization chart and rules and reporting procedures), while backstage practices may be "decoupled"
from official actions.

Document
The concept of isomorphism has been utilized to describe the processes that encourage a unit in a
population to resemble other units facing similar circumstances. Such pressures were theorized to be
strongest in fields with a weak technical base (e.g., education, the arts, advertising, etc.), with
ambiguous or conflicting goals (e.g., professional service firms), and that are buffered from market
pressures (i.e., supported by endowment income or public funding, protected by government regulation,
etc.). More recently, however, researchers have turned their attention to for-profit firms, examining the
adoption of various employment practices, the utilization of different accounting standards, and the
diffusion of management policies. This work has proven valuable in extending the reach of institutional
analysis to some of the core firms in the U.S. economy, while at the same time showing that
organizations do not passively conform to institutional pressures. Rather government or professional
mandates can be contested, negotiated, or partially implemented. Work by Edelman (1992) on civil
rights law illustrates that the diffusion of new legal practices is not unidirectional; instead a complex
interaction emerges in which government compliance standards are shaped by the responses of
organizations.
Most institutional studies have focused on organizational practices as responses to the actions of various
governing bodies: legislatures, courts, regulatory agencies, certification and accreditation boards, and
professional associations. The advantage of this research is that it permits specification of how the
environment shapes organizations, allowing researchers to understand the effects of different types of
CONTROL systems. These analyses also enhance our understanding of the relationship between
environmental COMPLEXITY and internal organ-izational structure (see ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN). For example, when

Document
Page 242
environments contain multiple strong centers of authority and legitimacy, we find more levels of
administration inside organizations, and greater differentiation across members of a field. When
environments are more homogeneous, researchers find less elaborate internal organizational structures
and less diversity across organizations.
Summary
Many of the prevailing approaches to ORGANIZATION THEORY assume implicitly that

organizations are purposive and are progressing toward more efficient and adaptive forms. The
institutional approach takes neither of these assumptions for granted, consequently it raises a different
set of questions, asking how and from where do our notions of RATIONALITY emerge. This line of
work seeks to treat the emergence of modern organizations and the laws and practices that govern them
as the objects of study. Institutionalization, or the "process by which a given set of units and a pattern of
activities come to be normatively and cognitively held in place, and practically taken for granted as
lawful" (Meyer, Boli, & Thomas, 1987, p. 13) becomes the subject of inquiry.
See also Exchange relations; Organizational learning
Bibliography
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–60.
Edelman, L. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation on civil rights
law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531–1576.
March, J. G. & Olsen J. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life.
American Political Science Review, 78, 734–49.
Meyer, J. W. (1977). The effects of education as an institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 55–
77.
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J. & Thomas, G. (1987). Ontology and rationalization in the Western cultural
account. In G. Thomas, J. W. Meyer, F.O. Ramirez & J. Boli (Eds) Institutional Structure, pp. 12–37.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–63.
Meyer, J. W. & Scott, W. R. (Eds) (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality.
Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio P. J. (Eds) (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Document
Scott, W. R. & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Institutional environments and organizations. Thousand Oaks CA:
Sage.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological

Review, 42, 726–43.
Zucker, L. G. (1983). Organizations as institutions. In S. Bachrach (Ed), Research in the Sociology of

Organizations (pp. 1–47). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
WALTER W. POWELL
Institutions
The study of institutions, long an area of interest in the social sciences, has burgeoned of late. The many
diverse lines of current research display wide variation in key definitions and concepts. Two lines of
research – the new institutional economics (Langlois, 1986; North, 1990) and the new institutionalism
in organizational analysis (March & Olsen, 1989; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991) – are of most relevance to
scholars of organizations. The economists treat institutions as regularities of behavior understandable in
terms of rules and routines (see ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS). They are "perfectly analogous
to the rules of the game in a competitive team sport" (North, 1990, p. 4). Institutions reduce
UNCERTAINTY by providing a stable, but not necessarily efficient, structure to everyday interaction.
Institutional economists do not assume that institutions represent optimal solutions to problems of
exchange and production, but they do build their theory on the basis of individual choice (see
EXCHANGE RELATIONS). Institutions are the products of human design. In contrast, research in
sociology and ORGANIZATION THEORY views institutions as the result of human activity, but not
necessarily the product of human design. In this view, "institutions are frameworks of programs or rules
establishing identities and activity scripts for such identities" (Jepperson, p. 146, in Powell &
DiMaggio, 1991). Viewed more broadly, institutions are meaning systems,

Document
Page 243
based on symbolic representations and enforced by formal and informal regulatory processes, and
provide models for organizational processes and structures. To say that a practice or model is
institutionalized means that it has become a taken-for-granted assumption around which organizational
activity is constructed. In contrast to the economist's view of institutions, the more sociological
approach sees organizational action as less based on choice and design, and more on identifying the
normatively appropriate behavior (March & Olsen, 1989).
See also Institutional theory; Bureaucracy
Bibliography
Langlois, R. N. (1986). The new institutional economics. In R. N. Langlois (Ed). Economics as a

process (pp. 1–25). New York: Cambridge University Press.
March, J. G. & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. New York: Free Press.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York:
Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds) (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
WALTER W. POWELL
Instrumentality
This is one of the components of the VIE THEORY (expectancy theory) of MOTIVATION.
Instrumentality, within these theories, is the perceived likelihood that the occurrence of one outcome
will lead to another. The term "instrumentality" probably follows from behavioral approaches to
motivation in which animal subjects learn to perform certain behaviors or at certain levels to receive a
REWARD. Performance of the behavior or attainment at a particular level is "instrumental" for
receiving the reward. Other things being equal, the stronger an individual's perception of the
instrumentality of an outcome, the greater is motivation.
In employment, where the level and timing of pay rewards and their contingencies with employee
accomplishment are determined by the employer, the PAYMENT SYSTEM'S design is expected to
influence the direction and level of employee performance. For example, if increased pay follows from
demonstrating higher abilities, then skill development is instrumental for higher pay. If the volume or
quality of output is associated with bonuses or pay increases, then improving measures of these
outcomes will be instrumental for higher pay. Randomness of rewards reduces instrumentality
perceptions and bias in the measurement of organizationally relevant outcomes distorts chosen
behaviors of individuals to attain rewards relevant to them.

Document
See also Performance, individual; Reinforcement
JOHN A. FOSSUM
Integration
In their classic work, Organization and Environment, Lawrence and Lorsch (1969) introduced
integration as one of the most important concepts in ORGANIZATION DESIGN. Integration refers to
the behaviors and structures used by differentiated SUBUNITS in an organization to coordinate their
work activities. As organizations become more differentiated, in order to deal with complexities in their
environments, it becomes increasingly difficult for departments and units of the organization to
coordinate effectively. Differences in goals, time horizons and other orientations of differentiated
subunits create conflicts and make mutual DECISION MAKING for the welfare of the entire
organization difficult to obtain. Effective integrating mechanisms aid in coordinating under these types
of conditions.
Integrating mechanisms need to be matched to the degree of DIFFERENTIATION among subunits.

Where differentiation is low simple integrating devices will suffice. Where differentiation is high more
complex structures or behaviors need to be designed. Galbraith (1977) proposed a rough hierarchy of
integrating mechanisms. He suggests that HIERARCHY (integration through the chain of command)
and vertical information systems suffice in less demanding coordination environments. When
coordination demands increase then more sophisticated forms are needed and these usually involve
lateral relations such as: liaison roles, teams, task forces, and MATRIX ORGANIZATION. Other
authors have suggested that effective integration can be created through behavioral as well as structural
mechanisms.

Document
Page 244
Techniques discussed include the use of effective NEGOTIATION and problem solving techniques and
the creation of cooperative rather than competitive cultures (see ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE;
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE).
Much of the literature on integration revolves around INNOVATION and the development of new
products. As in the original Lawrence and Lorsch study, current authors argue that Sales,
Manufacturing, R&D, and Engineering must work closely and cooperatively to achieve timely,
competitive product innovations. The importance of the integration concept has not diminished as
product innovation has taken on increased emphasis through the 1980s and 1990s. Organizations today
compete on the basis of the timely introduction of a series of new products and consistently attempt to
reduce cycle time. This has required the development of even more sophisticated integration
mechanisms that now include simultaneous engineering, and COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN,
engineering, and manufacturing (see ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY). The basic
concept of a need for coordination among separate departments has not changed, only the
COMPLEXITY and sophistication of the mechanisms has increased.
Little in the way of actual testing of the theory of integration has occurred after Lawrence and Lorsch's
(1969) original study. It is as if integration has become accepted as a part of the background wisdom of
ORGANIZATION THEORY. Possibilities for further theoretical and empirical development exist,
particularly in practical areas that do not involve only product innovation, such as service organizations.
See also Linking pin; Mutual adjustment; Contingency theory; Organization and environment;
Classical design theory; Boundary spanning
Bibliography
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business, Harvard University.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
ROBERT DRAZIN
Intelligence, Testing
This construct reflects differences among individuals in the capacity for conscious, deliberative
processing of information (see INFORMATION PROCESSING). It depends on the ABILITY to hold
and manipulate information in working memory, a capacity cognitive psychologists now call
computational ability. Intelligence is also associated with the ability to learn from conscious,
deliberative processing.

Document
Intelligence is a broad based capacity that supports many more specific abilities, hence it is often
referred to as general intelligence or a g factor. Intelligence is strongly associated with verbal ability
and academic performance. Most intelligence tests are validated against such criteria.
Early work tried to distinguish intelligence (g) from other more specific abilities. More recent work has
focused on the information processing components that support intelligence. Intelligence is strongly
related to working memory capacity. Thus, intelligence is most highly associated with effective
performance when people are learning tasks. With practice, proceduralized knowledge PRACTICAL
INTELLIGENCE becomes an increasingly important determinant of performance and computational
capacity (general intelligence) becomes less critical.
Intelligence shows remarkable stability over time, due in part to consistencies in environments.
However, large changes over time in intelligence for children can occur and typically reflect changes in
parental or educational variables. In later life, large changes in intelligence are more closely related to
health status than chronological AGE. Test users should be aware of this mutable aspect of intelligence.
The use of intelligence (general cognitive ability) tests for selection is widespread and can be justified
by meta-analyses showing their ability to predict job performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984) (see
PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). However, intelligence tests may also produce adverse impact for
minority groups, creating legal and/or ethical problems which

Document
Page 245
limits their use as selection devices (see DISCRIMINATION).
Interestingly, sophisticated computer systems also can behave intelligently, and there is considerable
interest in artificial intelligence. Both human and artificial intelligence were thought to depend on the
capacity to process symbol structures, but recent research challenges this perspective showing that
many aspects of intelligence (in both human and artificial) can be produced by subsymbolic,
connectionist level processes.
See also Assessment; Psychological testing; Cognitive processes; Selection methods
Bibliography
Hunter, J. E. & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.
ROBERT G. LORD
Interactionism
This refers to the joint influence of the environment and PERSONALITY on the attitudes, behaviors,
cognitions, and EMOTIONS of people (Endler & Magnusson, 1976). The interactionism perspective in
the ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR domain attempts to deal with two difficulties that have been
noted in research. First, not everyone responds the same to a given job situation. Some people, for
example, may be satisfied with a particular job while others are not. Second, personality characteristics
are at best only partial predictors of people's reactions to jobs. For example, while people with certain
PERSONALITY TRAITS might tend to be more satisfied with their jobs than people with other traits,
there is a job that will make almost anyone dissatisfied (see ATTITUDES, DISPOSITIONAL
APPROACHES).
Interactionism can be seen in two lines of research in the organizational behavior domain. First, there
have been studies in which personality was considered to moderate relations between job conditions
and various employee outcomes, such as job performance or JOB SATISFACTION. Second, there have
been PERSON-JOB FIT studies that have looked at the impact of matching people's characteristics with
the conditions and demands of jobs. Much of this research has looked at the discrepancy between what
people want in a job and what they get from the job (Edwards, 1991).
See also Statistical methods; Research methods; Theory; Research design
Bibliography
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological
critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational
psychology (1991 pp. 283–357) Chichester: John Wiley.

Document
Endler, N. S. & Magnusson, D. (Eds), (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington, D.
C.: Hemisphere (Halsted–Wiley).
PAUL E. SPECTOR
Intercultural Process
Although certain universal human traits and social skills will normally foster a workable mutual
accommodation when cultures mix, the extent of its expression will vary according to the compatibility
of the ideals of the cultures concerned. Some mixtures are fertile due to mutual stimulus and more so
than when ideas derive homogeneously from one CULTURE. Such SYNERGY is valuable to
organizations if it can be released. Some mixtures can however lead to negative effects.
International processes affecting organizations occur in the following domains: EXPATRIATES;

hosting outsiders; GROUP DYNAMICS; language learning; INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; COMMUNICATION.
The expatriate who enters a new culture as a more or less isolated outsider commonly goes through a
process which begins very positively due to anticipation, declines into cultural shock as alternative
value systems and their related behaviors, poorly understood, are seen as threatening, and recovers
towards equilibrium as learning increases understanding, and mutual accommodation (see CAREER
TRANSITIONS). Failure rates are nevertheless high and are often connected to adjustment problems
for family members not working directly with local colleagues.
When a culture hosts outsiders a similar process occurs in reverse with initial interested curiosity giving
way to a defensive ethnocen-

Document
Page 246
trism, prior to gradual acceptance. In some cases an external culture perceived as attractive may result
in xenophilia where one's own culture is partially abandoned in favor of a borrowed alternative. This is
visible in, e.g., Japanese westernness or teenage pop culture.
When interaction occurs with either individuals or groups of an alternative culture, it is common for two
effects to follow: enhanced identification with one's own group; and STEREOTYPING of non
members. Ingroup/outgroup feelings tend to be stronger in collectivist cultures where group
membership is also related to security needs.
Language learning is the clearest symbol of commitment to understanding an alternative culture, but it
varies greatly in difficulty. Languages with common structures and source vocabularies will clearly be
more accessible one to another than languages with different structures, scripts, grammars, and
vocabularies. For effective interaction, however, language facility remains a universal ideal.
In international business the nature of the intercultural processes will vary with the kind of operations
involved (see INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT) (Adler, 1982). Developing a new company
slowly from scratch in another culture allows time for blending to occur. Taking over a foreign
company may result in tensions from the absorption of both a new corporate and a new national culture.
MERGERS, AND ACQUISITIONS across two cultures have a low success rate even though equality
and partnership may be aimed at; they normally need strong integrative leadership. JOINT VENTURES
with foreign partners based on pooled resources are better with one source of management than two,
and may yield synergy. Specific limited cooperation agreements, such as projects, are generally less
risky and foster learning (see COOPERATION).
The rules for effective communications interculturally are:
(a) awareness and respect for the alternative mind-set;
(b) knowledge and understanding of the sources of alternative values; and
(c) practice-based skill in interaction.
Bad risk personnel are those with inflated egos, a low tolerance of AMBIGUITY, emotional instability,
racism or extreme left or right tendencies (see PERSONALITY).
See also Intergroup relations; Prejudice; Socialization
Bibliography
Adler, N. J. (1982). International dimensions of organizational behaviour. Belmont, CA: Kent.
GORDON REDDING

Document
Interest Groups
see POLITICS; SOCIAL COMPARISON
Intergroup Relations
In organizational theory, the term ''intergroup relations" refers to the collective behavior of groups in
interaction with other groups, either within or between organizations. The classic definition of
intergroup relations was provided by Sherif (1966) who suggested that, "Whenever individuals
belonging to one group interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms
of their group IDENTIFICATION, we have an instance of intergroup behavior" (p. 12).
Several important traditions distinguish how intergroup relations have been conceptualized in
organizational theory. Sociological theory and research has generally focused on structural determinants
of intergroup behavior. For example, organizational scholars in this tradition have emphasized how
differences in goals, task structure, POWER, and STATUS affect intergroup relations. In addition, they
have examined the impact of social processes such as COMMUNICATION patterns and social norms
on intergroup behavior. In contrast, political perspectives on intergroup relations have focused on how
strategic processes such as bargaining, COALITION FORMATION, and collective action influence
intergroup relations. Finally, psychological theories have construed intergroup relations primarily in
terms of intra-individualistic processes, such as interpersonal attraction, social PERCEPTION, and
TRUST. These theories emphasize the importance of cognitive factors such as STEREOTYPING, as
well as motivational underpinnings of inter-

Document
Page 247
group behavior, including the presumed desire on the part of group members to maintain positive social
group identities (Brewer & Kramer, 1985). According to these theories, such psychological processes
influence intergroup behavior by affecting social judgment and behavior in intergroup contexts.
The major theories of intergroup relations illustrate these differing emphases. Realistic Conflict Theory
posits that intergroup relations are influenced not so much by cognitive and motivational processes as
they are by the inherent competition between groups for crucial but scarce resources (see SCARCITY).
In this framework, interdependence is viewed as the basis of intergroup cooperation and CONFLICT. In
contrast, other theories afford greater importance to the social and psychological processes that
influence how individuals in social groups construe their interdependence with other groups. For
example, Social Categorization Theory focuses on how social and organizational processes that
categorize people into distinctive groups fosters competitive and conflictual orientations at the
intergroup level. Research in this vein has shown that categorization results in a tendency for
individuals to view members of their own group (the "ingroup") more positively than "outgroup"
members. Along similar lines, it has been shown that, when allocating scarce resources such as
REWARDS, individuals tend to confer more favorable treatment on members of their own group over
those from other groups. A major presumption of this framework is that an understanding of
COGNITIVE PROCESSES alone is sufficient to account for intergroup phenomenon such as
stereotyping and DISCRIMINATION. In contrast, Social Identity Theory argues that a variety of
motivational processes, such as the desire to maintain a positive social identity, also play a formative
role in intergroup relations (Tajfel, 1982). According to this perspective, enhancement of the ingroup
and derogation of the outgroup serve the important psychological function of bostering individual's
SELF-ESTEEM and the collective esteem of the ingroup. Finally, Relative Deprivation Theory
examines the role that SOCIAL COMPARISON processes play in understanding intergroup relations.
This theory views intergroup relations as shaped by people's comparisons between what their own
group has relative to other groups within an organization. When individuals feel that their group is
receiving favorable treatment relative to other groups, satisfaction is likely to be high. In contrast, when
they believe their own group is relatively deprived or disadvantaged, discontent is likely to result.
These perspectives are important because of the insight they provide with respect to two central
concerns in the study of intergroup relations: intergroup conflict and cooperation. Theory and research
on intergroup conflict has attempted to identify the origins and dynamics of conflict between various
groups. For example, there exists a considerable literature pertaining to intergroup conflict in industrial
settings (usually under the rubric of labor–management conflict (see COLLECTIVE ACTION). Much
of this literature draws attention to the role perceptual and social processes – such as ethnocentrism and
ingroup bias – play in the development and escalation of intergroup conflicts. As Blake and Mouton
(1989) noted, "The striking conclusion from [this] research is that when groups are aware of one
another's psychological presence, it is nature for them to feel competition . . . [suggesting] a very basic
incipient hostility is operating at the point of contact between primary groups" (p. 192). These insights,
in turn, suggest a number of perspectives on reducing intergroup competition and conflict (see
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT). These perspectives generally take as given the pervasiveness of
intergroup rivalry and conflict, and then attempt to address the problem of how to promote cooperation

Document
between groups. Several approaches to increasing intergroup cooperation have been proposed, and
reasonable evidence is available to suggest the efficacy of each. First, introduction of superordinate
(shared) goals to reduce competition has been shown to help attenuate or override competitive
tendencies between groups. Second, certain forms of intergroup contact have been shown to enhance
cooperation. Of particular importance is contact in which status differences and interaction patterns that
reinforce negative stereotypes are minimized or controlled. In addition, the use of "boundary
spanners" (individuals who have roles in both groups) can help correct misperceptions, improve
communication and coor-

Document
Page 248
dination, and reduce distrust between groups (see BOUNDARY SPANNING). Another important
approach has emphasized the positive consequences of "recategorization" as a strategy for achieving
intergroup cooperation. The recategorization approach is predicated on the assumption that the
deleterious consequences associated with ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation can be reduced
by categorizing individuals in terms of shared or collective identities that draw attention to interpersonal
similarities and that increase social attraction between individuals from different groups. Another major
focus is on behavioral strategies designed to elicit cooperative interaction and build trust between
groups, including the use of RECIPROCITY-based influence strategies, such as tit-for-tat. Finally,
recent theory and research on the use of conflict resolution processes such as NEGOTIATION (see
CONFLICT RESOLUTION). This includes the use of integrative bargaining involving the groups
themselves, as well as various third-party interventions such as mediation and arbitration (see
INFLUENCE). This is currently one of the most active and promising new directions in the study of
intergroup relations.
See also Industrial relations; Interorganizational relations; Culture, group; Group cohesiveness;
Group norms; Minority group influence
Bibliography
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Alderfer, C. P. & Smith, K. K. (1982). Studying intergroup relations embedded in organizations.

Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1989). Lateral conflict. In D. Tjosvold & D. Johnson (Eds), Productive conflict
management. Edinia, MN: Interaction.
Brett, J. M. & Rognes, J. K. (1986). Intergroup relations in organizations. In P. Goodman (Ed.), Work
group effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, M. B. & Kramer, R. M. (1985). The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual
Review of Psychology, 36, 219–243.
Kramer, R. M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization
processes. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds) Research in organizational behavior (vol. 13).
Messick, D. M. & Mackie, D. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 45–81.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation.
New York: Houghton & Miffin.
Stephan, W. G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindsey & E. A. Ronson (Eds), The handbook of
social psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd edn). New York: Random House.

Document
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
RODERICK M. KRAMER
Interlocking Directorships
see INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS
International Human Resource Management
Former geographically bounded organizations, isolated across the globe have given way to a vast web
of interconnected and boundaryless organizations that pay much less attention today to national and
company borders. The transformation from domestic to international has been as much a cause of, as
well as a result of, more competitive pressures, coupled with volatile changes, and environmental
uncertainties (see UNCERTAINTY). As businesses have shifted from a purely domestic focus over the
last decade, to a more international focus, competition has shifted away from the people "across the
street" to the "people across the globe." Customers in Mexico City and Taipei demand quality jeans and
television sets just as those in Tokyo and New York. The same goes for industrial products like steam
turbines and locomotives. Yet, there are some products and services that must be accommodated to
local customs, regulations and CULTURE, while they are simultaneously marketed and serviced
worldwide. Thus, for many multinational enterprises (MNEs) (see MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS), the globalization of these competitive forces demands that their managers are
simultaneously globally minded as well as locally sensitive. This is not an easy transition to make for
most.
As companies become increasingly global in their operations, compensation, selection, TRAINING,

and development, as well as a host of other HR practices that must be shared across

Document
Page 249
borders, throughout industries, and between different organizational forms. As the movement of people
across companies, business units, borders, and industries escalates (see CAREER TRANSITIONS),
most MNEs will increasingly be tested by the need to bring multinational and multicultural perspectives
to the practice of HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (HRM), and deliver these perspectives in a
highly integrated fashion so as to make practices seamlessly transferable on an international as well as
an organizational basis. The challenge is real, since it is frequently the HR function that acts as a
lightning rod for any number of problems. Supervising the shift from narrowly based specialists to
global managers is a major strategic task facing the HR function in MNEs today. And it is within the
domain of IHRM that these challenges now exist. IHRM is broader than HRM (see Human Resource
Management), and is defined by Morgan (1986) as consisting of three broad human resource functions
of procurement, allocation, and utilization, coupled with three national or country categories (home,
host, and other), and finally three types of employees on an international enterprise: local/host country
nationals (HCNs), EXPATRIATES/parent country nationals (PCNs), and finally third country nationals
(TCNs). Dowling (1988) smoothes that definition and suggests factors that differentiate international
from domestic HRM include more functions and activities, broader perspectives, more involvement in
employees' personal lives, changes in emphasis as the workforce mix of expatriates and locals varies,
risk exposure, and more external influences. These menus suggest that IHRM differs from HRM in the
magnitude of different processes, and the complexity of execution of the practices. Dowling, Schuler,
and DeCieri (1993, p. 422) define strategic international human resource management as "human
resource management issues, functions, and policies and practices that result from the strategic
activities of [MNEs] and that impact the international concerns and goals of those enterprises."
The challenge is for global MNEs to design IHRM systems and programs that are directly linked to the
strategic direction of the firm, including its mission, vision, and shared objectives (see MISSION
STATEMENTS). As such, all components of the HR system must in some way be meaningfully linked
to all others, even in global arenas. To identify the integration among the different components is
beyond the scope of this IHRM discussion, however, it is relevant to discuss a few of the systemic
practices as they impact others.
Selection Practices
(see SELECTION METHODS)

Document
As most of the industrialized countries of the world attempt to find the best and brightest employees to
fill their organizational voids, selection processes become critical. Most United States and European
firms favor interviews, as do many Asian MNEs, but approximately 90 percent of United States
executives surveyed indicated that they have the most confidence in the interviewing process (see
SELECTION INTERVIEWING). However, research (Von Glinow, 1993) suggests that the interview is
the least valid predictor of subsequent performance. In Japan rotational performance is a tool frequently
employed to give employees new challenges, in new settings, thereby enhancing overall performance
not just in the short run, but in the long run as well (see JOB ROTATION). In Japan, as elsewhere in
Asia, connections such as school, family, religious, and geographic area, are the most frequently
employed selection criteria, and these may be augmented with rotational assignments in many different
countries (see NETWORKING). Swedes indicated that while they do not use connections regularly,
they would like to do more. In the Maquiladoras, the term for Mexico's off-shore manufacturing areas,
connections are widely used to select employees, and nepotism is respected on the grounds that
organizational connections now are part of the extended family. Many countries, including Mexico,
employ selection tests which may be employment tests (used in Korea), personality tests (used in
Germany, ranging from 16PF to the color pyramid test), to on-job tests (in Taiwan), and to graphology
(in France) (see ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING).
Compensation and Reward Systems
(see PAYMENT SYSTEMS)
Once people join an MNE, IHRM professionals face the challenge of compensating them in equitable
ways. While pay has been viewed as

Document
Page 250
the most attractive form of compensation in the United States, pay rarely correlates with
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS worldwide. Almost 70 percent of United States employees
do not think pay is related to performance, however, large bonuses/incentive compensation, etc. totaling
in excess of 20 percent of base pay seems to trigger greater satisfaction with pay (see BONUS
PAYMENTS). Merit pay systems have been viewed as inadequate, barely covering cost of living
increases, and generally, are not performance based. Merit pay seldom differentiates significantly
between high performers and average performers, and there are few countries that even attempt to
administer merit pay. The use of stock options can be used to align employees with shareholders and
reinforce the MNEs vision, but these forms of compensation are not without problems (see SHARE/
EQUITY OWNERSHIP). Compensation packages, negotiated freely in the home country are under
strict scrutiny from multiple STAKEHOLDERS in the host country. For STRATEGIC ALLIANCES
established abroad, compensation packages for expatriates would usually include the traditional base
salary, benefits, plus allowances and tax equalization. In general, the proportion of base pay is
decreasing while the portion of pay linked to long-term performance is increasing worldwide, however,
for expatriate workers, the equation is more complex. The Japanese appear to be the most dissatisfied
with their wages (and WORKING CONDITIONS), while the Singaporeans and Australians are the
most satisfied (see JOB SATISFACTION). Two out of every three workers in Britain and Japan
claimed to be underpaid. China's "iron rice bowl" is similar to Mexico's compensation/reward practices.
Pay in Mexico is generally very low (thereby attractive to offshore production) since the government
controls the minimum wage; benefits include holiday pay, meals, housing, childcare, and production
incentives. In the late 1980s, bonuses and incentives averaged from a low of 2 percent in Italy, to a high
of 22 percent in the United States. The United Kingdom averaged 15 percent, and Japan averages 40
percent of base pay paid to all employees as semiannual bonuses. Worldwide, bonuses tend to be
viewed as shock absorbers, and removal of them becomes the first line of defense in troubled economic
times (Von Glinow, 1993). In Germany, the MNE has little to say about bonuses, pay, or perquisites,
since all basic pay determinations occur at the national level (see COLLECTIVE BARGAINING).
Appraising Performance
Most MNEs worry excessively about the PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL form. In truth, the form has
little to do with success in the evaluation and performance appraisal process. Most employees tend to
see themselves as above average, thus the form conflicts with their self-image (see SELF-ESTEEM).
Usually, appraisal involves some element of traits, behaviors, or outcome related measures. In some
cultures, traits (such as intelligence, dependability, integrity) are most important, and people who do not
possess those traits will be negatively evaluated (see PERSONALITY). Traits in the United States tend
not to be considered "bonafide occupational qualifications," however in many parts of Asia, traits are
highly prized. While 360 degree performance appraisal has captured the attention of many scholars and
practitioners alike, it has had enormous difficulties worldwide in implementation.
In summary, IHRM practices tend to vary worldwide, depending on the degree of integration of those
practices with the core competencies of the MNE.

Document
See also International management; Culture, national; Intercultural process; Culture, cross
cultural research
Bibliography
Dowling, P., Schuler, R. & DeCieri, H. (1993). An integrative framework of strategic international
HRM. Journal of Management, 19, no. 2, 419–459.
Dowling, P. (1988). International and domestic personnel/human resource management: Similarities

and differences. In Schuler, R. Youngblood & Huber (Eds), Readings in Personnel and Human
Resource Management (3rd edn). St. Paul, MN: West.
Morgan, V. P. (1986). International human resource management: Fact or fiction. Personnel

Administrator, 31, no. 9, 43–47.
Von Glinow, M. A. (1993). Diagnosing "Best Practice" in human resource management

Document
Page 251
practices. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Suppl. 3, 95–112.
MARY-ANN VON GLINOW
International Management
This denotes the ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR aspects of managing when the cultures of more
than one country have to be taken into account (see CULTURE, NATIONAL). It is the OB element of
international business – a wider concern which covers the geographic, economic, financial, political,
cultural, and managerial environments in which world trade takes place and in which organizations
produce and market their outputs globally. Its importance is growing as, increasingly, managers are
becoming internationalists. They may export or import, work for MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS, invest abroad, or try to attract foreign capital into their home country, supply to or
buy from, ethnic businesses. The list of international organizational interactions is endless.
In these situations, managers need to know the nature and dimensions of the differences in the workings
of organizations in one CULTURE from those in another. If they are completely different, then
knowledge of their home country organization and its functioning would not help them in dealing with
those of other cultures. But if the structures and operations of organizations in different cultures are
coming sufficiently closely together, then universally applicable approaches can be developed with the
expectation of obtaining consistent outcomes. Clearly there are international differences, but the key
issue is their importance for MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR (cf. Hickson & Pugh, 1995).
For example, do the differences in organizational functioning between Britain and France and Germany
matter? If they do then the influence of specific cultural factors must be understood and planned for.
Some maintain that managing an organization in the developing Third World is fundamentally different
and is likely to remain so. Others argue that the nature of operations in organizations all over the world
is converging. Differences in national culture are reducing in importance, and increasingly becoming
merely quaint. CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH examines these differences, and International
management considers the degree to which organizations have already traveled along this convergent
path (see CULTURE, CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH).

Document
On the one hand the "convergers" in this debate base their arguments on the word-wide process of
industrialization based on science and TECHNOLOGY, and the headlong rush toward an integrated
global economy. Industrial technology spreads throughout the world through the normal channels of
trade when developing countries buy new products and manufacturing facilities. The effects of
economic aid, which involves the delivery of more advanced TECHNOLOGY and workforce
TRAINING also further industrialization. So does international military confrontation which requires
the training of workers to build bases, maintain vehicles and aircraft, etc. This forms the basis of the
SKILLS necessary for continued industrialization. This world-wide diffusion of advanced technology
creates a common range of tasks and problems which must be tackled no matter where the organization
is located. The pressures toward efficient production will ensure that the most effective ways of tackling
these will inevitably become adopted world-wide. As this process continues, organizations tackling the
same tasks and problems in whatever culture will become more and more alike (Kerr, Dunlop,
Harbison, & Myers, 1960).
At its strongest this thesis argues a long-term convergence of all cultures into the "global village." The
vast impact of international communication networks means, for example, that jeans are everywhere
becoming the preferred wear to any distinctive national costume. Multinational corporations typically
wish to deliver the same product globally to gain economies of scale. If, in order to do so, they export
their technology, working methods and management practices then the result will be the
"McDonaldization of everything" (see TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER).
A weaker version of the thesis (Pugh, 1993) concentrates on the necessary convergence to a common
global pattern of management functioning even if societies remain significantly different. For example,
if a country anywhere in the world decided to go into the business of producing motor cars efficiently,
there can immediately be spelled out some of the

Document
Page 252
organizational characteristics which would be required of its production facility. There would have to
be factories of considerable size – individual craftsmen would not do. They would have to have
specialized machinery – hand tools or even general purpose presses would not be sufficient by
themselves – and supplies of raw materials and components provided more efficiently through separate
specialist technical processes and organizations. Then they would need trained staff, expert in their
particular tasks to contribute a wide range of skills and effort, to be coordinated by professional
managers with skills of production control, cost accounting, and so on. There would thus develop in this
new motor car manufacturer's organization most, if not all, of the characteristics of the established
motor car manufacturers in other countries. Since these operating strategies are shown to promote
efficiency, they are adopted wherever new industries are set up. The South Korean motor industry,
established since the 1960s, has trodden precisely this path.
The transfer of knowledge is not only one way from the older established to the newer industrial
cultures. Japan was a late developer into industrialization, but the values and culture of the country
enabled the process to become highly developed very quickly. Japanese management puts a heavier
weight on training workers to produce parts and vehicles to highly reliable quality standards. This
investment has paid off in terms of reliable products with a competitive edge in the market, together
with lower rates of scrap and lower costs of reworking during manufacture (see COMPETITIVENESS).
The Japanese have done so well out of this emphasis on quality that there is now a world-wide
movement of TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, adopted by all motor car manufacturers in the
world in an effort to reap the same benefits. The procedure has thus become part of the world-wide
organizational convergence across cultures and many organizations in different cultures are looking for
further ways of benefiting from the Japanese approach (Ouchi, 1981) (see THEORY Z).
One major series of studies (referred to as the Aston studies, Pugh (1993)) has shown that there is
indeed considerable convergence across cultures in regard to organizational structures. For example, in
all the many countries studied, increasing size of organization brings with it increasing formalization of
procedures – and this is equally true of Japan as of Sweden. Similarly, increasing technological
sophistication brings with it increasing specialization of tasks, as comparisons of engineering
companies with retail shops in both Canada and Egypt equally show. Government ownership leads to
centralizing of authority for decisions in both Poland and Britain.
At the behavioral level too there is evidence for convergence. For example, Luthans, Welsh, &
Rosenkrantz (1993) carried out a detailed observational study of Russian managers comparable to a
similar one they had previously carried out on United States managers. They found that the ordering of
activity categories in terms of time spent to be the same in both countries, viz: first, PLANNING and
controlling; second, communicating; third, motivating and managing conflict; fourth, NETWORKING.

Document
On the other hand, the "culture-specific" theorists underline that while this convergence might apply to
the formal management structures of organizations it does not apply to the actual behavior of
organizational members in different cultures – even when the structure is the same. This is because the
people are different. They have been exposed to different cultural processes from birth, and this "mental
programming," as Hofstede (1980) puts it, means that they continually operate through the particular
cultural interpretation which it gives. Hofstede shows, for example, considerable differences in work
attitudes and VALUES across a large number of countries of employees of the same multinational
company, IBM. The company's employees in France, for example, have very different views on the
nature of AUTHORITY from those in the United States even though they are doing the same job in the
same organization structure. Its employees in Greece have different views on the acceptable level of
risk-taking for IBM, compared with those in Singapore. On the basis of these data and further studies
Hofstede proposes characteristic dimensions of differences in work values and develops cultural maps
of the world (see INTERCULTURAL PROCESS). His study is the most comprehensive of a whole
range of studies

Document
Page 253
which show differences in attitudes between mangers and workers in different countries.
Maurice (1979), however, did not study attitudes but investigated the relative STATUS and wage
payments of workers and managers in comparable factories in France and Germany. He screened out
factors such as size, industrial sector, and technology, by comparing only factories in equivalent
industries (e.g., iron and steel, paper and cardboard products) who used the same technology and were
comparable in size. The study was thus able to focus on national differences in HIERARCHY, job
structures, and payments.
The results showed clear differences between the French and German firms. These included:
(1) There were considerably more staff not employed directly on shop floor manufacturing operations
in French than in German firms. In addition, staff in these overhead functions were relatively better paid.
(2) The wage differential between the lowest and the highest paid of all employees (upper centile
compared with lower decile) is much greater in French than German firms. Indeed, the difference was
such that there was no overlap: the largest differential found in a German firm was still less than the
smallest differential found in a French firm (2.7 times as against 3.7).
(3) The number of levels in the production hierarchy is greater in French than in German firms (5
compared with 3) because there are more middle level managers in French firms.
Maurice argues that these differences are not fortuitous but relate to differences in the educational
systems of France and Germany. More top managers in France hold higher degrees, usually from the
"grandes ecoles." These are very high status University Institutes which provide high-level technical
and scientific education, and which by their very highly selective intake provide an elite of high status
managers for French organizations. Graduates from them are recruited directly into upper levels of
firms and are paid much greater comparative salaries than in Germany. This means that there is a group
of less qualified supervisors and managers who can expect to be promoted only through the middle
ranks of the organization. They can never realistically aspire to join the top management "cadre," or set.
In Germany, equivalent top managers are often promoted from within the firm which they join lower
down with fewer general and more technical qualifications. Thus at the lower levels German
supervisors are comparatively better qualified and better paid than their French equivalents. They can
also take more technical decisions and are given more professional AUTONOMY.
In summary, the differences show French firms to be run more bureaucratically, with orders and
procedures set from above, while German work organization relies more on the professional expertise
which derives from the trained knowledge and skill of the more junior employees. Since these
differences are well grounded in the educational systems of the two countries, their organizations are
likely to be slow in converging, resisting pressures to become congruent even in a European Union.

Document
International managers working in multinational corporations have to take account of existing national
differences. In regard to INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, as well as to
other aspects of their tasks, they have to strike a balance between extreme "ethnocentrism" (requiring
each subsidiary to conform precisely to parent company ways regardless of the country in which it is
operating) and extreme "polycentrism" (allowing each subsidiary to develop regardless of global
activity). Both of these extremes will be inefficient; the former by not taking account of local factors
which affect performance, and the latter by not gaining the benefits of global operations.
Even a decentralized multinational must have inputs from its home country head office (finance,
technical know-how, etc.) which go to its subsidiaries in host countries to aid their performance (see
DECENTRALIZATION). The usual method of attempting to coordinate parent–subsidiary relations is
through the use of EXPATRIATES. These are experienced managers assigned to foreign subsidiaries
who can retain the benefits of corporate knowledge while they gain insights into the local operation and
the culture in which it is based. They aim to steer a viable path through the two sets of demands.

Document
Page 254
There are thus considerable cross-cultural differences existing between organizations. Are they moving
toward convergence, and how fast? This is an important current debate and there is at present no clear-
cut answer to it. The drive for industrial development on the part of developing countries, the impact of
technological innovations, the ease and continually falling costs of international communications, the
global operations of the multinational corporations, all push the convergence forward. The primacy of
early established social norms and VALUES, family relationships and the societal position of women,
educational systems and political ideologies, all hold the convergence back, perhaps permanently.
See also Management of diversity; Management of high potential; Management development
Bibliography
Adler, N. J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behaviour (2nd edn). Boston, MA:
PWS–Kent.
Hickson, D. J. & Pugh, D. S. (1995). Managing world-wide. London: Penguin.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H. & Myers, C. A. (1960). Industrialism and industrial man.
Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Luthans, F., Welsh, D. H. B. & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1993). What do Russian managers really do? An
observational study with comparisons to U.S. managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 24,
741–761.
Maurice, M. (1979). For a study of the societal effect: Universality and specificity in organization
research. In C. J. Lammers & D. J. Hickson (Eds), Organizations alike and unlike. London: Routledge.
Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Pugh, D. S. (1993). Organizational context and structure in various cultures. In T. Weinshall (Ed),
Societal culture and management (pp. 425–435). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hickson, D. J. (ed.) (1997). Exploring management across the world. London: Penguin.
DEREK PUGH
Interorganizational Relations (IOR)

Document
This is a general term which directs attention to the sources, kinds, and consequences of linkages
between and among organizations as social actors. Three general foci have animated studies of
interorganizational relations: understanding the establishment and maintenance of dyadic cooperative
interorganizational linkages; understanding the emergent processual dynamics (e.g., POWER,
STATUS) in sets of these linkages; and understanding the properties of IOR networks and their effects
across industries, organizational fields, and public policy domains (see NETWORK ANALYSIS).
The rise of OPEN SYSTEMS approaches in ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY provided the initial
impetus for developing models of interorganizational relations. Scholars began focusing on the
acquisition of needed inputs and the disposal of completed outputs as major determinants of
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. This early work reflected prevailing research
PARADIGMS: the legacy of structural–functionalism and its focus on efficient goal attainment
processes, as well as the prevalence of SURVEY methods and case studies, and the emphasis on unit, or
focal organization, analysis (Whetten, 1987) (see RESEARCH METHODS). Findings corroborated the
recognition that linkages with other organizations served as the conduits for resource exchanges; this
work stimulated inquiries that focused on ways to improve IOR coordination, particularly in task-
focused multiorganizational units, referred to as action sets (e.g., service delivery systems or
distribution channels). These studies of IORs provided systematic evidence of the ways organizations
used purposeful linkages with other organizations to accomplish goals and to manage uncertain
environments (see UNCERTAINTY). The role of BOUNDARY SPANNING actors and practices
figured prominently in these studies – interorganizational linkages were viewed as extensions of
relationships between organizational representatives (Aldrich & Whetten, 1981). The results tended to
support the importance of awareness of common interests and organizational initiatives grounded in
these perceptions for linkage formation.
A second area of research has focused on aggregates of dyadic linkages, comprising an "organization
set" for a focal organization

Document
Page 255
(analogous to a role set for individual actors). These studies focused on the structural properties of
IORs, including the consequences of asymmetries of power and status, and on COMMUNICATION
patterns and frequency. This widened conception of the forms and kinds of IORs redirected research to
fundamental questions about the relations between structure and process in organizational dynamics, the
focus on purposive organizational action, and the nature of organizational forms (see
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). These studies often maintained an organization set perspective,
although the size and COMPLEXITY of the networks examined in these studies tended to increase over
time. For example, in studies of the dispersion of INNOVATIONS or the flow of INFLUENCE
between organization the "networks" examined consisted of aggregates of overlapping organization
sets. This analysis yielded improved understanding of the relationship between such aggregate set
attributes as size and diversity and focal organization members' perceptions of effective performance.
Subsequent analyses broadened the focus beyond cooperative activity, to examine more general patterns
of relations within sets of organizations. For example, studies of the social network structure of
economic activity describes the prevalence and persistence of various forms of linkage among business
elites; these include a wider array of IOR types, including interlocks among boards of directors,
alliances such as JOINT VENTURES, and flows of personnel between firms and between industries
(Mizruchi & Galaskiewicz, 1993). Work in this area has examined the relationship between diverse
measures of network centrality, REPUTATION, and the effects of vertical versus horizontal and local
versus nonlocal linkages, to argue for the importance of these ties in coordinated action. The evidence
provides support for familiar RESOURCE DEPENDENCE accounts of linkage dynamics, as well as for
the effects of social and economic class interests on linkage patterns.
New lines of work on IORs examine the life cycle-processes of linkage development and their
substantive content (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994) (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE). The empirical
results of these inquiries challenge static structural analyses, emphasizing coordination as a process
over time, rather than as either a simple cause or effect of organizational and network properties. These
inquiries also suggest the value of more attention to the substance of linkages. In general, the results
here highlight the dynamic, situated character of many IOR arrangements and open up questions about
the changing conditions that support diverse types of linkages. The attention to process represents one
challenge to structural analysis. Other research directions provide further challenge, highlighting the
emergence of new organizational forms that blur the distinctions between a focal organization and its
network (Alter & Hage, 1993); evidence from emerging industries like biotechnology, from
reinvigorated industrial regions, and from comparative studies of markets and states all provide
evidence of the prevalence of new "hybrid" organizational forms (Powell, 1990).

Document
The third stream of IOR research extends the work on organization–environment relations (see
ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT), conceptualizing environments as structured networks that
serve as both opportunities for and constraints upon ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. Work in this
area investigates the structuring processes within interorganizational fields, their determinants and their
effects over time (Scott, 1983). The focus on the historical, cultural, and network elements of
interorganizational fields provides an alternative to more abstract, dimension-based treatments of
environments. DiMaggio (1986), for example, applies block-modeling techniques to partition these
networks-as-environments into analyzable units; this kind of work redescribes complex fields of
organizations in ways that combine earlier insights about asymmetries of POWER and STATUS with
the attention to nonlocal and indirect ties in the structuring of organizational fields and networks. Other
recent empirical studies trace the consequential mechanisms and the direct and indirect effects of state
and other collective actors for embedded organizations (Fligstein, 1990; Hamilton & Biggart, 1988).
The recognition that wider institutional arrangements matter for IOR dynamics is salutary (see
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY).
Theory and empirical research on interorganizational relations have taken diverse avenues in recent
years. On the one hand, core questions about the dynamics of cooperative linkages have

Document
Page 256
persisted and have been recently reinvigorated by the interest in the business strategy literature on new
organizational forms and on various types of corporate alliances (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT).
On the other hand, broader currents in the study of social organization have reinforced and extended the
early attention to cooperative linkages, such that interorganizational relations have come to include an
increasingly expansive set of concerns, linked by common attention to extraorganizational LEVELS OF
ANALYSIS. Much of the contemporary study draws from network imageries and methodologies,
examining the consequences of social linkages for a broad range of organizational outcomes and
drawing attention to the embeddedness of organized social and economic action.
See also Intergroup relations; Coalition formation; Industrial relations
Bibliography
Aldrich, H. & Whetten, D. A. (1981). Organization-sets, action-sets, and networks: making the most of
simplicity. In W. H. Starbuck (Ed.), Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 1, pp. 385–408). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Alter, C. & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
DiMaggio, P. (1986). Structural analyses of organizational fields: A blockmodel approach. In B. Staw

& L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, 8, 335–370.
Fligstein, N. (1990). The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Hamilton, G. & Biggart, N. (1988). Market, culture, and authority: A comparative analysis of
organization and management in the Far East. In C. Winship & S. Rosen (Eds), Organizations and
institutions, a supplement to American Journal of Sociology, 94, S52-S94.
Mizruchi, M. S. & Galaskiewicz, J. (1993). Networks of interorganizational relations, in Sociological

Methods & Research, 22, (1), 46–70.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational

relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19, (1), 90–118.
Scott, W. R. (1983). The organization of environments: Network, cultural, and historical elements. In J.
W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality pp. 155–175.
Whetten, D. A. (1987). Interorganizational relations. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational

behavior (pp. 238–253). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Document
DAVID A. WHETTEN and MARC J. VENTRESCA
Interpersonal Skills
Whereas the term ''SKILLS" refers generally to an individual's capability for effective action,
interpersonal skills refers to the capability to accomplish individual and/or organizational goals
through interaction with others. In organizations, many types of goals are primarily accomplished
through interaction, and each of these goal types corresponds to a certain type of interpersonal skill. For
example, individuals in organizations must accomplish the goal of communicating effectively with
others. The capability to accomplish this goal is referred to as "COMMUNICATION skill." As another
example, individuals are sometimes in a position where they want to ensure the success of a group
meeting. The capability to accomplish this goal may be referred to as skill in facilitating meetings.
Goals may be stated broadly or specifically, and so may skills; e.g., "interpersonal" versus "reflective
listening" skills.
Interpersonal skills are distinguished in principle from other types of skills which are also pertinent to
organizational life. These include:
(1) intrapersonal skills, where goals involve self-change, such as self-awareness, TIME
MANAGEMENT, or STRESS management;
(2) learning skills, where goals involve obtaining and using new information;
(3) cognitive skills, where goals are accomplished primarily through COGNITIVE PROCESSES; and
(4) job skills, where goals involve effective job performance (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL).
Interpersonal skills are a type of "action" skill, wherein goal accomplishment requires significant
exercise of behavior. While these skill types

Document
Page 257
are conceptually distinct, they are typically used in concert in organizations.
Importance of Interpersonal Skills
Interpersonal skills are a uniquely important subset of the skills considered as valuable in organizations.
Much of human intelligence is believed to have evolved to cope with the complexities of human
interaction. Thus we would expect the exercise of interpersonal skills to involve a large part of intrinsic
human capability. The importance of interpersonal skills is also underscored by its inclusion as one
aspect of wisdom.
In understanding the relevance of interpersonal skills to organizations it is important first to understand

the types of goals which may be accomplished through the exercise of interpersonal skills. These goals
can generally be classified as "direct" and "indirect." Direct goals have to do with changes in others as a
direct result of interaction; e.g., in others' orientation, COMMITMENT, TRUST, support, knowledge,
MOTIVATION, etc. Indirect goals have to do with the larger impact of direct goal accomplishment.
For example, interaction with another may result in the other's support for a policy (direct change),
which in turn leads to a majority organizational vote to adopt the policy (indirect change).
Managers accomplish their work largely through the indirect effects of their interactions. Consequently,
most of managerial time is spent in interpersonal interactions via phone, in meetings, and in face-to-face
interactions with individuals (see MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR; Mintzberg, 1975). Interpersonal skills,
therefore, are critical for managerial effectiveness. Moreover, modern organizations have shifted toward
more decentralized, interactive, and participatory designs (see DECENTRALIZATION; MATRIX
ORGANIZATION; MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC; SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY). In them, those
doing the primary work of the organization are meeting more, doing more work in groups, and taking
on greater managerial responsibilities (see AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS; PARTICIPATION;
EMPOWERMENT NETWORKING; QUALITY CIRCLES; SELF-MANAGED TEAMS). For this
reason interpersonal skills have become increasingly important for organizational members at all levels.
Skills and Competencies
Some authors have used the terms "COMPETENCY" and "skill" interchangeably. The two are similar,
but by no means identical. To paraphrase Boyatzis (1982, p. 21), an interpersonal competency consists
of an underlying characteristic of an individual which contributes to effective and/or superior
performance in a given type of interpersonal setting. For example, " developing others," ''use of
unilateral power," and "spontaneity" are competencies which have been found to contribute to
effectiveness in situations requiring "directing subordinates" (ibid, p. 230).

Document
Skills and competencies are alike in that both are regarded as individual attributes which contribute to
situational effectiveness. They differ, however, in two important ways. First, the relation between skills
and situational effectiveness is closer: a skill has to do with effective action in relation to a particular
goal. The relation between competencies and situational effectiveness, on the other hand, is less direct:
many competencies may contribute to effectiveness toward particular goal, and a particular competency
may contribute to effectiveness toward a variety of goals.
The second difference is that competencies include a wider variety of individual attributes than do
skills. Whereas the concept of skill has only to do with the capability for effective action, competencies
may also include motives (e.g., concern for impact), traits (e.g., self-control), and social roles (e.g., oral
presentations).
Types of Interpersonal Skills and Their Relationships
Much of the study of interpersonal skills has centered around identifying skills which are important in
organizations. At this point four major types of interpersonal skills can be distinguished, each centering
around a basic type of goal, and each including one or more skills:
1. COMMUNICATIONS. Goal: Establishing effective communication between self and others, and
among others. Skills include establishing a supportive climate, listening, NETWORKING, giving
FEEDBACK, oral and written

Document
Page 258
communication, use of COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, and language.
2. INFLUENCE. Goal: Effecting changes in others. Skills include persuading, asserting,

MOTIVATION, PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL, MENTORING, counseling (see COUNSELING IN
ORGANIZATIONS), DELEGATION, and disciplining (see PUNISHMENT).
3. NEGOTIATION and CONFLICT MANAGEMENT. Goal: Developing beneficial agreement among

parties. Skills include bargaining, diagnosing the other party, assessing negotiation sessions, mediation,
and implementing negotiation tactics (see CONFLICT RESOLUTION; CONFLICT MANAGEMENT).
4. FACILITATION. Goal: Helping groups and organizations to operate effectively. Skills include
conducting a meeting, TEAM BUILDING, participative problem solving, GROUP DECISION-
MAKING, facilitation (see SOCIAL FACILITATION), ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE, and
LEADERSHIP.
The importance and expression of these skills can be expected to vary among organizations and over
time. Remember that interpersonal skills are means of accomplishing certain types of goals. As
organizations and their structures change, different kinds of goals may become more or less important.
For example, as organizations become increasingly international, the ability to enter and establish
effective work relationships in a culturally different organization may become increasingly important
(see INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT; MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY). Thus, "entry" skills
may eventually be added to our list of interpersonal skills. Moreover, as INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY develops, new methods of interpersonal interaction may become available. For
example, the use of "groupware" may lessen the need for group facilitation skills, and increase the need
for computer group session management, or "chauffeuring" skills.
Nature of Interpersonal Skills
While the concept of skill has been in widespread use for many years, its primary users have been
practitioners, such as educators, job trainers, and therapists working with the handicapped. Their
interests have generally been in enabling their target groups to enact fairly straightforward behavioral
routines. These practitioners have tended, often implicitly, to place skills in a behavioristic context (see
LEARNING, INDIVIDUAL; BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION). A basic premise of this context is that
behaviors are learned and maintained by a system of stimuli, which elicit a desired set of behaviors, or
"skill" response, which are followed in turn by REINFORCEMENT.
Initial efforts to put interpersonal phenomena into a skills framework have tended to place them in a
behavioristic context as well. Thus, interpersonal skills have been regarded as a set of fairly specific
behavioral routines, and interpersonal skillfulness equated with the accurate demonstrations of these
behaviors upon the appropriate cue. These early efforts have met with limited success, and this has led
to a closer examination of the nature of interpersonal skills (Bigelow, 1993). The conclusion: the
phenomenon of interpersonal skillfulness departs from behavioral premises in a number of ways:

Document
1. Response inspecificity. Whereas a behavioristic approach requires clear descriptions of desired

behaviors, skillful interaction is interactive and complex, often involving multiple, possibly conflicting
goals and resulting dilemmas (see DILEMMAS, ETHICAL; DILEMMAS, ORGANIZATIONAL). It is
usually not possible either to identify one best response or to describe desired responses behaviorally.
Thus the set of possibly appropriate interpersonal behaviors is not closed, but open, requiring
CREATIVITY and ongoing learning.
2. Lack of cues. Whereas a behavioristic approach requires cueing of behaviors, it is usually not
possible to discern unambiguous cues for behavior in interpersonal situations (see AMBIGUITY).
Thus, a part of interpersonal skillfulness consists of the ability to "cue" one's own behavior.
3. Cognition. Whereas a behavioristic approach does not include cognition, skilled interaction often
requires significant cognition. For example, during an interaction a person may be weighing the
implications of what the other said, vicariously projecting the impact of various tactics, assessing the
success of a line of action, or considering modifying his/her goals for the interaction. Thus, a part of
interpersonal skill learning

Document
Page 259
must include development of associated COGNITIVE PROCESSES (see COGNITION IN

ORGANIZATIONS).
4. Learning resistance. Whereas a behavioristic approach assumes the skill learner is indifferent to the
content of what is learned, interpersonal skill learners have already developed orientations and practice
theories (i.e., implicit behavioral programs driving their behavior, see DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING,
Argyris & Schon, 1978) which already dominate their interactions. These prior learnings can strongly
interfere with attempts to develop new behaviors. Thus, the learning of interpersonal skills must include
the surfacing, examination, and reassessment of what the individual has already learned.
In sum, our picture of the interpersonally skilled practitioner is becoming much richer than that implied
by behaviorism. Interpersonally skilled people are able to orient themselves to situations. They take into
account not only the situation, but their prospective broader impact beyond the encounter itself. They
have developed a repertoire of interaction tactics and are able to draw on them as needed, or may
develop new tactics as the situation warrants. During interaction, they monitor their progress, and may
change tactics or goals if necessary. They are able to learn on their own, both from their own encounters
and from the encounters of others (see LEARNING ORGANIZATION).
Skill Learning
An increased reliance on interpersonal skills in organizations has led to concern as to where

organizations will obtain interpersonally skilled participants. Many candidates for organizational
positions are not very interpersonally skilled, by reason of youth and/or inexperience. This is
particularly the case in individualistic cultures such as the United States (Adler, 1991, pp. 26–28),
which do little to prepare individuals to operate effectively in group or organizational settings.
In response, many organizations have developed skill TRAINING programs for employees, and have
attempted to enhance on-the-job learning. Moreover, some have suggested that colleges of business,
which have traditionally emphasized cognitive skills, should also address interpersonal skills in their
curriculum.
Currently a number of approaches to classroom learning are in use. These include:
(1) a social learning approach, based on Bandura's (1977) model, involving the steps of self-
assessment, conceptual learning, skill modeling, application to cases and practice situations, and
application to life situations;
(2) a self-managed learning approach, which empowers individuals to take responsibility for their own
learning (see SELF-REGULATION & EMPOWERMENT); and
(3) a situational learning approach, which focuses on practice in holistic managerial situations and the
development of "skillfulness," as opposed to development of separated skills.

Document
These approaches are not entirely distinct in that each has elements which could be used in other
approaches, and each has its own pros and cons (e.g., Bigelow, 1993).
Perhaps the thorniest problem faced in skill learning is the ASSESSMENT of results. Traditional
assessment methods involving objective or essay exams are more geared toward assessing cognitive
rather than skill accomplishment. Even when unbiased self-assessment can be obtained through self-
administered instruments or portfolios, learners often do not have the insight to assess their own skills.
The most promising approach appears to be the "action" or "performance" examination, in which
learners are required to demonstrate their skill. Yet these require considerable investment in training of
examiners, and are time-consuming to administer. Moreover, they measure skill capability only, and not
disposition to actually use skills. Until viable and reasonably accurate measures of skill accomplishment
are developed it will be difficult for educators to improve their pedagogy, and for institutions to make
claims about the skillfulness of their graduates.
See also Impression management; Trust; Psychological testing; Task and maintenance behavior
Bibliography
Adler N. J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Boston: PWS–Kent.

Document
Page 260
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bigelow, J. D. (1993). Teaching managerial skills: A critique and future directions. Paper presented at
the Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference, Bucknell University (June).
Boyatzis, R. R. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: Wiley.
Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager's job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53, 49–71.
Porter, L. W. & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into
the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bradford, D. L. (Issue Editor) (1983). Special issue on "Teaching managerial competencies." The
organizational behavior teaching Journal (vol. 2). [A seminal issue, much of which continues to be
relevant.]
Bigelow, J. D. (1991). Managerial skills. Explorations in practical knowledge. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage. [Provides a variety of viewpoints on skills.]
JOHN D. BIGELOW
Intervention Studies
see ACTION RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
Interviewing
see RESEARCH METHODS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SELECTION INTERVIEWING
In-Tray/In-Basket Test
see ASSESSMENT; SELECTION METHODS
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation

Document
Intrinsic REWARDS are found in work which allows employees to use valued SKILLS and feel
competent (see JOB ENRICHMENT; CAREER DEVELOPMENT), and which allows them to
determine to some degree how the work should be performed (see AUTONOMY;
DECENTRALIZATION; PARTICIPATION; QUALITY CIRCLES). The most salient extrinsic reward
is money, which is instrumental in obtaining other desired objects. Other extrinsic rewards include,
employee benefits, physical work environment, and special privileges.
The economist, Adam Smith argued in 1750 that the highest profits could be achieved by simplifying
work into elemental subtasks – Charlie Chaplin's 1929 film, Modern Times illustrates the dysfunctional
effects of repetitive work when carried to extremes. Subsequently, writers such as Argyris (1964);
Maslow, McClelland, and McGregor stressed the importance of an internal desire to succeed at
challenging tasks and to seek responsibility (see THEORY X & Y). Herzberg argued that jobs should
be redesigned so that the problems employees are expected to solve are sufficiently difficult, and so that
they may develop their abilities (see MOTIVATOR/HYGIENE THEORY). Recent trends in
organizational DOWNSIZING has required doing more with less and employees are being empowered
to assume more responsibility at all levels (see EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT; EMPOWERMENT).
Intrinsically motivated behavior occurs in three ways (Bandura, 1986). Behavior may produce sensory
effects which are a natural consequence of the behavior. These are either:
(1) external to the body such as in the musical and visual arts; or
(2) internal physiological effects such as athletic feats requiring high levels of physical coordination.
Few jobs, however, provide such opportunities. Behavior may also produce a level of accomplishment
in an activity which;
(3) satisfies internal standards, whereby self-reactions to the accomplishment (e.g., feelings of pride) are
the reward.
These rewards are internally generated, but because any activity may be the source of such rewards the
contingency between behavior and effect is arbitrary, not natural (see SELF EFFICACY; SELF
ACTUALIZATION).
Extrinsic (e.g., financial) rewards may be received contingent upon how well a job is performed (see
PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY; BONUS PAYMENTS), on a noncontingent basis such as in wages
and salary and in across-the-board-pay-raises, or upon a combination of the two. In 1911, Taylor
advocated setting goals, providing performance FEEDBACK, and paying for performance (see
SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT). Modern compensation policies must consider internal equity, in
which jobs within a company are compensated based on value to the company; external equity, in
which a company compensates according to the market value of a

Document
Page 261
job; and individual equity, in which personal merit increases are perceived as fairly distributed among
employees (see EQUITY THEORY; PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL).
Because people live within social systems, perceptions of how intrinsically motivating a job can be (e.
g., amount of challenge, autonomy, and responsibility), and therefore internal standards, can be
influenced by colleagues. Similarly, inspirational leaders infuse an organization with their values and
affect internal standards of employees by providing a mission. This may explain why industrial
psychologists have been unable to classify a number of job outcomes as intrinsic or extrinsic, and why
the theoretical boundary between the two categories has not been clear (Dyer & Parker, 1975).
Some theorists argue that the combined effects of intrinsic, and contingently applied extrinsic, rewards
on MOTIVATION are additive: interesting work and pay-for-performance together increase
motivation. Others (Deci & Ryan, 1985) stress that contingently applied extrinsic rewards may, when
perceived as outside pressure to achieve particular outcomes, decrease intrinsic motivation; therefore
organizations should provide equitable salaries, unrelated to performance, and should rely on JOB
DESIGN, PARTICIPATION, and TRAINING to improve performance. A review of the research
findings (Wiersma, 1992) suggests that the additive model is more viable.
See also Quality of working life; Gainsharing; Instrumentality; Payment systems; Motivation and
performance; VIE theory
Bibliography
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the organization and the individual. London: Wiley.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New
York: Plenum.
Dyer, L. & Parker, D. (1975). Classifying outcomes in work motivation research: An examination of
the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 455–458.
Wiersma, U. J. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 101–114.
UCO J. WIERSMA
Intrinsic Satisfaction
see INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION; JOB SATISFACTION

Document
Introversion
see EXTRAVERSION/INTROVERSION; PERSONALITY TESTING
Isomorphism
A key principle in human ecology, developed by Hawley (1986), which holds that when the units of a
social system are subjected to common environmental conditions, they acquire a similar form of
organization. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) applied the idea in organizational studies, identifying three
processes that encourage the members of an organizational field to become more alike. Coercive
isomorphism results from pressures exerted on organizations by others upon whom they are dependent.
Mimetic isomorphism, or imitative modeling, is a common response to uncertainty. Normative
isomorphism reflects both the legitimacy and status associated with the modern professions and the
growth and elaboration of professional networks that span organizations and encourage the diffusion of
common organizational practices (see NETWORK ANALYSIS).
See also Population ecology; Organizational change; Interorganizational relations
Bibliography
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–60.
Hawley, A. (1986). Human ecology: A theoretical essay. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
WALTER W. POWELL

Document
Page 262
Japanese Management
see INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Job Analysis
Job analysis is the process through which one derives a description of what an employee (usually
referred to as the "job incumbent") does on his or her job. The outcome of the process usually (but not
always) includes a JOB DESCRIPTION, as well as estimates of job requirements. Job analysis is often
viewed as the building block for much of HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT since it provides the
basis for identifying the knowledge, SKILLS, and ABILITIES required to carry out the job; the areas of
responsibility for performance measurement; the identification of TRAINING needs; and the basis for
identifying factors that should be compensated. In addition, jobs are sometimes described for very
specific reasons, using instruments designed for those purposes. Probably most common among these
are analyses performed to determine the extent to which the job can be redesigned to make it more
"enriched" (see JOB DESIGN; JOB CHARACTERISTICS; JOB ENRICHMENT).
Job analysis was long regarded as a "given," in that job descriptions were generally assumed to reflect
job requirements. Thus, the major research issues (Harvey, 1991) were concerned with the
identification of the proper job analysis technique to be used, as well as the proper agent to conduct the
job analysis. In relation to techniques, the major distinction has been between qualitative and
quantitative job analysis. Qualitative approaches often have involved little more than the writing of a
job description with few guidelines or rules to be followed. These techniques, although less costly and
less time-consuming, provide little basis for making comparisons across jobs (which is critical for
making compensation decisions), and little basis for establishing job requirements. For these reasons
quantitative methods are generally preferred. An important exception to this, however, is the Critical
Incidents Approach which focuses on the particular behaviors or incidents on the job which separate
effective from ineffective performers. The technique has been used primarily for the development of
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL systems, rather than for other functions.

Document
Quantitative methods allow jobs to be rated on scales, providing scores on various factors which allow
comparisons across jobs, as well as a formal method for establishing job requirements. Although
numerous techniques have been proposed, a few have emerged as the most popular and useful. The
Task Inventory Approach has been used most widely in the United States military, and involves
developing a checklist of tasks that an incumbent on a given job might perform. Subject Matter Experts
(SMEs) develop the tasks, which can be a time-consuming process, and incumbents are then asked to
indicate which tasks they actually perform and/or the relative time spent or relative importance of each.
The information provided is generally seen as most useful for establishing TRAINING requirements for
jobs, which makes it especially suitable for military applications. Functional Job Analysis allows all
jobs to be described and rated relative to their involvement with People, Data, and Things. Scales have
been developed for each of these areas, allowing jobs to be scored and directly compared. Functional
Job Analysis is used as the partial basis for the classification of jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles, and also provides guidelines for writing job descriptions

Document
Page 263
and for establishing ability and trait requirements for jobs. The Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ)
(McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham, 1972) is concerned with what workers do on jobs, rather than what
gets done on jobs. Thus, the PAQ is considered a "worker oriented" technique, and was designed
specifically to allow direct comparisons across jobs. The PAQ consists of 194 elements, or items,
divided into six sections. Data can be used either at the level of the job elements, or at the level of "job
dimensions" derived from factor analysis of individual items, which have been found empirically
related to ABILITY requirements as well as to compensation levels.
Studies by Levine and his associates (e.g., Levine, Ash, Hall, & Sistrunk, 1983) have attempted to
compare these quantitative methods to determine if there is one best technique. Their results have
indicated that different methods can provide data leading to the identification of quite similar selection
requirements, and therefore the choice of technique should be dependent upon the purpose of the job
analysis.
Several studies have also examined the role of the job analyst, or Subject Matter Expect (SME) in the
job analysis process. These studies have generally concluded that the RACE of the SME is not a critical
factor, nor is education level, but the analyst must be experienced, to provide accurate job analysis
information. The effects of GENDER, on the other hand, are somewhat inconsistent, and seem to
depend on a number of other contextual factors (see review concerning SMEs by Landy (1993)).
More recently, questions have been raised about the extent to which job analysis information accurately
reflects the content of the job. A study by Smith and Hakel (1979) raised the possibility that job analysts
simply described commonly held stereotypes about jobs and what those jobs involved. Although
subsequent studies suggested that this problem was not as serious as had been suggested, the authors of
one of these studies (DeNisi, Cornelius, & Blencoe, 1987) proposed that, for more complex jobs, job
analysis techniques may be limited in their utility. They point out that most job analysis techniques are
not designed to describe adequately upper level managerial jobs (and few techniques to accomplish this
have been proposed and tested) and so, in these cases, job descriptions may well be influenced by
STEREOTYPING. Little is known about such stereotypes, their nature, or their prevalence, but it would
seem that this provides a real challenge to job analysis in the future, and represents an area where
research is needed.
See also Payment systems; Person-job fit; Selection methods
Bibliography
DeNisi, A. S., Cornelius, E. T. & Blencoe, A. G. (1987). A further investigation of common knowledge
effects on job analysis ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 262–268.
Harvey, R. J. (1991). Job analysis. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), The handbook of industrial/
organizational psychology (2nd edn). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Document
Landy, F. (1993). Job analysis and job evaluation: The respondent's perspective. In H. Schuler, J. L.
Farr & M. Smith (Eds), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspective.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Levine, E. L., Ash, R. A., Hall, H. & Sistrunk, F. (1983). Evaluation of job analysis methods by
experienced job analysts. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 339–347.
McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R. & Mecham, R. C. (1972). A study of the job dimensions as based on
the Position Analysis Questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 347–368.
Smith, J. E. & Hakel, M. D. (1979). Convergence among data sources, response bias, and reliability and
validity of a structured job analysis questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 32, 677–692.
ANGELO DE NISI
Job Characteristics
These refer to objective properties of the work itself that are likely to contribute to the work
effectiveness and satisfaction of employees. The characteristics that have received the most research
attention have been suggested by Job Characteristics Theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). At its most
basic level, the theory argues that the presence of five core job characteristics prompt a number of
beneficial personal and work outcomes (e.g., high satisfaction, attendance and performance, and low
turnover). The five characteristics are defined as follows:

Document
Page 264
SKILL variety. The degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the
work, involving the use of a number of different skills and talents of the person.
Task identity. The degree to which the job requires completion of a whole, identifiable piece of work –
that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome.
Task significance. The degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives of other people,
whether those people are in the immediate organization or the world at large.
AUTONOMY. The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence and discretion
to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out.
Task FEEDBACK. The degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job provides
the individual with direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance.
The most frequently used measures of these characteristics are included in the Job Diagnostic Survey
(JDS; Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1980). The JDS asks individual jobholders to indicate the extent to
which each of the five core characteristics is present in his or her job. In addition to the JDS, a
companion instrument, the Job Rating Form (JRF; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) has been used to obtain
measures of the job characteristics from individuals who do not themselves work on the focal job (e.g.,
supervisors or outside observers). Research has demonstrated that there is substantial agreement
between the assessment of job characteristics made by jobholders and those made by outside observers
(Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman, 1987).
In general, research has shown that measures of the core job characteristics are associated with the
positive outcomes specified by Job Characteristics Theory (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller,
& Fitzgerald, 1985). For example, research has demonstrated that the higher the job scores on the five
characteristics, the higher the employee's performance, JOB SATISFACTION, and attendance (see
ABSENTEEISM). Moreover, employees who are strongly desirous of growth and development
opportunities at work (see GROWTH NEED STRENGTH) respond even more positively to jobs high
on the five characteristics than individuals who have little interest in growth opportunities at work.
These results have important implications for the redesign of jobs in organizations (see JOB DESIGN,
JOB ENRICHMENT). Specifically, they suggest that boosting jobs on the five characteristics can result
in substantial improvements in the effectiveness and well-being of employees. What remains unclear in
this literature are the effects of job characteristics on other work and nonwork outcomes (see
NONWORK/WORK). For example, we know little about the effects of job characteristics on
employees' CREATIVITY at work or upon their relationships with family members.
See also Job analysis; Sociotechnical theory; Motivation and performance
Bibliography

Document
Fried, Y. & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied
Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R. & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person-
environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278–296.
Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L. & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of
job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280–289.
GREG R. OLDHAM
Job Description
This is a written summary of the major tasks, duties, responsibilities, and work outcomes of a job as
derived from JOB ANALYSIS. Job descriptions typically begin with a brief overview of job purpose,
responsibilities, and outcomes, followed by a more specific listing of duties and tasks. Most
descriptions also include PERSON SPECIFICATIONS: the knowledge, SKILLS, ABILITIES, and
other characteristics (e.g., interests, PERSONALITY TRAITS) deemed necessary for satisfactory job
performance.

Document
Page 265
A number of current issues surround job descriptions. One involves the relative merits of basing job
descriptions on qualitative versus quantitative job analyses. Although quantitative analyses are
generally preferred for their greater precision and comparability across dissimilar jobs, they also
involve significant start-up and data-base management costs.
A second issue concerns the choice between descriptions based on task- versus worker-oriented job
analyses. In general, worker-oriented approaches are more flexible for making comparisons across jobs
(Harvey, 1991). However, task-oriented approaches may be more useful for assessing TRAINING
needs.
A final issue involves whether to use a single, multipurpose description, or separate descriptions for
different purposes (e.g., selection, training). Given the speed with which jobs are changing, flexible
approaches that can be easily updated seem likely to increase in attractiveness, even if they involve
higher start-up costs.
See also Job design; Recruitment; Selection methods
Bibliography
Harvey, R. J. (1991). Job analysis. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (2nd edn, vol. 2, pp. 71–163). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
SARA L. RYNES
Job Design
Organizations have particular functions to accomplish if they are to meet their objectives. Those
functions comprise a number of tasks, which are then grouped to form jobs undertaken by individuals.
Job incumbents typically are trained to carry out their prescribed tasks, and given a certain degree of
discretion over how they do so. The term "job design" refers to the outcome of this process and may be
defined as the specification of the content and methods of jobs. Other terms often used as synonyms for
job design include "work design" and "job" or "work structuring." ''Work organization" is also
frequently used to encompass job design, but usually signifies a broader perspective linking jobs more
explicitly to their organizational context.

Document
In principle, the concept of job design applies to all types of jobs and to the full range of possible job
properties. Within OB, however, a more particular emphasis has developed, which has two aspects.
First, with regard to types of work, attention has been directed mainly at lower level jobs within larger
organizations, such as those involving clerical and especially shopfloor work. Second, with respect to
job properties, the primary focus has been on generic JOB CHARACTERISTICS such as the variety of
tasks in jobs, and the amount of discretion job incumbents have in completing those tasks. Interest in
job design has centered on two main issues. One concerns the impact of job design on job attitudes and
behavior; the other concerns the technological and organizational factors which influence the design of
jobs. These emphases are best understood in the context of the historical development of shopfloor jobs
and associated research.
Historical Context
From around the turn of the twentieth century, the trend in job design in manufacturing has been one of
JOB DESKILLING or job simplification. The replacement of small craft-based enterprises with larger
factories, the emergence of MASS PRODUCTION, and the application of the principles of
SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT, are among the factors which encouraged organizations to design jobs
so that they involved a narrow set of closely prescribed tasks. The rationale for this strategy was that
simplifying jobs in this way would reduce costs, by making ERRORS less likely, enabling less skilled
labor to be recruited and by shortening TRAINING times. The archetype of this process is the assembly
line, where jobs can be so simplified that they entail the continuous repetition of a single operation with
a short cycle time, minimal discretion over how to carry out the task, and no control over the pace of
work.
The practice of job simplification gave rise to concerns about its psychological effects, and inspired
some of the earliest research in OB. In the United Kingdom this was a focus of work conducted during
the 1920s by the publicly funded Industrial Fatigue Research Board. That research, involving such jobs
as tobacco weighing, cigarette making, cartridge case assembly, and bicycle chain assembly, was
mainly for-

Document
Page 266
mulated in terms of the psychological effects of the lack of task variety, that is, of REPETITIVE
WORK. Not surprisingly, the evidence suggested that employees did indeed find repetitive jobs
monotonous and boring. As this area of inquiry developed in the United Kingdom, the United States
and elsewhere during the next few decades, evidence also began to emerge of a link between repetitive
work and employee STRESS and MENTAL HEALTH. Research during the 1950s and 1960s began
also to consider how the restriction of job discretion or AUTONOMY brought about by job
simplification affected job incumbents, and showed similar and often stronger psychological effects.
This is a key component of current approaches to job design as will be described later.
Job Redesign
Evidence of the undesirable effects of simplified job designs gave rise to various proposals for and
initiatives in job redesign. This normative term, widely used in the literature instead of the more neutral
"job design," reflects the historical background outlined above. Job simplification is cast as the
traditional approach to job design, and job redesign refers to deliberate attempts to reverse its effects by
building into jobs greater task variety, autonomy, and associated characteristics. Suggestions for job
redesign naturally reflect findings regarding simplified jobs. Thus one of the earliest proposals, focused
on the reduction of repetitiveness by increasing task variety, was for JOB ROTATION, which involves
individuals moving between different jobs at regular intervals. "Horizontal job enlargement" has the
same objective, but increases task variety by incorporating into jobs a wider range of component tasks
of a similar kind. Other proposals are more concerned with augmenting responsibility or autonomy.
This is the thrust of both "vertical job enlargement'' and JOB ENRICHMENT, which entail increasing
the degree to which individuals can control the planning and execution of their work, usually including
responsibilities and tasks which otherwise would be undertaken by specialist support or supervisory
staff. Job enrichment is a term coined by Herzberg to denote the approach to job redesign based on his
TWO-FACTOR THEORY (1966), but which is now used more generally (see MOTIVATOR-
HYGIENE THEORY). A final type of proposal directed at enhancing the discretionary content of work,
but which differs in taking the WORK GROUP rather than the job as the main unit of analysis, derives
from SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY (see also below), and is for the implementation of
AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS or SELF-MANAGED TEAMS (see SELF-MANAGEMENT).
Major Theoretical Approaches

Document
Current approaches to job design are more broadly based than the early work. Two theoretical
frameworks have been particularly influential, and have yet to be superseded. The first of these is the
JOB CHARACTERISTICS Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), which specifies five "core job
dimensions" (namely autonomy, feedback, skill variety, task identity, and task significance) as
predictors of work MOTIVATION, work performance, JOB SATISFACTION, labor TURNOVER and
absence (see ABSENTEEISM; PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). The strength of the effects of the
job characteristics on the outcomes is predicted to be affected by INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, in
particular, being stronger for employees with greater GROWTH NEED STRENGTH and (in later
formulations of the model) for those with higher contextual satisfaction and more knowledge, SKILLS,
and ABILITY.
The second main approach derives from SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY. The emphasis in this case is
on job design for groups of employees, the major proposal being for the implementation of autonomous
work groups. Theorists identify six design criteria for promoting work effectiveness, individual well-
being and the QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE more generally. These are that the work should: be
reasonably demanding and provide variety; afford the opportunity to learn and to continue learning;
include an area of decision making that employees can call their own; offer social support and
recognition; be of wider social relevance; and lead to a desirable future (Cherns, 1976). There is no
particular recognition of individual differences in this approach, but otherwise the specified variables
are very similar to those of the Job Characteristics Model.

Document
Page 267
Examples
A series of studies by Wall, Clegg and colleagues illustrates empirical work in this area (Wall & Martin,
1994). For example, the redesign of work in a department in a confectionery factory led to the
institution of two autonomous work groups, each taking responsibility for organizing their own work,
within the constraints of meeting production targets and of normal health and SAFETY requirements.
The groups set their own speed of work, allocated tasks amongst themselves, and took responsibility for
daily operational decisions. The results were impressive and significant: levels of PRODUCTIVITY
and job satisfaction increased, whilst reports of individual strain fell. A further study in a different
organization compared the use of autonomous group work in a greenfield factory designed for such
purposes, with a more traditional factory making similar products. This demonstrated that workers
much preferred autonomous working, although interestingly the managers found it very challenging.
Levels of operational efficiency were comparable across the two factories, although the indirect support
costs were considerably lower in the new factory.
A series of studies in an electronics company substantiates the claim that people much prefer more
enriched jobs. Furthermore, enriching individual's jobs led to substantial improvements in operational
performance when there was uncertainty in the work system. Part of the improvement was "logistical,"
the operators were on hand to resolve difficulties as they arose. Part was also motivational, in the sense
that the operators prefer to have and take responsibility. However, it is clear there was also a learning
explanation to these improvements in performance. For example, operators learned to anticipate
problems and acted to prevent them occurring (Wall & Jackson, 1994).
A further point should be stressed. Each of these studies revealed the importance of the surrounding
organization within which jobs are designed or redesigned. Choices about the tasks for which individual
operators or groups of operators take responsibility have a substantial impact on the work of others,
most notably their supervisors (if there are any) and managers, and other staff in indirect support roles
(e.g., in quality and engineering). The organizational context within which jobs are designed or
redesigned is probably the major issue for people attempting practical changes in this area, and the
failure to take this into account the main reason for lack of success.
Current Issues and Future Directions

Document
Interest in job design which waxed during the 1970s, making it then one of the most prominent areas of
inquiry within OB, waned during the 1980s. However, it is now resurfacing with renewed vigor, partly
in response to the new strategies, practices, and technologies emerging in manufacturing and elsewhere.
Organizations are placing increased emphasis on enhancing their COMPETITIVENESS through
improved quality, FLEXIBILITY, and responsiveness to customer (or client) demand; and supporting
this through the use of ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, JUST-IN-TIME
inventory control, TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING
and other initiatives. It is widely recognized that these developments have implications for the nature of
jobs, and that success depends on their being supported by appropriate job designs (e.g., Buchanan &
McCalman, 1989; Lawler, 1992). This renewed emphasis on job design has highlighted the limitations
of existing knowledge and thus clarified directions for further development.
One issue on which existing evidence is relatively conclusive is that of the effect of job design on
attitudes. Evidence consistently supports the theoretically specified link between job design variables,
especially autonomy, and job satisfaction. With regard to performance, in contrast, findings have been
more variable. It is likely that this relationship varies according to unspecified contingencies, and those
need to be determined. As in the examples described earlier, one such contingency, suggested by
ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY, is UNCERTAINTY. It is possible that designing more autonomous
jobs benefits performance under conditions of greater uncertainty, but that the effect declines as job
requirements become more predictable. That is a particular issue that deserves serious attention. More
importantly, however, it exemplifies the now apparent more general need in job design research for the
development of a

Document
Page 268
wider perspective and greater integration with cognate areas of inquiry (Wall & Jackson, 1994).
Four other areas of job design requiring such development are high on the agenda. The first concerns
mental health. It is interesting that although this featured as a dependent variable in early studies it has
subsequently been neglected by mainstream approaches. As if to rectify this neglect, there has emerged
a separate area of inquiry on job stress, in which mental health is the focus and autonomy a key
predictor variable (e.g., the Demands–Control Model, Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Those areas are ripe
for integration. A second need is to broaden the range of job content variables taken into account within
job design. Research on new technologies and work practices in particular has pointed to the potential
relevance of such factors as cognitive demand and cost responsibility. This relates to a third need which
is for the development of a stronger cognitive emphasis. At present job design is founded on
motivational assumptions. Recent evidence suggests that at least some of the effects of job design
operate through enhancing job incumbents' understanding of their tasks. The role of underlying
cognitive mechanisms is worthy of investigation in its own right, and would benefit through being
linked to developments in cognitive psychology. Finally, it is apparent the effect of TECHNOLOGY on
job design has been neglected. Especially important in the context of new technology is the issue of
prospective design, where social scientists and users work alongside development engineers in the
design and implementation of systems to ensure that they are not specified in such a way as to preclude
job design alternatives that would be of benefit (Clegg, Cooch, Hornby, Maclaren, Robson, Carey, &
Symon, 1994). These and other developments are now underway.
See also Information technology; Operations management; Human-computer interaction;

Organizational design
Bibliography
Buchanan, D. A. & McCalman, J. (1989). High performance work systems: The Digital experience.
London: Routledge.
Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29, 783–792.
Clegg, C. W. Cooch, P. Hornby, P. Maclaren, R. Robson, J. Carey, N. & Symon, G. (1995). Methods
and tools to incorporate some psychological and organisational issues during the development of
computer-based systems. SAPU memo 1435.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.
Karasek, R. & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working
life. New York: Basic Books.

Document
Lawler, E. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement organization. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wall, T. D. & Jackson, P. R. (1994). Changes in manufacturing and shopfloor job design. In A. Howard
(Ed.), The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wall, T. D. & Martin, R. (1994). Job and work design. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.) Key
reviews in organizational behavior: Concepts, theory and practice. Chichester: Wiley.
TOBY D. WALL and CHRIS W. CLEGG
Job Deskilling
Deskilling is the process by which SKILL levels of either jobs or individuals are reduced. Particular
attention in the social sciences has focused on the way in which, with the rise of modern industry, jobs
were increasingly routinized, and devoid of any real skill content, i.e., they had become deskilled. The
paradigm case of deskilled jobs are assembly line jobs which have very short (often well under a
minute) job cycles and training times. Whilst technological developments such as Ford's moving
assembly line and increased levels of automation are considered important causes of these, so also are
methods of management and, in particular, Taylor's SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT.
Taylor's stricture that the conception of tasks should be divorced from their execution and, moreover,
that management should have sole responsibility for conception implied that jobs would be deskilled
and workers would have no autonomy or control over their work. In so far as Taylor's methods were
being applied we would expect the number of deskilled jobs would increase. With the growth of MASS
PRODUCTION

Document
Page 269
methods, first in the United States in the 1920s and subsequently throughout the world, there has been,
accordingly, a great concern about the deskilled nature of work. Certainly, the antagonistic
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS in industries such as automobile manufacture has part of its roots in such
conditions; but low-skilled work should not automatically be associated with industrial CONFLICT, as
many textile industries throughout the world, for example, despite being characterized by highly
routinized work, are characterized by low levels of overt conflict.
As the levels of AUTOMATION and use of computers increased, largely from the Second World War
onwards, a belief began to emerge that the number of deskilled jobs would reduce. Research by Blauner
in the United States, for example, suggested that at higher levels of automation higher levels of skills
would be demanded. Also jobs in the expanding service sector were widely thought to require higher
levels of skills than the average factory job. These ideas prompted criticism – most notably from
Braverman, also in the United States – who argued that deskilling was the dominant tendency in
modern capitalism and that Taylorist principles would still apply at high levels of automation and would
be increasingly applied in the growing service sector, as well as to conventional clerical work.
Widespread deskilling arises because the DIVISION OF LABOR into narrow routinized tasks is
cheaper and the control of workers – a major objective of management within capitalism – is made
easier. Accordingly, the initial pursuit of scientific management in the twentieth century was, for
Braverman, very much about taking control from craft workers who previously were responsible for
both conceiving and executing their tasks.
The deskilling thesis has been questioned most fundamentally on the grounds that control of labor need
not become an end in itself for management and the achievement of their prime objective, profitability,
may not always be furthered by deskilling work. The more fragmented the structure of tasks and the
more limited the range of aptitudes possessed by individual workers, the greater the requirement for
expensive managerial skills to co-ordinate the overall production system. More difficult also may be the
problems of the organization in adjusting to fluctuating product market conditions. In the twentieth
century the numbers of skilled workers has not, in fact, declined to the extent implied by the deskilling
thesis, and the main consequence of mass production was a whole new set of semi-skilled
OCCUPATIONS and not the substitution of craftwork by routinized labor. Such jobs are not devoid of
skills, many of which may be tacit; and the degree of DISCRETION given to people may vary and not
correlate perfectly with their skill level. Nor should the extent of the skills of the artisan be exaggerated.
Relative to the nineteenth century, overall skill levels of individuals have increased, as the majority of
workers then lacked basic skills such as literacy which are now, mistakenly perhaps, taken for granted.

Document
Certainly taken over a long historical period, net changes in the skill levels will reflect the changing
occupational and industrial composition in the economy more than changes within particular jobs.
Analysis of industrial and occupational shifts in the twentieth century suggests that overall the direction
of change has been toward higher-skilled industries and occupations, the opposite of deskilling. If we
take the insurance industry as an example though technical change did take away certain skills, there
was a net increase in skill levels, as these changes largely absorbed the skills of certain low level jobs,
and as the industry itself expanded rapidly following the Second World War the numbers of higher-
level jobs expanded disproportionately.
Nevertheless, much work in the twentieth century, as in the nineteenth, remains low skilled; there have
been clear cases where TECHNOLOGY has reduced the skill level of particular jobs and discretion
required in them (e.g., in engineering); and many of the jobs created in the past 20 years with the great
growth in the service sector are low skilled (e.g., work in fast-food chains). Though deskilled work may
not be the current or emerging norm, there are sufficient numbers of jobs with low skill and/or low
discretion, to make for relatively low levels of MOTIVATION and COMMITMENT amongst a
significant number of the working population. Several theories of motivation accord skill and autonomy
a prime role (JOB CHARACTERISTICS, Herzberg's MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY), and Fox
(1974) in particular

Document
Page 270
has placed the low-skill content of jobs at the center of his explanation of the problems of industrial
relations in post-war Western economies. There is little evidence of any widespread commitment of
managements to genuinely enlarge the skills of jobs through conscious job redesign (see JOB
ENRICHMENT) Nor is it clear that some of the latest developments in management such as TOTAL
QUALITY MANAGEMENT or Japanese-style lean production significantly alter the skill or
AUTONOMY attached to low-level jobs in organizations.
See also Job design; Collective action; Repetitive work; Routinization; Motivation & Performance
Bibliography
Attewell, P. (1987). The deskilling controversy. Work and occupations, 14, 323–46.
Braverman, H. (1984). Labor and monopoly capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Fox, A. (1974). Begond contract. London: Faber & Faber.
Wood, S. (1982). The degradation of work? London: Hutchinson.
STEPHEN WOOD
Job Enrichment
In its most general form, this involves expanding a job's content to provide increased opportunities for
the individual employee to experience personal responsibility and meaning at work, and to obtain more
information about the results of his or her work efforts. In practice, job enrichment programs often
focus on improving a job's standing on JOB CHARACTERISTICS, specifically: AUTONOMY, task
FEEDBACK, task significance, SKILL variety, and task identity. Several specific "implementing
principles" have been identified (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy,
1975) which can be used to boost a job on these characteristics and, therefore, to enrich the job itself.
These are defined as follows:
Combining Tasks
This refers to putting together existing, fractionalized tasks to form new and larger modules of work.
When tasks are combined, all tasks required to complete a piece of work are performed by one person,
rather than by a series of individuals who do separate small, parts of the job.
Forming Natural Work Units
This involves giving employees continuing responsibility for work that has been arranged into logical
or inherently meaningful groups. For example, an individual employee might be given responsibility for
all work within a particular geographical area or for all work that originates in a particular department
of a larger organization.

Document
Establishing Client Relationships
This refers to putting the employee in direct contact with the "clients" of his or her work (e.g.,
customers or employees in other departments) and giving the employee personal responsibility for
managing relationships with those clients.
Vertical Loading
This involves giving the employee increased control over the work by "pushing down" responsibility
and authority that were once reserved for higher levels of management (see SPAN OF CONTROL).
Thus, vertical loading can involve giving the employee discretion in setting schedules, determining
work methods, and deciding when and how to check the quality of work produced.
Opening Feedback Channels
This involves removing blocks that isolate the employee from naturally occurring data about his or her
PERFORMANCE at work. Specifically, this may involve giving the employee the opportunity to
inspect his or her own work and providing standard summaries of performance records directly to the
employee.
The major objectives of job enrichment are to improve the JOB SATISFACTION, MOTIVATION, and
work effectiveness of employees. Numerous studies have examined the effects of job enrichment on
such outcomes, and the results have generally been positive (see Ford, 1969; Herzberg, 1976). For
example, in a review of 32 empirical studies, Kopelman (1985) concludes that job enrichment programs
typically result in a 17.2 percent increase in work quality, a 6.4 percent increase in work quantity, and a
14.5 percent decrease in ABSENTEEISM. Moreover, 80 percent of the studies that included measures
of job satisfaction showed some improvement after job enrichment.
In addition, other research suggests that the outcomes of job enrichment will be even more positive
when employees involved are strongly

Document
Page 271
desirous of opportunities for growth and self-direction at work (see GROWTH NEED STRENGTH;
SELF-REGULATION). Unfortunately, there remain a number of questions about the practice of job
enrichment. One of the most serious of these concerns the durability of the effects of job enrichment
interventions. Most empirical investigations have examined the effects of enrichment for periods of less
than 12 months. Therefore, it is not yet clear that employees will find the enriched jobs stimulating and
challenging after extended periods of time – or will find that the jobs provide insufficient opportunities
for personal responsibility and continued growth.
See also Job design; socio-technical theory; organizational design; Motivation & performance;
Motivator-hygiene theory
Bibliography
Ford, R. N. (1969). Motivation through the work itself. New York: American Management Association.
Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R., Janson, R. & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment.
California Management Review, 17, 57–71.
Herzberg, F. (1976). The managerial choice. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Kopelman, R. E. (1985). Job redesign and productivity: A review of the evidence. National Productivity
Review, 4, 237–255.
GREG R. OLDHAM
Job Evaluation
see JOB ANALYSIS; PAYMENT SYSTEMS
Job Insecurity
This is the concern an employee feels about the future of their employment. The discrepancy between
experienced and desired security applies to several categories: secondary LABOR MARKET
employees with poor terms of employment; some freelance and fixed-term contract employees; some
new employees (for whom insecurity is temporary); those experiencing a change in their security
beliefs due to perceived changes in the organizational or economic context; and those who are
"survivors" after others are made redundant. Most interest has been focused on those employees
undergoing change in their level of security, and this text relates to them. Further understanding is
needed about other groups.

Document
The population of insecure employees is larger than those who lose their jobs. Insecurity is an intrarole
transition engendered by changes in individual assumptions concerning self, the organization, and its
environment. It is not an event having a clear temporal onset and termination. There may be
considerable variation in the experience of job insecurity within a given organization, though job
insecurity is objective in that it varies between organizations.
The cognitive appraisal model of Lazarus and Folkman (1984) can be applied, including the primary
appraisal of threat (to job continuity), and secondary appraisal (about coping with threat). Greenhalgh
and Rosenblatt (1984) propose felt job insecurity consists of perceived severity of threat and perceived
powerlessness to counteract threat. Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, and van Vuuren (1991) argue that
powerlessness is more usefully conceptualized as an outcome. Some writers use a value-expectancy
approach (see VIE THEORY) with insecurity a function of the perceived probability and perceived
severity of losing one's job. Job insecurity is used to describe concern over the loss of the job
(employment insecurity) but also concern about changing job content but this latter may weaken its
conceptual value.
Antecedents include the organizational/industrial relations climate (TRUST in management; perceived

strength of employee representation). Personal characteristics (personal capabilities, output, work
experience) are believed by the insecure to be more important buffers against job loss than occupational
characteristics (seniority, department). Factors perceived to reduce the severity of potential job loss
(financial position, number of dependents, labor market opportunities) predict insecurity. Hartley et al.
(1991) summarize the main findings.
Reactions to feelings of job insecurity vary. Jacobson (1985) argues that unconflicted inertia,
unconflicted change, defensive avoidance, and vigilance are patterns of coping. Some research has
pointed to the critical role of attributions (see ATTRIBUTION) influencing individual and collective
behaviors.

Document
Page 272
Outcomes include individual effects (e.g. STRESS, psychological well-being, depression) (see
MENTAL HEALTH), individual–organizational linkages (trust, company COMMITMENT,
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT), and consequences for ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
(TURNOVER, job effort, acceptance of change). Consequences are largely negative for individuals.
Individual–organization linkages, notably commitment, are weakened. Consequences for organizational
effectiveness include: making employees less likely to quit, though they might suffer
"presenteeism" (being psychologically absent from the job) (see WITHDRAWAL,
ORGANIZATIONAL), less accepting of change; more resentful of imposed changes; and more
secretive and competitive (Greenhalgh & Sutton, 1991). Greenhalgh (1991) indicates preventative,
ameliorative, and restorative strategies for management.
See also Redundancy; Unemployment; Job satisfaction; Motivation; Job deskilling; Agency
restriction
Bibliography
Greenhalgh, L. (1991). Organizational coping strategies. In J. F. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans

& T. van Vuuren (Eds), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage.
Greenhalgh, L. & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of
Greenhalgh, L. & Sutton, R. (1991). Organizational effectiveness and job insecurity. In J. F. Hartley, D.
Jacobsen, B. Klandermans & T. van Vuuren (Eds), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London:
Sage.
Hartley, J. F., Jacobsen, D., Klandermans, B. & van Vuuren, T. (Eds) (1991). Job insecurity: Coping
with jobs at risk. London: Sage.
Jacobson, D. (1985). Determinants of job-at-risk behaviour. Paper presented to the West European
Conference on the Psychology of Work and Organization. Aachen, Germany.
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
JEAN HARTLEY
Job Redesign
see JOB DESIGN; JOB ENRICHMENT; SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY
Job Rotation

Document
This refers to systematically moving employees from one task assignment to another within a WORK
GROUP or unit. Thus, in a seven-person work unit, each employee would be assigned initially to one of
the seven identifiable tasks. In job rotation, the employee would work on that designated task for a
specified period, and then would be reassigned for a period of time to one of the remaining tasks in the
unit. This process would then be repeated until the employee rotated back to his or her original task
assignment.
The major goals of job rotation are to enhance worker FLEXIBILITY and to reduce the boredom and
dissatisfaction that often result from routinized, specialized tasks (see REPETITIVE WORK;
ROUTINIZATION; JOB SATISFACTION). Although few studies have examined the effects of
rotation programs on these outcomes, those that have been completed suggest that job rotation has few
positive consequences (Griffin, 1982; Miller, Dhaliwal, & Magas, 1973).
These results are not altogether surprising given that job rotation does not necessarily involve changing
the nature of the tasks in a work unit. That is, rotation may simply involve moving employees from one
routinized task to another without any substantial increase in AUTONOMY, responsibility, or personal
ACCOUNTABILITY for the outcomes of the work. As indicated elsewhere in this volume (see JOB
ENRICHMENT and JOB CHARACTERISTICS), it is improvements in job attributes such as these that
are likely to have beneficial effects on the well-being and effectiveness of employees (see MENTAL
HEALTH).
See also Job design; Motivation and performance
Bibliography
Griffin, R. W. (1982). Task design: An integrative approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Miller, F. G., Dhaliwal, T. S. & Magas, L. J. (1973). Job rotation raises productivity. Industrial
Engineering, 5, 24–36.
GREG R. OLDHAM
Job Satisfaction
This is probably one of the most researched constructs in ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. Literally
thousands of

Document
Page 273
articles have been written about its definition and meaning, its antecedents, and its consequences. Job
satisfaction may be defined as the emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job and as such
can be negative, positive, or neutral. A basic element in this definition is that job satisfaction has to do
with an affective state or how one "feels" about one's job in contrast to simply describing a job (see
AFFECT; EMOTION; EMOTIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS).
There are a variety of theories which help explain how job satisfaction comes about. One theoretical
structure suggests that job satisfaction is a function of what one expects from a job compared to what is
actually present in the job. Another theoretical structure suggests that job satisfaction is a function of
the degree to which individual's needs are fulfilled; still another argues that satisfaction is a function of
the degree to which a job fulfills important work values. All this connote reactions to some degree of fit
or misfit between people and jobs (see WORK ADJUSTMENT).
Job satisfaction may be thought of as an "overall appraisal" of one's job, and be broken down in several
different job facets such as achievement, working conditions, advancement opportunities, etc. Some
controversy exists regarding whether an overall measure of job satisfaction has the same meaning as
measuring satisfaction on different job facets and summing over these facets to obtain a composite
measure. In addition, some research suggests that job satisfaction may be described along two relatively
independent dimensions – intrinsic satisfaction which involves achievement, recognition, and other
features associated with the work itself, and extrinsic satisfaction which involves working conditions,
supervision, and other components of the environmental context in which the work is performed (see
EXTRINSIC/INTRINSIC MOTIVATION). An important early framework was developed by Frederick
Herzberg who argued that these two general independent types of events affected satisfaction and
dissatisfaction differently. He argued that intrinsic factors (called "Motivators") could only enhance job
satisfaction, and that extrinsic factors (called hygiene factors) would only operate to reduce or eliminate
job dissatisfaction. This theory, known as the "two-factor" MOTIVATOR–HYGIENE THEORY was
used as a starting point for JOB ENRICHMENT and enlargement efforts on the part of organizations.
Subsequent research has shown that this model was perhaps too simplistic and that both intrinsic and
extrinsic factors operate to influence both satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
There have been a variety of efforts to measure job satisfaction. Perhaps two of the best-known efforts
are:
(1) the Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) which assesses job satisfaction along 20
separate job facets where separate composites are computed for Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and General Job
Satisfaction; and
(2) the Job Description Index (JDI) where satisfaction is assessed along the following dimensions:
work, pay, promotions, coworkers, and supervision.

Document
Many factors have been hypothesized to contribute to job satisfaction. These may be broken roughly
into two major categories: Individual or person factors and environmental factors. Individual or person
factors include demographic variables such as AGE, RACE, GENDER, etc., as well as TRAIT factors
associated with individuals (e.g., IQ, self-esteem, dominance, etc.). Research evidence has established
that job satisfaction is significantly associated with general MENTAL HEALTH indices, with several
PERSONALITY variables, age, and even genetic factors. Such personal variables are sometimes
labeled dispositional factors referring to trait-like, stable, and reliable individual differences which
correlate with satisfaction (see ATTITUDES, DISPOSITIONAL APPROACHES). Environmental
variables are facets associated with the job and organization such as WORKING CONDITIONS,
variety in the work, pay, AUTONOMY, interpersonal relations among coworkers. A voluminous body
of research has established significant relationships between a variety of these environmental factors
and job satisfaction. For example, skill variety in jobs, the degree of task or work significance, and the
degree of FEEDBACK are significantly associated with job satisfaction. One of the ongoing debates
today is how much independent and joint influence do these two broad factors have in determining job
satisfaction.
There is also a sizable research base examining the consequences of job satisfaction. One of

Document
Page 274
the more closely studied relationships has been between job satisfaction and job performance (see
PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). While some have argued that high job satisfaction leads to higher
levels of job performance, others have suggested that the relationship is reversed and that high
performance leads to high satisfaction, but only if performance is rewarded. A sizeable number of
research studies have been conducted to investigate the empirical relationship, and the findings indicate
that the relationship is modest but generally significant (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1992). The
correlations generally range in the high teens to low 20's. Other research studies show a similarly
modest relationship between satisfaction and ABSENTEEISM, but a more substantial relationship
between satisfaction and TURNOVER. In addition, satisfaction has been shown to be significantly
associated with the COMMITMENT individuals have with the organization, and overall citizenship
within the organization (see ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP).
See also Job design; Motivation and performance; Attitude, theory
Bibliography
Arvey, R. D., Carter, G. W. & Buerkley, D. K. (1991). Job satisfaction: Dispositional and situational
influences. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (vol. 6, pp. 359–383).
Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C. & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and
how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington Press.
Iaffaldano, M. T. & Muchinsky, P. M. (1992). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Locke, E. A. (1985). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
RICHARD D. ARVEY
Job Simplification
see JOB DESKILLING; REPETITIVE WORK
Joining-Up Process

Document
This refers to the entry and initial adjustment of newcomers into unfamiliar organizational settings (see
WORK ADJUSTMENT). Although it is difficult to say just when it begins and ends, it is generally
viewed as encompassing the earliest stages of the job transition cycle – the preparation process of
expectation and anticipation of change, and the encounter phase of affect and sense-making during the
first days or weeks of job tenure (see CAREER TRANSITIONS). Newcomers often discover that
transitions are more disruptive and challenging than anticipated. They must cope with the STRESS of
the REALITY SHOCK that their expectations do not fit their experiences and with the marginal status
of being at once an insider and outsider (e.g., Louis (1980) has been at the forefront of research on how
newcomers make sense of their experiences). They must begin the task of mastering new
COMPETENCIES, building relationships with new coworkers, and learning the culture of their new
organization (see organizational CULTURE).
Historically, the joining up process has been studied from three perspectives: TURNOVER, job stress,
and ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION. These perspectives are founded on disparate discipline
and methodological bases: experimental and industrial psychology; PERSONALITY and social
psychology; and organizational and occupational sociology, respectively. In the last decade, academics
have attempted to link these points of view and thereby provide a richer appreciation of the entry
phenomenon in particular, and job transitions in general (e.g., Hill (1992); Louis (1980); Nicholson &
West (1988)). With the realization that work role transitions represent pivotal developmental
opportunities for individuals and organizations, interest in these areas has grown. Researchers have
studied the impact of initial employment in an organization in shaping employees' subsequent attitudes
and behaviors, integration into the organization, and role as agents of change and INNOVATION.
A promising line of inquiry has addressed what organizations can do to help individuals effectively
cope with their experiences and adapt to their new settings. Researchers have examined the relative
efficacy of different socialization practices (e.g., formal orientation programs as compared to informal
working relationships with superiors, peers, or mentors). The trend has been toward an interactionist
(see INTERACTIONISM) approach, that is, the interplay of organizational

Document
Page 275
(e.g., ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY, and entry practices) and individual (e.g.,

PERSONALITY and CAREER history) factors on newcomers' experiences and subsequent outcomes
(e.g, Wanous (1992)).
Although considerable progress has been made on the theoretical front in understanding the joining up
process, there is much to be done empirically. Job transition has usually been studied as an event, rather
than a process occurring over time. For example, most researchers have relied on retrospective and
cross-sectional designs. To validate current conceptual frameworks of the newcomer experience, more
longitudinal work is required.
See also Career stages; Age; Career development; Realistic job previews; Selection methods
Bibliography
Hill, L. A. (1992). Becoming a manager: Mastery of a new identity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
Nicholson, N. & West, M. A. (1988). Managerial job change: Men and women in transition.
Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization. Research in
Organizational Psychology, 1, 209–264.
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation, and socialization of

newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
LINDA A. HILL
Joint Ventures
A joint venture is a form of COOPERATION, or a STRATEGIC ALLIANCE, typically defined as the

pooling of separately owned resources by two or more firms to reduce competition, realize economies
of scale, pool complementary resources, ease entry into foreign markets while reducing political risk,
and leap over entry barriers to enter new markets (domestic or foreign). Researchers such as Killing
(1983) and Berg, Duncan, and Friedman (1982) tend to define relationships in joint ventures using
terms normally associated with families; e.g., parents, child, discretion, AUTONOMY. In creating a
joint venture, the parents may, or may not, take equity interests in the venture until such time as its legal
status is settled and the parents have agreed upon the name (an important consideration which can
create immediate problems for the parents).

Document
Typically, the equity position taken by parents is reflective of their respective contributions to the joint
venture, and a matter over which they have exclusive control. However, in joint ventures involving
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS and firms (or state owned enterprises) in a number of host
countries, law may limit the extent of the equity position taken by the MNC (see, e.g., Hennart (1988)).
These laws are usually designed to ensure that control over the joint venture and its activities is retained
by individuals assumed to represent the interests of the host country.
More often than not, a joint venture's legal status gives it the right to raise its own capital, to contract,
and to conduct normal business activities: buying and selling, hiring and firing. Usually joint ventures
take a corporate form, although it is legally possible to create limited partnership joint ventures. Unlike
a "normal" firm, however, the management of a joint venture enjoying the legal status of a corporation
usually does not have discretion to make unilateral decisions on important business matters. Rather,
management must seek the approval of the parents of the joint venture. The parent firms, after all,
created the joint venture a means of achieving their objectives.
Of course, this gives rise to one of the major "problems" with a joint venture as a governance structure:
CONFLICT. Although the objectives of the parents of a joint venture may be congruent at the time of
its formation, over time they are likely to diverge. These conflicts are likely to emerge over issues
related to the allocation of costs and the distribution of profits, although they may also be related to the
composition of the management team, representation on the joint venture's Board of Directors and other
issues relating to management policies or business strategies of the joint venture. Where a limited
partnership is employed as the legal basis for the joint venture, however, the silent partners usually will
not have any say on matters of policy or strategy.

Document
Page 276
Because of the absence of unity of control, and the conflict that inevitably results, researchers studying
joint ventures have concluded that managers will use them only as a matter of last resort. Where the
assets that form the basis for a joint venture are tangible, other alternatives are available to the parties:
MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS, licensing or other forms of technology transfer, and CONTRACT.
In service settings, franchising can be employed as an alternative to a joint venture. Research conducted
by transaction cost economists (see TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS) suggests that joint
ventures are employed more effectively in cases involving tacit know-how, or so-called ''invisible"
assets, where protection against opportunistic behavior by one of the parties is more difficult to guard
against outside a hierarchy (see, e.g., Kogut (1988)).
See also Governance and ownership; Technology transfer; Collateral organization
Bibliography
Berg, S. V., Duncan, J. & Friedman, P. (1982). Joint venture strategies and corporate innovation.
Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.
Gomes-Casseres, B. (1989). Joint ventures in the face of global competition. Sloan Management
Review, 30, (3), 17–26.
Harrigan, K. (1986). Strategies for joint ventures. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hennart, J. F. (1988). A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management
Journal, 9, 361–374.
Killing, J. P. (1983). Strategies for joint venture success. New York: Praeger.
Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management
Journal, 9, 319–332.
PETER SMITH RING
Just-In-Time
Just-in-time ("JIT") is a manufacturing strategy that minimizes finished goods inventory, work-in-
process inventory, and inventory from suppliers (see OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT). Output is
synchronized to customer orders, and orders "pull" material through the system from parts to finished
goods. This contrasts with the Western "push" approach builds batches according to a production
schedule, while maintaining inventory "just-in-case." Inventory is used to meet unexpected demand for
finished goods, to decouple parts of the production process, and to protect against the disruption of
vendors' deliveries.

Document
In JIT, inventory is waste that permits quality problems to lurk unnoticed and uncorrected. Eliminating
inventory quickly exposes production and quality problems, unbalanced operations, vendor quality
problems, and so on.
JIT has gained prominence in recent years as a key to Japanese manufacturing strategy (see
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT). It is part of a TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT approach.
JIT represents a major Japanese contribution to management theory and practice. Some authors
speculate that JIT arose first in Japan for cultural, economic, and social reasons (Eisenhardt & Westcott,
1988; Young, 1992).
JIT has profound organizational impacts because the entire system must change in order for JIT to work
(Schonberger, 1982; Eisenhardt & Westcott, 1988; Young, 1992). The organization must fundamentally
change quality control, purchasing, production control, accounting, capital equipment, and plant
layouts. For example, inspection of incoming material is eliminated because the system cannot work
without vendors who display near-perfect quality and dependably make frequent (perhaps daily or
hourly) deliveries. JIT also transforms the production TECHNOLOGY, because eliminating inventory
requires removing technical UNCERTAINTY and variability. MASS PRODUCTION comes to
resemble PROCESS PRODUCTION, with material flowing steadily through a transformation process.
However, mass production also comes to resemble BATCH PRODUCTION, with flexible production
systems generating "mass customization" (see FLEXIBILITY).
In JIT systems, operators usually do their own inspection, maintenance, and setup, and may rotate
among a number of work stations (see JOB ROTATION). Horizontal and vertical specialization are
reduced. This greatly increases TRAINING needs. Compensation systems that reward employees for
their flexibility, new responsibilities, and ideas for system improvement may be desirable. Employment
stability may be needed to induce employees to

Document
Page 277
cooperate with a system oriented toward the notion of CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT.
JIT has been adopted aggressively in the United States since its first implementation in the early 1980s
(Schonberger, 1982). By 1990, 76 percent of Fortune 1000 firms used JIT (Lawler, Mohrman, &
Ledford, 1992), although the depth of use still lags the Japanese considerably (Womack, Jones, & Roos,
1990). Most users are manufacturers, although some are in the service sector. For example, Seven-
Eleven Japan restocks shelves in its small stores several times a day, emphasizing items appropriate to
the time of day.
JIT is severely underresearched. The available evidence, although mostly anecdotal, suggests that JIT
usually has very positive effects on organization performance (see ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS). The cost savings from inventory reduction can range into the billions of dollars for
very large firms. Typically, organizations adopting JIT report reductions in quality defects of 30 to 60
percent, reduced production times of 50 to 90 percent, and reduced capital expenditures of 25 to 30
percent (Hall, 1989). Failures also have been reported, but factors that account for success and failure
are not well researched.
Not all effects of JIT are positive. Employees may react negatively to the increased work pace that often
accompanies JIT, as well as demands for flexibility, concentration, discipline, and constant suggestions
for improvement (Young, 1992). Thus, some union leaders characterize JIT as "management by
STRESS."
Some forms of EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, particularly SELF-MANAGED TEAMS or

AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS, may be difficult or impossible under JIT (Klein, 1991). Workers
cannot choose which tasks to perform and which methods to use. The uninterrupted flow of material
makes it imperative that standardized processes be followed. Through QUALITY CIRCLES or other
PARTICIPATION groups, employees may exercise some control over task design (see JOB DESIGN).
However, members of existing self-managed teams may resent their loss of autonomy under JIT.
JIT also increases the risk that natural disasters, union strife, or problems in one supplier or plant can
disrupt an entire production system. For example, the United Auto Workers have discovered that they
can strangle production throughout much of General Motors by staging strikes or slowdowns at a few
key plants, increasing union POWER (see TRADE UNIONS).
A final question concerns how widely JIT can be applied. One barrier is geographic. Japan's small size
and concentrated industrial areas make JIT practical. For example, Toyota locates most of its suppliers
within a two-hour radius of Toyota City (Young, 1992). This makes hourly deliveries of parts and
subassemblies practical. Whether anywhere near the same level of integration is possible or desirable in
the West and elsewhere is unclear. Technology may represent a second barrier. The Japanese pioneered
JIT in mass production industries such as autos, electronics, and cameras, where they set the world
standard. It is uncertain that JIT is as meaningful in process technologies, such as chemicals, petroleum
refining, and paper, where Western and especially American producers tend to set the world standard.

Document
See also Advanced manufacturing technology; Business process re-engineering
Bibliography
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Westcott, B. J. (1988). Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence: The
case of just-in-time manufacturing. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds), Pardox and transformation:
Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 169–174). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Hall, E. H. Jr. (1989). Just-in-time: A critical assessment. Academy of Management Executive, 3, (4),
315–317.
Klein, J. A. (1991). A reexamination of autonomy in light of new manufacturing practices. Human

Relations, 44, (1), 21–38.
Lawler, E. E. III, Mohrman, S. A. & Ledford, G. E. Jr. (1992). Employee involvement and total quality
management: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York:
Rawson.
Schonberger, R. J. (1982). Japanese manufacturing techniques: Nine hidden lessons in simplicity. New
York: Free Press.
Young, S. M. (1992). A framework for successful adoption and performance of Japanese manufactur-

Document
Page 278
ing practices in the United States. Academy of Management Review, 17, (4), 677–700.
Justice, Distributive
Based on Homans' (1961) seminal theory of social exchange, the concept of distributive justice refers to
the perceived fairness of a distribution of REWARDS. Traditionally, a reward distribution is said to be
distributively just to the extent that it reflects the proportional differences in STATUS or work
contributions between the parties involved (see EQUITY THEORY). The study of distributive justice
focuses on the decisions allocators make when distributing reward as well as the reactions of the
recipients to the rewards received.
Allocators of organizational resources frequently distribute rewards in proportion to the parties' relative
contributions (i.e., they follow an equity rule) - in large part because doing so is consistent with the
prevailing norms of fair behavior that operate in most for-profit organizations (e.g., Leventhal, 1976)
(see PAYMENT SYSTEMS). In work settings people usually expect to be rewarded differentially –
that is, in proportion to their relative contributions – resulting in reward distributions recognized as
distributively just. Theorists explain that equitable distributions of reward are not only followed because
they are regarded as morally appropriate, but also because they are believed to be effective in attaining
desired goals. As such, the decision to distribute rewards equitably may be instrumentally motivated.
Insofar as equitable distributions reinforce the high contributions of more productive recipients, they
are, in fact, generally effective in fostering PRODUCTIVITY (see PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY).
This is not to say that following the equity rule is the only practice considered distributively just. In
some settings people also consider equal distributions of reward to be fair (i.e., they follow an equality
rule). This is especially true in contexts in which promoting social harmony is the major concern of the
reward allocator (see Deutsch, 1985). For example, when married couples or close friends divide
resources between themselves, they tend to follow the equality rule, thereby precluding the need to
distinguish between relative contributions. In such a context, equitable distributions would be
potentially CONFLICT-arousing and inconsistent with the more harmonious, egalitarian expectations of
the parties. Likewise, on the job, managers have been found to attempt to reduce conflict between
subordinates by rewarding them equally rather than proportionally.
A third rule of distributive justice – the needs rule – dictates that fairness demands distributing rewards
to parties based on their individual level of need (a Marxian notion of justice). Although needs-based
distributive practices are often followed in some organizational contexts (e.g., making "triage" decisions
in hospital emergency rooms), it is often considered inappropriate (at least in many Western cultures) to
distribute rewards to employees based on their needs (i.e., to give more pay to employees with larger
families than to those with smaller families regardless of any differences in their work performance (see
CULTURE, NATIONAL).

Document
In attempting to determine which norm of distributive justice is considered fairest, researchers have
focused on such key variables as: the nature of the relationship between the parties (e.g., their level of
intimacy and interdependence), INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES (e.g., GENDER and PERSONALITY
differences), and their past history (e.g., the pattern of RECIPROCITY established in the relationship)
(Greenberg, & Cohen, 1982).
See also Business ethics; Justice, procedural; Legitimacy
Bibliography
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Greenberg, J. & Cohen, R. L. (1982). Why justice? Normative and instrumental interpretations. In J.
Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 437–469). New York:
Academic Press.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L.
Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 9, pp. 91–131). New
York: Academic Press.
JERALD GREENBERG

Document
Page 279
Justice, Procedural
Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of policies and procedures used as the basis for
making decisions. In contrast to distributive justice (see JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE), which focuses on
the perceived fairness of outcome distributions (i.e., "ends"), procedural justice focuses on the
perceived fairness of the way those outcome distribution decisions are made (i.e., "means") (for more
on this distinction, see Greenberg, (1987) (see DECISION MAKING).
The concept was first proposed by Thibaut and Walker (1975) in their comparative studies of legal
dispute–resolution procedures. They found that the legal procedures recognized by disputants as being
the fairest were ones that gave litigants control over the way their cases were handled (i.e., process
control) although decisions regarding the outcomes, such as verdicts, were made by third parties, such
as judges (i.e., decision control). Such procedures (known as adversary procedures) characterize the
legal processes used in American and British courts, and offer litigants greater process control than the
processes used in continental Europe (known as the inquisitorial system) in which judges not only
control the legal decisions made, but also the collection and presentation of evidence.
Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry (1980) extended Thibaut and Walker's (1975) work by noting that
procedural justice is also applicable outside dispute-resolution settings (see CONFLICT
RESOLUTION). They identified six rules to identify the fairness of procedures: consistency (consistent
use of procedures across people and over time), bias suppression (elimination of self-interest), accuracy
(reliance on accurate information), correctability (opportunities to modify decisions as needed),
representativeness (decisions that reflect the concern of all parties), and ethicality (decisions based on
prevailing moral standards). Recently, theorists have added a social dimension to supplement these
structural dimensions, noting that fair procedures also require the use of adequate explanations of
procedures used as well as ostensible demonstrations of concern for parties adversely affected by the
implementation of procedures.
Following from Folger and Greenberg (1985), researchers have applied procedural justice to
organizational settings. It has been found, for example, that perceptions of fairness are enhanced by the
use of procedures that give employees a voice in making decisions, such as the presentation of
information about oneself to supervisors appraising their performance. Additionally, whereas
satisfaction with outcomes (such as pay) is related to perceptions of distributive justice, satisfaction
with the organization (such as organizational COMMITMENT) has been found to be related to
perceptions of procedural justice. The use of fair procedures has been shown to facilitate employees'
acceptance of such diverse practices as drug-testing programs, smoking bans, parental leave policies,
and mass transit plans. It also has been found that informative and sensitive explanations of procedures
tend to minimize negative reactions to adverse outcomes such as pay cuts, layoffs, and the rejection of
budgets (for a review, see Greenberg 1990). Researchers continue to pose questions about the
relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice, as well as the processes underlying the
formation of judgments about procedural justice.

Document
See also Business ethics; Payment systems; Contract; Reciprocity
Bibliography
Folger, R. & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In
K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (vol. 3, pp.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review,

12, 9–22.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management,
16, 399–432.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J. & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences.
In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
JERALD GREENBERG

Document
Page 280
Kaizen
see CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
Knowledge of Results
The positive influence of knowledge of results are well documented and fundamental to models of work
MOTIVATION and task performance (see MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES; JOB DESIGN;
REINFORCEMENT). Knowledge of results, or KOR, refers to information that a person receives
concerning his or her work performance in terms of both quantity and quality. In a typical situation, an
employee may receive FEEDBACK concerning work performance on a semi-annual basis during
scheduled appraisal periods (see PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL). The importance of KOR to an
individual's subsequent work performance is without question. People who receive timely and accurate
KOR adjust their work activities along the lines indicated by the feedback that they receive. Some of
the earliest work in management stressing the importance of KOR (feedback) is discussed by the
Reinforcement theorists who describe it in terms of its role as an environmental consequence for an
individual's actions. More recently, management researchers who stress the psychological aspects of
managing describe the importance of KOR in terms of a person's self-regulatory processes (see SELF-
REGULATION). Research has demonstrated that KOR alone is not likely to change a person's work
habits, rather, it is KOR in conjunction with an individual's objectives or goals that act in concert to
regulate activity. KOR varies along a number of key dimensions including: sign (positive versus
negative), timeframe (short versus long-term), provider (self versus other generated), accuracy, clarity,
among other dimensions.
See also Goal-setting; Motivation and performance; Job characteristics
Bibliography
Annett, J. (1969). Feedback and human behavior. Baltimore, MD. Penguin.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D. & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371.
P. CHRISTOPHER EARLEY
Knowledge Workers

Document
A characteristic feature of post-industrial society is the growing number of employees who can be
categorized as knowledge workers. Definitions of the term knowledge worker generally include:
(1) those concerned with production of intangible final outputs which embed expertise of differing
degrees of FORMALIZATION; and
(2) those who are involved in intermediate production processes which embed expertise.
A distinction can be drawn between information-workers who process information without significant
modification and knowledge workers who add value to the original information (Scott Morton, 1992).
Knowledge work is often associated with relatively complex problem-solving activities linked to the
development and application of INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY in products notably in the computer
systems and telecommunications industries. Common occupational titles in these fields include
software engineers and systems designers. Knowledge workers are also employed in sectors where the
final product is not an IT application. The result is that the occupational categories covered

Document
Page 281
by the term knowledge work are so wide, including lawyers, management consultants, and research
scientists, as to limit the utility of the term for analytical purposes and render generalizations about
work organization or employment conditions problematic. For instance, general propositions about
changing SKILL patterns, pay structures, or MOTIVATIONS are almost meaningless.
Knowledge-work may be relatively formalized and codified as in organized professions such as

accounting or less codified as in most of the areas of computer applications. This says less about
differences in the quality of the underlying knowledge base of each occupation than the relative
capacity to organize control of a jurisdiction (Abbott, 1988). Efforts to mobilize into an established
profession may be hampered by the strong organizational specificity of much knowledge work and
because applied problem solving progresses faster than formal theorizing. The strong experiential
component of much knowledge work is often referred to as knowhow (Sveiby & Lloyd, 1986).
The growth in the value to employers of knowledge which is held by individuals or teams, that is, the
increasing importance of human capital relative to fixed capital as a source of comparative advantage,
raises interesting management issues. First, definitions of the value of a firm are made more difficult
and conventional accounting metrics do not do full justice to human capital valuation. Second, the
development and appropriation of knowledge from individuals or teams becomes more critical. This has
implications for the nature of employment CONTRACTS and styles of management. Third, knowledge
work frequently appears to require fluid organizational structures such as the use of temporary project
teams, in order to create close linkages with internal and external clients (see PROJECT
MANAGEMENT). Each of these issues places strains on bureaucratic systems of control and orthodox
methods of evaluation and ACCOUNTABILITY (see BUREAUCRACY).
See also Professionals in organizations; Technology transfer; Labor markets; Occupations
Bibliography
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sveiby, H. & Lloyd, T. (1986). Managing knowhow. London: Bloomsbury Press.
Scott, M. M. (1992). The effect of information technology on management and organization. In T.

Kochen & M. Useem (Eds), Transforming organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
TIM MORRIS

Document
Page 282
Labor Markets
From an organization's perspective, the labor market is that space in which it encounters economically
active individuals as a potential source of RECRUITMENT, and where it competes with other
organizations for recruits. Individuals in the labor market are in work (whether employed or
unemployed) or seeking work, and are distinguished from economically inactive individuals of working
age, who are outside the labor market (see UNEMPLOYMENT).
In practice, an organization operates not in one labor market, but many. Distinct labor markets, between
which there is little mobility, are defined both by OCCUPATIONS and location, and the two
dimensions are related. A key concept in the labor market literature is the notion of a "local labor
market", which is defined by commuting patterns. Organizations recruit to lower level occupations in a
local labor market, whilst higher level (e.g., managerial and professional) occupations may be recruited
in regional, national, or international labor markets; in these latter occupations it is common for new
recruits to relocate to take up a new post (see CAREER TRANSITIONS). In practice, diverse
commuting patterns usually make it impossible to define wholly self-contained local labor markets or
"travel to work areas" (TTWAs), and some arbitrary cut-off is typically used. In the United Kingdom,
for example, the country is divided into over 300 TTWAs, officially defined on the basis of 75 percent
self-containment (similar approaches are found in other countries, including the United States, where
the "Standard Metropolitan Area" is the relevant definition. The cut-off conventions vary between
countries). Empirical research confirms that these generally correspond well to employers' and workers'
notions of a local labor market, although defining workable TTWAs in large conurbations can be
particularly difficult.
Even within a single labor market, there may be further subdivisions. The labor economics and
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS literature has long recognized that labor markets exhibit segmentation
into "noncompeting groups" (Kerr 1954). These groups may be defined by GENDER, RACE, AGE, or
other factors unrelated to the PRODUCTIVITY of the labor in question, and the existence of employer
DISCRIMINATION has been a major challenge to the simple competitive labor market of neoclassical
economic theory (a recent, largely American, overview of the economics of the labor market, and
alternative theories can be found in Ashenfelter and Layard, 1986). Segmented labor market (SLM)
theorists (Cain, 1976) have posited "primary" and "secondary" segments; in the former, firms offer high
wages and stable employment to workers with certain favored characteristics; the latter are
characterized by instability, poor wages and conditions, and are occupied by workers with less favored
characteristics.

Document
The "labor market" generally refers to something outside the organization, although the more recent
literature distinguishes between external labor markets in this sense, and the labor market which is
internal to a particular organization (Doeringer & Piore, 1971). The notion of an internal labor market
(ILM), again contrary to competitive neoclassical theory, allows for the real world phenomena of ports
of entry, internal career structures, and progressive earnings growth which insulate an organization's
workforce from external competition. Firms with internal labor markets have typically been the
"primary" firms of SLM

Document
Page 283
theory. Arguably, however, following the emergence of the "flexible firm" (Atkinson & Meager 1986)
(see FLEXIBILITY) and businesses exhibiting " flatter" structures and DECENTRALIZATION, many
organizations with traditionally strong ILMs (government organizations and banks are often cited as
examples) have begun to reduce the scope of the core ILM, and to supplement it with a flexible
periphery of workers recruited from the external labor market at short notice.
See also Human resource planning; Human resources strategy; Individual differences
Bibliography
Ashenfelter, O. & Layard, R. (Eds) (1986). Handbook of labor economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Atkinson, J. & Meager, N. (1986). Changing working patterns: How companies achieve flexibility to
meet new needs. London: National Economic Development Office.
Cain, G. (1976). The challenge of segmented labor market theories to orthodox theory: A survey.
Journal of Economic Literature, 14, 1215–1257.
Doeringer, P. & Piore, M. (1971). Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. Lexington, MA:
Heath.
Kerr, C. (1954). The balkanization of labor markets. In E. Wight Bakke (Ed.), Labor mobility and
economic opportunity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
NIGEL MEAGER
Labor Process Theory
Labor process is a term Marx used in Volume 1 of Capital to refer to creative, purposive labor activity
that transforms nature into products human beings can use. All societies have labor processes. Labor
process theory (LPT) is devoted to promoting understanding of the organization and control of human
labor activity, particularly in capitalist societies, where wage laborers are persuaded to produce enough
value to maintain themselves, the owners of capital, and the enterprise in which they are employed.
According to classic Marxist theory, this extraction and appropriation of surplus value is exploitative,
but, unlike feudal labor processes, the exploitation is obscured. Thus, relations between capital and
labor tend to be antagonistic, but are not necessarily characterized by manifest CONFLICT at the point
of production or throughout the capitalist political economy.

Document
There were few Marxist studies of capitalist labor processes prior to publication of Harry Braverman's
Labor and Monopoly Capital in 1974. Using the theme of the degradation of labor in the twentieth
century, Braverman developed the idea that accumulation imperatives in monopoly capitalism led to
widespread JOB DESKILLING and Taylorization of work (see SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT).
During the past 20 years, a massive specialized literature stemming from Braverman's contribution and
focused on building a more adequate framework for the critical analysis of work organization has been
produced. Although critics have questioned the viability of LPT (Cohen, 1987), the debates concerning
central themes and nuances remain vibrant and are likely to continue.
There have been three primary developments in LPT which grew out of criticisms of Marx and
Braverman's analysis of labor process dynamics (see Knights & Willmott, 1990). First, the idea that
capital accumulation necessitates managerial appropriation and control of craftworkers' and other
laborers' production knowledge and skill (deskilling thesis) has been challenged. Researchers have
argued that requisite job knowledge and SKILL, in most cases, has increased not decreased, or that even
when management's strategy is aimed at deskilling work, a significant amount of tacit skill is retained
by workers (see PRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE). Even more challenging to the deskilling thesis is the
idea that management strategy tends not to be very coherent, but in following the paths of least
resistance, more often involves bureaucratic forms of control, human relations manipulations, and even
cultural programming and SELF-MANAGEMENT (e.g., Edwards, 1979).
Second, an ambitious critique of the objectivism in classical LPT has emerged. It focuses attention on
the subjective content of class dynamics. Concepts of social identity have been at the center of LPTs'
descriptions of the subject. For example, Burawoy (1979) focused on aspects of the development of
consent among shopfloor factory workers engaged in the "game" of "making out" (maximising bonus
pay in piece-rate work) (see BONUS PAYMENTS).

Document
Page 284
He was able to show how playing the game constituted workers in the labor process as competing
individuals, reproducing class relations while undercutting the potential for class-conscious awareness.
Contemporary LPTs have developed and are developing postmodern concepts of self-formation (see
POSTMODERNISM). These concepts take into account the ANXIETY associated with identity
formation problems in an age when traditional, collective schemas are being rejected. They present
images of compound, shifting subjectivities as people attempt to understand themselves given new
definitions of the meaning of work, leisure, class, POLITICS, GENDER, sexuality, RACE,
ETHNICITY, religion, etc.
Third, following repeated calls to redress the neglect of resistance in LPT (and closely intertwined with
concepts such as consciousness in the emerging CRITICAL THEORY of subjectivity in the labor
process), attention is finally being paid to theorizing resistance in the labor process (see Jermier,
Knights & Nord, 1994) (see RESISTANCE TO CHANGE). This work extends far beyond militant
TRADE UNION activities practiced by male factory workers in response to capitalist exploitation and
deskilling. It highlights everyday forms of resistance to local as well as macro circumstances, practiced
by all employees, but often hidden in the crawlspaces and subterranean recesses of contemporary work
organizations.
See also Alienation; Power; Democracy; Intergroup relations; Legitimacy
Bibliography
Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, S. (1987). A labour process to nowhere? New Left Review, 165, 34–50.
Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain. New York: Basic Books.
Jermier, J., Knights, D. & Nord, W. (1994). Resistance and power in organizations; Agency,
subjectivity and the labour process. London: Routledge.
Knights, D. & Willmott, H. (1990). Labour process theory. London: Macmillan.
JOHN M. JERMIER
Labor Turnover
see TURNOVER
Leadership

Document
Although systematic research into the topic of leadership is a product of the twentieth century, interest
in identifying the properties that make leaders effective is almost as old as recorded history. Bass and
Stogdill (Bass, 1990) noted that discussions relating to leadership and leadership effectiveness can be
found in the Greek and Latin classics, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the writings of the
ancient Chinese philosophers, and in the early Icelandic sagas. Bass (1990), in an exhaustive review of
the present era's leadership literature, cites over 3000 empirical studies.
Despite the attention given to the topic there appear to be almost as many definitions of leadership as
there are researchers in the field. Consider the following definitions found in the literature:
Leadership is "the initiation and maintenance of structure in expectation and interaction" (Stogdill,
1974, cited in Yukl, 1994, p. 2).
Leadership is " . . . the behavior of an individual when he is directing the activities of a group toward a
shared goal." (Hemphill & Coons, 1957, cited in Yukl, 1994, p. 2).
Leadership is " . . . interpersonal influence exercised in a situation, and directed through the
communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals." (Tannenbaum, Weschler,
& Massarik, 1964, cited in Yukl, 1994, p. 2).
Leadership is " . . . the process of instilling in others shared vision, creating valued opportunities, and
building confidence in the realization of the shared values and opportunities." (Berlew, 1974).
"Leadership is leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the
motivations – of both leaders and followers." (Burns, 1978).
"Leaders are those who consistently make effective contributions to social order, and who are expected
and perceived to do so." (Hosking, 1988, cited in Yukl, 1994, p. 3).

Document
Page 285
Leadership is " . . . a process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing
willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose." (Jacobs and Jaques, 1990, cited in Yukl, 1994, p. 3).
Leadership is "a process by which members of a group are empowered to work together synergestically
toward a common goal or vision, that will create change and transform institutions, and thus improve
the quality of life. The leader is a catalytic force or facilitator who by virtue of position or opportunity
empowers others to collective action toward accomplishing the goal or vision." (Astin, 1993).
Note that a rather significant shift occurred in the mid-1970s with the definitions offered by Berlew and
Burns. Berlew was the first to introduce the concept of shared VALUES and follower confidence
building. Berlew's discussion also emphasized the creation of organizational excitement, and emotional
appeal of the leader into the managerially oriented leadership literature. In the definitions of leadership
offered by Berlew (1974), Burns (1978), Hoskings (1988), Jacobs and Jacques (1990), and Astin
(1993), we see the definition of leadership progressively broadened to include contributing to social
order, introducing major change, giving meaning and purpose to work and to organizations,
empowering followers, and infusing organizations with values and IDEOLOGY.
For analytic and expository purposes it is useful to distinguish between leadership, management, and
SUPERVISION.
Leadership Contrasted with Management
Zaleznik (1977) has argued that there is a substantial difference between leadership and management.
Zaleznik's position reflects the differences in the definitions listed above. Zaleznick reserves the term
leadership for individuals who determine the major objectives and the strategic courses of organizations
and introduce major change rather than individuals who transmit and enforce rules and policies, or
implement goals and changes initiated by individuals at higher organizational levels.
Leadership is defined as behavior on the part of an individual which appeals to ideological values,
motives, and self-perceptions of followers and results, in turn, in:
(1) unusual levels of effort on the part of followers above and beyond their normal role or position
requirements; and
(2) follower willingness to forego self-interest, and make significant personal sacrifices in the interest of
a collective vision, willingly.
Management is defined as rational–analytic behavior of a person in a position of formal authority

directed toward the organization, coordination, and implementation of organizational strategies, tactics,
and policies. The essential distinction between leader behaviors and MANAGERIAL BEHAVIORS is
that managerial behaviors are rational–analytic and impersonal and leader behaviors appeal to follower
motives and are interpersonally oriented. Leaders set the direction for organizations or collectivities.
Managers provide the intellectual content necessary for organizations to perform effectively.

Document
Examples of leader behaviors are articulation of a collective vision; infusing organizations and work
with values by communicating and setting a personal example regarding the values inherent in the
vision; making sacrifices and taking personal risks in the interest of the vision and the collective;
motivating exceptional performance by appealing to the values, emotions, and self concepts of
followers; inspiring followers by showing confidence, determination, PERSISTENCE, and pride in the
collective; and by engaging in symbolic behavior such as serving as a spokesperson for the collective.
Examples of managerial behavior are PLANNING, organizing, and the establishment of administrative
systems. These particular managerial behaviors are included because there is empirical evidence
demonstrating that these behaviors distinguish effective managers from others, despite the fact that they
are not interpersonal in nature.
Note that according to these definitions managers are individuals in positions of formal AUTHORITY.
In contrast, leaders may or may not hold positions of formal authority. Leaders assert INFLUENCE by
virtue of unique personal attributes and behaviors. Managers obtain

Document
Page 286
COMPLIANCE from subordinates on the basis of legitimate position influence and formal authority,
and reward and coercive POWER (see LEGITIMACY). In contrast, leaders influence followers to
internalize the values of the collective vision and identify with the collective on the basis of referent
power rather than, or in addition to, positional authority (see POWER BASES). Leaders are followed
willingly, and therefore those whom they motivate to action are referred to as followers rather than
subordinates.
Subordinates of managers comply with the manager's directions only as long as the manager exercises
formal authority and applies reward or coercive power. In contrast, followers of leaders continue to
identify with the collective and internalize the values inherent in the collective vision in the absence of
the leader.
Of course, some individuals in positions of authority may function as both managers and leaders. Such
individuals will thus have some subordinates who minimally comply with normal levels of position
requirements as well as some followers who go above and beyond the call of duty in the interest of a
collective vision.
Leadership Contrasted with Supervision
Supervision is defined as behavior on the part of a person in a position of authority concerned with
monitoring, guiding, and providing corrective FEEDBACK and support for subordinates or followers in
their day-to-day activities. Examples of supervisory behaviors are showing individualized
consideration, providing equitable recognition and REWARDS, scheduling and programming, problem
solving, GOALSETTING, ROLE and goal clarification, coaching, direction, monitoring operations,
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL and feedback, providing guidance and on-the-job TRAINING, and the
effective use of incentives to motivate followers.
The formal appointment of individuals to positions of authority in formal nonvoluntary organizations

make followers dependent on leaders for their livelihood. Further, in formal organizations the leader–
follower relationship is usually characterized by frequent face to face interaction between leaders and
followers (Mintzberg, 1983).
The consequences of these two attributes of the leader–follower relationship – dependency and face-to-
face interaction – are that leaders need to engage in instrumental management behaviors to organize,
coordinate, and facilitate follower performance. These two attributes of the leader–follower relationship
also require supportive behaviors to provide for followers a psychologically satisfying work
environment. Consequently, effective leadership in formal organizations requires leaders to engage in
not only strategic initiatives and the introduction of major changes, but also in the exercise of the
management and supervisory behaviors described above.
Theories of Leadership

Document
The vast number of empirical social scientific studies concerning leadership has yielded a small number
of theories, which attempt to explain the PERSONALITY characteristics and behaviors distinguishing
effective from ineffective leaders. While none of the theories are definitive, there is rather solid
empirical evidence in support of each. Reviews of this evidence can be found in Bass (1990) and Yukl
(1994).
These theories can be classified into three categories: instrumental theories, inspirational theories, and
theories of informal leadership. Instrumental theories (House & Mitchell, 1974; Fiedler & Garcia, 1987;
Wofford, 1982) are theories of supervision as defined above. These theories stress task and person
oriented leader behaviors which facilitate, or are instrumental to, effective follower performance. They
emphasize such task oriented leader behaviors as goal setting, coaching, direction, performance
appraisal, and feedback, and the effective use of incentives to motivate followers. They also emphasize
the use of such person oriented behaviors as showing consideration, joint PARTICIPATION,
counseling, providing support, and empowering followers through delegation of authority and
encouragement (see DELEGATION; EMPOWERMENT).
There are several inspirational theories as well: charismatic theory (House, 1977; Conger & Kanungo,
1987), transformational theory (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990), and visionary theory (Bennis & Nanus, 1985)
(see LEADERSHIP, CHARISMATIC; TRANSFORMATIONAL/TRANSACTIONAL THEORY).
These are theories of leadership, as the term leadership is defined

Document
Page 287
above, emphasizing ideological and emotional appeal by the infusion of values into work and
organizations. This is accomplished by articulating an inspirational vision, values, and norms;
communicating challenging performance expectations and confidence in followers; displaying
exemplary behavior, and engaging in symbolic behaviors which encourage intrinsic motivation,
COMMITMENT, and pride in work.
Theories of informal leadership (Hollander, 1964; Bowers & Seashore, 1966) emphasize the kinds of
behavior associated with ''emergent" or informal leadership by individuals who are not formally
appointed to positions of authority. These theories stress individual contribution to group goals,
facilitation of the work of others, and providing direction, collaboration, and support for coworkers.
There is a substantial amount of support for all three classes of theories (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). This
evidence demonstrates that task and person oriented behaviors described in the instrumental theories
generally, but not always, differentiate effective supervisors and managers from others. The leader
behaviors described by the inspirational theories generally, and quite consistently, differentiate
outstanding or exceptionally effective leaders from others.
The leader behaviors described by the theories of informal leadership have also been shown to
differentiate effective informal leaders from others, however the number of supporting studies remains
small.
When tested individually, the behaviors specified in all of the above theories have been shown to have
positive effects on follower psychological states such as follower satisfaction with, and commitment to
leaders. However, the various combinations of leader behaviors remain to be tested empirically. In this
context, scholars have raised the possibility that some instrumental behaviors, especially the exercise of
contingent reward and PUNISHMENT behaviors, are incompatible with and undermine the effect of
inspirational behaviors. This issue remains to be resolved in future research.
Conclusion
The considerable amount of empirical evidence and theory relevant to the practice of leadership is
impressive. Despite this knowledge a substantial number of issues remain to be addressed. Available
knowledge has not been brought to bear on such issues as management selection, the introduction of
change, resolution of CONFLICT, the exercise of upward INFLUENCE in orgranizations. There is
little theory or empirical evidence concerning how leaders exercise political influence in organizations.
Further, a number of specific situational variables that enhance, constrain, or substitute for leadership
have not been adequately researched.

Document
The generality of prevailing theories remains to be specified and verified. Finally, it is noteworthy that
the cultural constraints on what leader behaviors can be exercised and what leader behaviors are
effective have not been explicated. Most prevailing theories of leadership have a definite North
American cultural orientation: individualistic rather than collectivistic; oriented toward self-interest
rather than duty; oriented toward rules and procedures rather than norms; emphasizing assumptions of
RATIONALITY rather than asthetics, religion, or superstition; and assuming centrality of work and
democratic value orientation' (see CULTURE, NATIONAL).
A substantial body of cross cultural social psychological, sociological, and anthropological research
informs us that there are many cultures that do not share the assumptions of North American leadership
theories. As a result there is a need for empirically grounded theory to explain differential leader
behavior and effectiveness across cultures (see CULTURE; CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH). In the
past five years there has been an increase in the volume of cross cultural leadership research. This
should, in a matter of only a few years, yield important insights concerning culture specific leadership
and the generality of US based leadership theory.
Despite the limitations stated above it is safe to conclude that a there is a substantial amount of
available knowledge concerning the exercise and effectiveness of leadership, and there are a sufficient
number of remaining issues and questions to occupy the time of social scientists for a considerable, and
indefinite duration.
Bibliography
Astin, H. & Leland, C. (1991). Women of influence, Women of vision. A cross generations study of
leaders and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Document
Page 288
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's. Handbook of leadership (3rd edn). New York: The Free Press.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
Berlew, D. E. (1974). Leadership and organizational excitement. California Management Review, 17

(2).
Bowers D. G. & S. E. Seashore (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory
of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238–263.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, J. A. & R. A. Kanungo (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in

organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647.
Fiedler, F. E. & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to leadership, cognitive resources and
organizational performance. New York: Wiley.
Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds),
Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J. & Mitchell J. R. (1974). Path goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business,
5.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wofford, J. C. (1982). An integrative theory of leadership. Journal of Management, 8, 27–47.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review May–June,
47–60.
ROBERT J. HOUSE
Leadership, Charismatic

Document
Weber (1947) was the first to apply the term charisma to LEADERSHIP. According to Weber,
charisma is a "divinely inspired gift" attributed to leaders by followers. Charismatic leaders as described
by Weber are individuals who by force of their unique and powerful personalities, and their vision and
convictions, are able to draw the attribution of charisma to command admiration, TRUST, loyalty,
devotion, and COMMITMENT on the part of followers, and induce major social change. In the mid-
1980s several psychologically oriented leadership scholars advanced theories to explain outstanding,
exceptionally effective leadership. These theories were the 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership
(House, 1977), the Attributional Theory of Charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987), and the
Transformational (Bass, 1985) and Visionary Theories of Leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Sashkin,
1988) (see TRANSFORMATIONAL/TRANSACTIONAL THEORY). I refer to this genre of theory as
the neocharismatic leadership paradigm.
The most recent definition of charismatic leadership is advanced by House and Shamir (1993) who
argue that charismatic leadership is the ABILITY of an individual to gain intensive moral commitment
of followers, and exceptionally strong IDENTIFICATION of followers with the charismatic vision and
the collective. According to these authors charismatic leaders accomplish follower commitment and
identification by appealing to follower cherished VALUES and nonconscious motives and by engaging
follower self-perceived identities, enhancing follower SELF-EFFICACY and sense of consistency, and
making follower self-worth contingent on their contribution to the charismatic mission and the
collective. Theoretically, these effects are achieved by a select set of leader behaviors such as:
– Articulation of a vision of a better future for followers to which the followers are claimed to have a
moral right (see MISSION STATEMENTS).
– Display of passion for the vision, and significant self-sacrifice in the interest of the vision and the
collective.
– Display of self-confidence, confidence in the attainment of the vision, determination, and persistence
in the interest of the vision.
– Behaviors that selectively arouse the nonconscious motives of followers that are of special relevance
to the attainment of the vision.
– Extraordinary personal and organizational RISK-TAKING in the interest of the vision and the
collective.
– Display of high performance expectations of followers and confidence in their ability to contribute to
the collective effort.
– Concerted effort to assist followers in their professional development.
– Symbolic behaviors that emphasize the values inherent in the collective vision (see SYMBOLISM).
Symbolic behavior is expressed in a number of forms: demonstration of integrity,

Document
Page 289
leader self-presentation in a positive manner, serving as a role model by setting a personal example of
the values inherent in the vision, serving as a symbolic figurehead and spokes-person for the collective,
and persuasiveness by oratorical COMMUNICATION (see IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT).
– Positive evaluation of followers and the collective by engaging in such behavior as stressing pride in
the collective, expressing positive evaluation of followers, showing confidence in followers and in the
eventual attainment of the collective vision.
It is, therefore, the central argument of the various theories of the neocharismatic leadership paradigm
that the above common set of specifiable leader behaviors are generic to the leadership of individuals,
small groups, formal or informal organizations, social or revolutionary movements, political parties,
societies, or nation states. Theories of the neocharismatic leadership PARADIGM have been the subject
of approximately 50 empirical studies. Bass and Avolio (1993) and House and Shamir (1993) present
overviews of these studies. Considerable empirical evidence demonstrates that the theory has
considerable predictive validity, with effect sizes in the range of 0.40 to 0.50, and generally above 0.50.
See also CEOs; Personality; Organizational culture; Leadership contingencies
Bibliography
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to Critics. Academic

Press, pp. 49–79.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, J. A. & R. A. Kanungo (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in

organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647.
House, R. J. & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and
visionary theories: Perspectives and Directions. In M. Chemmers & R. Aman (Eds). Leadership:
Theory, practice, perspectives and direction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 81–105.
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. A. Kanungo (Eds), Charismatic
leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
ROBERT J. HOUSE
Leadership Contingencies

Document
Some of the emergence and effectiveness of leaders is due to their PERSONALITY but some is
contingent on the situation. In Fiedler's contingency model, as assessed by their least preferred
coworker (LPC), task-oriented leaders and relations-oriented leaders are most effective contingent on
when they are either high or low in the power of their position, the task is high or low in structure and
leader–member relations are very good or moderately poor.
In the Hersey-Blanchard situational test model, whether the leader should delegate, participate, sell, or
tell the subordinate what to do is contingent on the psychological and job maturity of the subordinate.
In the Blake-Mouton grid (see MANAGERIAL GRID) not much room for exceptions is left for
situational contingencies. Nevertheless, the high-task–high-relations leadership orientation (9, 9) is
most likely to be effective when organizations are a mix of systems of hierarchies and groups. The task
orientation fits with hierarchy; the relations orientation fits with groups (see WORK GROUPS). There
is much empirical research evidence to support the Fiedler (1967) contingency model (see also
COGNITIVE RESOURCE THEORY), somewhat less to support the Blake–Mouton grid, and least to
support Hersey–Blanchard (1969) model (see MANAGERIAL STYLE).
Many societal, organizational, group, and task contingencies affect the emergence and effectiveness of
LEADERSHIP. Some societal contingencies include the stability or turbulence of the environment and
market, economic, political, social and legal circumstances, the sociopolitical ethos, regulatory
agencies, socioeconomic status of the community, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, reference
groups and networks (see NETWORK ANALYSIS). Organizational constraints on leadership include
the organization's philosophy, mission, policies,

Document
Page 290
objectives, functions, service or production orientation size, structure, formalization, complexity,

centralization, dispersion of authority, stability, unionization, and culture (Bass, 1990,) (see
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). Whether leaders can be
transactional or transformational depends on a number of these organizational constraints (Bass, 1985).
At the group level, contingencies of consequence to the leadership include the status, esteem, and
importance of the group, the maturity of the group, the stability of the group structure, group drive and
cohesiveness, group size and group norms (Bass, 1990, Chap. 27) (see GROUP DYNAMICS; TEAM
BUILDING; GROUP ROLES; TASK AND MAINTENANCE BEHAVIOR; GROUP
DEVELOPMENT; GROUP NORMS).
See also Leadership; Path-goal theory; Transformational/transactional theory
Bibliography
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's. Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press Chapters 26 and
27.
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. C. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
BERNARD M. BASS
Leadership Style
Leadership style refers to a consistent pattern of attitudes and/or behavior displayed by a leader. The
style have been described and measured according to a variety of theories and models. Factor analytic
studies at Ohio State University of surveys have yielded two-factor patterns of leader behavior:
consideration and initiating structure. Consideration (for people) was more satisfying to followers and
contributed to their performance. Initiating structure, at first, had coercive elements. After they were
removed, initiating structure likewise contributed to PRODUCTIVITY.

Document
Attitudinal patterns were implicated. Authoritarian managers believe people must be personally driven
and controlled; equalitarian managers believe in the importance of democratic principles of governance
(see AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY; DEMOCRACY). Theory X (see THEORY X AND Y)
managers believe workers were basically lazy and had to be directed, ordered, and controlled. Theory Y
managers believe workers are basically internally motivated to do well, want AUTONOMY, and the
opportunity to prove themselves. Theory Z managers believe in commitment, loyalty, and involvement
in the organization and treating followers like members of a family.
A range of decision making results in still another way of looking at leaders' attitudinal and behavioral
leadership styles. At one extreme, the leader "tells." Without his/her followers' contribution, the leader
makes the decisions with or without giving reasons for them and expects them to be carried out. Or, the
leader "sells" by making the decisions, then trying to persuade the followers to accept them. The leader
may first consult with the follower, then decide, or the DECISION MAKING may be shared and
consensus sought. Finally, the leader may delegate making the decisions to the followers (see
DELEGATION). The leadership pattern in attitude and behavior may emphasize orientation toward the
task of getting the work done, or orienting it may emphasize the leader–follower relationship. The
former is directed at promoting productivity, the latter, at harmony, satisfaction, and good feelings (see
MANAGERIAL GRID).
All of the above styles look at how much the leader emphasizes directive, task orientation, or quality
relationships with followers. Remaining controversial is whether or not the best of leaders emphasize
both in their ATTITUDES and behavior.
A new paradigm which cuts across the above stylistic dimensions looks at leaders as transactional or
transformational (see LEADERSHIP; TRANSFORMATIONAL/TRANSACTIONAL THEORY). The
transactional leader caters to the self-interests of the followers and fosters an exchange of promises of
reward or threats of punishment for follower compliance or agreed-upon follower role enactment. The
transformational leader moves followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of the group,
organization, or society and raises them to

Document
Page 291
higher levels of MOTIVATION and morality (see MORAL DEVELOPMENT).
See also Managerial behavior; Consultancy intervention models; Leadership contingencies
Bibliography
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's. Handbook of leadership: Theory, research & managerial
applications. New York: Free Press Chapters 21, 22, 23, and 24.
BERNARD M. BASS
Lean Production
see BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING; OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
Learned Helplessness
see ATTRIBUTION; PERSISTENCE; STRESS
Learning, Individual
Learning, from a behavioral perspective, can be defined as an unspecified change within a person due to
environmental experience that makes a change in observable behavior (performance) possible (Chance,
1979). Behavior is anything a person is observed to say or do (performances) (see PERFORMANCE,
INDIVIDUAL). The following experiences capable of changing observed behavior (performance) are
excluded from this view of learning: innate (unlearned or unconditioned) reflex responses, sensory
adaptation (habituation), instincts, maturation (and old AGE), poor diet, motor fatigue, injury, disease,
brain damage, and ingestion of drugs. Although classical (Pavlovian) conditioning processes describe
experiences which affect the number and kind of environmental stimuli eliciting reflex responses from
people, classical conditioning is not addressed in this and related entries. Rather, the focus is on operant
CONDITIONING, REINFORCEMENT, EXTINCTION and SHAPING, These are fundamental and
natural processes within which behavioral performance is known to change systematically with
environmental experience.

Document
The term operant response was adopted to denote a person's behavioral action on the environment in
which the action takes place. Thus, operant behavior includes a person's actions (both corporal and
verbal) that effect change(s) in behavior of other people; usually this occurs via symbolic or verbal
behavior (Skinner, 1969). So reliably does operant conditioning change behavior (performance) that
behavior scientists refer to operant based interventions as applications of scientific laws or principles of
learning and reinforcement. As a naturally occurring learning process, however, operant conditioning
can produce both dysfunctional and functional learned behaviors, evaluated relative to their effects on
formal organizational goal achievement. To distinguish operant conditioning and reinforcement as a
natural learning process from planned or contrived applications of operant principles during
TRAINING and behavior modification, it can be called learning per se.
Cognitive models of learning per se are not developed here (see COGNITIVE PROCESSES).
Cognitions can be seen as behavior, albeit covert behavior, inferred from combinations of observed
experiences and, ultimately, observed behavior changes (performances). When the linkages among
observed experience, covert cognitive behavior, and observed behavior change are well described,
cognitions change in some orderly relation to experiences. Cognitions are not, therefore, explanations of
observed behavior; rather, they are more behavior to be explained by observed experience (Skinner,
1974). Observational learning and imitative behaviors occur when a person observes a competent model
perform some complex task and the observer is later, and perhaps under somewhat different conditions,
able to perform the complex task observed. Theories have been introduced in attempts to specify what
changes ("cognitions") within a person when this phenomenon occurs (Bandura, 1977). Ultimately,
however, internal "cognitive" changes, if they are systematically related to observed experience and
behavior, must be correlated with combinations of actual experiences and performances. From a
practical standpoint, therefore, the utility of a cognitive construct arises from empirical evidence
indicating how specific observed experiences have historically and reliably changed unobserved
"cognitions" and observed behavior (performance). Observational learning, therefore, describes
regularities among conditions under

Document
Page 292
which experiences produce unobserved changes in a person that make future performances possible and
the conditions under which a learner is likely to perform what was learned during the experienced
observation of the model. For example, children learn both good and bad "habits" from observing
parental behavior, e.g., cleanliness versus tobacco smoking or drinking to excess. Work "habits" can be
learned in much the same way. Performance of what has been learned, however, depends critically on
the consequences that typically follow performance in a given situation. Management of performance–
consequence relationships in work settings is a major responsibility of organizational leaders and
managers.
Training differs from learning per se in that training is the planned application of learning and
conditioning principles to create experiences for trainees that insure, at least during training, they
acquire basic knowledge and SKILLS needed to perform a particular job or class of jobs. The work
situation a trainee graduates enter into is essentially another learning environment in which learning per
se (operant conditioning) maintains or changes behavior (performance) learned during training. Work
environments may further support [via reinforcement] what was learned during training or they may not
[extinction]. Learning per se can actually produce dysfunctional behaviors (performances) within a
work setting.
See also Action theory; Influence; Motivation and performance
Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chance, P. (1979). Learning and behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Keller, F. S. & Shoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles of psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-

Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
THOMAS C. MAWHINNEY
Learning Organization
The concept of organizations as dynamic systems having capacities of self-changing, and the ability to
develop and more optimally satisfy the changing desires of STAKE-HOLDERS. Learning
organizations embody, probably as a result of deliberate management strategy, a high proportion of the
processes of ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING.

Document
The concept achieved popularity in the 1990s as a follow on from the "EXCELLENCE" movement of
the 1980s (see COMPETITIVENESS). "Excellent" organizations have not maintained this status.
Failure of adaptation or learning has been the obvious explanation.
Theories and descriptions of the learning organization treat organizations as bounded systemic entities
interacting with environments, having survival and growth as their main concerns (see SYSTEMS
THEORY). Learning organization theories offer accounts of this process. Senge (1990) interprets
organizational learning as overcoming systems patterns (archetypes) interfering with survival and
development. Argyris and Schon (1978) suggest that a difficulty in changing fundamental purposes and
visions (DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING) as well as operating procedures (single loop learning) is a
major cause of organizational failure. Garratt (1987) advocates a "hands off, brains on" approach to the
conduct of the roles of Directors, Presidents, and Vice-Presidents so that broad vision and strategic
action is not sacrificed to reactive trouble shooting.
Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell (1991) describe organizational learning as depending on the balance and
connection of the four processes of collective policy, group operations, individual action, and individual
thought. This process is achieved through eleven organizational behaviors and features: experimental
strategy moves, member PARTICIPATION in policy making, transparency of internal information
through INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, decision and FEEDBACK oriented accounting systems,
internal coordination through lateral NEGOTIATION, REWARD for INNOVATION and problem
solving, clear but flexible structures, information gathering by boundary workers (see BOUNDARY
SPANNING), imitation of and experimentation with other organizations, cultures encouraging learning
from mistakes, cultures and structures to encourage individual self-

Document
Page 293
development (see SELF-REGULATION; ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE).
A number of other theoretical issues link to the Learning Organization concept which offers a novel
point of conceptual integration between them: questioning how firms achieve adaptation if hierarchical
control is substituted for free market behavior in TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS. The
consequent interest in the flexible firm appears in LABOR PROCESS THEORY as the source of new
demands on labor (see FLEXIBILITY). New forms of HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
involving greater employee COMMITMENT, involvement, and incorporation into the performance and
adaptation of corporate activity (see EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT). The POPULATION ECOLOGY
theory of organizations raises the possibility that organizations change through variation at their
foundation followed by natural selection, rather than an intrinsic ability to learn. Conventional
approaches to corporate strategy see organizations as observing (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT),
predicting, and reacting to their environments, but alternative formulations suggest a more proactive
approach in which organizations create or enacting their contexts (see ENACTMENT; COGNITION IN
ORGANIZATIONS); (Bougon, 1992) with minds that may be able to remember and learn.
The Learning Organization concept raises, when considered in conjunction with these other theoretical
perspectives, questions of: the difference between learning and change; the entity that learns
(individual, organization, industry sector, nation-state, society, or processes of ordering); the nature and
problems of discontinuation in learning (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE); the fundamental source
of purpose and order in human activity.
See also Organization and environment
Bibliography
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory in action perspective. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bougon, M. G. (1992). Congregate cognitive maps: A unified dynamic theory of organization and
strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 29, (3), 369–389.
Garratt, R. (1987). The learning organisation. London: Fontana/Collins.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. G. & Boydell, T. (1996). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable
development (2nd ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. New York:
Doubleday.
JOHN BURGOYNE
Legitimacy

Document
This concept operates at multiple LEVELS OF ANALYSIS; it pertains to individuals, behaviors,

organizations, institutions, etc. (in general, social entity). Legitimacy is a relational concept created and
maintained by other actors in a social system. The essence of legitimacy is that an entity is accepted or
judged appropriate by the social system in which the entity is embedded (Galaskiewicz, 1985;
Suchman, 1995). A legitimate entity is one that is congruent with the general standards of a social
system. This acceptance can be taken-for-granted, pre-conscious, or intuitive. The institution of
marriage and the structure of AUTHORITY based on rank in the military are examples of this type of
acceptance. This acceptance also can be deliberate or formalized. For instance, the sale of shares of
stock by a company to the general public requires regulatory approval in many countries. The process
by which legitimacy is gained (or lost) is called (de)legitimation.
The standards which social actors use to judge legitimacy can exist at a societal level, within a group or
organization, or at an intermediate social system such as an industry. In general, the standards for
legitimacy are derived from formal and informal laws, norms, values, and cognitive categories (Scott,
1995; Suchman, 1995) (see COGNITION; COGNITIVE PROCESSES; NORMS, GROUP; VALUES;
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE). The evaluation of legitimacy may result from the attributes of the
entity itself, the entity's ROLE in its social system, or a combination of the two.
Legitimacy is a base of POWER (see POWER BASES), AUTHORITY, and INFLUENCE within
groups and organizations. French & Raven (1968) proposed three structural foundations of legitimate
power. The first is the cultural values of a social system, such as a respect for

Document
Page 294
age or experience. The second is the acceptance of the structure of AUTHORITY in a social system; for
example, in bureaucratic organizations individuals accept the hierarchy of offices as legitimate (see
BUREAUCRACY). Third, legitimate power may be exerted by a person designated by a legitimizing
agent as having the right to exercise power; for instance, a company president may designate a vice
president to lead a task force to solve a company problem. Personal attributes, such as perceived
competence and fairness, also contribute to legitimacy (Michener & Burt, 1971) (see JUSTICE,
PROCEDURAL and JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE).
The legitimacy of organizations, populations, and organizational characteristics are important topics in
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY and POPULATION ECOLOGY. A fundamental premise is that
legitimacy helps these entities survive and thrive. Some researchers examine how the practices and
cognitive categories of a social system are embodied in lower level entities (Scott, 1995). Other
researchers examine how managers attempt to legitimate their entities to their social system in various
ways, such as aligning themselves with cultural symbols and obtaining endorsements from the social
system (Galaskiewicz, 1985).
See also Politics; Reputation; Representation
Bibliography
French, J. R. P. Jr. & Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds),
Group dynamics (3rd edn, pp. 259–269). New York: Harper & Row.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Interorganizational relations. In R. H. Turner & J. F. Short, Jr. (Eds), Annual
Review of Sociology (vol. 11, pp. 281–304).
Michener, H. A. & Burt, M. A. (1971). Legitimacy as a base of social influence. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.),
Perspectives on social power (pp. 311–348). Chicago: Aldine.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of

Management Review (vol. 20, pp. 571–610).
DAVID L. DEEPHOUSE
Leisure
see NONWORK/WORK
Levels of Analysis

Document
This term has at least two interrelated meanings as it is used in the discipline of ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR. The most concrete concerns the level at which research data are described or analyzed,
where level refers to a HIERARCHY comprising, for example, individual employees, dyads, work
groups, departments, organizations, and industries. For instance, at the lowest level of analysis, the
individual, we might describe an employee as exhibiting a 3 percent absentee rate. This would mean
that the person missed 3 percent of scheduled work days over some time period (see ABSENTEEISM).
Alternatively, the absences of individuals might be averaged to express an absence rate at some higher
level such as a work group, a department, or an organization as a whole.
More complexly, levels of analysis is often meant to refer to the theoretical or conceptual level at which
some phenomenon is supposed to exist or operate. For example, in orthodox usage, PERSONALITY is
an individual level construct, GROUP COHESIVENESS is a group level construct, and
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE is an organizational level construct.
Level of analysis can be distinguished from level of measurement (Rousseau, 1985). The latter refers to
the level at which data are collected, as opposed to the level at which they are summarized or analyzed.
For example, in studying work group productivity, a researcher might add the PRODUCTIVITY of
individual group members to produce an index for various groups. Here, the level of measurement is the
individual, but the level of analysis is the group. As this example illustrates, the level of measurement
need not always correspond to the level of analysis. However, there is general agreement that
researchers need to justify very clearly the logical linkages between the chosen level of measurement,
the mechanical level of analysis, and the theoretical level of analysis.
Organizations are inherently multilevel, and higher levels of analysis provide a potentially important
context for processes at lower levels (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991). Also, a consideration of multiple levels
often reveals how behavior is constrained or free to vary (Johns, 1991). Thus,

Document
Page 295
we might expect to see much research that takes into account multiple levels of analysis. In fact, this is
somewhat rare. Disciplinary isolation has led to a tendency for researchers with psychologically based
training to concentrate on lower levels of analysis and those with sociologically based training to
concentrate on higher levels of analysis (see THEORY; ORGANIZATION THEORY) (Roberts, Hulin,
& Rousseau, 1978).
Critical Issues Concerning Levels of Analysis
Not all variables are easily assigned to a theoretical level of analysis. For example, there has been
debate about whether MANAGERIAL STYLE is an individual characteristic, a dyadic variable
(existing between a leader and an individual subordinate), or a group-level variable (in which all group
members experience the same style) (Mossholder & Bedian, 1983). This issue frequently arises when
individual responses are used to describe constructs that might exist at some higher level of analysis.
For instance, is JOB DESIGN best represented as a property of the job (a higher level of analysis) or the
perceptions of individual job holders (a lower level of analysis)? A related problem occurs when
attempting to determine the degree of isomorphism between variables that differ in level of analysis. To
what extent is individual learning similar to ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING? How analogous is
organizational culture to individual personality?
There has been longstanding concern about how to ensure that level of measurement is logically tied to
level of analysis so that the measure fairly represents the variable under consideration. One approach is
to match the level of measurement precisely to the level of analysis. For example, if TECHNOLOGY is
viewed as an organization level variable, it might be measured by classifying firms according to the
production process used in their operating core. This global measurement of technology corresponds to
an organizational level of analysis. The alternative is to measure technology at some lower level of
analysis and then aggregate these measures to represent the variable at a higher level of analysis
(Roberts, Hulin, & Rousseau, 1978). Thus, individual perceptions of the degree of a firm's
AUTOMATION might be averaged to represent its technology. For perceptual variables, there is
considerable accord among researchers that there should be a high degree of agreement among research
subjects before their responses are aggregated to represent a higher level construct. Thus, in a study of
ORGANIZATION CLIMATE, there should be high within-firm agreement about a firm's climate and,
by extension, detectable differences between firms (Glick, 1985). Unfortunately, there is much less
accord about how to actually measure such agreement.

Document
It has long been recognized that relationships that hold at one level of analysis might not hold at another
level of analysis, and that cross-level inferences are risky at best. For example, making inferences about
the motives of individual consumers from aggregate economic data is questionable. Also, a correlation
between JOB SATISFACTION and absenteeism at the individual level does not guarantee that work
groups with lower morale will have higher absence rates. On the other hand, considerable interest has
emerged about whether variables at one level of analysis can have a substantive impact at another level
of analysis. For example, how can the behavior of an individual group member affect group
cohesiveness? Does organizational technology or size influence the job satisfaction of individual
employees? (see ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE). Can a group's "absence culture" affect the absence
behavior of its individual members?
Several research tactics exist for examining potential cross-level effects when it is possible that
variables at a higher level of analysis might have an impact at a lower level of analysis. One of the most
straightforward cross-level designs uses hierarchical multiple regression in which the dependent
variable is some variable of interest at the lower level of analysis (see STATISTICAL METHODS).
Independent variables include any lower-level predictors of interest and, critically, higher level
predictors in which subjects in natural units (such as work groups) at the higher level are all assigned
the same value on that variable. This value might be a global measure or an aggregated measure of
individual responses if within-group homogeneity can be demonstrated. If the higher level variables
account for additional variance beyond that accounted for by lower level variables, a cross-level effect
can be inferred (Mathieu, 1991; Mossholder & Bedian, 1983).

Document
Page 296
Another cross-level design is the varient approach (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Markham,
1988). This approach uses within and between analysis to apportion the variance in multiple-level
designs to its appropriate location.
Although considering multiple levels of analysis in research presents considerable methodological

challenges, it also provides an important opportunity for truly understanding the systemic nature of
organizations.
See also Research design; Research methods; Systems theory
Bibliography
Cappelli, P. & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level
approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 55–110.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A. & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The
varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls
in multi-level research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616.
Johns, G. (1991). Substantive and methodological constraints on behavior and attitudes in

organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 80–104.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F. & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection,
and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.
Markham, S. E. (1988). Pay-for-performance revisited: Empirical example of the importance of group

effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 172–180.
Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of organizational

commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 607–618.
Mossholder, K. W. & Bedian, A. G. (1983). Cross-level inference and organizational research:

Perspectives on interpretation and application. Academy of Management Review, 8, 547–558.
Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L. & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary science of

organizations. . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level

perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37.
GARY JOHNS

Document
Liability of Newness/Smallness Etc.
Life Cycle
see CAREER STAGES; LIFE STAGE; ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Life Stage
A life stage is a period of years during an individual's life-course distinguished from the periods before
and after it by differences, usually identified by a researcher, in the individual's functioning and/or
development.
Life stage theories describe individual change over the life course. In contrast to other developmental
theories that conceive change as a continuous process, life stage theories propose that change occurs in
relatively discrete time periods, dividing lives into segments, each with identifiable characteristics. For
example, Erikson (1950) describes eight ages of man, each marked by specific developmental ego
qualities. Levinson (1978) talks of life's "seasons" as "a series of periods or stages within the life cycle."
Several assumptions characterize life stage theories. First, the theories are psychological. Even though
some mention external factors, their primary concern is describing change within the individual.
Second, they view each stage as distinct from all others. Thus, a man in Levinson's "early adulthood"
era is clearly distinguishable from a man in the "middle adult" era. Third, the theories define life stages
as tied to specific AGE spans. Men falling in Levinson's "early adulthood" era, for instance, are
between the ages of seventeen and forty-five. Finally, life stage theories assume that all individuals go
through the same stages; so that, for example, a miner in England and a lawyer in Tokyo are expected to
experience, during the same age span, the same stages, developmental issues, and changes in
functioning (see Lawrence, 1980).
Although differences between childhood, adolescence, and old age have been recognized since the early
1900s, life stage theories that cover events throughout the life course are

Document
Page 297
relatively new. Buehler (1933) and Erikson (1950) provide two of the earliest versions. Contemporary
life stage theories focusing on men appeared in the late 1970s. Research suggesting that women's life
stages differ from those of men appeared in the 1980s (see WOMEN AT WORK). Most life stage
theories have emerged from research using cross-sectional, clinical interview data. Although widely
cited, these theories are seldom tested or replicated because of data collection difficulties.
One critique of life stage theories is that they neglect the social and historical context in which they are
embedded. The influence of context on age-related behavior and experiences has long been recognized
by sociologists and anthropologists, and studies suggest that social systems influence patterns of aging.
Moreover, because social systems change over time, through developments in medicine, transportation,
communication and other technologies, population growth and decline, and other environmental factors,
it seems likely that life stages change as well. Indeed, historical studies show that many life issues seen
as widely shared today did not exist during earlier periods in history. For instance, today's ''empty-nest"
syndrome of middle age, when children leave the home, was not so common 200 years ago. Without
modern contraceptives, many families had young children throughout the wife's childbearing years,
unless she died or pregnancies were otherwise limited.
See also Retirement; Individual differences; Nonwork/work; Career development
Bibliography
Buehler, C. (1933). Der menschliche Lebenslauf als psychologisches Problem. Leipzig: Hertzel.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Hagestad, G. O. (1990). Social perspectives on the life course. In R. H. Binstock & L. K. George (Eds),
Handbook of aging and the social sciences (3rd edn, pp. 151–168). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lawrence, B. S. (1980). The myth of the midlife crisis. Sloan Management Review, 21, (4), 35–49.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Knopf.
BARBARA S. LAWRENCE
Line/Staff

Document
The distinction between line and staff members of an organization originates from the military – the
line soldiers were those who did the fighting while the staff provided technical support. In civilian
organizations the line has direct command over the final product or service (see ACCOUNTABILITY).
Staff support the line through functions such as production control, marketing or information systems,
and specialized advice. Because relatively highly educated young staff can give advice and instructions
to experienced line people, conflicts can frequently arise. The terms have tended to fall into disuse due
to the arbitrary nature of the distinction between line and staff which has been emphasized by structural
changes in organizations, such as shifts toward team working and the desire to reduce managerial
overheads by delayering and other changes.
See also Classical design theory; Organizational design; Differentiation; Division of labor
Bibliography
Butler, R. (1991). Designing organisations: A decision-making perspective. London: Routledge.
RICHARD BUTLER
Linking Pin
The term linking pin was introduced by Rensis Likert. As organizations become more horizontally and
vertically differentiated, mechanisms must be developed to link these disparate parts together. Linking
pins consist of the managers that participate in two levels of organizational involvement and thereby
link these levels together. For example, work-unit supervisors are members of their own units and the
departments they report to (see SUPERVISION).
The linking pin concept may have played an important role in the configuring of organizations in the
1960s and 1970s, however, references to the concept have almost disappeared from the literature in the
1980s and 1990s. Linking pins are only one mechanism for achieving coordination and
INTEGRATION and are limited in meeting the higher demands for coordination that have appeared in
the latter part of this century. Most organizations rely less on HIERARCHY today to achieve
coordination

Document
Page 298
and more on lateral relations that emphasize direct interdepartmental contact at lower levels of the
organization. Additionally, most organizations have recently gone through an historical period of
DELAYERING and of increasing SPANS OF CONTROL. As a consequence worker ROLES have
expanded and they tend to be less removed from higher levels in the organization. While linking pin
behavior will always be present in organizations, its central role in design may be less important today
than when Likert introduced the concept.
See also Classical design theory; Organizational design; Management, classical theory
Bibliography
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and values. New York: McGraw-Hill.
ROBERT DRAZIN
Locus of Control
This is a personality construct denoting people's generalized expectancies for CONTROL of

REINFORCEMENTS or REWARDS. People who believe that they can control reinforcements in their
lives are termed internals. People who believe that fate, luck, or other people control reinforcements are
termed externals. The locus of control concept is most frequently attributed to Rotter (1966). He also
developed the most commonly used scale to assess the construct (Rotter, 1966).
Locus of control has been one of the most popularly studied PERSONALITY variables in the
organizational behavior domain. In his review of organizational studies Spector (1982) noted that
internality is associated with high levels of effort, MOTIVATION, job performance (see
PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL), and JOB SATISFACTION. Internals tend to exhibit initiative on
the job and prefer participative supervisory styles (see MANAGERIAL STYLE). Externals, on the
other hand, are more conforming to AUTHORITY and prefer directive supervisory styles. Research has
found that externality (feeling that one has little control) is associated with counterproductive behavior
in response to FRUSTRATION. Externals are more likely than internals to respond to frustrating events
at work by engaging in aggression against others, SABOTAGE, starting arguments, and stealing (see
Perlow & Latham, 1993) (see EMPLOYEE THEFT).
The higher performance of externals has been explained by the concept of expectancy from VIE
THEORY. Internals tend to have greater expectancies than externals that they can be effective in task
accomplishment. If they see the job as leading to desired rewards, internals should be more motivated to
perform. Recent research has shown, however, that internals may not always be better performers. Blau
(1993) found that internals did better at job tasks requiring initiative, but externals did better in highly
structured routine tasks. Thus internals and externals may be suited for different kinds of jobs,
depending upon their need for compliance or initiative.

Document
Since Rotter's initial work scales have been developed to assess locus of control in specific domains
relevant to organizations, including economic locus of control, health locus of control, SAFETY locus
of control, and work locus of control (Spector, 1988). These specific scales tend to correlate more
highly with variables within their domains than does the general Rotter scale. Spector (1988), for
example, found that work locus of control had stronger correlations than general locus of control with
work related variables, such as JOB SATISFACTION.
See also Personality testing; Persistence; Interactionism; Self-efficacy
Bibliography
Blau, G. (1993). Testing the relationship of locus of control to different performance dimensions.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 125–138.
Perlow, R. & Latham, L. L. (1993). The relationship between client abuse, and locus of control and
gender: A longitudinal study in mental retardation facilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 831–
834.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80, (1, Whole No. 609).
Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employees' locus of control.


Document
Page 299
Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational
PAUL E. SPECTOR
Loose Coupling
Relationships that are not tightly specified or frequently monitored, but nevertheless persist,
simultaneously characterized by responsiveness and AUTONOMY, are "loosely coupled." Loose
coupling is a metaphoric description of association (and can be applied to links between or among
individuals, units, hierarchical levels, ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT, intention and action,
and cause and effect among others) rather than a precisely measured, unidimensional variable. Where
linkages are carefully structured, well specified in advance, predictable, frequent and assiduously
maintained, they can be characterized as "tightly coupled." Where relationships are less structured, the
linked activities operate in partial independence from one another, and they may be characterized as
''loosely coupled." Tight coupling implies less freedom to accomplish unit tasks autonomously and
more careful coordination; loose coupling, more freedom. Yet the simple opposition of "loose" and
"tight" coupling ignores important aspects of the idea.
Loose coupling highlights the apparent PARADOX of partial autonomy across links that endure,
between individuals or units or items that do respond to one another; when the links break down or
responsiveness ceases, the units may be said to be decoupled. Coordination between individuals or
subunits that communicate or interact infrequently can be essential to effective organizational
performance (see COMMUNICATIONS). Loose coupling enables such activities to diverge in detail
yet to endure despite local disruption, whereas units tightly coupled to one another will all fall into
disarray if any does, and decoupled units will not coordinate.
Loosely coupled activities can also be judged by different criteria–manufacturing efficiency in

operations, and customer complaints in sales, for instance. Thus units can respond more effectively to
local criteria and situations, while still retaining coordination. Units or activities are loosely linked to
take advantage of the authonomy loose coupling permits, an especially useful feature for fragmented
environments or conflicting demands. Loose coupling may also be used to describe relationships among
organizations not formally dependent upon one another that nonetheless coordinate their activities, such
as JOINT VENTURES, coalitions, federations, or intraorganizational systems (see COALITION
FORMATION; INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS).

Document
More properly, loosely coupled individuals, units, or activities may decouple if they lose sight of the
larger goals their particular efforts are intended to further. When local goals assume primacy, local
criteria and tasks are optimized at the expense of broader joint aims. Similarly, decoupling between
individual incentives and group activities can lead to perverse outcomes when individual activities that
undercut group activites are rewarded. In cause–effect linkages, loose coupling indicates ambiguous
means–ends connections (which may be due to selective PERCEPTION, BOUNDED RATIONALITY,
haste, uncertainty, or intangibility, among other sources), while decoupling indicates breakdown of
links. Where the loose coupling fails, the units or activities decouple; where loose coupling endures, the
paradox of simultaneous independence and responsiveness remains.
The chief benefit of the loose coupling concept is its potential for directing attention to the apparent
contradiction of links that exist, but are not wholly determinate. This benefit requires users to resist
simplifying the concept, however. For organization theorists or managers, the paradox of simultaneous
connection and autonomy is among the most important of organizational facts.
See also Network analysis; Organizational design; Stakeholders; Systems theory; Collateral
organization
Bibliography
Orton, J. D. & Weik, K. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of

Management Review, 15, (2), 203–223.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
MARIANN JELINEK
Loyalty
see COMMITMENT

Document
Page 300
Machiavellianism
This construct denotes the disposition to view and treat others as objects to be manipulated for one's
own ends. It derives its name from Nicolo Machiavelli who set forth principles for holding power in his
1532 book The Prince. Using his concepts, Jay (1967) presents a case for applying their insights to
understand the operation of large corporations as parallels to empires. Christie and Geis (1970)
developed a PERSONALITY measure based upon statements drawn from Machiavelli's work (see
PERSONALITY TESTING). Respondents agree or disagree with such items as: "It is wise to flatter
important people"; and, "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do
so." Opposite items, reverse keyed, include "Honesty is the best policy in all cases.'' Those high on the
resulting Mach Scale see the world in manipulative terms, with greater detachment from and cynicism
about others. To study its relationship to LEADERSHIP, Gleason, Seaman, and Hollander (1978)
conducted an experiment observing 16 four-man groups under structured or nonstructured task
conditions. Each was composed of one High, one Low, and two Middle scorers on the Mach Scale.
High Machs behaved most ascendantly, especially in the nonstructured condition. Middle Machs were
chosen significantly more as a future leader than were those at either extreme.
See also Influence; Legitimacy; Obedience; Power bases; Politics
Bibliography
Christie, R. & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Gleason, J. M., Seaman, F. J. & Hollander, E. P. (1978). Emergent leadership processes as a function of
task structure and Machiavellianism. Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 33–36.
Jay, A. (1967). Management and Machiavelli. New York: Bantam.
EDWIN P. HOLLANDER
Machine Bureaucracy
see BUREAUCRACY; ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN
Macro/Micro/Meso Theory
see LEVELS OF ANALYSIS; THEORY
Maintenance Behavior

Document
see TASK AND MAINTENANCE BEHAVIOR
Management, Classical Theory
This body of thinking comes from the early development phase of management, in which initial efforts
were made to formalize principles that might offer guidance to a growing class of professional
managers. Classical theory sought rationality and order in work through what they called "the one best
way," the most logical DIVISION OF LABOR, appropriate structure to relate the activities thus divided
(in terms of the variety of activities and the levels of supervision), the correct SPAN OF CONTROL for
directing activities, and the proper allocation of responsibility to a designated AUTHORITY. Classical
theorists asserted their insights were universally applicable to all organizations. Specialized, subdivided
labor, proper direction and coordination, and effective planning would insure efficiency.
Frederick W. Taylor's book, Principles of Scientific Management (1911) separated planning,

coordination, and assessment from task accomplishment, and specified these as management
responsibilities. Workers were to be

Document
Page 301
provided with proper tools and specific tasks to perform; managers were to identify, plan, and
coordinate the tasks, and to insure the work got done, as specified. Taylor's approach, stressing
exhaustive time-and-motion studies, explicit instructions, and unquestioning obedience by workers,
reflected both his engineering background and the prevalence of numerous semiliterate or illiterate
immigrants, no less than the numerous laboring jobs in the American workforce of his time. Its
underlying philosophy is clearly based on purely economic MOTIVATION, with fair pay for efficient
work the aim (see EQUITY THEORY)
"Taylorism" was highly popular with some managers, who saw the approach as a rational and
systematic form of management. Others, both advocates and critics, saw SCIENTIFIC
MANAGEMENT as a means of gaining much tight control over workers. The controversy erupted into
congressional investigation in 1912, and continues today. Critics attack Taylor's theory as unduly
manipulative and exploitation of workers. Taylor himself is often portrayed as either exploitative or the
dupe of greedy managers. Proponents down to the present day argue that Taylor saw himself as the
champion of dignity and fair treatment for workers who were necessarily dependent upon managers for
the coordination, instructions, and overall work design, an enlightened position for his time. Taylor's
underlying assumptions of rationality and the importance of structure pervade much management
theory still, as does his preference for the "scientific" study of organizations.
Henry Fayol, a French mining engineer, typified another thread of classical management insight
distilled from personal experience. His book Industrial and General Administration (French edition
1916, first English edition 1930) was drawn from a lifetime of management experience. Fayol believed
his principles could be taught, rather than merely learned on the job. Among Fayol's insights were
important classical concepts such as unity of command (the principle that every person should have
only one supervisor, and that all persons should be supervised in a consistent hierarchical structure),
equity, and orderly division of work. Fayol identified the key management tasks as planning,
coordination, and control.
Chester Barnard, another practising manager, was the author of The Functions of the Executive (1938).
Barnard brought experience as President of New Jersey Bell Telephone and head of important
government relief efforts during the American Depression, as well as the added sophistication of wide
reading in the emerging science of sociology (including Vilfredo Pareto and Max Weber in their
original French and German editions) to his task. Barnard's reflective insights moved well beyond the
rigidities of rules and structures to emphasize the systemic, affective, and cooperative nature of how
people accomplish organizational tasks. As a result, he is often distinguished from other classical
management theorists.

Document
German sociologist Max Weber, who coined the term "BUREAUCRACY" and first specified its
characteristics, is also identified as a source for classical management theory. According to Weber,
bureaucracy divided the work to define clearly the authority and responsibility of each member as
legitimate, official duties. Positions and responsibilities were arranged in a hierarchy of authority
constituting a chain of command, with those higher up superior to those below, and every member
having a single direct superior. Members were selected on the basis of technical qualifications (not
friendship, for instance), and leaders were appointed to their positions by superiors. Administrative
officials worked for fixed salaries, and did not own their units. Strict rules controlled and disciplined
members, setting limits to superiors' authority. Rules were impersonally applied to all. Because this
description captures much of the sense and flavor of classical theory, Weber is typically cited as a
classical theorist, although delays in translating his work into English assured that few outside Germany
beyond scholarly circles were directly familiar with his ideas.
Others typically included in the classical management school are Mooney (1947) who had been an
executive at General Motors; and Urwick, (see Fox and Urwick 1977) (1937). Classical theory provided
a useful basis for later development, and, by its initial emphasis on division of work and organizational
structure, profoundly colored later ORGANIZATION THEORY. One wing of classical theory
emphasized time and motion study and engineering efficiency; representatives included Carl Barth and

Document
Page 302
H. L. Gantt, whose Gantt charts mapped out relationships over time between and among related tasks;
and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, who practiced widely as consultants on efficiency.
Classical management, even in its time, was complemented by approaches that gave less weight to
structure and more to human interactions. Hugo Munsterberg, author of Psychology and Industrial
Efficiency (1913) is counted as the father of industrial psychology. Munsterberg examined job demands
to specify their requisite mental capabilities, in an effort to use PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING to find
the best candidate for a given job. This aim is quite similar to Taylor's, although the methods differ
from Scientific Management. Mary Parker Follett, an important theorist of the 1920s, asserted the
importance of the group as essential for full realization of individual development. Follett's thinking on
integration, common purpose, and the importance of cooperation seem apropos today.
Classical Management was ultimately supplemented by theories like the Human Relations School (see
HUMAN RELATIONS MOVEMENT) that turned increasingly to the emotional, nonstructural aspects
of behavior in organizations, themes that continue to be reflected in ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR, ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, and management theory. However, modern
organization theory's emphasis on structure, rational arrangement of tasks and control, and its exclusion
of topics like human EMOTION, interpretation, POWER, and CONFLICT, remains closer to classical
management theory. Contemporary controversies include concern to find logically consistent bridges
between these apparently contradictory emphases.
See also Managerial behavior; Leadership; Organizational design; Classical design theory
Bibliography
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fox, E. M. & Urwick, L. (1977). Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett.
New York: Hippocrene.
Mooney, J. D. (1947). The principles of organization. New York: Harper.
Munsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and industrial efficiency. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.
Urwick, L. (1943). Elements of administration. New York: Harper.
Wren, D. A. (1979). The evolution of management thought. New York: Wiley.
MARIANN JELINEK
Management, Information Systems

Document
see COMMUNICATIONS; INFORMATION PROCESSING
Management, International
see INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Management by Objectives (MBO)
One of the most fundamental aspects of the management process is called management by objectives,
or MBO. This technique refers to the establishment of specific targets or goals for work activities in a
variety of work contexts. MBO incorporates many important aspects of effective management including
coordination of strategic with tactical and operational goals, individual accountability, clear and
straightforward work objectives, and superior–subordinate interaction. The concept of MBO is most
often credited to Peter Drucker in his management classic, The Practice of Management published in
1954, based on his extensive work with General Electric Company as well as industrialist Alfred Sloan.
A typical MBO program consists of several stages including:
(1) define and clarify the desired strategic goals of a company or business unit;
(2) develop tactical goals to be implemented by specific personnel in order to determine the strategic
goals (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT);
(3) determine the resources needed to accomplish these goals and make them available to key personnel;
(4) communicate strategic objectives with key personnel and solicit their input;
(5) implement work plans and monitor accordingly; and

Document
Page 303
(6) provide FEEDBACK at regular intervals concerning work performance (see KNOWLEDGE OF
RESULTS).
More recently, Edwin Locke has refined the general concept of MBO in his GOAL-SETTING theory.
Research on the topic of MBO, and its more current manifestation, goal-setting, has been extensive and
the results clearly support the proposition that people work more efficiently and effectively if they have
challenging work objectives or goals with clearly defined time deadlines. MBO programs have been
successfully implemented in a number of industries.
See also Human resources management; Human resources strategy; Motivation; Decision making
Bibliography
Carroll, S. J. & Tosi, H. L. (1973). Management by objectives: Applications and research. New York:
Macmillan.
Odiorne, G. S. (1978). MBO: A backward glance. Business Horizons October 14–24.
Management Development
This term refers to experiences (both before and after management promotion, and both formal and
informal) meant to enhance an individual's current and future effectiveness in a managerial position.
Management is an art, requiring a mix of talents: technical, human, and conceptual. The relative
importance of these SKILLS varies with the particular managerial assignment. These talents must be
accompanied by the "psychological factors" of realistic self-appraisal, initiative, integrity, and, the
ability to cope with STRESS. Finally, in response to today's rapidly changing business environment,
LEADERSHIP and the capacity for continued LEARNING and growth have become requisites for
effective management.
Estimates of the annual investment in development activities for managers fall in the tens of billions of
dollars (Carnevale, Gainer, & Villet, 1990). Corporations have begun to ask themselves if these funds
are being put to good use; despite considerable financial outlays, many believe they do not have cadres
of managers capable of adapting to today's complex and dynamic business environment (e.g., Raskas &
Hambrick, 1992). Moreover, they are concerned that too often management development is not closely
aligned with business strategy and hence, often fails to contribute to key corporate objectives (see
HUMAN RESOURCES STRATEGY).

Document
Although countless books and articles had been written on how to develop managers, until recently, few
had been based on empirical research. Most viewed management development from the single
dimension of task learning: acquisition of necessary COMPETENCIES (the knowledge and skills
necessary to fulfill managerial functions) and establishment of key relationships. Management
development was treated largely as an intellectual exercise, admittedly a demanding one. Consistent
with this conceptual foundation, a myopic perspective of management development evolved.
Management development became synonymous with helping managers in a classroom setting develop
the competencies of management.
In the last 5 years, the quantity and quality of research on management development have increased
(Baldwin & Padgett, 1993, or Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992, for recent reviews). This work has spawned
both a more realistic and ambitious view of managerial development. Two themes have emerged. The
first is that management development is not simply a matter of changing people's knowledge and skills
(task learning); it also involves changing their attitudes and professional identity (personal learning).
For instance, Hill (1992) found that it was the personal learning – the psychological transformation
from "specialist and doer" to "agenda-setter and networkbuilder" – not the task learning, that first-time
managers found more demanding and stressful.
The second theme of the growing body of research on management development is that it is largely a
process of learning by doing. Researchers at the Center for Creative Leadership have been at the
forefront of identifying the lessons managers can learn from different kinds of work experiences (e.g.,
McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). As they and others have observed, the unsettling truth is that
managers develop most effectively when faced with adversity, given "stretch" assignments, or the

Document
Page 304
opportunity to make and implement tough decisions.
As we have come to understand how managers evolve and develop over time, the focus of management
development has shifted from "teaching" managers in the classroom to helping managers learn how to
capitalize on the developmental opportunities of their day-to-day work experiences (e.g., Manz &
Manz, 1991). The fragmentary and reactive approaches to management development traditionally
followed by organizations are being replaced by more deliberate and careful CAREER planning –
making sure that individuals have the right kinds of developmental experiences at the right time (e.g.,
Hall & Foulkes, 1991) (see CAREER TRANSITIONS).
Research shows that individuals who successfully manage a particular organization in a particular
industry usually have spent significant time in it. Going outside an organization to fill general
management positions can be a risky proposition. Outsiders, even with exceptional track records, rarely
have the detailed knowledge of the business and organization required to perform well. In response to
these findings, companies have begun to link their management development initiatives with long-term
business planning. Since it takes from 10 to 20 years to develop an effective general manager,
companies are beginning to identify critical competencies executives will need in the future and
cultivating them now in their highest potential managers (e.g., Baldwin & Padgett, 1993) (see
MANAGEMENT OF HIGH POTENTIAL). In the current competitive and dynamic environment, it is
not easy to adopt such a developmental perspective. The pressure for short-term results is intense.
RESTRUCTURING and DOWNSIZING have reduced loyalty on the part of both companies and their
employees; people no longer expect to stay with the same organization over the course of their careers
(interestingly, some companies are using developmental assignments as incentives to retain high-
potential employees).
Formal TRAINING, both corporate and university based, is being understood as simply one tool in the
toolbox for management development. The content and pedagogy of formal training are being revisited,
with attention paid to both task and personal learning and more emphasis placed on experiential and
action-learning models. There is increasing investment in action learning in which managers work in
small project teams on real problems in real companies (e.g., Mumford, 1987) (see TEAM
BUILDING). Companies and academics alike are trying to figure out how to leverage and integrate
formal training with on-the-job training. Consequently, there is a move toward apprenticeship models of
management development, which focus on informal developmental tools like job rotation, coaching,
and MENTORING.

Document
Despite the proliferation of research related to managerial development, there is still much to be
learned. We have just begun to identify the specific kinds of experiences important to developing
managers and the specific lessons that each kind of experience can impart. However, providing such
experiences does not guarantee that a person will learn anything, much less that he or she will learn
what is intended. Some of the more intriguing research underway is trying to discover what can be done
to enhance the learning that such experiences can offer and why it is that some individuals are better at
learning from such experiences than others (e.g., Dechant, 1990). Finally, the emphasis of management
development is shifting from individual development to achieving strategic goals or transforming
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. A promising area of inquiry in this regard is the research on the
"LEARNING ORGANIZATION," organizations whose managers are self-directed learners and which
are able to expeditiously respond and adapt to a forever changing business environment (see SELF-
REGULATION).
See also Joining-up process; Management education; Managerial behavior; Women managers
Bibliography
Baldwin, T. T. & Padgett, M. Y. (1993). Management development: A review and commentary. The
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 35–85.
Carnevale, A. P., Gainer, L. J. & Villet, J. (1990). Training in America: The organization and strategic
role of training. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Document
Page 305
Dechant, K. (1990). Knowing how to learn: The "neglected" management ability. Journal of
Management Development, 9, 40–49.
Hall, D. T. & Foulkes, F. K. (1990). Succession planning as a competitive advantage. In L. W. Foster

(Ed). Advances in applied business strategy, vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hill, L. A. (1992). Becoming a manager: Mastery of a new identity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Manz, C. C. & Manz, K. P. (1991). Strategies for facilitating self-directed learning: A process for
enhancing human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2, 3–12.
McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M. & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Mumford, A. (1987). Action learning. Journal of Management Development [Special Issue], 6, 1–70.
Raskas, D. F. & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Multifunctional managerial development: A framework for

evaluating the options. Organizational Dynamics, 21, 5–17.
Tannenbaum, S. I. & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review
of Psychology, 43, 399–441.
LINDA A. HILL
Management Education
In its modern sense, management education developed first in the United States in the early years of the
twentieth century. Many of the early institutions of higher learning in management were funded directly
by donations from prominent alumni and other successful businessmen. This trend has remained a
feature of management education in the United States though, to a lesser extent, in the United Kingdom,
Europe, and Japan with the Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree becoming established as
the flagship program in management education after 1945. In a survey undertaken in the early 1970s,
the British Science and Engineering Research Council stated "Only one radically new degree has
become established at postgraduate level and that is the MBA." In the United Kingdom, two major
reports undertaken to fathom the reasons for the continuing relative decline in British industrial and
manufacturing success recommended that business schools "on the American pattern" should be
established in the United Kingdom.

Document
Developments in Europe have followed diverse paths, not all based on the American model and the
MBA program. In France, the "Grandes Ecoles" on which traditionally entry to the professional and
scientific elites had been based, expanded to include new institutions such as the Ecoles Superieurs de
Commerce and the Hautes Ecoles de Commerce. Other schools such as INSEAD, IMEDE, IMI and
IESE were based on looser variants of the American pattern, to cater for the emerging international
market of managers in large multinational enterprises (see MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS). In
Germany, business education was more normally subsumed within the traditional pattern of engineering
formation and occurred under such guises as business economics of which marketing, for example, and
finance were both perceived to be subdisciplines. In Japan, business and management education has
typically been the province of corporate MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT, though latterly some
attempts have been made to institute business schools of the conventional North American type.
The pedagogy of management education has been equally diverse but has traditionally emphasized
learning in the functional disciplines of management such as marketing, production, personnel,
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT and finance, often based in a foundation program in
economics, social science, quantitative methods and sometimes computer skills and study skills.
Management education has not so far been characterized by a common core set of integrating theories.
To some extent, management development loosely based on theories and practices in the organizational
and individual social sciences has provided an integrating focus.
Management development as a practitioner-based area of activity coincided with the maturing

development of the emerging concepts of behavioral and social sciences, in the 1970s moving from a
focus on individuals as the object of TRAINING to encompass the organization itself as the basis for
management learning. This has coincided with a growing emphasis on counseling, coaching, and career
planning activities which emphasized the individual manager's responsibility for his or her own
personal development. This period also saw the

Document
Page 306
inception of action learning, project-based learning and live learning in more open-ended, TEAM
BUILDING activities offered by independent training institutions.
The 1980s introduced theories of management learning which emphasized the three-way responsibility
of individual, organization, and educational institutions for planning, individual learning, and
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT. The focus has therefore moved since the late 1940s when
management was seen as an, albeit newly fledged, emerging, positive science in which predictability,
planning, and deterministic models of behavior were the basis of understanding. More recently,
theorists have characterized the essential unpredictability of organizational processes, seeing
management education as an opportunity for the individual to acquire behavioral SKILLS, including the
skills of learning. Current practice is embedded in an understanding that individuals present for a formal
program of management education with a good deal of experience and some possibly quite specific
expectations, and exit the formal stage of management education with an increased range of options for
managing his or her own subsequent CAREER.
Parallel developments in the theory of organization have repositioned organization development in

terms of the management of change. This has been based on a more subtle understanding of the nature
of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE and ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE as looser and less
systematic congeries of beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and symptomatologies than totally structured
patterns of belief and interpretation. The concept of the LEARNING ORGANIZATION has become
significant as a function of this transition. Organization development theory, summarized in Burke
(1994), offers a wider framework for the definition of management education. This approach reinforces
a substantial broadening of knowledge and practice to include an emphasis on network structures, new
forms of employer–employee contracts, and different approaches to the utilization of organizational
POWER beyond those modalities relevant in hierarchical organizations. The identification of the
opportunities available to an individual organization by means of a correct analysis of market
segmentation, growth, and product development has been modified to incorporate new thinking about
STRATEGIC ALLIANCES within and between organizations, and the role of cultural variables.
There has been a parallel shift in the orientation of professionals to the generation of new knowledge.
Earlier models of management education located knowledge in university research faculties and
identified the task of professional schools of management as that of disseminating knowledge which, in
a sense, they "owned." It is now more generally presumed that knowledge is generated in the field at
least as much as in the academy.
The changing structures of organizational power and the expectations of a more liberally educated labor
force have refocused the emphasis on initiative, EMPOWERMENT, and entrepreneurial modes of
behavior. The relationship between instructor and student is becoming much more of a partnership. A
recent compilation which deals with these issues is Mastering Management Education, (Vance, 1994)
which covers such topics as the art and power of asking questions, experiential learning, simulation,
group-based learning, as well as the traditional topics as testing, ASSESSMENT, case-based learning,
and microcomputer skills.

Document
Increasingly, the focus in both management education and management development has moved to an
emphasis on the acquisition of skills, conceptual models, and tools for the self-management of
individual career paths within an essentially fast moving, unreliable, and unpredictable context.
All of these developments and the apparent decline in the attractiveness of some MBA programs,
threaten the market position of the university business school. Many observers believe that the United
States market for MBA education is saturated. There are some indications that the United Kingdom
market may be becoming much more price competitive with only a few leading schools able to sustain
the research basis which was the fundamental raison d'être of the earlier more traditional university
model.
See also International management; Career stages; Human resources planning

Document
Page 307
Bibliography
Burke, W. W. (1994). Organizational development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cameron, S. (1994). The MBA handbook. London: Pitman.
Cunningham, I. (1994). The wisdom of strategic learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lessem, R. (1990). Developmental management. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Random House.
Vance, C. M. (1994). Mastering management education. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
DAVID T. H. WEIR
Management of Change
see CONSULTANCY INTERVENTION MODELS; ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE;

ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
Management of Diversity
The phrase managing diversity has become widely accepted as a broad umbrella term that refers to
management practices aimed at improving the effectiveness with which organizations utilize their
diverse human resources. In the era when MASS PRODUCTION methods dominated business activity,
many organizations managed diversity simply by avoiding it. Product specialization helped keep costs
low, a functionbased organizational form was almost universal, and the employees in most
organizations all looked pretty much alike; often those employees who were different were segregated
into one section of the company. Now many mass product markets have been replaced by smaller
specialty markets, consumer markets are more precisely defined, and large businesses operate in
multiple niches. Doing so often means that distinctly different business units – each with its own unique
structure, strategy, management processes and organizational subculture – must synergistically coexist
under one roof (DeLuca & McDowell, 1992). At the same time that business and organizational
diversity is increasing, the diversity of human resources within organizations is increasing. Due to
changing workforce demographics, globalization, and a desire to employ people who reflect their
customer base, organizations in many countries are becoming more diverse in terms of GENDER,
RACE, ETHNICITY, religion, national origin, AGE, area of expertise, and many other personal
characteristics. Consequently, in modern organizations around the world, managers are finding that they
must learn to embrace diversity and manage it effectively in order to ensure business success.

Document
The Nature of Diversity in Organizations
Demographic and cultural diversity are two important types of diversity in modern organizations.
Throughout the world, women are entering the workforce in growing numbers. With the decline of
gender-based segregation in the workplace, men and women are now more often found working side-by-
side (see SEX DIFFERENCES; WOMEN MANAGERS; WOMEN AT WORK). In some countries,
age diversity is also increasing, as declining rates of population growth push employers to hire both
more youth and more older employees. Furthermore, as organizations allow the higher education of
younger employees to substitute for the job experience that previous cohorts of employees had to accrue
in order to be promoted, relatively young employees are found more often in higher-level jobs. Ethnic
and cultural diversity also are increasingly important. For example, as the 1980s drew to a close, the U.
S. Department of Labor projected that 22 percent of new entrants into the labor force would be
immigrants and that an additional 20 percent would be ethnic minorities. In many European countries,
ethnic and cultural diversity are increasing due to the consolidation of economic markets and related
changes in immigration and employment policies. And, throughout the world, managing cultural
diversity has become essential as corporations have expanded their operations into foreign countries
and/or developed STRATEGIC ALLIANCES with foreign-owned firms (see INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT and INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT).
The issue of managing diversity is important even in organizations where the workforce has not become
more demographically and/or culturally diverse because many organizations are utilizing WORK
GROUPS to pursue new business strategies. These often bring together employees from previously
segregated areas of the company, creating occupational and knowl-

Document
Page 308
Table 1 Taxonomy of Primary Constructs in a Framework for Understanding Diversity.

1. Aspects of Diversity: Content 2. Mediating States and Processes 3. Short-term Behavioral 4. Longer-term Consequences
and Structure Manifestations
Level of Analysis: Individual
Readily detectable attributes: Task-related: Task-related: Task-related:
• Task-related: organizational • Information processing (e.g., • Seeking/offering/receiving work- • Personal performance (speed,
tenure, team tenure, dep't./unit attention, recall) related information, tangible creativity, accuracy)
membership, memberships in task- • Learning (e.g., discovery, resources, or human resources • Satisfaction w/performance of self
relevant external networks, formal creativity) • Initiating/responding to influence and team
credentials, educational level • Task-based information attempts • Acquisition of knowledge and
• Power to control tangible resources skills re: technical aspects of task
• Relations-oriented: sex, culture • Power to control human resources Relations-oriented: managing human and tangible
(race, ethnicity, national origin), • Seeking/offering/receiving social resources
age, memberships in formal Relations-oriented: information and/or support • Establishment of position in work
organizations (e.g., religious and • Social cognitive processes: communication networks
political), physical features operation of stereotypes and
schema-based expectancies Relations-oriented:
Underlying attributes: • Affective responses: attraction, • Acquisition of interpersonal
• Task-related knowledge, skills, anxiety, fear, guilt, frustration, knowledge and skills re:
abilities (cognitive and physical), discomfort interpersonal aspects of task,
experience • Establishment of position in social
communication networks (within
• Relations-oriented: social status, team and in external environment)
attitudes, values, personality, • Satisfaction with social
behavioral style, extra-team social relationships
ties
(table continued on next page)

Document
Page 309
(table continued from previous page)
1. Aspects of Diversity: Content 2. Mediating States and Processes 3. Short-term Behavioral 4. Longer-term Consequences
and Structure Manifestations
Level of Analysis: Interpersonal
Interpersonal (dis)similarity in Task-related: Task-related: Task-related:
terms of readily detectable and • Differences in task-based •Exchanges/negotiations/ • Power balance
underlying attributes: cognitions consolidation of task-related
Dyadic • Expertise-based status differentials information, tangible resources, or Relations-oriented:
Individual-to-social group • Differences in power over tangible human resources • Status hierarchy
Individual-to-work team and/or human resources • Balance of interpersonal accounts
Relations-oriented: (e.g., political debts and credits)
Relations-oriented: • Exchanges/consolidation of social • Solidification of friendship
• Social familiarity information and/or support coalitions
• Diffuse status differentials
• Differences in social cognitions
• Differences in affective responses
Level of Analysis: Groups and Organizations
• Composition: heterogeneity versus Task-related: Task-related: Task-related:
homogeneity of readily detectable • Shape of expertise-based status • Task-related communication • Group/Organization performance
and underlying attributes hierarchy networks (speed, accuracy, creativity)
• Patterns of task-based cognitions • Allocation and use of tangible and • Group/Organization satisfaction
• Special configurations: • Shape of power distributions for human resources with performance
Presence of "tokens" control of tangible and/or human * Influence networks • Group/Organization learning
Presence of small minority faction resources about technical aspects of task, and
Bipolar group composition Relations-oriented: about the management of tangible
Relations-oriented: • Friendship communication and human resources
• Stage of team socialization networks
• Shape of diffuse social status Relations-oriented
hierarchy • Membership stability
• Patterns of social cognitions • Adoption of social structures (e.g.,
• Patterns of affective responses norms & roles, influence networks,
among members friendship networks)
Adapted from S. E. Jackson, K. E. May, & K. Whitney (1994). Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Document
Page 310
edge-based diversity. Teams may also bring together employees from two or more organizations. For
example, manufacturers may include their suppliers and end users as part of a product design team.
Such teams must develop a mode of operating that fits with the differing ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURES in which the subunits are embedded (Hofstede, 1991).
Table 1 illustrates the multitude of phenomena that are relevant to the topic of managing diversity.
Within this framework, diversity is placed as a construct that appears early in the causal chain of events.
The Content and Structure of Diversity
Individual attributes reflect the content of diversity; in contrast, the configuration of attributes within a
social unit reflects the structure of diversity. Terms for referring to the structure of diversity differ
across levels of analysis, from interpersonal (dis)similarity to group and organizational composition. At
the group and organizational levels, one of the most studied aspects of composition is heterogeneity.
Along the continuum of homogeneity–heterogeneity, a few structural configurations have drawn special
attention, including the demographic '' token" or "solo" members, the presence of a small minority
faction, and a bipolar team composition, with two equal-size coalitions present. Such configurations can
be particularly influential in affecting GROUP DYNAMICS (see also COALITION FORMATION,
MINORITY GROUP INFLUENCE, GROUP DECISION MAKING).
Consequences of Diversity
Diversity has many short-term and longer-term consequences. Detailed reviews of research examining
these consequences (e.g., Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995; Moreland & Levine, 1992) indicate that the
consequences of diversity depend upon the precise nature of diversity being studied. For example, the
amount and type of STEREOTYPING that people engage in can be influenced by the structure of
diversity within a group but this is most likely to be true only for easily detected attributes such as sex,
race, and age. Diversity in terms of task-related, underlying attributes is likely to reduce GROUP-
THINK and improve the quality and CREATIVITY of a group's decision-making processes, but
diversity in terms of relations-oriented attributes does not have clear consequences for group decision
making. At the organizational level, diversity in terms of relations-oriented attributes appears to
increase the amount of TURNOVER that occurs among employees–presumably because it causes
interpersonal CONFLICT and interferes with COMMUNICATIONS (see NETWORK ANALYSIS).
This sounds as if diversity may be detrimental, but there are good reasons and some evidence to believe
diversity can be beneficial for organizations because it improves their ability to adapt quickly to a
changing environment (see ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY; TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS).
Practical Implications

Document
No single theory explains the full set of beneficial and detrimental effects of diversity in work
organizations and this makes it difficult for organizations confidently to develop effective means for
managing diversity. Nevertheless, in recognition of the growing importance of diversity, many large
and prominent firms began to implement "managing diversity" initiatives during the late 1980s. Such
initiatives have proliferated since then and are now a major HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
activity. Examples of the approaches being used to effectively manage diversity include: nontraditional
work arrangements such as job sharing, FLEXITIME, and telecommuting; education and TRAINING
programs intended to reduce stereotyping, BIAS, and PREJUDICE, increase cultural sensitivity, and
develop INTERPERSONAL SKILLS for working in multicultural environments; career management
programs designed to promote constructive FEEDBACK to employees, MENTORING relationships,
and access to informal networks; and new employee benefits, such as expanded parental leave and
dependent care assistance. Such programs often are implemented in organizations that have already
been proactive in their attempts to reduce DISCRIMINATION and provide EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
to a broad array of employees. They are also found in some organizations with large numbers of
EXPATRIATES working abroad.
Ultimately, the best approach to managing diversity will depend on the types of diversity present in an
organization and the outcomes of

Document
Page 311
most concern to the organization. Therefore, those who wish to improve the ability of an organization to
manage diversity effectively must be willing to develop a comprehensive approach tailored to their
specific situation. It is impossible to prescribe interventions that will be universally acceptable, but
organizations that have been successful in their efforts to effectively manage diversity appear to use the
following principles to guide the process of ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE (see Jackson &
Associates, 1992, for several case descriptions; for more general discussions of how organizations are
approaching the management of diversity, see Jamieson & O'Mara, 1991; Morrison, 1992).
Assess the Organization's Current State
Before launching new diversity initiatives, the organization's current human resource management
practices should be analyzed to determine why things are the way they are and which things should stay
the way they are. This includes evaluating whether current practices encourage or limit diversity,
understanding the forces that support the use of the organization's present system of management, and
assessing which aspects of the current system are consistent with the organization's current needs.
Questions to be answered include: What are the backgrounds of people in the organization and how is
diversity distributed throughout the organization? Do people with diverse backgrounds work closely
together, or are they segregated into homogeneous subgroups based on occupations, hierarchical level,
or geographic location? How do the backgrounds of people relate to their ATTITUDES and behaviors?
Do subgroups of employees report different degrees of satisfaction with their coworkers or the
supervision they receive? Are turnover patterns different among different groups of employees? Does
CAREER mobility appear to differ across subgroups?
Set Objectives
The next task is to set objectives and prioritize the dimensions of diversity that are important for the
organization to address. These objectives might include: meeting social and legal responsibilities,
attracting and retaining a qualified workforce, facilitating teamwork, creating synergy between
dispersed and diverse work units, and spanning the boundary between the organization and its markets
(see BOUNDARY SPANNING). Which objectives are top priorities for an organization will influence
the types of diversity that must be managed and the types of initiatives likely to be most useful.
Design Interventions That Fit the Situation
The customers. To be effective, new initiatives require buy-in from all relevant "customers." The
customer metaphor emphasizes the importance of designing and delivering initiatives which customers
see as valuable, are aware of, and evaluate positively. To achieve these objectives, close customer
contact is essential. This includes contact with those who are targeted as the direct users (e.g., those
attending a workshop) as well as those in a position to encourage or discourage the direct customers'
use of a service.

Document
The boundaries of the change effort. Many organizations are actively participating in new alliances
with their suppliers, customers, and even their competitors. As interorganization alliances become more
common, so do the pressures to extend human resources management practices beyond the
organization's formal boundaries. Initiatives extending beyond organizational borders might include
establishing relationships with schools (grade schools, high schools, and colleges) as well as community
groups and other local businesses (see INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS).
Resources. Unrealistic expectations for quick and easy results may mean potentially useful change
efforts are prematurely shut down. To avoid this, resources needed for new initiatives (e.g., time,
money, people) should be analyzed carefully. Then a decision can be made about whether the resources
are available to invest in order to capture the potential benefits of diversity and/or reduce its negative
consequences.
Institutionalize New Learning
Initiatives for creating organizational changes are likely to involve many different people working on
many different projects in many different places over a long period of time. A large amount of
knowledge and information is likely to be generated. Recording systematically

Document
Page 312
what is learned is an important first step, but this is not enough. Whereas standard operating procedures
may ensure that systematically collected information is summarized and recorded in the form of a
report, in order to institutionalize the ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING, official policies and practices
of the organization must change to reflect the new information.
Conclusion
Diversity is a complex and potentially "hot" issue with many facets. Although relatively little is known
about what are the most effective ways to manage diversity within organizations, it is clear that almost
all organizations must learn to manage diverse human resources. As is true for most strategic issues, the
most effective approach to managing diversity differs from one organization to the next, so those who
wish to improve an organization's effectiveness must be prepared to find and tailor solutions and
approaches to fit their unique situation. This implies a learn-as-you-go approach. Inevitably, the
learning process will be jolting at times, as change agents, supervisors, subordinates, and coworkers
realize the need for changes within themselves, in their organization's culture, and in the basic human
resources management systems of the organization. Some jolts may be beneficial for the change
process, but too many jolts may bring the process to a screeching halt. To avoid this, managers are
encouraged to diagnose carefully their own organization's situation and the types of diversity of most
strategic importance, learn as much as possible about the potential costs and benefits of diversity and
homogeneity before initiating change, work closely with the people who will be affected by any change
process, monitor changes in individuals and the systems as a whole, and make adjustments as needed.
This type of long-term, strategically oriented approach to managing diversity offers the greatest
potential for success.
See also Individual differences; Intercultural process; Culture, national; Culture, cross-cultural
research
Bibliography
Adler, N. J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Boston, MA: Kent.
Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
DeLuca, J. M. & McDowell, R. N. (1992). Managing diversity: A strategic "grass-roots" approach. In

S. E. Jackson & Associates, Diversity in the workplace: Human resources initiatives. New York:
Guilford.
Jackson, S. E. & Associates (1992). Diversity in the workplace: Human resources initiatives. New
York: Guilford.

Document
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E. & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision
making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds), Team effectiveness and decision making in
organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jamieson, D. & O'Mara, J. (1991). Managing workforce 2000: Gaining the diversity advantage. San
Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moreland, R. L. & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. In E. J. Lawler, B.

Markovsky, C. Ridgeway & H. Walker (Eds), Advances in group processes (vol. 9). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Morrison, A. M. (1992). The new leaders: Guidelines on diversity in America. San Francisco CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total workforce by
managing diversity. New York: AMACOM.
SUSAN E. JACKSON
Management of High Potential
The term "high potential" (HIPO) refers to people who are believed to have the potential to reach senior
levels in an organization. Generally, this belief is based upon their current and potential
COMPETENCIES, MOTIVATION, and aspirations. The identification, development, and management
of a high potential cadre differs somewhat across companies and nations.
The identification and development of high potential people is a critical factor for the long-term
sustainability of many organizations, but the importance is particularly marked in those companies
committed to "growing their own talent" through the use of the internal labor markets (the types of
companies which Sonnenfeld and Peiperl (1988) refer to as Clubs and Academies). Systematic attempts
to optimize

Document
Page 313
the development of talented young people have in some companies resulted in fast track career
management process.
Introduced some 30 years ago by a number of MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, these fast track
processes recreated the accelerated development of talent seen in the army and civil service. Talented
people are identified at an early stage of their career and participate in a range of short cross-functional
and international job assignments whilst receiving close senior management attention and
MENTORING. These processes are created in part to establish and sustain a PSYCHOLOGICAL
CONTRACT which enables the short-term inconvenience of mobility and job pressure experienced by
the individual to be off set against the promise of longer-term POWER and resource gains. Fast track
processes also serve to develop the breadth of vision and internal networks which some (e.g., Kotter,
1982) believe to be essential to senior management effectiveness (see NETWORKING). The
facilitation of cross-functional and international assignments are underpinned by succession processes
such as succession lists and senior management resource committees (see SUCCESSION PLANNING).
The role of these processes is to ensure that those jobs deemed to have develop potential are assigned to
nominated high potential people. Since their introduction, surveys in both Europe and North America
show that fast track processes have become an increasingly familiar feature in large organizations (Derr,
Jones, & Tommey, 1988; Thompson, Kirkham, & Dixon, 1985).
For companies which grow rapidly through acquisition or are highly decentralized into relatively
autonomous business streams, fast track processes could be seen as overly bureaucratic, centrally
controlled, inflexible with an overly long-term focus. In these acquisitive, bottom-line orientated
companies a "JUST-IN-TIME" process of development and succession is more likely to be used. The
emphasis is on significant and stretching job experiences, close management mentoring, and appraisal
underpinned with highly performance orientated reward mechanisms (Gratton & Syrett, 1990). Talented
individuals are "thrown in at the deep end" and expected to sink or swim. It is both short-term
performance rather than long-term potential which is actively monitored and rewarded.
High potential management processes such as "fast tracks" can be found in companies across the world.
However, researchers have described some fundamental cross-national differences in the identification,
development, and management of high potential people (Evans, Doz, & Laurent, 1989; Pieper, 1990)
(see INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT). The mapping of these cultural traditions has included the
Japanese model, the Latin European approach, the Germanic tradition and the Anglo-Dutch model. The
Japanese model is based on the recruitment of elite cohorts and a competitive tournament of
elimination, leading the winners into executive positions (see TOURNAMENT PROMOTION). A
rather similar process is found in French companies were the selection of top managers also takes place
at entry, mostly on the basis of elite educational qualifications. The Germanic tradition is rather
different, with a tradition of formal apprenticeship and more attachment to functional career paths. The
generalist notion of high potential development is most rooted in the Anglo-Saxon culture. Entry is less
elitist with graduates recruited for specific functional or technical jobs. Around their late 20s those
individuals with potential are identified and enter the "fast track" described earlier.

Document
Over the last decade, the issue of high potential development has received increasing attention. The
debate has focused on the operationalizing of high potential identification and development, and the
impact of future organizational forms and structures which affect managerial requirements.
The delivery of intensely structured, controlled, and centralized high potential development processes
are presenting real challenges for organizations. From a supply perspective, dual CAREERS are
limiting mobility, "one off' early identification can fail to build on the talents of late developers and
women who have taken a CAREER BREAK (see WOMEN MANAGERS). Perhaps most importantly,
the basis of the PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT is under threat as even the most established
organizations simultaneously delayer and recruit senior executives from the external labor market. As a
consequence, they can no longer promise or deliver a

Document
Page 314
life-time career. The demand perspective is just as bleak as early as 1988. Derr et al. reported that 28
percent of the companies they surveyed could no longer deliver a range of jobs and vertically
accelerated job opportunities.
There is also a debate about whether structured and controlled processes are capable of identifying and
developing executives capable of operating in the flat, matrix, team and project-based structures which
will characterize an increasing number of companies (see MATRIX ORGANIZATION). It has been
argued that individuals who have participated in accelerated vertical development do not develop open,
empathic behaviors (Drath, 1990). This is supported by Luthans, Rosenkrantz, & Hennessy (1985) who
report that those managers who have experienced most rapid promotion are observed to spend
significantly more time networking, but less time giving credit, delegating and letting subordinates
determine their own work. Clearly a challenge for the 1990s is how to develop high potential people to
work comfortably and effectively in flatter, team-based structures.
See also Career plateauing; Career transitions; Human resource planning; International human
resource management; Management development; Performance appraisal
Bibliography
Drath, W. H. (1990). Managerial strengths and weaknesses as functions of the development of personal
meaning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, (4), 483–499.
Derr, B., Jones, C. & Toomey, E. (1988). Managing high-potential employees: Current practices in
thirty-three U.S. corporations. Human Resource Management, 27, (3), 273–290.
Evans, P., Doz, Y. & Laurant, A. (1989). Human resource management in international firms. London:
Macmillan.
Gratton, L. C. & Syrett, M. (1990). Heirs apparent: Succession strategies for the 90s. Personnel
Management, 34–38
Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free Press.
Luthens, F., Rosenkrantz, S. & Hennessy, H. (1985). What successful managers really do? Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 255–270.
Pieper, R. (1990). Human resource management: An international comparison. Berlin: Walter de

Gruyter.
Sonnenfeld, J. & Peiperl, M. (1988). Staffing policy as a strategic response: A typology of career
systems. Academy of Management Review, 13, 588–600.
Thompson, P. H., Kirkham, K. & Dixon, J. (1985). Warning: The fast-track may be hazardous to
organisational health. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 21–33.

Document
LYNDA GRATTON
Managerial Behavior
The behavior of managers has been the subject of research since the 1950s. This research, prompted
partly by an academic concern to examine how far management theory applied in practice and partly by
a practical concern to furnish evidence on which MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, TRAINING/
development, RECRUITMENT, and PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL might be based, has occurred in a
variety of contexts and has employed a variety of methods.
Clearly, what constitutes "managerial behavior" depends on how "managers" and "behavior" are
defined. Conventionally, managers have been regarded as those taking responsibility for the work of at
least one other individual and designated as "managers'' by their employing organization. However,
with the diminution of HIERARCHY and the erosion of DEPARTMENTALIZATION and LINE-
STAFF distinctions, together with the concomitant growth of SELF-MANAGED TEAMS, JOB
ENRICHMENT and cross-functional projects, the boundaries between managers, professionals, and
non-managers have become less clear-cut (see PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS).
Distinguishing exclusively managerial behavior is increasingly difficult. Moreover, since
"management," as a broad process, is not synonymous with what "managers," as an occupational
category, do, the claim of some research on managerial behavior to have "disproved" classical
management theory (see MANAGEMENT, CLASSICAL THEORY) is questionable.
As for "behavior," research faces the problem of distinguishing among managerial work, jobs as
clusters of work and behavior within jobs; between what managers are expected to do and what they
actually do; and between the ends (tasks/responsibilities) and means (actions/behavior) of managerial
work. In practice,

Document
Page 315
studies of actual behavior in the context of jobs defined organizationally as "managerial" have
predominated. From these have resulted conceptual models which seek to depict and explain
managerial behavior and a set of empirical findings which shed light on its content and form.
Among the models which have been developed are: the conception of managers as subject to
"demands," "constraints," and "choices" (Stewart, 1982; 1991); managerial work as a configuration of
"interpersonal,'' "informational," and "decisional" roles (Mintzberg, 1973); the view of managers
developing and pursuing "agendas" through "networks" of contacts (Kotter, 1982); analysis of the
"expectations" surrounding managerial positions (Machin, 1982); and the notion of how different
"managerial divisions of labor" impinge on managerial behavior (Hales, 1993). These models
demonstrate a discernible shift over time away from viewing managerial behavior as an aggregate of
static elements toward a greater appreciation of its dynamic and processual character.
Research findings demonstrate both commonalities and variations in managerial behavior. The content
of managerial behavior (i.e., what managers do) commonly involves both specialist/professional and
general managerial elements, with the latter including some combination of:
1. Acting as a figurehead, representative, and point of contact of a work unit or team.
2. Monitoring and disseminating information.
3. Negotiating with subordinates, superiors, colleagues, and those outside the organization.
4. Monitoring workflow, handling disturbances, and problem solving.
5. Allocating human, material, and financial resources.
6. Recruiting, training, directing, and controlling staff.
7. NETWORKING, forming contacts, and liaising with others.
8. Innovating, by seeking new objectives or methods of working.
9. PLANNING and scheduling work.
10. Engaging in "informal" activities such as instrumental socializing and organizational POLITICS.
The form of managerial behavior (how managers work) commonly exhibits the following characteristics:
(a) Fragmentation, with commuting between short, interrupted activities.
(b) Frequent reaction to, rather than initiation of, events and the requests of others.
(c) A concern with ad hoc, day-to-day exigencies.

Document
(d) NEGOTIATION over the boundaries, content, and style of performance of the manager's job.
(e) Embeddedness, with decisions and plans developed in the course of other activities.
(f) A high level of interaction with others, often face-to-face.
(g) Pressure, CONFLICT, and contradictory demands.
(h) A degree of choice over what gets done and how.
Whilst these basic characteristics have remained fairly stable over time, a number of important
developments and shifts in emphasis have taken place, stemming from increasingly fluid and
ambiguous managerial job responsibilities. In particular, managers' behavior has become less focused
on allocating and administering resources within a clearly defined work unit and more concerned with
innovating, securing resources, and activities which span unit and organizational boundaries (see
BOUNDARY-SPANNING). Consequently, it has become more fragmented, exigent, embedded, and
interactive, concerned less with vertical relationships, involving the direction and CONTROL of
subordinates, more with horizontal and external relationships, involving networking, and negotiation
with a broad set of constituencies.
As well as these variations over time, there are also well-documented variations in managerial behavior
by individual, position, function, organization, industry, and CULTURE. Variations in ROLE
configurations, balance of work content, allocation of time, work patterns, contact patterns, interaction
with others, and degree of choice have all been demonstrated (Stewart, 1991). One problem, however,
is that

Document
Page 316
some of this variation is as much an artefact of different research approaches as a reflection of

substantive differences in managerial behavior. Consequently, studies reliant on single methods, such as
diaries, observation or structured questionnaires, have given way to multimethod studies (see
RESEARCH METHODS). The body of knowledge on managerial behavior remains somewhat
disconnected, however.
Constructing a more integrated framework for analyzing managerial behavior is, therefore, one of a
number of likely future developments in the field. Tackling the question of what constitutes effective
managerial behavior is another, given the importance attached to managerial activity as a determinant of
organizational performance. Only recently has research addressed this question directly (Luthans,
Hodgetts, & Rosencrantz 1988), not least because of difficulties in establishing agreed criteria of
effectiveness (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS). Thus, whether the reactive, fragmentary,
and exigent nature of much managerial behavior indicates managerial ineffectiveness in applying
rational planning and control or an effective way of handling the ambiguities of managing within
complex organizations remains a matter of debate.
The connection between managerial behavior and its context requires further exploration and
explanation in the light of current changes to that context. The link between BUREAUCRACY and
managerial behavior is well documented (Hannaway, 1989; Jackall, 1989) but rapid organizational
RESTRUCTURING means that the general relationship between forms of organization structure/
culture and managerial behavior needs to be better understood. So too does the influence of national
culture on managerial behavior, given the increasing internationalization of managerial relationships
and careers (see INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; EXPATRIATES).
See also Job design; Leadership; Managerial style; Management, classical theory; International
management; Women managers
Bibliography
Hales, C. P. (1986). What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence. Journal of Management
Studies, 23, (1), 88–115.
Hales, C. P. (1993). Managing through organisation. London: Routledge.
Hannaway, J. (1989). Managers managing: The workings of an administrative system. Oxford, UK:
Jackall, R. (1989). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Kotter, P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free Press.
Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. M. & Rosencrantz, S.A. (1988). Real managers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Document
Machin, J. L. J. (1982). The expectations approach. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Stewart, R. (1982). Choices for the manager. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stewart, R. (1991). Managing today and tomorrow. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
COLIN L. HALES
Managerial Grid
The grid is formed by examining managerial behavior on two orthogonal dimensions: concern for
people (the vertical axis of the grid) and concern for productivity (the horizontal axis). Managers
indicate their endorsement or rejection of a set of assumptions and beliefs generating scores from 1 to 9
on each dimension. Managers are then typed in terms of their scores on the two axes:
9, 1 Authority-Obedience Management. The leader's maximum concern for production (9) is combined
with a minimum concern for people (1). "Dictating to subordinates what they should do and how they
should do it, the leader concentrates on maximizing production."
1, 9 "Country Club" Management. The leader shows a minimum concern for production (1) but a
maximum concern for people (9). "Even at the expense of achieving results, fostering good feelings
gets primary attention."
1, 1 Impoverished Management. The leader has a minimum concern for both production and people and
puts forth only the least effort required to remain in the organization.
5, 5 "Organization Man" Management. The leader goes along to get along, which results in conformity
to the status quo.

Document
Page 317
9, 9 Team Management. The leader integrates the concern for production and the concern for people at
a high level; is goal centered; and seeks results through the participation, involvement, and commitment
of all those who can contribute. The 9, 9 style is paternalistic if the leader fails to integrate the concerns
of production and for people and keeps the two in logic-tight compartments. (Blake & Mouton, 1964, p.
10, in paraphrase.)
See also Managerial style; Leadership; Managerial behavior; Leadership style
Bibliography
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
BERNARD M. BASS
Managerial Style
The pattern of managing varies with different managers in different settings. Many diverse theories
provide alternative views of these styles. Classical management emphasized PLANNING, directing,
and controlling subordinates. Some managers' styles emphasize one function rather than another.
Increasingly, managers must see themselves as envisioning, enabling, and empowering their colleagues
and as aligning the interests of their employees, management, owner–shareholders, suppliers, customers
and clients, as well as their community and society (see STAKEHOLDERS).
See also Theory X and Y; Theory Z; Management, classical theory; Leadership; Managerial
behavior; Leadership style
Bibliography
Kotter, J. P. (1987). The leadership factor. New York: Free Press.
BERNARD M. BASS
Manifest and Latent Functions

Document
In an influential statement, Merton (1949) codified the issues and concepts that need to be considered in
order to arrive at a fuller understanding of segments of social reality, such as organizations and
institutions. The crux of his scheme is the distinction between manifest, intended and latent, unintended
consequences of such items under analysis. Manifest functions (or consequences) are the
implementation of an organization's purpose. But the complexity of the social context in which
organizations are embedded, the rules and regulations required for their functioning, and the diversity of
human actors needed for the implementation of these purposes have other, latent consequences which
may advance or retard the basic purpose, or be unrelated to it. To inquire, for example, whether a
business makes a profit from the provision of goods or services is to search for its manifest
consequences; to ask whether it strengthens or undermines the health of its employees is to search for
possible latent consequences.
Compared to the procedures involved in establishing manifest consequences, the identification of latent
consequences is much more difficult and ambiguous. Not that it is always easy to trace the former,
particularly not with patterns that have a long history – their original purposes may have become
blurred or changed or be irrelevant to current conditions; in addition, many organizations have several
purposes. But the logic of procedure for establishing manifest consequences is nevertheless
straightforward: define the purpose or purposes and observe the extent of their implementation.
The discovery of latent consequences lacks such guidance through a defined purpose. By definition they
can appear in unexpected quarters. Analytical imagination, chance observations, and vested interest in
another intellectual issue are some guides to their discovery. In this manner, benefits to tourism or even
to Kodak's sales volume can be identified as latent consequences of the British monarchy.
A somewhat more systematic way of identifying latent consequences consists in concentrating on

explicit exclusions from the scope of an institution. Some differences between people or situations
within the scope of the organization or outside it can be interpreted as the presence or absence of its
latent consequences. A case in point is the situation of the unemployed, excluded from the institution of
employment (see UNEMPLOYMENT). Many studies in several countries have conclusively
demonstrated that financial STRESS is not the only consequence of

Document
Page 318
job loss (see REDUNDANCY). Most of the unemployed carry in addition a psychological burden
which they identify variously as boredom, social isolation, a sense of uselessness, uncertainty about
their social identity, and enforced inactivity (see SELF-ESTEEM). By its manner of organization
employment provides, incidental to the pursuit of its main purposes, time structure, an enlarged social
network, PARTICIPATION in collective efforts, definition of social identity, and required regular
activity. Experiences within some or all of these categories during employment are often unsatisfactory,
but judging by the sense of psychological deprivation among the unemployed, the absence of the daily
opportunity to have such experiences at all is worse. From this some latent consequences of
employment have been inferred (Jahoda, 1982): they are the unintended daily provision of categories of
experience which most people value and seem to need for their well-being (see MENTAL HEALTH).
The understanding of all organizations is enlarged by tracing both types of functions; in addition, the
identification of latent functions, whether desirable or undesirable, can have significant policy
implications.
See also Agency restriction; Nonwork/work; Quality of working life
Bibliography
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A socialpsychological analysis. Cambridge, MA:

Merton, R. K. (1949). Manifest and latent functions. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social
structure (pp. 21–81). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
MARIE JAHODA
Manpower Planning
see HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING; SUCCESSION PLANNING
Mass Production
This term refers to systems where inputs are transformed into high volumes of standardized outputs.
Considered more complex than BATCH PRODUCTION, such systems are epitomized by the
automobile assembly line.

Document
Mass production is important in organizational research because many studies suggest that
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN structure is linked to the PROCESS TECHNOLOGY the firm
employs, and that high organizational performance requires matching TECHNOLOGY with structure
(see CONTINGENCY THEORY). Mass production is generally very efficient, but inflexible.
Consequently, organizational structures associated with such systems are often highly bureaucratic and
mechanistic, employing elaborate rules and regulations, rigid HIERARCHY, and FUNCTIONAL
DESIGN (see BUREAUCRACY; MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC).
Worker tasks under mass production are typically simple, standardized, repetitive, and monotonous (see
REPETITIVE WORK). Consequently, assembly-line workers are frequently alienated from the
organization and dissatisfied with their jobs (see ALIENATION; JOB SATISFACTION). This problem
becomes exacerbated with more educated workers, since mass production was originally designed to
provide relatively unskilled labor with uncomplicated tasks.
Mass production also tends to create a "PRODUCTIVITY DILEMMA" (Abernathy, 1978). The more
specialized and highly integrated the assembly line becomes, the more difficult it becomes to introduce
INNOVATION; for instance, little progress was made in automobile technology between 1950 and
1975 because minor model changes required shutting down assembly lines for several months to
reorganize and retool.
See also Automation; Advanced manufacturing technology; Technology
Bibliography
Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma: Roadblock to innovation in the automobile

industry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hounshell, D. A. (1984). From the American system to mass production 1900–1932: The development
of manufacturing technology in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Walker, C. R. & Guest, R. H. (1952). The man on the assembly line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Woodward, J. (1970). Industrial organization: Theory and practice (2nd edn). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
PHILIP ANDERSON

Document
Page 319
Matrix Organization
The distinctive feature of a matrix organization is that some individuals report to two (or even more)
bosses. This form of organization, the only major type of ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN with its
origins in the twentieth century, violates the classic principle of unitary command ("one-person–one-
boss") (see also CLASSICAL DESIGN THEORY; HIERARCHY; MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC). It is
employed when firms must:
(i) tightly coordinate or balance two or more dimensions such as resources (e.g., functional expertise)
and businesses (e.g., products or projects);
(ii) while facing uncertainties that require high information processing; and
(iii) strong constraints on financial and human resources.
The matrix can be viewed as a diamond with three roles: the top manager who heads up and balances
the dual chains of command; two or more matrix bosses who share common subordinates, and the
individuals who report to the two different matrix bosses. However, a point to be emphasized is that
matrix organization is more than this matrix structure. The dual structure must be supported by
matrixed processes such as joint GOAL-SETTING, dual evaluation systems, by matrix LEADERSHIP
behavior and individual SKILLS, and by a matrix CULTURE that constructively resolves conflicts and
balances POWER (Davis & Lawrence, 1977).
The origins of matrix organization are to be found in the US space program of the 1960s, where the
challenge was to meet President Kennedy's target of putting man on the moon by 1970, requiring highly
complex project coordination, while meeting Congressional cost constraints. The term was supposedly
coined by mathematically training engineers to describe this evolution in PROJECT MANAGEMENT.
Today, one recognizes that matrix organization takes different shapes on a continuum. Taking the
continuum between function and project-oriented organization as an example, at each extreme are
nonmatrix traditional organizations, where functional and project hierarchies are coordinated by general
management at the top (see TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS). Then there is the unbalanced matrix
where one party is dominant (the secondary reporting lines are often denoted by dotted lines on
organizational charts). In the full or balanced matrix, described above, the authority and responsibility
of both project and functional managers is equal.
Matrix never applies to an entire organization. In balanced or unbalanced forms, it is applied to

temporary projects, or it is an overlay on part of the organization. Almost all complex organizations,
notably MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, display some matrix overlays. A local personnel
manager in Germany reports directly to his or her country manager but has a "dotted line" responsibility
to coordinate certain issues with the regional or corporate vice president for human resources.

Document
Matrix organization attracted much attention in the 1970s when the pioneering works on this form of
organization were written. The purported advantages are an increase in lateral COMMUNICATION
and the amount of information that the organization can handle, better deployment of and
FLEXIBILITY in the use of human and other resources, increased MOTIVATION and personal
development, and better achievement of technical excellence. But there are many disadvantages such as
high levels of CONFLICT which may lead to power struggles between resource and business managers;
ambiguity over resources, pay and assignments; difficulties in control ("passing the buck" and
abdication of responsibility); the cost of support, information processes and meetings; slow DECISION
MAKING; higher levels of STRESS (see ROLE CONFLICT). A number of organizations that
introduced matrix in the 1970s reverted to traditional structures in the 1980s, leading some influential
observers to comment that matrix organizations are so complex as to be virtually unmanageable. Davis
and Lawrence (1977) argue that they are so difficult (because processes and culture must also be
matrixed) that one should not consider this way of organizing unless there are no other alternatives.
In what settings and under what conditions is matrix management appropriate? The environment is one
parameter (see CONTINGENCY THEORY). It may be considered when a high degree of both
DIFFERENTIATION and INTEGRATION is required, coupled with strong resource and cost
constraints. This is often true for complex projects in construction,

Document
Page 320
aerospace, investment banking and consulting services. This applies also to organizations that draw
upon a pool of common expertise to develop different products or services for segmented markets,
especially when TECHNOLOGY and customer needs change frequently. The culture of the firm is
another parameter (see ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE). Matrix organization will not function well
in bureaucratic or mechanistic cultures with strong vertical reporting lines, low competence in
managing change, and minimal interdepartmental interaction (see BUREAUCRACY). There is also
evidence that certain national cultures, those with a strong attachment to traditional AUTHORITY, are
less receptive to matrix organization. And as a generalization, it appears that project or business
oriented matrices are more effective than balanced matrices, while functional or resource matrices are
least effective.
What are the internal requirements of a matrix organization for it to be effective? There is insufficient
research to provide a clear answer. The list is endless, typically organized into a number of headings (e.
g., matrix = matrix structure + matrix systems + matrix culture + matrix behavior (Davis & Lawrence,
1977)). The roles and responsibilities of the managers and individual contributors within the matrix
must be spelt out, and the necessary COMPETENCIES provided through staffing and TRAINING. For
example, the general manager at the apex of the matrix diamond must push responsibility down,
maintain a certain distance, ensure clear goals, but be skilled at intervening in conflicts. Planning and
control systems need to be tailored to the matrix organization. Unless a multidimensional measurement,
reporting, and evaluation system is built, lack of clear accountability may lead to confusion and conflict
escalation. Human resource systems must be adjusted, with implications for CAREER pathing, skill
development (notably in TEAM BUILDING, negotiation, and conflict management), appraisal, and
compensation (see HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT).
There has been surprisingly little research since the 1970s on matrix, partly because of the
disillusionment and partly because of reduced interest in issues of organizational form and design. Both
practitioners and researchers have turned their attention to how lateral relations (coordination and
teamwork) can provide the flexibility of matrix without its disadvantages. Indeed, Ford and Randolph
(1992) note that there are two dimensions of matrix management:
(i) the dual or multiple authority relationships (formal reporting lines); and
(ii) the horizontal communication linkages and teamwork that matrix organization intends to foster.
Reviewing the studies on matrix and project management, they suggest that most of the disadvantages
appear to stem from the former, while most of the advantages originate from the latter.

Document
Some organizations today appear to be moving "beyond matrix" in the sense of creating
multidimensional management processes that provide flexibility to simple and unitary decision-making
structures. Many multinational corporations exist in three- or four-dimensional matrix environments.
Pressured by global competition, they must organize by product, geography, and function, often also
having to satisfy customer segments that cut across product or geographic lines (e.g., global accounts)
and to manage CORE COMPETENCIES embedded in different parts of the firm (see
COMPETITIVENESS). However, formal three- or four-dimensional matrix structures might paralyze
decision making.
Many of these firms believe in keeping the lines of the formal authority structure as simple as possible,
typically focusing on business/product lines or geographic lines. Matrix organization and project groups
are utilized on an ad hoc basis and "dotted reporting lines" are used to manage important
independencies. But these dotted lines are complemented by other horizontal linkage mechanisms–
coordination committees, councils, task forces, temporary project teams, workshops, and personal
relationships. And while there is a unitary authority structure, the key managers in this formal line of
authority have broad and balanced perspectives that allow them to take the appropriate decisions,
fostered by formative experiences in both functional and business roles. From the point of view of
decision-making authority, matrix management can be seen not as a

Document
Page 321
structure but as a frame-of-mind (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1990).
This emerging organization looks more like a network of relationships and perspectives, and "network"
appears to be a more appropriate metaphor today than the matrix of the space agency engineers in the
1960s (see NETWORK ANALYSIS).
See also Organization theory; Span of control
Bibliography
Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Matrix management: Not a structure, a frame of mind. Harvard
Business Review, 68, (4), 138–145.
Davis, S. M. & Lawrence, P. R. (1977). Matrix. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ford, R. C. & Randolph, W. A. (1992). Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix
organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18, (2), 267–294.
Janger, A. R. (1979). Matrix organization of complex business. New York: Conference Board Report
No. 763.
Kingdon, D. R. (1973). Matrix organization. London: Tavistock.
PAUL EVANS
Mechanistic/Organic
The terms mechanistic and organic (sometimes organismic) organizations were introduced into the
language of organizational behavior in a classic study of the development of the British electronics
industry during and immediately after World War II. It was found that those firms which had most
successfully adopted the new technology had flexible, nonbureaucratic structures, with minimal
demarcation between positions, and people saw a connection between their jobs and the goals of the
firm. In contrast, the mechanistic firms were bureaucratic with rigid hierarchies, communication was
vertical rather than horizontal, and specialization divorced people from overall organizational goals
(Burns & Stalker, 1961) (see BUREAUCRACY; SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT).

Document
The terms gained a considerable currency and heralded an important step toward a CONTINGENCY
THEORY of organizations. The mechanistic organization is not considered inappropriate for all
conditions but is suitable for relatively stable environmental conditions and where the TECHNOLOGY
is well understood, while organic organizations are more suitable for dynamic environments and new
technologies. One limitation of the organic organization is size (see ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE). Since
the intensity of coordination problems tends to rise steeply with the number of organizational members
it becomes necessary to use a combination of mechanistic and organic principles. The mechanistic firm
in trying to become more FLEXIBLE tends, according to the above perspective, to become pathological
by creating more bureaucratic mechanisms such as committees and liaison roles.
See also Organizational design; Organization theory; Organization and environment
Bibliography
Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation (2nd edn, 1968) . London: Tavistock.
RICHARD BUTLER
Media
see COMMUNICATIONS; COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
Mediation
see CONFLICT RESOLUTION; CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Mental Health
"Mental health is an ascientific concept, and it is unlikely that present or future thinking or study in any
of the behavioral or medical sciences is going to regularize its status." This comment by Freeman and
Giovannoni (1969) indicates the presence of both complexity and controversy. Taking the lead from a
definition of medical health suggests the existence of a total system which is made up of a number of
functioning subsystems each of which is performing satisfactorily and all of which are in balance with
each other, so that the whole functions as an integrated unity. The medical analogy is worth pursuing
briefly because it highlights the difference between illness, health, and fitness. Health might be defined
as the absence of illness, but fitness of the physiological system obviously entails much more than the
absence of illness. Most writing

Document
Page 322
on mental health makes the point even more strongly, defining mental health in terms of possessing
high, rather than just adequate, levels of various psychological attributes and states.
Jahoda (1958) used the construct "Positive Mental Health" to emphasize this distinction. She suggested
a number of criteria, supplemented by French et al. (1962) to guide their influential research program,
subsequently leading to the concept of organizational STRESS and associated research on mental health
in the workplace (Kahn, Quinn, Snoek, & Wolfe, 1964). The eleven criteria used included physiological
indicators and the presence/absence of certain diseases, but clearly people can be physically diseased,
yet have high levels of positive mental health, so these will be omitted. The psychological criteria are:
1. An accurate, realistic perception of the self which includes a positive evaluation strong enough to
allow change in both self and mental health to occur.
2. The desire or motivation within the person to seek challenges leading to psychological growth and
self-actualization.
3. Integration within the person of the various subidentities (roles) the person possesses, or in Freudian
terms harmony of the Id, Ego, and Super-ego.
4. The capacity to be an autonomous person capable of self-direction.
5. The capacity to perceive reality accurately, to be free from unconscious biases and prejudices.
6. High interpersonal COMPETENCE enabling the person to establish and maintain mutually gratifying
interpersonal relationships.
7. To be able to experience EMOTIONS of a wide range which are appropriate to the situation but
which are also capable of being controlled by the person.
8. The ability to carry out work (and other roles) efficiently and effectively and to high standards.
9. The capacity to be well adjusted to environments but also to have high adjustability enabling the
person to be effective in a wide range of different situations.
It is obvious enough that these criteria are not simple dichotomies where people are either healthy or
unhealthy. They are all dimensions ranging from extremely healthy to extremely unhealthy, and some
are likely to be more central to mental health than others. High levels of willpower may be less
important than accurate and clear perception of reality. The existence of multiple dimensions indicates
how complex the concept of mental health is. Warr (1987) offers a simpler list of five variables and
relates them particularly to the literature on work and UNEMPLOYMENT. They are: Affective well-
being; Competence; AUTONOMY; Aspiration (to improve, do better, etc.); Integrated functioning of
the other four, leading to a sense of wholeness which is the origin of the word "health" itself.

Document
A number of questionnaire measures exist which could be seen as measures of mental health, but as the
list above indicates a wide range of measures is really needed. One of the simplest, and widely used in
organizations, is Goldberg's General Health Questionnaire. The shortest version contains only twelve
questions and can be shown to be quite a good predictor of more complex interview-based measures of
mental health.
Empirical evidence shows mental health to be related to different jobs and levels within organizations,
with lower level job occupants being the least mentally healthy, but as the comments on complexity
imply, this over-simplifies the picture and ignores the influence of INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE
variables such as ABILITY and PERSONALITY, as well as the degree of social support in the
environment. Perrewe (1991) and Quick, Murphy, and Hunell (1992) contain examples of many
different approaches to studying mental health in the workplace, and the role of the workplace in
affecting mental health. Mental illness has considerable costs for employers through lost time and poor
performance, though employment itself often helps to improve mental health (Warr, 1987).
See also Affect; Burnout; Manifest and latent functions; Self-esteem
Bibliography
Freeman, H. E. & Giovannoni, J. M. (1969). Social psychology of mental health. In E. Aronson & G.
Lindzey (Eds.). The handbook of social psychology (pp. 660–702). Boston, MA: Addison-Welsey.

Document
Page 323
French, J. R. P., Kahn, R. L., Mann, F. C., Kasl, S. V., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., Williams, L. K. & Zaber,
A. (1962). Work, health and satisfaction. The Journal of Social Issues, XVIII, No. 3.
Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New York: Basic Books.
Kahn, R. L., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D. & Wolfe, D. M. (1964). Organisational stress: Studies in role
conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Perrewe, P. L. (Ed.), (1991). Handbook of job stress. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6,
(7) 463.
Quick, J., Murphy, L. & Hurrell, J. (Eds), (1992). Work and well-being: Assessments and interventions
for occupational mental health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment and mental health. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
ROY L. PAYNE
Mentoring
This refers to relationships between juniors and seniors (in terms of age or experience) that exist,
primarily, to support the personal development and career advancement of the junior person. These
relationships provide a wide range of developmental functions – including counseling, coaching, role
modeling, sponsorship, exposure, protection, confirmation, and friendship – and they are characterized
by considerable emotional intensity and involvement. Generally, mentoring relationships move through
four predictable phases of initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition. The character and length
of each phase are uniquely shaped by both individuals' needs and the surrounding organizational
context.
Mentor relationships enable both individuals to build new SKILLS and COMPETENCIES, prepare for
advancement and other growth opportunities, adapt to changing organizational circumstances, and/or
build SELF-ESTEEM. The focus and quality of LEARNING that occurs within this kind of
developmental relationship depends on the AGE and CAREER STAGE of each individual. For
example, young newcomers are likely to learn the ropes and to establish their sense of occupational
identity, and also develop self-esteem as they acquire new skills. More experienced protégés (in the
advancement stage of their careers) are likely to broaden their range of skills and competencies and to
learn how to balance increasing demands of more responsibility in both work and personal domains (see
NONWORK/WORK). Similarly, relatively young mentors are likely to learn how to coach and to serve
as a role model (see ROLE-TAKING). In contrast, mentors in the middle and later career stages learn
how to pass on accumulated wisdom and to nurture the next generation of talent, while creating a
personal legacy.

Document
As the workforce becomes increasingly diverse, it has become evident that cross-racial and cross-
gender relationships are more difficult to establish and maintain. For example, women and people of
color find that senior white men can sponsor them, but not necessarily empathize, coach, and/or serve as
role models due to fundamental differences in SOCIALIZATION and current work experiences (see
WOMEN AT WORK, WOMEN MANAGERS and SEX DIFFERENCES). In addition, individuals
need considerable self-awareness and INTERPERSONAL SKILL in order to build relationships with
people who are different, that transcend powerful, yet subtle and undermining stereotypes (see
MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY; INTERCULTURAL PROCESS; STEREOTYPING). Until these
complex dynamics are better understood and more effectively managed, women and people of color are
not likely to establish adequate mentoring alliances, and organizations will fail to fully utilize the
diversity of available talent.
The critical role that mentoring plays in learning and MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT (see also
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT), is now readily acknowledged. However, scholars and
practitioners regularly debate whether formalized mentoring (i.e., relationships that are arranged in the
context of fast-track or management development programs) can be as effective as naturally occurring
alliances (see MANAGEMENT OF HIGH POTENTIAL). In addition, other interventions – including
education for potential mentors and protégés, changes in reward systems to encourage managers to
mentor, and/or increased use of teams – can encourage mentoring by creating an environment more
conducive to relationship building and development.
In most contexts, mentor relationships are relatively rare. Instead, individuals are more likely to find
opportunities to build a variety of developmental relationships – those that pro-

Document
Page 324
vide some but not all of the functions outlined above – which are more limited in their involvement and
support. Nonetheless, a network of developmental relationships is more realistic, generally more
enriching, and also serves to compensate for the difficulties regularly encountered in cross-gender and
cross-race relationships.
Current trends including rapid changes in TECHNOLOGY, globalization, RESTRUCTURING,

DOWNSIZING, and an increasingly diverse workforce require individuals and organizations to
regularly learn and adapt (see LEARNING ORGANIZATION). Thus mentoring – a relatively untapped
development tool – is increasingly essential to survival and growth. Paradoxically, as the need for
effective mentoring is on the rise, organizational turbulence and UNCERTAINTY may make it difficult
for these critical developmental alliances to form and endure. Seeking mentor relationships outside the
organization may be a necessary and effective strategy; alliances external to the firm are uniquely
positioned to provide support, career advice, and much needed perspective.
See also Supervision; Career plateauing; Career development
Bibliography
Chao, G. T. & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison of mentoring
functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 1–16.
Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lanham,

MD: University Press of America.
Kram, K. E. & Bragar, M. C. (1992). Development through mentoring: A strategic approach. In D.

Montross & C. Shinkman (Eds), Career development: Theory and practice (pp. 221–254). Chicago:
Charles C. Thomas Press.
Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management
Review, 13 (1), 65–78.
Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships. Administrative

KATHY E. KRAM
Mergers and Acquisitions

Document
An acquisition is the legal and accounting act of an investor buying more than 50 percent of a vendor's
equity. A merger is a fusing together of two or more organizations. Mergers may occur between any
form of organization (business, government, voluntary, religious) whereas acquisitions refer to legal
purchases of equity within markets. In practice, the outcome of both a merger and an acquisition is
some combination of the human, material, and financial assets of two or more organizations into a new
legal and accounting entity.
In popular usage, a merger implies the acquiesence of those involved. An acquisition implies
compulsion. In fact, this is not the case. Some firms do acquire the assets of others through hostile bids.
However, these represent fewer than 10 percent of cases. Most acquisitions are mutually agreed bids
between senior managers of the two firms. Through such deals small firms expand to become larger.
Similarly, while a merger does suggest willing partners, and this is the most common case, there are
mergers which are imposed by others (e.g., governments) on reluctant actors.
Research interest in acquisitions has reflected the growing use of these strategies to change
organizations (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE) and/or change the distribution of POWER within
markets. However, merger and acquisition activity on the scale we know it now is a recent
phenomenon. For most of this century, the majority of acquisitions and mergers occurred in the United
States and Britain. Cycles of heightened activity occurred in periods of rapid growth: 1925–1931, 1967–
1969, 1972–1973, and 1985–1988. More recently, other countries have adopted these strategies for
change, making this phenomenon much more continuous, broad based, diverse, and global.
Early researchers classified mergers and acquisitions by the strategic objectives of the actors and by the
degree of integration sought (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT). Classifications by the objectives
include horizontal DIVERSIFICATION, vertical diversification, concentric marketing, concentric
TECHNOLOGY, and conglomeration (see CONGLOMERATE DIVERSIFICATION).

Document
Page 325
Classifications of the intended integration proposed a continuum of CONTROL. At one end is the
portfolio approach of autonomous units which maintain their corporate identities; control from the
center is light. At the other extreme is the fully integrated firm in which the merged or acquired firm
loses its identity, including its name, and the structures, VALUES, and systems of the dominant partner
are imposed on the subordinate partner.
The most persistent research issue for both mergers and acquisitions is the rate of success. This raises
difficult questions about how and when to assess success. A variety of research methods have addressed
the ''how" using accounting data, equity price movements, and assessments by the actors involved and/
or externals (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS).
None of these methods on its own is very satisfactory even though they show remarkable consistency:
the failure rate, using any of the above methods of assessment, is 50 percent. The second question of
"when" to assess success is even more problematic. Accounting studies suggest the first year is not a
sensible time to assess success (on the argument that funds from quick divestments are loaded into the
first year's profits to maintain equity prices). However, the longer the assessment of success is delayed
the higher the probability that accounting information will have been lost in the restructuring of the
units, such that like cannot be compared with like.
The problems of assessment have not deterred investigators from attempting to establish why the failure
rate is so high. Various factors such as bidding strategy, price, type of corporate control, lack of a plan,
poor transfer of capability, the tone of negotiations, confused roles of negotiators, inexperienced actors,
indecisive actions after closure, incompatible corporate cultures, excessive RESTRUCTURING, a
failure to allow people to express their grief, poor COMMUNICATIONS post merger, imposing alien
systems (especially HR systems), and a lack of LEADERSHIP have all been suggested as probable
causes.
A related strategy literature focuses on the strategic fit of the two firms. An economic literature focuses
on the affects of aggregation on economic performance and on communities. A moral, philosophical
literature questions the ethics of certain types of acquisition and, in particular, the hostile type (see
BUSINESS ETHICS).
Recent research sees the process as a behavioral one and argues that the causes of failure are behavioral.
A popular, if simplistic, approach uses metaphors about two actors such as seduction, marriage, rape,
plunder to classify relationships. In fact, members of organizations have varied experiences in both
mergers and acquisitions. Some are highly affected by the process, undergoing all the emotions of
surprise, shock, anger, withdrawal. Others are only marginally affected by the process. For yet others
the process may mean loss of a job, for others it opens up new CAREER opportunities. For some, the
acquiror is the predator, for others the liberator. Instead of a simple one-to-one relationship the
processes involve a myriad of actors in a variety of relationships. Understanding the complexity and
significance for success of these relationships and their contexts remains the central research challenge.

Document
Human resource researchers reflect the behavioral approach and discuss which methods are more
effective in absorbing actors' STRESS and how to communicate certainty despite UNCERTAINTY.
Further, what rituals and events can be used for communication and improving cohesion in the merged
firm (see RITUALS). At the macro LEVEL OF ANALYSIS, HR researchers review possible structures
including the harmonization of recruitment, induction, ASSESSMENT, and REWARD systems.
Behavioral analysts have linked merger and acquisition activity to research on PRIVATIZATION,
JOINT VENTURES, STRATEGIC ALLIANCES all of which involve the same wide range of micro
and macro variables of any organizational transformation. However, in mergers and acquisitions there
are two important conditions which are not always present in these other structural forms. First,
inequality of power: one set of actors has enormous potential power to change the behavior of the less
powerful. Second, readiness for change: the expectations of all actors is that change is inevitable. Given
these two conditions Acquisitions and Mergers can exhibit major change within short periods of time
raising important questions about the capacity of significant actors

Document
Page 326
in organizations to learn (see ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING).
See also Coalition formation; Interorganizational relationships; Competitiveness;
Bibliography
Ansoff, I. (1975). Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Buono, A. F. & Bowditch, J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing
collisions between people and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Haspeslagh, P. C. & Jemison, D. B. (1991). Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate
renewal. New York: Free Press.
Hunt, J. W., Less, S., Grumbar, J. & Vivian, P. D. (1987). Acquisitions – The human factor. London:
London Business School/Egon Zehnder.
Kitching, J. (1976). Why do mergers miscarry? Harvard Business Review (November–December), 84–
101.
Mirvis, P. H. & Marks, M. L. (1992). Managing the merger. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
JOHN W. HUNT
Meta-Analysis
see RESEARCH DESIGN; VALIDITY GENERALIZATION
Metaphor
A metaphor provides a way of seeing or representing one thing in terms of another. It is a ubiquitous
figure of speech or master trope in which a word or phrase that typically denotes one kind of object or
idea is used to replace another object or idea thus suggesting an analogy or likeness between them. A
metaphor creates a figurative relationship between the two that is often unnoticed in everyday thought
and speech. To say that "organizations are machines" is to claim merely that organizations are like
machines for the purpose at hand in a given communicative context (see COMMUNICATIONS). The
metaphor allows speakers and listeners to consider an organization as if it were a machine. By so doing,
metaphor asserts similarity in differences and, less obviously perhaps, differences in similarity. Thus,
by claiming similarity, a metaphor sets something apart from other things and establishes differences
from them (e.g., as a machine, an organization does not live and die but is built and dismantled); but
also, by taking an object in terms of the metaphor, the object is provided with selective but distinct
characteristics associated with the term of similarity (e.g., as a machine, an organization is predictable,

Document
impersonal, functional, and occasionally in need of repair).
Metaphors should be held loosely for they may well conceal as much as they reveal. For example, the
machine metaphor may mislead those who find it attractive by allowing them to read too little into an
organization just as another metaphor such as a "CULTURE" or a "family" may allow its users to read
too much into an organization. Popular metaphors are thus seductive. One of the central insights
emerging from the study of metaphor and language use is that as a particular metaphor becomes
conventionalized (widely communicated, accepted, and virtually taken for granted), users of the
metaphor take the relationship it conveys between two objects or ideas to be the obvious, correct, or
literal one. The use of other possible metaphors are thus obliterated and one way of seeing becomes a
way of not seeing. Metaphors then are not merely linguistic or literary devices that decorate speech but
are the conceptual building blocks by which we forge our understandings of the world. They provide
the constructive force for representing experience and thus help shape what we know and how we think.
The analysis of metaphor is slowly penetrating organizational studies. Largely imported from the
humanities – in particular, literary criticism and theory – a number of ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR scholars are finding the explication of metaphors quite useful for uncovering "deep"
patterns or principles that appear to regulate organizational life. When metaphors are extended and
generalized they become PARADIGMS – representing broad but relatively cohesive and coherent ways
of seeing the world and interpreting situations of both a routine and novel sort. From this perspective,
organizations operate in reasonably consistent ways because they provide their members (and
customers, clients, suppliers, stockholders, and so on) with action-generating paradigms. Moreover,
these paradigms are discoverable through intensive study. Stories, allegories, legends,

Document
Page 327
uniqueness tales, and creation myths can be read by an analyst as organizing metaphors that incorporate
histories, VALUES, purposes, and motives of individuals and groups. The epistemological strategy and
perspective is structural and, when used to suggest that a given metaphor (or paradigm) is essentially
arbitrary rather than "natural" or "real," it is akin to deconstruction. Ironically, the use of metaphor to
explain organization behavior has probably been most powerful when applied to the organization
behavior research community itself where it has been argued that most if not all of the research and
theory groups in the field are more or less trapped by the metaphors that inform their practice including
those who themselves study metaphors. Such is the state– and point– of metaphor analysis.
See also Ideology; Organizational culture; Postmodernism; Symbolism; Paradox
Bibliography
Burke, K. (1962). A grammar of motives and a rhetoric of motives. Cleveland, OH: Meridan.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Manning, P. K. (1979). Metaphors of the field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 660–71.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schon, D. (1979). Generative metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 254–283).
White, H. (1980). Tropics of discourse. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
JOHN VAN MAANEN
M-Form Organization
see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN; MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION
Minorities
see DISCRIMINATION; EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
Minority Group Influence

Document
Minority group INFLUENCE is the process whereby a numerical or POWER minority within a group
or society brings about enduring change in the attitudes and behavior of others. Exposure to minority
influence appears to cause changes in attitudes in the direction of the deviant view, but also produces
more creative thinking about the issue, as a result of the cognitive or social CONFLICT generated by
the minority. Social psychological research on minority influence therefore has exciting implications for
understanding organizational behavior. Many in large organizations believe that they cannot bring about
changes which they see as necessary and valuable. Research on minority group influence suggests
otherwise.
Traditionally, only majorities in groups and organizations have been assumed to achieve CONTROL,
usually through CONFORMITY inducing processes. However, Moscovici (1976) has argued that
minorities also have a significant impact upon the thinking and behavior of the majorities with whom
they interact. Repeated exposure to a consistent minority view, leads to marked and internalized
changes in attitudes and behaviors. When people conform to a majority view they generally comply
publicly without necessarily changing their private beliefs. Minorities, in contrast, appear to produce a
shift in private views rather than public compliance. Evidence further suggests that even if they do not
cause the minority to adopt their viewpoints, minorities encourage greater CREATIVITY in thinking
about the specific issues they raise. Moscovici cites the impact on public attitudes of the Green and
Feminist Movements in the 1970s and 1980s as examples of the process.
An implication for organizations is that tolerating the expression of deviant views may be important if
creativity and adaptability are not to be stifled. The conflict created by minorities can be seen as a
valuable source of creative energy within organizations, counteracting the potentially soporific effects
of conformity.
Research in social psychology and observation of organizational practice suggests that:
1. Minorities are most influential when they are persistent.
2. A lone deviant is dramatically less effective than a pair expressing minority opinions and, thereafter,
the larger the minority group, the greater its influence.
3. The arguments presented by minorities must be coherent and convincing to be influential.

Document
Page 328
4. The minority must be seen to be acting out of principle, not for ulterior motives or out of self interest,
if they are not to be dismissed.
5. Minorities have more influence to the extent that they are seen as making personal material sacrifices
in order to achieve their aims.
6. Minorities which are seen as consistent but flexible are more powerful in changing opinions within
groups and organizational settings than those which are seen as consistent but rigid.
This research is striking in suggesting that minority group influence can change attitudes and behavior
more pervasively and enduringly than the conformity effects of majority influence. The considerable
implications for understanding WORK GROUP behavior and organizational adaptation have only
recently begun to be explored (Nemeth & Staw, 1989).
See also Group development; Group decision making; Coalition formation; Politics; Intergroup
relations; Groupthink; Group cohesiveness
Bibliography
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological

Review, 93, 23–32.
Nemeth, C. & Staw, B. M. (1989). The trade-offs of social control and innovation within groups and
organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 22, pp. 175–
210). New York: Academic Press.
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West (Ed.), Innovation
and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
MICHAEL A. WEST
Mission Statements
A mission statement is a formal summary (usually written) of what an organization seeks to become
and accomplish. Mission statements are usually written by an organization's TOP MANAGEMENT
TEAM, and describe, among other things, an organization's basic purpose, what is unique or distinctive
about it, how it is likely to evolve in the long term, who are its principal STAKEHOLDERS (see
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS), what are its principle products or services, and its basic
beliefs, VALUES, and aspirations (see ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE).

Document
Mission statements serve several purposes in a firm. First, the process of writing a mission statement
can force an organization's managers to evaluate the fundamental attributes and characteristics of their
organization (see RESOURCE BASED THEORY). Mission statements also establish BOUNDARIES
to guide future strategy formulation, including specifying in which activities an organization will
engage, as well as activities in which an organization will not engage (see STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT diversification). Third, mission statements set standards of organizational
performance along multiple dimensions. Finally, mission statements can suggest standards for
individual ethical behavior (see BUSINESS ETHICS; CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY).
Mission statements are often part of the formal strategic PLANNING process in firms. Mission
statements are used to define an organization's goals or objectives, which in turn can be used to define
an organization's strategies and tactics.
See also Communications; Reputation; Goal-setting
Bibliography
Dess, G. & Miller, A. (1993). Strategic management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper & Row.
Pearce, J. A. & David, F. (1987). Corporate mission statements: The bottom line. Academy of
Management Executive, 1, 109–115.
JAY B. BARNEY
Modeling
see COMPUTER MODELING; RESEARCH METHODS
Monotony
see JOB DESIGN; REPETITIVE WORK
Mood
see AFFECT

Document
Page 329
Moral Development
This concept implies that people develop over time in the way that they think about moral issues.
Kohlberg's (1969) theory of cognitive moral development (CMD) is the most widely cited theory of
moral development although it has been criticized by both psychologists and philosophers.
Psychologists have claimed that Kohlberg's theory is limited (e.g., in its cognitive emphasis or
purported male GENDER bias), while philosophers have criticized it for being too wideranging in its
attempt to integrate normative ethical theory and moral psychology (Gilligan, 1977; Modgil & Modgil,
1986). Despite these criticisms, Kohlberg's theory of moral development has been useful to
organizational scholars trying to understand the moral judgments and actions of organizational
members.
CMD theory focuses on the development, through childhood and young adulthood, of the cognitive
processes involved in judging what is morally right. Kohlberg's research identified three levels of CMD,
each composed of two stages. An individual's reasoning forms a coherent system that is best described
by a single stage or by a combination of two adjacent stages. The stages are also hierarchical
integrations, meaning that people comprehend reasoning at all stages below, but not more than one
stage above their own.
Level one, termed preconventional, consists of the first two stages where moral decisions are explained
and justified in terms of externally imposed REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS, and the exchange of
favors. Stage one individuals think in terms of OBEDIENCE for its own sake and punishment
avoidance. At stage two, fairness is judged in terms of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"
RECIPROCITY (see EQUITY THEORY; JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE).
At level two, termed conventional and consisting of stages three and four, the individual has
internalized the shared moral norms of society or some group such as the family or peers (see GROUP
NORMS). To stage three individuals, good behavior is that which pleases or helps relevant others (see
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT). At stage four, the individual's moral perspective broadens to
consider society and the law, and fulfilling agreed upon duties and obligations in order to promote the
common good. According to a number of studies most adults in industrialized societies are at the
conventional level.
Level three (postconventional or principled – stages five and six) individuals are more inclined to look
inward for guidance. At stage five, the emphasis is still on laws and rules because they represent the
social contract, but stage five individuals would consider the possibility of changing the law for socially
useful purposes. At stage six, the individual is guided by self-chosen ethical principles of justice and
rights. Less than 20 percent of American adults reach stage five thinking and stage six remains a
theoretical stage that very few individuals are expected to reach (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs, &
Lieberman, 1983).
Research on CMD has generally supported the following findings, among others:

Document
(1) Moral reasoning increases with AGE and education.
(2) Moral reasoning may be lower in hypothetical business situations than in more general ethical
dilemma situations.
(3) Despite criticisms of gender-bias (noted above), trivial gender differences, if any, have been
empirically supported.
(4) Moral judgment development is universal in that the underlying CMD-based conceptions and
categories are common across cultures.
(5) Moral reasoning has a moderate statistical relationship with moral action.
(6) CMD stage can be increased through CMD-based educational interventions.
See also Business ethics; Corporate social performance; Individual differences; Personality;
Values
Bibliography
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J. & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral development.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (1,2), Series #200, pp. 1–107.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of the self and morality. Harvard
Educational Review, 49, 431–446.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D.

A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Document
Page 330
Modgil, S. & Modgil, C. (1986). Lawrence Kohlberg; Consensus and controversy. Philadelphia: Falmer
Press.
Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.
Trevino, L. K. (1992). Moral reasoning and business ethics: Implications for research, education, and
management. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 45–459.
LINDA TREVINO
Morale
see JOB INSECURITY; JOB SATISFACTION; ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE; QUALITY OF

WORKING LIFE
Motivation
This term refers to the psychological mechanisms governing the direction, intensity, and persistence of
actions not due solely to individual differences in ABILITY or to overwhelming environmental
demands that coerce or force action (see Vroom, 1964). The field of motivation seeks to understand,
explain, and predict:
(a) which of many possible goals an individual chooses to pursue (direction of action);
(b) how much effort an individual puts forth to accomplish salient goals (intensity of action); and
(c) how long an individual perseveres toward goal accomplishment, particularly in the face of
difficulties (persistence of action).
The topic of motivation has a long history in the field of basic and applied psychology (see, e.g.,
Weiner, 1980). Work motivation represents a specialty area in the broader field of human motivation
that focuses directly on theories, research, and practices that have implications for individual behavior
in the context of work, and may be applied to a variety of HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
activities, including selection, TRAINING, and managerial practices.

Document
In the organizational behavior domain, the term motivation often refers to a critical management
activity; that is, to the techniques used by managers for the purpose of facilitating employee behaviors
that accomplish organizational goals. Managerial practices designed to enhance employee performance
are rarely straightforward applications of particular work motivation theories, but rather are uniquely
tailored activities that incorporate motivational notions within the broader context of the organization's
culture, dynamics, and practices (see ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE). The tailoring of motivational
techniques to the specific organizational context makes evaluation of the true validity of motivational
approaches to organizational PRODUCTIVITY difficult. Nonetheless, in a review of 207 published
experiments using psychologically based programs (including motivational programs such as GOAL-
SETTING, MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES, and other supervisory methods), Katzell and Guzzo
(1983) found that over 80 percent of published studies showed evidence of productivity improvement
on at least one measure. These results suggest that motivational techniques used by managers can have
direct effects on organizational outcomes (see MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE).
Motivation Tenets
Three assumptions guide contemporary thinking and research on human motivation. First, motivation is
not directly observable. What is observed is a stream of behavior and the products of those behaviors.
Motivation is inferred from a systematic analysis of how characteristics of the individual, task, and
environment influence behavior and aspects of job performance. Second, motivation is not a fixed
attribute of the individual. Unlike motives (which are often defined in terms of stable INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES in dispositional tendencies), motivation refers to a dynamic, internal state resulting
from the independent and joint influences of personal and situational factors. As such, an individual's
motivation for specific activities or tasks may change as a consequence of change in any part of the
system. In other words, modern approaches do not view motivation as an individual trait (see
PERSONALITY), but rather as an individual state affected by the continuous interplay of personal,
social, and organizational factors (see INTERACTIONISM).
Third, motivation has its primary effect on behavior (covert and overt); that is, what an individual
chooses to do and how intensely an individual works to accomplish his/her goal. The distinction
between motivational effects on behavior versus job performance is of critical importance for
understanding motivation effects

Document
Page 331
in the work domain. In the workplace, changes in motivation may or may not affect job performance
depending on how job performance is defined and evaluated. Programs designed to enhance job
performance by increasing employee motivation may be unsuccessful if job performance is not
immediately or substantially affected by an individual's on-task effort (see PERFORMANCE,
INDIVIDUAL).
The processes by which motivation influences behavior and performance are best represented as
comprised of two interrelated psychological systems; goal choice and goal striving (or SELF-
REGULATION; see, e.g., Heckhausen, 1991; Kanfer & Hagerman, 1987; Kanfer, 1990). Cognitive
theories of motivation describe goal choice as a DECISION-MAKING/COMMITMENT process in
which choice is determined jointly by personal factors and the individual's perceptions of the situation.
The product of this process, an individual's intentions or goals, provide a mental representation of a
future situation that signifies a desired end-state. Relative to intentions, goals define more specific end-
states. Commitment to a goal serves to direct the individual's attention, mobilize the individual's effort
toward goal attainment, and encourage goal PERSISTENCE. Intentions and goals may relate to the
individual's behavior (e.g., my goal is to work overtime for three hours today) or to an outcome the
individual seeks to attain (e.g., my goal is to obtain a promotion). Person and situation characteristics
influence goal choice as well as the specificity at which goals are articulated.
Theories that describe the decision-making process with respect to goal choice (e.g., Vroom, 1964)
have frequently been used to successfully predict a variety of behaviors in which goals are readily
attainable (e.g., choice among job offers). However, when goals involve difficult or prolonged tasks that
require sustained effort in the face of difficulties, prediction of performance requires additional
consideration of the individual's commitment to the goal as well as other motivational processes.
Goal striving refers to the motivational mechanisms set into motion by adoption of difficult goals for
which accomplishment requires active self-regulation of one's cognitions, EMOTIONS, or actions.
Goals, such as learning a complex new SKILL or earning a college degree require self-regulatory, or
volitional processes by which the individual can develop subgoals, monitor his/her performance, and
evaluate activities with respect to goal progress. Deficits in the goal striving system may thwart
successful transition of a goal into action and obscure or weaken the effect of motivation on
performance.
Work Motivation Overview

Document
Numerous theories of work motivation have been proposed over the past 60 years. Comprehensive
reviews by Campbell and Pritchard (1976) and Kanfer (1990) document major advances in work
motivation through the mid-1970s and from the mid-1970s to 1990, respectively. Descriptions of major
motivational approaches in the context of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR are provided in Steers
and Porter (1987). In concert with theoretical advances, a tremendous variety of programs and
techniques have been developed for use in organizational settings. Although the popularity of particular
motivation theories or techniques wax and wane, there is little evidence to indicate any decline in basic
or applied interest in the topic over the past two decades. Motivation theories, research, and practices
remain a topic of central importance in industrial/organizational psychology, organizational behavior,
executive development, and managerial and job training programs (see MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT).
Historical Trends
The history of the application of scientific principles for enhancing work performance via changes in an
individual's motivation corresponds closely to theoretical and empirical developments in the study of
human behavior and the workplace. Early management theories, such as Taylor's SCIENTIFIC
MANAGEMENT, made reference to the long-standing practice of using financial compensation to spur
motivation and job performance. The emergence of personality and LEARNING theories in psychology
during the early 1900s led to the development of motivational programs aimed at enhancing
performance by creating organizational conditions that facilitated the match between employee need
satisfaction and increased on-task effort. During the 1940s through the 1960s, explosive growth in
theoriz-

Document
Page 332
ing and research on the determinants of choice led to the development of models aimed at enhancing
prediction of individuals' workplace behaviors, such as TURNOVER. During this same period, results
of the Hawthorne studies provided striking evidence for the influence of social norms and other
nonfinancial incentives on work motivation and performance (see HUMAN RELATIONS
MOVEMENT).
The rise of behaviorism during the mid-1900s stressed the importance of operant learning and
REINFORCEMENT as a means of altering workplace behavior (see BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION).
Organizational interventions using behavior modification techniques were developed to enhance
performance on a variety of dimensions, such as SAFETY. At the same time, progress in the field of
task characteristics led to greater consideration of the motivating potential of jobs. Integration of this
work with intrinsic motivation theorizing led to the development of interventions aimed at enhancing
motivation and performance through job redesign (see EXTRINSIC/INTRINSIC MOTIVATION).
Similar in some respects to earlier work by Herzberg that focused on psychological determinants of
JOB SATISFACTION (see MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY), job redesign efforts aimed to
strengthen employee motivation by creating work environments that promoted a sense of achievement,
perceptions of competence, and AUTONOMY (see JOB ENRICHMENT).
The past two decades have witnessed tremendous growth in the use of goal setting and management by
objectives programs. These programs, based upon a view of human behavior that espouses goals as the
immediate precursors of action, focus largely on the process of setting, establishing commitment to, and
following-through on specific and challenging goals.
Goal-based approaches currently dominate the basic and applied literature. However, most
organizational researchers and practitioners recognize that there is no one "best" theory or program. As
a result, there has been a growing trend to develop broad formulations that subsume or complement
major tenets of goal choice, behavioral, and goal striving theories of action (see, e.g., Naylor, Pritchard,
& Ilgen, 1980; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Locke & Latham, 1990). From a practical perspective, the
broadening of theories has placed a greater burden on practitioners to conduct a careful analysis of the
motivational problem in order to select an appropriate intervention perspective.
Key Perspectives
Modern approaches to motivation may be organized into three related clusters:
(1) personality-based views;
(2) cognitive choice/decision approaches (see VIE THEORY, INSTRUMENTALITY); and
(3) goal/self-regulation formulations.
The following section highlights major assumptions, theories, and findings from each perspective.

Document
Personality-based views of motivation emphasize the influence of relatively enduring characteristics of

persons as they affect goal choice and striving. Three types of personality-based work motivation
perspectives may be distinguished. The first type pertains to models based upon broad theories of
personality, such as Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theory (Maslow, 1954) (see SELF-
ACTUALIZATION). In these approaches, workplace behavior and satisfaction are posited to be
powerfully determined by an individual's current need state within a universal hierarchy of need
categories. By understanding which needs were most salient to an individual (e.g., affiliation, self-
actualization needs) (see AFFILIATION, NEED FOR), organizations could enhance work performance
and satisfaction by creating environments that facilitated need satisfaction. Although this perspective is
well known, scientific research has consistently failed to provide support for basic tenets of the model
or to demonstrate that this model is useful in predicting workplace behaviors.
The second type of personality perspective derives from considering the influence of a single or small
set of universal or psychologically based motives that may affect behavior and performance. A great
deal of work in this perspective has focused on the role of individual differences in the strength of
achievement motives (i.e., need for achievement) (see GROWTH NEED STRENGTH;
ACHIEVEMENT, NEED FOR). Substantial research in this area indicates that individuals who score
high on tests of achievement motivation are more likely to select appropriately challenging task goals

Document
Page 333
and to persist longer than persons who score low on this trait (Heckhausen, 1991).
During the mid-1900s, attention also focused on the role of universal motives, such as the need for
competence, self-determination, and fairness. In contrast to achievement motivation theories, motive
theories such as Deci's Cognitive Evaluation Theory and Adam's EQUITY THEORY do not stress
individual differences in the degree of the motive, but rather stress the conditions that arouse the motive
and its influence on behavior. In equity theory, for example, arousal of the justice motive occurs when
the individual perceives imbalance in the ratio of his/her inputs and outcomes relative to others (see
JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE).
Unlike broad personality theory formulations, motive-based theories more fully specify the
organizational conditions that instigate motive-based behaviors, as well as the cognitive processes by
which the motive affects behavior. Newer formulations of these motive-based approaches in the areas
of intrinsic motivation (see EXTRINSIC/INTRINSIC MOTIVATION) and equity/fairness enjoy
substantial popularity in the work motivation literature.
The third personality perspective on work motivation emerged in the early 1980s as a direct result of
advances in basic research in personality. During the past two decades, personality researchers made
significant progress in the identification and measurement of basic personality dimensions (see
PERSONALITY TESTING; EXTROVERSION). The results of this work led to general agreement
regarding the existence of five basic personality dimensions, or traits: (1) neuroticism; (2) extraversion;
(3) openness to experience; (4) agreeableness; and (5) conscientiousness. Of the five factors,
conscientiousness, also called will to achieve and dependability, represents the trait dimension most
closely associated with motivation. Recent investigations of the association between personality
dimensions and job performance indicate that conscientiousness shows consistent relations with several
dimensions of job performance (see, e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991). These results have led to renewed
interest in delineating how individual differences on motivationally related traits might affect work
behavior and performance, particularly in service sector jobs.
Cognitive choice/decision approaches emphasize two determinants of choice and action: (1) the
individual's expectations (i.e., the individual's perception of the relationship between effort and
performance level, as well as between performance level and salient outcomes); and (2) the individual's
subjective valuation of the expected consequences associated with various alternative actions (i.e., the
anticipated positive or negative effect associated with attainment of various outcomes). These
formulations, known as Expectancy Value (ExV) theories (see VIE THEORY), are intended to predict
an individual's choices or decisions, not necessarily subsequent performance. In most models,
individuals are viewed as rational decision makers who make choices in line with the principle of
maximizing the likelihood of positive outcomes. (Note, however, that ExV models predict choice
behavior on the basis of the individual's perceptions; misperceptions of the environment or relationship
between effort, performance, and outcomes may yield "poor" decisions.) In the motivational realm,
choices may be made with regard to direction (goal choice), intensity (goal striving), or persistence of a
specific course of action.

Document
The popularity of these approaches reached a peak in the early 1980s. During the 1970s and 1980s,
organizational research focused on testing key tenets of these models and investigating the predictive
VALIDITY of various models. Results from this period indicated several limitations and difficulties
associated with basic assumptions of the ExV models, and lower than expected levels of predictive
validity for task and job performance criteria (though predictive validity for job choice has been
substantially better; see Mitchell (1982) for a review). Limitations of ExV models in predicting ongoing
workplace behaviors led to a general decline in the use of classic formulations in field research during
the 1980s, and to the development of modern, integrative choice frameworks, such as Naylor, Pritchard,
and Ilgen's (1980) theory of organizational behavior, and Beach and Mitchell's (1990) Image Theory.
Both these theories incorporate several of the classic assumptions of ExV theorizing, but use a broader
framework of decision making that includes individual differences in personality as

Document
Page 334
well as other motivational processes, such as SELF-REGULATION.
Goal/Self-Regulation formulations of work motivation emphasize the factors that influence goal
striving, or the translation of an individual's goals into action (see COGNITIVE PROCESSES). In
organizational psychology, the most well-known goal setting model was developed by Locke and his
colleagues (see Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981; Locke & Latham, 1990), and focuses on the
relationship between goals and work behavior. Other broader formulations that specify the
psychological processes involved in goal striving include cybernetic control theory (Lord & Kernan,
1989), resource allocation theory (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989), and social-cognitive theory (Bandura,
1986).
Early organizational goal setting research examined the effects of explicit goal assignments that varied
in difficulty. The majority of these studies indicated higher levels of performance among persons
assigned difficult and specific goals (e.g., make six sales this week), compared to persons assigned "do
your best" goals. Subsequent research has sought to more fully examine the boundary conditions of this
robust effect. Results of this research indicate two critical preconditions for demonstration of the
positive goal-performance relationship; namely, that the individual accept the goal assignment and that
the individual be provided with performance FEEDBACK. Several studies further suggest that specific,
difficult goal assignments may be more effective when used with relatively simple tasks (e.g., simple
arithmetic tasks) than with complex tasks (e.g., SUPERVISION, programming).
More recently, cybernetic control, resource allocation, and social-cognitive theories have been used to
more closely examine how particular attributes of the goal, the person, and the situation influence goal
striving and performance. Studies from these theoretical perspectives indicate further conditions that
mediate the effect of goals on task performance. Findings suggest that task demands, percepts of SELF-
EFFICACY, goal commitment, and orientation toward task accomplishment are also important
determinants of the effectiveness of goal setting methods.
Summary
The plethora of work motivation theories and motivational techniques underscores both the complexity
of understanding and predicting individual behavior as well as the substantial progress that has been
made in this domain. Older work motivation theories, such as Alderfer's adaptation of Maslow's Need
Hierarchy Theory, Adams' Equity Theory, and Vroom's Expectancy Theory have given way to new
approaches that build upon advances in cognitive psychology, INFORMATION PROCESSING,
personality, and self-regulation. These newer perspectives, including for example, Locke and Latham's
(1990) goal-setting model, Kanfer and Ackerman's (1989) integrative resource model of learning and
performance, and Lord and Kernan's (1989) control theory, often incorporate elements of older theories,
but do so in ways that reduce the sharp distinctions between various approaches. New approaches differ
from older conceptualizations in other ways as well. For example, contemporary models of motivation
place a central emphasis on the role of goals as the primary concept for linking individuals and
organizations. In addition, these approaches typically focus on predicting specific job behaviors, rather

Document
than an overall job performance or satisfaction criterion.
Although there has been substantial progress in the theoretical field of work motivation, the dynamics
of the modern workplace continue to raise important questions and challenges to the field. Two topics
of particular relevance for the coming decade are indicated below.
(1) The social/cultural context of work. There is widespread agreement regarding the influence of the
social context as an important determinant of work motivation and performance. This has led to the
inclusion of broad "social factors" in several motivation models. But, until recently, little attention was
paid to understanding the unique and dynamic motivational processes operative in WORKGROUP or
team contexts. The growing use of team approaches to performance in organizations has renewed
interest in this facet of motivation theory and research. In response, several ongoing programs of
research, aimed at understanding workteam processes (see, e.g., Gersick, 1988; Swezey & Salas, 1992)
(see

Document
Page 335
GROUP DYNAMICS), have begun to delineate how attributes of the team and the task affect the goals,
motivation, and behaviors of individual team members.
In a related vein, results of cross-cultural research indicate that the use and effectiveness of motivational
techniques depends in part on the congruence of the motivational approach with the cultural values of
the society in which it is used (see CULTURE, CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH). Erez (1993) points
out that motivational approaches consistent with collectivistic, group-oriented values (e.g., QUALITY
CIRCLES, AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS, PARTICIPATION in goal setting) tend to be more
effective when used in collectivistic cultures such as Japan, China, and Israel. In contrast, motivational
programs consistent with individualistic values (e.g., individual job enrichment, individual goal setting,
individual INCENTIVE plans) are used and reported more effective in individualistic cultures, such as
the United States. Erez (1993) further argues that, with the growing internationalization of the
workforce, the ultimate success of managerial techniques depends critically on their congruence with
the cultural values of the particular organization and its social environment.
(2) Managing motivation. Traditional views of work motivation imply that employees are relatively
passive recipients of managerial and organizational efforts to maximize work motivation by providing
appropriate work conditions and incentives. However, this view is problematic for two reasons. First,
theory and research over the past three decades clearly indicates that individuals are active agents in the
motivation process. Employees interpret and respond to managerial practices in light of personal goals,
schemas, and beliefs. Research in the areas of employee SOCIALIZATION, procedural justice (see
JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL), and LEADERSHIP indicates that motivation is affected not only by what
the manager and/or organization offers the individual, but by the way in which practices are
implemented. Procedural justice research, for example, indicates that the process by which incentives
are allocated or layoffs are realized exerts an important effect on employee attitudes and behavior,
independent of the outcome.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, demographic, technological, and economic changes in the
workplace, forecasted to continue through the end of this century, will likely continue to erode
managerial control over employee motivation. Increasing workforce diversity, for example, is
associated with growing diversity in employee goals and attitudes toward traditional motivational
incentives, such as pay (see MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY). Similarly, the development of new
technologies that permit employees to work in locations far removed from the manager makes
traditional supervisory methods for increasing employee motivation more difficult to implement and
raises new motivational issues, such as how to encourage work goal commitment and increased task
effort in nontraditional work environments, such as the home.

Document
For these reasons, further advances in work motivation theory and practice are most likely to come from
integrative approaches that explicitly consider how the employee controls his/her motivation in response
to managerial/organizational practices. In this goal-striving perspective, motivation may be represented
as a job-related competency and employee resource (see COMPETENCIES); that is, a resource that
organizations can help to develop and that managers and employees co-manage. Recent training
programs, based on self-regulation principles aimed at cultivating employee skills in managing work-
related goals and actions, for example, represent a promising avenue for potentially reducing substantial
organizational costs associated with SUPERVISION, ABSENTEEISM, and poor performance.
See also Attitude theory; ERG theory
Bibliography
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Beach, L. R. & Mitchell, T. R. (1990). Image theory: A behavioral theory of decision making in
organizations. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 12, pp.

Document
Page 336
Campbell, J. P. & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational

psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 63–
130). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), (1993). Justice in the workplace. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 13, pp. 39–80). New York:
Academic Press.
Erez, M. (1993). Toward a model of cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.

Dunnette & H. Triandis (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (Vol. 4). Palo
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial/organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L.

Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Volume 1. Theory in industrial
and organizational psychology, (pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, (vol. 7, pp. 1–53).
London: Wiley.

treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology – Monograph, 74,
657–690.
Kanfer, F. H. & Hagerman, S. M. (1987). A model of self-regulation. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds),
Motivation, intention, and volition, (pp. 293–307). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Katzell, R. A. & Guzzo, R. A. (1983). Psychological approaches to productivity improvement.

American Psychologist, 38, 468–472.
Katzell, R. A. & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. New York:
Prentice-Hall.

Document
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M. & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance:
1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
Lord, R. G. & Kernan, M. C. (1989). Application of control theory to work settings. In W. A.

Herschberger (Ed.), Volitional action, (pp. 493–514). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, North-Holland.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Expectancy-value models in organizational psychology. In N. T. Feather (Ed.),

Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology, (pp. 293–312). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D. & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New York:
Academic Press.
Steers, R. M. & Porter, L. W. (1987). Motivation and work behavior, (4th edn.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Swezey, R. W. & Salas, E. (Eds), (1992). Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
RUTH KANFER
Motivation and Performance
Motivation represents one of several major determinants of performance in work settings (see
PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). The nature of the relationship between motivation and performance
can be described by four major points. First, the two constructs are not synonymous. Motivation affects
the direction, intensity, and PERSISTENCE of an individual's behavior. In contrast, job performance
typically refers to the evaluation of job-related behaviors with respect to organizational objectives.
Individuals may be motivated, yet perform poorly if the behaviors they enact do not correspond to the
established performance criterion. The influence of motivation on work performance tends to be most
often observed when performance is defined in terms of volitional behaviors (not outcomes or
accomplishments) that are directly related to expenditures of time and effort, such as staying late at
work.
Second, the nature of the task has a substantial influence on the extent to which motivation level may
affect task or job performance. In habitual, well-learned tasks, such as driving a car or filing documents,
increases in motivation level are not proportional to increases in performance. A minimal level of
motivation is required for task performance, but small to moderate increases in motivation above

Document

Document
Page 337
this threshold may not substantially improve performance. Very substantial increases in motivation (to a
maximal level), however, are likely to affect performance. In contrast, increases in motivation level are
typically associated with proportional increases in performance in novel, complex, or prolonged tasks or
jobs. In these tasks, higher levels of task motivation often enhance performance by encouraging task
persistence in the face of difficulties or promoting the development of more effective work strategies.
Third, motivation and performance exert reciprocal influences on one another. Not only does
motivation affect performance, but performance can affect motivation. Knowledge of how one has
performed or is progressing on a task, may weaken or strengthen subsequent task motivation depending
on performance level, attributions about the cause of performance, and motivational conditions (see
KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS). For example, obtaining a poor sales performance evaluation the first
quarter may prompt an employee to devote more or less effort to this aspect of the job the next quarter,
depending on the employee's commitment to the high performance goal and his/her perceptions about
the most likely causes for the poor performance rating. For example, if the employee views
performance as due to lack of effort, motivation is expected to be maintained or increased. In contrast,
if the employee perceives the cause of performance to be due to circumstances completely beyond his/
her control, motivation is expected to decline (see LOCUS OF CONTROL).
Fourth, an enduring issue in organizational behavior pertains to the question of when, for whom, and
under what conditions motivation is most likely to influence performance. Clearly, motivation, or the
allocation of one's time and effort to a job, represents only one determinant of job performance. In most
jobs, the prediction of performance requires consideration of additional factors, including individual
differences variables such as cognitive abilities (see ABILITY) and task comprehension, and
environmental factors such as situational constraints and task demands. With respect to the question of
when motivation is an important determinant of performance, most organizational scholars agree that
motivation can have an effect on performance only in the absence of serious situational constraints. For
example, among printing press operators, we would expect no differences in performance among
persons who differ in motivation level if performance is limited by broken equipment or other factors
that place an externally imposed limit on what the individual can accomplish.
The related issues of who benefits most (in terms of performance improvement) from high levels of job
motivation, and under what conditions, is considerably more complex. For many jobs, INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES in cognitive abilities are powerful predictors of job performance. In 1964, Vroom
proposed an interaction between motivation and ability as these factors affect performance (see
INTERACTIONISM). Specifically, he suggested that at low levels of motivation, both lower and
higher ability persons would perform similarly poorly. However, at high levels of motivation,
performance of higher ability individuals would be greater than performance of lower ability
individuals. That is, at high levels of motivation, persons with higher general cognitive ability typically
outperform persons of lower general cognitive ability. The interaction proposed by Vroom (1964)
implies that while organizations should strive to enhance motivation levels among all employees, the
most serious threat to potential productivity stems from low levels of motivation among high ability
employees (see INSTRUMENTALITY; COGNITIVE RESOURCE THEORY).

Document
More recently, Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) suggested a complementary view of the ability–motivation
interaction effect on performance in the context of complex SKILL training. They proposed that during
TRAINING, motivation to perform is moderate to high and, consistent with Vroom's notion, higher
ability trainees would be expected to perform better than lower ability trainees. However, they further
predicted that during training, attempts to enhance performance through the use of motivational
techniques, such as GOAL SETTING, would have larger effects on lower-rather than higher-ability
trainees. In a series of experiments, Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) found that attempts to increase
motivation via the goal-setting technique hindered performance among lower-ability persons when
implemented early

Document
Page 338
in training, but had a substantial positive effect when implemented later in training. In contrast, the
motivational intervention had only negligible effects on performance of higher ability persons
regardless of when implemented. From an organizational perspective, these findings suggest that
specific motivational techniques may be differentially effective in enhancing performance, depending
upon individuals' preexisting motivational levels, individual differences in cognitive abilities, and the
skill level at which the technique is implemented.
In summary, the relationship between motivation and job or task performance is dynamic and complex.
The effects of motivation on performance depend on how performance is defined, the nature of the task,
the APTITUDES of the individual, and the extent to which environmental factors may limit
performance accomplishments. Two implications for HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT may be
drawn from theory and research on the interaction between ability and motivation as it affects
performance:
(1) substantial declines in motivation for job performance are likely to have a larger negative impact on
performance among higher ability persons than lower ability persons; and
(2) attempts to enhance motivation (with techniques such as goal setting) during later phases of training
appear to have a more positive impact on performance among lower ability persons than higher ability
persons.
See also Extrinsic/intrinsic motivation; Path-goal theory; Rewards; Feedback; Motivator–hygiene

theory
Bibliography

treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology – Monograph, 74,
657–690.
RUTH KANFER
Motivator–Hygiene Theory
This theory, also known as the Two-Factor Theory, was developed by Herzberg and colleagues
(Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Capwill, 1957) to answer the question: What do people want from
their jobs? Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959), interviewed 203 accountants and engineers, and
asked them to tell ''stories about times when they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs," so
that the researchers could, "discover the kinds of situations leading to negative or positive attitudes
toward the job . . ." (p. 17). They concluded that good WORKING CONDITIONS (hygiene) and good
work (motivator) are needed to affect JOB SATISFACTION.

Document
Hygienes (factor 1) refer to the context in which the job exists and includes: financial compensation,
physical working conditions, relations with supervisors and peers, company policies and administration,
benefits, and job security. These factors satisfy physiological, safety, and belongingness needs. Just as
vaccinations, and personal cleanliness prevent disease, sufficient hygiene levels prevent dissatisfaction.
But, they do not improve job satisfaction – for this, management must emphasize Motivators (factor 2),
which are based primarily on job content. Jobs must be interesting enough to provide the opportunity
for feelings of achievement, which, together with recognition for accomplishment, and advancement,
serve to stimulate feelings of personal growth. In essence, Herzberg sought to extend Maslow's basic
notion of SELF-ACTUALIZATION to the problem of job MOTIVATION. Just as physical hygiene
prevents illness and exercising creates wellness; industrial hygiene prevents dissatisfaction, and
performing a job that requires the use of valued skills creates psychological health and job satisfaction.
Empirical support for the theory is closely related to the "storytelling" method of collecting data, which
has led to the criticism that findings which support the theory are attributable to methodological artifact
(Behling, Labovitz, & Kosmo, 1968). This is because the storytelling technique does not control for a
plausible alternative explanation: that people, in the process of maintaining their SELF-ESTEEM,
attribute instances of dissatisfaction with factors beyond their control, whereas satisfying experiences
are attributed to their own accomplish-

Document
Page 339
ments (Farr, 1977) (see ATTRIBUTION). Subsequent research, with different methods, has failed to
support the theory (Gardner, 1977). Furthermore, a theoretical confound is that job satisfaction and job
motivation are not necessarily equivalent theoretical constructs–employees can be motivated but
frustrated, lazy and satisfied, satisfied and motivated, or dissatisfied and unmotivated.
While most companies in the 1950s were attempting to motivate employees through wage-incentive
systems and through training supervisors in human relations skills, Herzberg et al. suggested that a
better approach would be to restructure the manner in which work was performed. Notwithstanding the
methodological critique, a major contribution of motivator–hygiene theory is that it asks, and seeks to
provide an answer to, the question: What features should we build into a job to increase its motivating
potential?
See also Human relations movement; Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation; Job design; Job enrichment
Bibliography
Behling, O., Labovitz, G. & Kosmo, R. (1968). The Herzberg controversy: A critical appraisal.
Farr, R. (1977). On the nature of attributional artifacts in qualitative research: Herzberg's two-factor
theory of work motivation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50, 3–14.
Gardner, G. (1977). Is there a valid test of Herzberg's two-factor theory? Journal of Occupational
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. & Capwill, D. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and
opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh.
Herzberg, F. Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
UCO J. WIERSMA
Multinational Corporations
There is no accepted definition of what constitutes a multinational corporation or MNC, a term that is
loosely applied to firms with sizeable activities outside their mother countries. One widely used
indicator is the extent of direct foreign investment or capital deployed outside the home country,
thereby distinguishing modern MNCs from the European trading enterprises of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. By this measure, European firms in Britain, Holland, and Germany such as
Unilever and Philips were the first MNCs, expanding beyond their limited home markets in the late
nineteenth century, while most US firms focused on the immense national market with limited export
operations until the opportunity to transfer their expertise pulled them abroad in the 1960s. Japanese
firms multinationalized only in the 1980s.

Document
Another definition of the MNC focuses on its structure. The two domains of differentiation that are
typical of a complex national firm, function and product, are joined by a third, that of geography (and
often by others such as customer accounts, that cut across products and areas). The most elaborate
definition of "multinationalism" comes from Heenan and Perlmutter (1979), who include objective
structural criteria such as the number of foreign operations and the form of organizational structure,
objective performance criteria such as absolute and relative overseas sales, profits and employees, and
subjective attitudinal criteria concerning the orientation of top management. This leads them to
distinguish three orientations or cultures of MNCs. The first is the decentralized "polycentric"
corporation where the assumption is that foreigners are different from the people at home, so they
should be left alone as long as their work is profitable. The second is the "regiocentric" firm with strong
regional headquarters focusing on managerial staffing and regional optimization of functions such as
manufacturing. The third is the "geocentric'' firm where both headquarters and subsidiaries see
themselves as parts of a worldwide entity. Good ideas and good people may come from any country and
go to any country within the corporation. Where the headquarters is located is simply a matter of history
and convenience.
More recently, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) distinguish between four different types of international
corporations with different heritages, each with a distinctive source of competitive advantage (see
COMPETITIVENESS). The "multinational" firm is a decentralized federation of local firms linked
together by a web of personal controls (EXPATRIATES from the mother firm who occupy key
positions abroad).

Document
Page 340
Its strength is local responsiveness, and some European firms such as Unilever and Philips embody this
model. The "global" firm is typified by US corporations such as Ford earlier this century and Japanese
enterprises such as Matsushita. Worldwide facilities that are typically centralized in the mother country
produce standardized products, while overseas operations are considered as delivery pipelines to access
international markets. There is tight control of strategic decisions, resources, and information by the
global hub. The competitive strength of the global firm is efficiencies of scale and cost. The competitive
strength of the third type, the "international" firm, is its ability to transfer knowledge and expertise to
less advanced overseas environments. It is a coordinated federation of local firms, controlled by
sophisticated management systems and corporate staffs. The attitude of the parent company tends to be
parochial, fostered by the superior know-how at the center. Many American and some European firms
such as Ericsson fit this pattern.
Bartlett and Ghoshal argue that global competition is forcing many of these firms to shift to a fourth
model, which they call the "transnational." This firm has to combine local responsiveness with
efficiency and the ability to transfer know-how. The transnational corporation is a network of
specialized or differentiated units, with integrative linkages between local firms as well as with the
center. In the transnational, the subsidiary becomes a distinctive asset rather than simply an arm of the
parent company. Manufacturing and TECHNOLOGY development are located wherever it makes
sense, but local know-how is leveraged so as to exploit worldwide opportunities. The transnational is
also described as a "heterarchy" rather than hierarchy by Hedlund (1986) and as a "multifocal
organization'' by Prahalad and Doz (1987).
Spurred by the multinationalization of American enterprises and the growth of business schools in
Europe, Organizational Behavior and Strategy scholars first became interested in the phenomenon in
the 1970s. A landmark study was that of Stopford and Wells (1972) who began to map out the stages in
the development of the multinational firm. They pointed out that diversified MNCs were pulled in the
direction of some form of MATRIX ORGANIZATION, and interest in this topic fueled research. The
focus shifted in the early 1980s to HQ-subsidiary relations (How can the HQ control multinational
operations?) (Prahalad & Doz, 1987). Interest is now turning to explore the patterns of relationships
within and between subsidiaries and the ways in which these can be managed. The emerging metaphor
for the transnational MNC is the "differentiated network" (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989), a network of
relationships and mechanisms that link or glue differentiated subsidiaries. A network perspective is
implicit in much recent work, and there is increasing interest in NETWORK ANALYSIS to understand
intraorganizational and INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS within the same firm. If control
was the predominant dependent variable in earlier MNC studies, with their parent company bias,
INNOVATION is becoming that dependent variable today.

Document
Given the increasing importance of such corporations in the economies of most countries, MNCs have
in the last two decades become an important area of study. Such studies are contributing to our
understanding of organizational processes (FLEXIBILITY, NETWORKING, ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, INFORMATION PROCESSING, innovation
processes, cultural differences in conceptions of organization, ENTREPRENEURSHIP, to name a few
examples). The understanding of such complex organizations calls for interdisciplinary work between
scholars of strategy, organization, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, network analysis,
LEADERSHIP, change management, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, and these studies are also
contributing to breaking down barriers between traditional subfields of organizational analysis. In this
sense, the interest in MNCs is having a significant impact on the field of Organizational Behavior itself.
See also Collateral organization; Organizational design; International management; International

human resource management

Document
Page 341
Bibliography
Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Hedlund, G. (1986). The hypermodern MNC: A hetararchy? Human Resource Management, 25, (1) 9–
35.
Heenan, D. A. & Perlmutter, H. V. (1979). Multinational organization development: A social

architecture perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Prahalad, C. K. & Doz, Y. L. (1897). The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global
vision. New York: Free Press.
Stopford, J. M. & Wells, L. T., Jr. (1972). Managing the multinational enterprise. New York: Basic
Books.
PAUL EVANS
Mutual Adjustment
This denotes those circumstances where DECISION MAKING requires individuals or work units to
accommodate each other through reciprocal communication and action. The concept originates in the
work of Thompson (1967) to denote the characteristic multidirectional flows of information and
decision making between work units and actors under conditions of "reciprocal interdependence" in
complex and "intensive" technologies (see TECHNOLOGY). This contrasts with "pooled
interdependence" where information flows are bilateral and mainly unidirectional between atomized
work stations and central authority, and with "sequential interdependence" where there is primarily one-
way flow between linked work stations (as in assembly line technology). Mintzberg (1979) identifies
mutual adjustment as one of the "prime coordinating mechanisms'' in ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN,
and a characteristic mode within the "adhocracy."
See also Complexity; Loose coupling; Uncertainty
Bibliography
NIGEL NICHOLSON

Document

Document
Page 342
Natural Selection
Naylor–Pritchard–Ilgen (NPI) Theory
see MOTIVATION
Negotiated Order
This approach emphasizes NEGOTIATION as an ongoing process, usually tacit, in which participants
create social order/organization "on line" so to speak. It is a variant of SYMBOLIC
INTERACTIONISM. A study of the activities and relations of personnel in psychiatric hospitals
provided considerable evidence of negotiated order. For example, ward aides negotiated for control
over their conditions of work (e.g., with and for whom, what ward?), and negotiated with nurses (and
indirectly with doctors) how particular patients should be handled. Negotiations between nurses and
doctors achieved long term understandings such that little COMMUNICATION was needed concerning
treatment programs. Patients negotiated with nurses and doctors over their treatment and for
information and privileges, and with each other over conditions on the ward. General arguments for
negotiated order include the following: formal rules and procedures require judgment concerning their
applicability and do not cover all aspects of organizational work; organizational goals and values can
only provide a "generalized mandate" and mean different things to different people; in order to work
together, people have to agree and see as legitimate the terms and conditions of their interdependence
(see LEGITIMACY); negotiation is needed to achieve order in the context of change. In sum, there are
many reasons why order must more or less continuously be "worked at'' and the "work" is negotiation.
See also Organizational culture; Social constructionism; Decision making
Bibliography
Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes and social order. San Francisco: Free
Press.
DIAN MARIE HOSKING
Negotiation

Document
When two or more parties need to reach a joint decision but have different preferences, they negotiate.
They may not be sitting around a bargaining table; they may not be making explicit offers and
counteroffers; they may even not be making statements suggesting that they are on different sides.
However, as long as their preferences concerning the joint decision are not identical, they have to
negotiate to reach a mutually agreeable outcome.
Over the last decade, the topic of negotiation has captivated the field of ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR, and more broadly, business schools. It has grown to be one of the most popular topics of
instruction, and the current state of research is very different as a result of the interest in this topic. This
review will highlight the five dominant areas of research in negotiation:
(1) INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES;
(2) situational characteristics;
(3) GAME THEORY;
(4) asymmetrically prescriptive/descriptive; and
(5) cognitive.
More detailed reviews can be found elsewhere (Neale & Bazerman, 1991).

Document
Page 343
Individual Differences
During the 1960s and early 1970s, the majority of psychological research conducted on negotiations
emphasized dispositional variables (Rubin & Brown; 1975), or traits (see PERSONALITY TRAITS);
individual attributes such as demographic characteristics, PERSONALITY variables, and motivated
behavioral tendencies unique to individual negotiators. Demographic characteristics (e.g., AGE,
GENDER, RACE, etc.), RISK-TAKING tendencies, LOCUS-OF-CONTROL, cognitive complexity,
tolerance for AMBIGUITY, SELF-ESTEEM, AUTHORITARIANISM, and MACHIAVELLIANISM
were all hot research topics in 1960s negotiation literature (Rubin & Brown, 1975).
Since bargaining is clearly an interpersonal activity, it seems logical that the participants' dispositions
should exert significant influence on the process and outcomes of negotiations. Unfortunately, despite
numerous studies, dispositional evidence is rarely convincing. When effects have been found,
situational features imposed upon the negotiators often reduce or negate these effects. As a result,
individual attributes typically do not account for significant variance in negotiator behavior.
A number of authors have reached the conclusion that individual differences offer little insight into
predicting negotiator behavior and negotiation outcomes: ". . . there are few significant relationships
between personality and negotiation outcomes" (Lewicki & Litterer, 1985).
In addition to the lack of predictability from individual differences research, this literature has also been
criticized for its lack of relevance to practice. Bazerman and Carroll (1987) argue that individual
differences are of limited value because of their fixed nature, i.e., they are not under the control of the
negotiator. Furthermore, individuals, even so-called experts, are known to be poor at making clinical
assessments about another person's personality in order to formulate accurately an opposing strategy
(Bazerman, 1994).
In summary, the current literature on dispositional variables in negotiation offers few concrete findings.
Future research in this direction requires clear evidence, rather than intuitive assertions, that
dispositions are important to predicting the outcomes of negotiations.
Situational Characteristics
Situational characteristics are the relatively fixed, contextual components that define the negotiation.
Situational research considers the impact of varying these contextual features on negotiated outcomes.
Examples of situational variables include the presence or absence of a constituency, the form of
COMMUNICATION between negotiators, the outcome payoffs available to the negotiators, the relative
POWER of the parties, deadlines, the number of people representing each side, and the effects of third
parties.

Document
Research on situational variables has contributed much to our understanding of the negotiation process
and has directed both practitioners and academics to consider important structural components. For
example, situational research has found that the presence of observers in a negotiation can dramatically
affect its outcome. This effect holds whether the observers are physically or only psychologically
present. Further, whether the observers are an audience (i.e., those who do not have a vested interest in
the outcome of the negotiation) or a constituency (i.e., those who will be affected by the negotiation) is
of little importance in predicting the behavior of the negotiator (Rubin & Brown, 1975).
One of the main drawbacks of situational research is similar to that of individual differences research.
Situational factors represent aspects of the negotiation that are usually external to the participants and
beyond the individual's control. For example, in organizational settings, participants' control over third-
party intervention is limited by their willingness to make the dispute visible and salient. If and when the
participants do, their manager usually decides how he or she will intervene as a third party (Murnighan,
1987) (see CONFLICT RESOLUTION).
The same criticism holds true for other situational factors, such as the relative power of the negotiators
or the prevailing deadlines. While negotiators can be advised to identify ways in which to manipulate
their perceived power, obvious power disparities resulting from resource munificence, hierarchical
LEGITI-

Document
Page 344
MACY, or expertise are less malleable. Negotiators are often best served by developing strategies for
addressing these power differentials instead of trying to change them.
The Economic Study of Game Theory
The earliest attempts at providing prescriptive advice to negotiators were offered by economists. The
most well-developed component of this economic school of thought is game theory. In game theory,
mathematical models are developed to analyze the outcomes that will emerge in multiparty, DECISION
MAKING contexts if all parties act rationally. To analyze a game, specific conditions are outlined
which define how decisions are to be made; e.g., the order in which players get to choose their moves;
and utility measures of outcomes for each player are attached to every possible combination of player
moves. The actual analysis focuses on predicting whether or not an agreement will be reached, and if
one is reached, what the specific nature of that agreement will be. The advantage of game theory is that,
given absolute RATIONALITY, it provides the most precise prescriptive advice available to the
negotiator. The disadvantages of game theory are two-fold. First, it relies upon being able to completely
describe all options and associated outcomes for every possible combination of moves in a given
situation – a tedious task at its best, infinitely complex at its worst. Second, it requires all players to act
rationally at all times. In contrast, individuals often behave irrationally in systematically predictable
ways that are not easily captured within rational analyses.
Asymmetrically Prescriptive/Descriptive
As an alternative to game-theoretic analyses of negotiation which take place in a world of "ultrasmart,

impeccably rational, supersmart people," Howard Raiffa developed a decision-analytic approach to
negotiations–an approach more appropriate to how "erring folks like you and me actually behave,"
rather than "how we should behave if we were smarter, thought harder, were more consistent, were all
knowing" (Raiffa, 1982, p. 21). Raiffa's decision-analytic approach focuses on giving the best available
advice to negotiators involved in real conflict with real people. His goal is to provide guidance for a
focal negotiator given the most likely profile of the expected behavior of the other party. Thus, Raiffa's
approach is prescriptive from the point of view of the party receiving advice, but descriptive from the
point of view of the competing party. Raiffa's approach offers an excellent framework for approaching
negotiations. However, it is limited in the insights that it provides concerning the behaviors that can be
anticipated from the other party.
Raiffa's work represents a turning point in negotiation research for a number of reasons. First, in the
context of developing a prescriptive model, he explicitly acknowledges the importance of developing
accurate descriptions of opponents, rather than assuming they are fully rational. Second, by realizing
that negotiators need advice, he recognizes that they do not intuitively follow purely rational strategies.
Most importantly, he has initiated the groundwork for dialogue between prescriptive and descriptive
researchers. His work demands descriptive models which allow the focal negotiator to anticipate the
likely behavior of the opponent. In addition, we argue that decision analysts must acknowledge that
negotiators have decision biases that limit their ability to follow such prescriptive advice.

Document
Cognitive
The cognitive approach (Neale & Bazerman, 1991; Bazerman & Neale, 1992) addresses many of the
questions that Raiffa's work leaves behind. If the negotiator and his or her opponent do not act
rationally, what systematic departures from rationality can be predicted? Building on work in
BEHAVIORAL DECISION RESEARCH, a number of deviations from rationality have been identified
that can be expected in negotiations. Specifically, Neale and Bazerman's research on two-party
negotiations suggests that negotiators tend to:
(1) be inappropriately affected by the positive or negative frame in which risks are viewed;
(2) anchor their number estimates in negotiations on irrelevant information;
(3) overrely on readily available information;
(4) be overconfident about the likelihood of attaining outcomes that favor them;
(5) assume that negotiation tasks are necessarily fixed-sum and thereby miss opportunities

Document
Page 345
for mutually beneficial trade-offs between the parties;
(6) escalate COMMITMENT to a previously selected course of action when it is no longer the most
reasonable alternative (see COMMITMENT, ESCALATING);
(7) overlook the valuable information that is available by considering the opponent's cognitive
perspective; and
(8) retroactively devalue any concession that is made by the opponent (Ross, 1994).
These tendencies seriously limit the usefulness of traditional prescriptive models' rationality
assumption, i.e., the belief that negotiators are accurate and consistent decision makers. Further, these
findings better inform Raiffa's prescriptive model by developing more detailed descriptions of
negotiator behavior.
Collectively, these five prospectives provide a summary of the recent history and current state of
knowledge of the topic of negotiation. Future research is moving in a cognitive direction, which will
hopefully serve the need to better resolve disputes in personal, organizational, and societal affairs.
See also Cognition in organizations; Collective bargaining; Negotiated order
Bibliography
Bazerman, M. H. (1994). Judgment in managerial decision making, (3rd edn). New York: Wiley.
Bazerman, M. H. & Carroll, J. S. (1987). Negotiator cognition. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds),
Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 9 pp. 247–288). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bazerman, M. H. & Neale, M. A. (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York: Free Press.
Lewicki, R. J. & Litterer, J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin.
Murnighan, J. K. (1987). The structure of mediation and "intravention." Negotiation Journal, 2, (4),
351–356.
Neale, M. A. & Bazerman, M. H. (1991). Cognition and rationality in negotiation. New York: Free
Press.
Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Ross, L. (1994). Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. In K. Arrow, R. Mnookin, L. Ross, A.

Tversky & R. Wilson (Eds), Barriers to conflict resolution. New York: Norton.
Rubin, J. Z. & Brown, B. R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York:
Academic Press.

Document
MAX H. BAZERMAN
Network Analysis
The study of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR involves the analysis of social interaction and
economic exchange among individuals and groups within organizations, and among organizations. As a
consequence, all forms of coordination and DIVISION OF LABOR within and among organizations
can be seen as specific patterns of roles and relationships, i.e., as forms of social networks (Baker,
1992) (see INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS).
Social network analysis offers a powerful analytical framework for describing and predicting
organizational structures and processes in terms of relational patterns among actors in a system. Social
network analysis provides a link between intuitive ideas about social relations and complex notions of
ROLE, position, and STATUS in organizations.
Network models describe the structure of one or more networks of relations within a system of actors.
The basic unit of observation of social network models is a relationship between two actors, but there is
no inherent unit of analysis. Relations among pairs of actors can be:
(i) exploited to develop individual attributes;
(ii) analyzed at the dyadic level;
(iii) used to partition the network into subsets of actors; and
(iv) aggregated to analyze the resulting network as a whole.
Actors themselves can be defined at a micro or macro level: individuals or groups of individuals
interacting within organizations, organizations competing and cooperating in economic or institutional
sectors, and even nations participating in the international community.
Following Burt (1982) it is possible to identify two alternative and partially conflicting analytical
approaches within social network analysis: relational and positional. Relational network models are
concerned with the extent to which actors in a social network are connected within cohesive subgroups.
The major analytical task of relational network

Document
Page 346
models is clique identification. Positional network models are typically concerned with more
sociological issues of role structure, status, AUTONOMY, and STRATIFICATION in organizations
and organizational fields. The main goal of positional network models is to represent the structure of an
(inter or intra) organizational system in terms of positions identified by an equivalence criterion. Such
representations, referred to as blockmodels, assign to the same position actors who are similarly
embedded in networks of relations and provide a model of roles as a system of relations among
positions (Faust & Wasserman, 1992). Barley (1990) adopted the positional approach to analyze how
technological change affected the organizational structure and work roles of radiologists and
technologists in two Massachusetts hospitals. He found that technological INNOVATION in
computerized image processing partitioned the organization of the radiology departments into distinct
social entities.
Network data typically come in the form of one or more matrices containing information about the
relational activity among actors in a system. Network data may take the form of joint involvement in
events, or person-to-group affiliations. More frequently, network data are generated by binary or rank
order sociometric choices, or by direct measures of relations. For example, Krackhardt (1990) used
sociometric choice data to study the relationship between an individual's ability to reconstruct the
networks of friendship and advice relations and reputational measures of power among the members of
a small entrepreneurial firm. Burt (1992) used dollar flow data taken from the input-output tables to
study the relationship between structural autonomy and profit margins in 77 US product markets.
See also Group structure; Communication; Networking; Statistical methods
Bibliography
Baker, W. (1992). The network organization in theory and practice. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds),
Networks and organizations: Structure form and action (pp. 397–429). Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Barley, S. (1990). The Alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks.
Burt, R. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. Network models of social structure perception and
action. New York: Academic Press Quantitative Studies in Social Relations.
Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes. The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Faust, K. & Wasserman, S. (1992). Blockmodels: Interpretation and evaluation. Social Networks, 14, 5–
61.
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition and power in

Document
ALESSANDRO LOMI
Networking
Research about networking and networks can be complicated. Understanding what networking is and
the nature of networks is not complicated. Networking at its most basic is the process of contacting and
being contacted by people in our social network and maintaining these linkages and relationships. A
network, then, is a set of relations, linkages, or ties among people. A connection between people
consists both of content (type of connection) and form (strength of the connection).
Content may include information exchange or simply friendship ties. The strength of the connection
may be determined by the number of contacts made between people over time. Of course, strength can
also be measured by the degree of intensity of the relationship, e.g., how long a singular contact is
maintained, compared with the number of contacts made.
Like individuals, organizations are embedded in multiple networks, e.g., resource and information
exchange. A domain of organization networks studied extensively is board of director interlock
networks. Early research into these networks attempted to show collusion among competitors via their
interlocking board members, but more recently Zajac (1988) has found little evidence to support this
interpretation. Most researchers today view the interlock network as a way to exchange information
rather than exert explicit control (Useem, 1984).
Much research has been conducted on networks. According to Davis and Powell (1992),

Document
Page 347
the information content, maintenance, and mapping of network ties has received most attention
whereas, for example, the consequences of an organization's position in various networks has hardly
been studied. According to Burt (1980), methodological advances have been made, but theory is
underdeveloped.
Fischer, Jackson, Stueve, Gerson, Jones, & Baldassare (1977) have contributed to the field by
suggesting that networks can best be understood according to a choice-constraint approach, that is, a
network is the result of individual choices made within certain social constraints. Social structures, such
as class, determine whether and to what degree these choices can be made.
Tichy, Tushman, and Fombrun (1979) state that the study of networks can be traced to three broad
schools of thought: sociology, anthropology, and ROLE THEORY. From these studies, the key
properties of networks have been identified as:
(1) transactional content – what is exchanged between members, e.g., information;
(2) nature of the links – the strength and qualitative nature of the relationships, e.g., the degree to which
members honor obligations or agree about appropriate behavior in their relationships; and
(3) structural characteristics – how members are linked, the number of clusters within the network, and
certain individuals representing special nodes within the network; in other words, not all members are
equally important; some, for example, are GATEKEEPERS.
Tichy et al. (1979) also describe ways of analyzing organizations according to a network framework.
They conclude that the social network framework can be used to study and understand more effectively:
(a) INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS relationships;
(b) organizations and their Boundaries (see ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES; BOUNDARY

SPANNING);
(c) career patterns and career succession (see CAREER SUCCESSION and CAREER TRANSITIONS);
(d) Organizational change (see ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT);
(e) ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN configuration; and
(f) POWER and political processes (see POLITICS).

Document
Networking in organizations is usually an informal process, that is, the contacts and interactions among
people do not as a rule conform to the formal organization chart–which is usually in the form of a
HIERARCHY. Today formal hierarchy is being viewed more as a hindrance than a help to
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. The need to coordinate activities of organizational members
is significantly greater today than in the past. Getting products to market more rapidly, providing
quality service (which now is more dependent on numbers of people rather than a single individual),
and partnering more with contractors, vendors and other organizational constituents are but a few of the
many forces impinging on organizations to be more rapidly responsive. Some believe the "network
organization" is a more effective alternative to hierarchy (Rockart & Short, 1991).
It would appear, then, that with the:
(a) need for more and faster responsiveness; and
(b) increasing reliance on INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
networking will be of growing importance in organizations.
Understanding and using networks can have practical outcomes, as illustrated by Granovetter (1973).
Assume you are looking for a job. You are more likely to be successful via the weak ties in your social
network than by the strong ones. Close friends are likely to have many of the same contacts and sources
as yourself. More distant acquaintances travel in different circles and therefore provide a link to
contacts you would not otherwise have. Thus, while certain kinds of networking may be frivolous, for
example, a set of friends who share with you the same interest in, say, Stephen King novels, other
networks in your life may provide highly useful information and assistance.
See also Coalition formation; Network analysis; Intergroup relations

Document
Page 348
Bibliography
Burt, R. S. (1980). Models of network structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 79–141.
Davis, G. F. & Powell, W. W. (1992). Organization-environment relations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.

Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (2nd edn, vol. 3, pp. 316–375).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Fischer, C. S., Jackson, R. M., Stueve, C. A., Gerson, K., Jones, L. M. & Baldassare, M. (1977).
Networks and places: Social relations in the urban setting. New York: Free Press.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Rockart, J. F. & Short, J. E. (1991). The networked organization and the management of
interdependence. In M. S. S. Morton (Ed.), The corporation of the 1990s: Information technology and
organizational transformation (pp. 189–219). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tichy, N. M. Tushman, M. L. & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations.
Useem, M. (1984). The inner circle: Large corporations and the rise of business political activity in the
U.S. and U.K. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zajac, E. S. (1988). Interlocking directorates as an interorganizational strategy: A test of critical

assumptions. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 428–438.
W. WARNER BURKE
Neurosis
see ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSIS; ANXIETY
Niche
see POPULATION ECOLOGY; STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Nominal Group Technique

Document
The nominal group format is a structured GROUP DECISION-MAKING technique used for the
generation of a vast quantity of alternatives relevant to group issues, problems, and concerns
(Gustafson, Shukla, Delbecq, & Walster, 1973). The nominal group technique allows for individual
thinking and contribution in a group format. Ideas relevant to an issue, problem, or concern are solicited
from group participants individually and silently. The group leader then systematically gathers this
information from all participants before an open discussion commences. Ideas are discussed one at a
time. Based upon the discussions, possible alternatives may be generated in and by the group. The
group leader can then instruct the participants to vote on their preferred solutions. Once again, the
leader gathers all this information systematically before commencing open discussion and deliberation.
Eventually this group decision-making process may conclude with an acceptable solution.
The nominal group technique to group decision making generally consumes a substantial amount of
time. However, individual PARTICIPATION is very high, allowing for understanding, involvement,
and eventual COMMITMENT to the group's decision. Particularly, for immediate situations that
directly affect the participants, the nominal group technique continues to be an effective DECISION
MAKING method (Zimmerman, 1985; Murnighan, 1981). This technique, however, can also be used
for the generation and evaluation of longer-term, and more strategic alternatives. Whether for short-
term or longer-term goals, the nominal group technique is generally capable of generating a wider array
of alternatives and options than other less systematic techniques. It is also capable of doing this more
quickly than Delphi groups. Nevertheless, the nominal group technique need not be thought of as a
competing model to other techniques, but rather a complementary alternative.
See also Creativity; Innovation; Group decision making; Delphi; Brainstorming; Communications
Bibliography
Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. K., Delbecq, A. & Walster, (1973). A comparative study of differences in
subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals in interacting groups, Delphi groups and nominal
groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 280–291.
Murnighan, J. K. (1981). Group decision making: What strategy should you use? Management Review,
56–60.
Zimmerman, D. K. (1985). Nominal group technique. In L. R. Bittle & J. E. Ramsey (Eds), Handbook
for professional managers. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 604–624.
RANDALL S. SCHULER

Document
Page 349
Nonprofit Organizations
see NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Nonwork/Work
This refers to the relationship between one's work and nonwork life. Work generally refers to activities
or attitudes undertaken in an employing organization. Nonwork has generally referred to activities and
attitudes related to one's family, yet also includes what Zedeck (1992) considers, a personal sphere,
where leisure activities, hobbies, and health-related activities occur. Zedeck (1992) further notes that
the nonwork concept includes other spheres such as religion, community, and social. Yet, the most
studied area of the nonwork/work literature has been the relationship between one's employing
organization and one's family.
The need for research in the nonwork/work area became prevalent with the onset of the Industrial
Revolution and the increasing separation of work from family life. In the past decade, interest in the
nonwork/work field has continued to grow, as researchers recognize the interrelatedness of the nonwork/
work spheres, and as the relationship between these two spheres becomes more diverse. For example,
the definitions of nonwork/work have changed over time. Family no longer solely means a male headed
household, but has become broadened to mean two or more people having influence over each other's
lives, sharing a sense of identity and shared goals (Zedeck, 1992) (see SEX ROLES). This new
definition encompasses both same and different sex partners. The definition of work has also evolved
over time. Zedeck (1992) reminds us that work is something that is done, not only in the traditional
work environment, but for many (e.g., homemakers, telecommunicators), work is something that is
done within the home environment. With these changes in definitions, it becomes obvious that the way
researchers view the nonwork/work relationship has evolved historically.
History of Findings
Research related to nonwork/work issues began in the 1930s (Voydanoff, 1989). Findings from this
period consistently suggested that male UNEMPLOYMENT and female employment had negative
effects on both children and the family (Voydanoff, 1989). While this era of research recognized a
"relationship" between one's nonwork and work lives, the primary focus was on the negative effects of
work on family. The notion that the family might also influence work life had not yet been considered.
Subsequently, the focus of the nonwork/work research slowly began to shift to a position of viewing
nonwork and work lives as interdependent, and in the 1960s to increase attention to the dual-earner
couple. Much of this research focused on the additional STRESS and tradeoffs of dual career couples in
both their nonwork and work lives. Voydanoff (1989) notes that research during this era began to
recognize the "unpaid contribution" of wives of professionals and managers to their husbands' careers.
According to Voydanoff (1989) it was often the work of the wives that advantaged the husband's career,
yet severely constrained the wife's career, due to geographic mobility, and demands on the wife's time.

Document
Voydanoff (1989) notes that while earlier research examined primarily men's unemployment, women's
employment, and dual career couples, recent research has focused on the structural and psychological
characteristics of work, and the relationship between JOB CHARACTERISTICS and JOB
SATISFACTION. Nonwork/work research has also begun to investigate the relationship between job
characteristics and stress and health. Structural aspects of the job, such as working hours, compressed
work week schedules, and geographic mobility have been shown to affect family life. Weekend work is
generally shown to be negatively related to quality of family life (Voydanoff, 1989), the compressed
work week schedule is positively related to family satisfaction (Tippins & Stroh, 1991), and job-related
geographic mobility has mixed results (Brett, Stroh, & Reilly, 1992a).
Models to Study Nonwork/Work Issues
Combined with earlier research on nonwork/work issues, Kanter's (1977) influential review encouraged
researchers to begin to think of the nonwork/work environment as an interface and theorists began to
develop models to help explain the relationship.
The spillover theory suggests that work-related activities/satisfaction can affect nonwork

Document
Page 350
life and nonwork responsibilities/satisfaction may also affect one's work life. For example, a person's
marital satisfaction may affect their relationship to the work place (Brett, Stroh, & Reilly, 1992b).
Not all researchers accept the spillover theory. Other research argues in favor of a compensation theory.
This theory suggests there is an inverse relationship between nonwork/work such that individuals
compensate for shortcomings in one domain by satisfying needs in the other. For example, a person
who is dissatisfied with their family or nonwork life may seek greater levels of satisfaction from their
work life environment (Zedeck, 1992).
A third model explaining the relationship between nonwork/work is the segmentation theory, based on
the premise that nonwork/work lives are distinct and one domain has no influence on the other. For
example, family life satisfies needs for affection, intimacy, and relationships, while work life satisfies
needs for competition and instrumental relationships (Zedeck, 1992).
In reality, all three models can be accepted insofar as they describe different relationships which may be
obtained under particular circumstances.
Conclusion
The emphasis on the way one's family life can affect one's work life as well as one's work life affecting
one's family life has given way to new, more applied research efforts on how to balance adequately the
work/family interface. The practical implications of this research in terms of human resource policy and
working arrangements are varied (see HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT). Economic and social
pressures have forced many organizations to implement more progressive maternity, paternity, and
child care related policies in efforts to attract and retain talented managers of both sexes who want to
create more balance in their lives. FLEXITIME and job sharing are two examples of work restructuring
that have been found to be useful in helping employees balance the work/family interface (see JOB
DESIGN).
See also Women at work; Management of diversity
Bibliography
Brett, J. M., Stroh, L. K. & Reilly, A. H. (1992a). What is it like being a dual-career manager in the
1990s? In S. Zedick (Ed.), Work and families, and organizations (pp. 138–167). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Brett, J. M., Stroh, L. K. & Reilly, A. H. (1992b). Job transfer. In C. L. Cooper & I. T Robinson (Eds),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 323–362). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and family in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tippins, M. & Stroh, L. K. (1991). Shiftwork: Factors impacting workers biological and family well-
being. Journal of Applied Business Research, 7, (4), 131–135.

Document
Voydanoff, P. (1989). Work and family: A review and expanded conceptualization. In E. B. Goldsmith
(Ed.), Work andfamily (pp. 1–22). London: Sage.
Zedeck, S. (1992). Exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In S. Zedick (Ed.), Work and
families, and organizations (pp. 1–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LINDA K. STROH
Norms
see CONFORMITY; GROUP CULTURE; GROUP NORMS; SOCIALIZATION
Not-For-Profit Organizations
These are organizations where management do not see profit as their primary goal. The term "nonprofit
organization" is also used. The phrase "not-for-profit" first appeared during the 1950s and 1960s, when
private sector organizations started to lose competitive bids to nonprofit organizations like universities
(McLaughlin, 1986). These private firms wished to emphasize that, while profit might not be a primary
objective, nonprofit organizations still make profits, not for distribution, but to be retained for salaries
or reinvestment. They wished to dispense with the notion that "nonprofit" implied greater respectability
or altruistic intent (see ALTRUISM). Advocates of nonprofit organizations also favored the term ''not-
for-profit" because they believed that such organizations could and should make profits.
Economists generally agree on four types of economic organization:
(1) decentralized, profit-oriented, private market organizations;

Document
Page 351
(2) Government and its agencies (see GOVERNMENT AGENCIES);
(3) households; and
(4) private or voluntary nonprofit organizations (Anthony & Young, 1984).
Some see the not-for-profit sector as a sort of garbage-can repository for all organizations not clearly
belonging to the first three sectors. In fact, all categories contain a mixture of organizations and often
lack clear boundaries (see ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES). For example, government is a
complex of legislative, administrative, regulatory, and judicial institutions (see GOVERNMENT AND
BUSINESS). Private sector organizations offer more or less differentiated goods and services, in
circumstances of lesser and greater competition. In just the same way, the not-for-profit sector
represents a cross-section of organizations: some small, some large; some staffed by volunteers, others
by paid professionals; some funded by voluntary donations, others by government grants; some offering
services, some campaigning; some operate as democratic self-help organizations, such as
COOPERATIVES, others attempting to meet the service standards of different STAKEHOLDERS; and
some have charitable status, while others do not (Leat, 1993).
The other definitive factor distinguishing not-for-profit organizations is that it is the service(s) offered
to a defined constituency which is the primary aim of the organization. Unlike government or business,
where provision of goods or services is instrumental in leading to a political or financial "bottom line,"
the service(s) itself is the most important factor (O'Neill & Young, 1988). Success is therefore not
measured in profit, but in providing the best possible service (few not-for-profit organizations offer
goods) within available resources. As not-for-profit organizations often have many stakeholders with
differing needs, this can lead to disputes over both quality and the service mix. It can also lead to
interesting theoretical questions as the expected organizational "rules" concerning, e.g., size and degree
of structure or COMMITMENT levels fail to apply.
While writers define the not-for-profit sector by explaining how it is different from other sectors,
management writers contend that these distinctions are unhelpful when trying to manage such
organizations (Leat, 1993). For example, not-for-profit organizations do make profits, but retain them
for internal use: objectives are just as multilayered and difficult to set for private sector firms, because
"profit" is not a simple concept, and not-for-profit organizations do compete, mostly with other similar
organizations, for attention and sponsorship.
See also Business ethics; Corporate social responsibility; Organizational design
Bibliography
Anthony, R. N. & Young, D. W. (1984). Management control in nonprofit organizations. Homewood,

IL: Irwin.

Document
Leat, D. (1993). Managing across sectors: Similarities and differences between for profit and voluntary
nonprofit organizations. London: City University Business School.
McLaughlin, C. P. (1986). The management of nonprofit organizations. New York: Wiley.
O'Neill, M. & Young, D. R. (1988). Educating managers of nonprofit organizations. in M. O'Neill & D.
R. Young (Eds), Educating managers of nonprofit organizations. New York: Praeger.
Weisbrod, B. A. (1980). Private goods, collective goods: "The role of the nonprofit sector?". In K. W.
Clarkson & D. L. Martin (Eds), The economics of non-proprietary organizations. Greenwich CT: JAI
Press.
ELIZABETH O. MELLON

Document
Page 352
Obedience
In the organizational context this refers broadly to the acceptance of AUTHORITY, usually with little
question. However, insistence on uncritical obedience can stifle CREATIVITY and limit the
information flow necessary to proper functioning. Behavior needs to go beyond minimal ROLE and
rule specification to adapt to unanticipated conditions and problems (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Rigid rules
that are supposed to be obeyed, especially when contradictory and nonconsensual, can needlessly
ensnarl organizations. Some discretion is also necessary in dealing with orders, rather than simply
obeying them. In his classic acceptance theory of authority, Barnard (1938) set forth conditions that
permit a follower to judge whether an order is authoritative and to be obeyed, i.e., he or she understands
it, believes it is consistent with organizational and personal goals, and is capable of being complied
with. As an area of study, obedience has been particularly identified with the research of Milgram
(1974) on the willingness to follow an experimenter's instruction to inflict evident pain on another
person. Resistance to this demand was found to increase significantly in the presence of a mock subject
who refused it. This finding fits the contextual point that obedience is qualified in part by situational
factors, including the others present and prevailing norms.
See also Compliance; Group norms; Influence; Legitimacy; Power
Bibliography
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The socialpsychology of organizations, (2nd edn). New York: Wiley.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.
EDWIN P. HOLLANDER
Objectives
see MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES
Occupations
These are shorthand descriptions of the nature of individuals' employment (see also JOB
DESCRIPTION). In practice, however, there are many uses of the term "occupation" in the social
science literature, embodying different conceptual approaches.

Document
At a most basic level are approaches which see occupations simply as "coherent sets of work activities
carried on by individuals" (see OPCS, 1991). This is the approach of governmental statistical offices in
classifying occupations for population censuses and labor force surveys. Definitions commonly used by
social scientists, however, go beyond this, to incorporate aspects of the personal characteristics of the
individuals undertaking the jobs, defining occupations partly or wholly in terms of the SKILLS
possessed or deployed, or the TRAINING and educational qualifications obtained by those individuals.
Some definitions go further, implying a description of an individual's CAREER. Such definitions are
close to a concept of a "profession" or ''vocation."
To summarize, "occupations" can be used to define a job, an individual, or an individual's work history.
What use is such a concept? At least five important general uses can be identified (see Thomas & Elias
(1989)):
1. To provide an aggregate description of workforce structure, and how it is changing, either within an
organization or across the whole economy. This is a basic requirement

Document
Page 353
of LABOR MARKET intelligence and HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING. Typically such analyses
show an ongoing shift in the occupational structure away from manual toward nonmanual occupations,
and toward occupations embodying higher levels of skill and training. Recent developments incorporate
GENDER, and the notion of occupational segregation, deriving from the empirical observation that
women and men are occupationally concentrated (Blau & Hendricks, 1979; Dex, 1985). Such
differences are typically explained by the interaction and mutual reinforcement of DISCRIMINATION
in the labor market and RECRUITMENT on the one hand, and socially conditioned patterns of
occupational and career choice by individuals on the other. Within organizations, data on the
occupational structure by gender are essential for the monitoring of EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
policies.
2. To give an indication of the lifestyle, earnings, or social position of workers and their households, by
reference to the type of work they do. A key use for occupational definitions has been in the analysis of
the structure and distribution of earnings, income, and wealth (classic texts include Thurow and Lucas
(1972), Atkinson (1975), and Phelps Brown (1977)).
3. In the analysis of social STATUS or class in a static sense, and social or occupational mobility in a
dynamic sense (see STRATIFICATION). Many methods of socio-economic classification derive from
the notion that occupation is a key indicator of an individual's position in society, whether conceived in
terms of relation to the means of production, labor market position, or ranking according to prestige,
status, or economic resources. Most definitions of social class or socio-economic status are, therefore,
derived from occupational classifications, or from survey evidence of perceptions of different job
categories (see Goldthorpe and Hope, 1972; 1974).
4. In vocational and career guidance, and job placement, as a basis for matching individuals' SKILLS
and job aspirations to labor market opportunities.
5. In the analysis of occupational health, via the relationship between occupational data and data on
disease, fertility, and mortality rates. Similar principles can be applied within an organization for
examining patterns of ABSENTEEISM, sickness rates, and occupational health and SAFETY.
Finally, what do occupational classifications look like? There exist many such classifications, used for
different purposes, at different levels of detail. Most share a number of common features, however, and
a recent tendency is for such systems to converge on the International Standard Classification of
Occupations (ISCO), produced by the International Labour Office. Debate on the relative merits of
different classifications has concentrated on two issues in particular.

Document
The first concerns their hierarchical structure, which is typically based on a mixture of skill/
qualification and social status. A problem is that such hierarchies date rapidly, because new occupations
emerge with changes in TECHNOLOGY and work organization, and traditional distinctions based
largely on social status are breaking down (e.g., the divide between "white collar" and "blue collar," or
between nonmanual and manual occupations). There has, therefore, been a tendency in recent years to
place a greater emphasis on skill deployed, and the nature of the activity in question, in constructing
such hierarchies. Thus, at a three-digit level ISCO has ten Major Groups, in a skill hierarchy ranging
from "legislators, senior officials and managers" to unskilled "elementary occupations." Within each
Major Group are Submajor Groups and Minor Groups, defined less in hierarchical skill terms and more
in terms of the nature of the work. Thus ''clerks" are subdivided into "office clerks" and "customer
services clerks," and the former are further broken down into different areas of office clerical work.
A second issue is the overlap with other classification systems, particularly sectoral ones. In principle,
an occupation (e.g., clerk) should be defined in terms of skill and work activity, independently of the
sector in which the individual works. In practice, however, some occupational labor markets are
"monopsonistic" with only one type of employer (in extreme cases – e.g., soldiers, or tax inspectors –
only one employer) recruiting in that occupational

Document
Page 354
labor market. In these cases the nature of the sector or employer becomes an integral part of the
definition of the occupation, and most classifications used in practice are hybrid occupational–sectoral
classifications.
See also Division of labor; Professionals in organizations; Career theory
Bibliography
Atkinson, A. (1975). The economics of inequality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Blau, F. & Hendricks, W. (1979). Occupational segregation by sex: Trends and prospects. Journal of
Human Relations, 14, 197–210.
Dex, S. (1985). The sexual division of work. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Goldthorpe, J. & Hope, K. (1972). Occupational grading and occupational prestige. In K. Hope (Ed.),
The analysis of social mobility: Methods and approaches. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Goldthorpe, J. & Hope, K. (1974). The social gradings of occupations: A new approach and scale.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. (1991). Standard occupational classification, vol. 3, Social
classifications and coding methodology. London: HMSO.
Phelps Brown, H. (1977). The inequality of pay. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, R. & Elias, P. (1989). Development of the standard occupational classification. Population
Trends, 55, 16–22.
Thurow, L. & Lucas, R. (1972). The American distribution of income: A structural problem.
Washington, DC: Joint Economic Committee, US Congress.
NIGEL MEAGER
Open Systems
When applying SYSTEMS THEORY to organizations, OB scholars conceptualize them as being open
systems exchanging information and resources with their environment (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT; STAKEHOLDERS). This perspective draws attention to how organizations and
their environments mutually influence each other. It seeks to explain how organizations maintain
functional autonomy while adapting to external forces.

Document
As open systems, organizations seek to sustain an input–output cycle of activities aimed at taking in
inputs of information and resources from the environment, transforming them into outputs of goods and
services, and exporting them back to the environment. This cycle enables organizations to replenish
themselves continually so long as the environment provides sufficient inputs and the organization
delivers valued outputs.
Considerable research has gone into understanding how organizations manage these information and
resource flows (see INFORMATION PROCESSING). One perspective focuses on how organizations
process information in order to discover how to relate to their environments. Another view concentrates
on how organizations compete for resources through managing key resource dependencies (see
RESOURCE DEPENDENCE). Still another perspective focuses on how organizations gain
LEGITIMACY from environmental institutions so they can continue to function with external support
(see INSTITUTIONAL THEORY).
In managing information and resource flows, organizations, like all open systems, seek to establish
Boundaries around their activities. These ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES must be permeable
enough to permit necessary environmental exchange, yet afford sufficient protection from external
demands to allow for rational operation (see RATIONALITY).
Organizational scholars devote considerable attention to understanding the dual nature of organizational
boundaries. They study various BOUNDARY SPANNING roles that relate the organization to its
environment, such as sales, public relations, and purchasing. They examine how organizational
members perceive and make sense out of environmental input (see ENACTMENT), and how
organizational boundaries vary in sensitivity to external influences. Research is also aimed at
identifying different strategies for protecting transformation processes from external disruptions while
being responsive to suppliers and customers.
Viewed as open systems, organizations use information about how they are performing to modify future
behaviors. This information FEEDBACK enables organizations to be self-regulating. It enables them to
adjust their functioning to respond to deviations in expected performance. According to the system's
law of requisite variety, however, organizations must have a sufficient diversity of responses to match

Document
Page 355
the variety of disturbances encountered if self-regulation is to be successful.
Extensive research has been devoted to understanding how organizations control and regulate
themselves. Using modern INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, organizations develop a variety of
methods for setting goals, obtaining information on goal achievement, and making necessary changes.
They also devise different structures and processes for learning from this information about how to
improve performance (see CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING;
LEARNING ORGANIZATION).
As open systems, organizations display the property of equifinality. They can achieve objectives with
varying inputs and in different ways. Consequently, there is no one best way to design and manage
organizations, but there are a variety of ways to achieve satisfactory performance (see SATISFICING).
Organizational scholars have devoted considerable attention to identifying different choices for
designing and managing organizations (see STRATEGIC CHOICE). They have shown a range of
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN options that can achieve success in particular situations (see
CONTINGENCY THEORY).
See also Organization theory; Organizational effectiveness; Population ecology
Bibliography
Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Galbraith, J. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
THOMAS G. CUMMINGS
Operant Conditioning
see CONDITIONING; LEARNING, INDIVIDUAL
Operationalization

Document
Organizational research or practice often deals with ideas or concepts that cannot be directly observed
or measured (such as cooperation, dishonesty, work MOTIVATION, etc.). To facilitate observation,
description, good measurement (see RELIABILITY) or policy, one frequently selects a specific,
observable indicator to represent such concepts. An operationalization (or operational definition) then,
is the publicly shared and reproducible operations necessary to define or measure a phenomenon. An
operational definition may be inherent in the conceptualized property of interest (e.g., we may use
"number of people" to operationalize the concept of "GROUP SIZE") or require a logical or inferential
leap (e.g., ''attendance behavior" used to infer "JOB SATISFACTION"). Moreover, because there may
be many particular classes of operational definitions for a given concept, it is not unusual for people to
use different ones to refer to the same thing (e.g., "ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS"). Thus it
is always a good practice to closely examine an operationalization to see if it is appropriate.
Alternatively, investigators may use more than one operationalization (multiple indicators) in order to
pin down an important concept in their work. Good operationalizations are clearly defined, capture the
essential qualities of a concept (see VALIDITY), and are found acceptable by people who are affected
by its use (in either THEORY building or practice).
See also Generalization; Research design; Research methods
Bibliography
Runkel, P. J. & McGrath, J. E. (1972). Research on human behavior. A systematic guide for method.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
RICHARD KLIMOSKI
Operations Management
Also called "Production/Operations Management," "OM," or "P/OM." Operations Management is the

deployment of the resources of an organization to deliver, effectively and efficiently, services and
products to its customers. This involves practitioners in such issues as product and process design;
resource utilization; capacity scheduling; quality management; on-time delivery and other elements of
customer service. The operations function is typically concerned with a large proportion of the physical
assets and employees of a company and hence with costs and PRODUCTIVITY. The academic study of
operations management seeks to analyze and

Document
Page 356
prescribe best practice in each of these areas. OM research has traditionally been linked with operations
research and used quantitative methods. While these remain important, in recent years there have been
increasing calls for, and use of, empirical methods derived from social science. This move recognizes
that an operation is not only a physical system but also a social one. Process developments such as
group technology (see SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY) have revealed connections with OB, as have
such Japanese-derived practices as CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT. Similarly, the importance of
information management in operations links OM with INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY and the study
of decision support systems.
Although much core OM thinking has its origins in Taylor's SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT and thus in
manufacturing practice, the growth of service industries in advanced economies has led to greater study
of nonmanufacturing situations. The study of manufacturing itself has broadened into a greater effort to
understand the competitive role of production, a topic known as manufacturing strategy. In the late
twentieth century then, while operations management itself continues to be recognized as a crucial
aspect of business performance, the academic subject is at a crossroads. Scholars lament the lack of a
rich theoretical base, and dispute the appropriate research methods. The relatively low profile of OM in
the business schools seems to reflect the status of OM practitioners in organizations. Yet the boundaries
of the subject seem likely to widen, with such topics as TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT and
BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING taking researchers beyond both narrow definitions of the
operations function and traditional research paradigms.
See also Advanced manufacturing technology; Just-in-time; Technology
Bibliography
Schmenner, R. W. (1993). Production/Operations management: From the inside out, (5th edn). New
York: Macmillan.
ROY WESTBROOK
Organization and Environment

Document
The environment is a key concept in the study of organizations. Essentially, an organization's

environment is everything that lies outside the organizational boundary (see ORGANIZATION
BOUNDARIES). That is, other organizations, the society in which it operates, governmental agencies
and institutions, the economic system, LABOR MARKETS, financial systems, and so on. These factors
make up what is known as the "general environment." Organizations generally do not have to deal with
the whole environment in its totality, particular parts of the environment will have special importance.
These make up the "task environment" and include the organization's own customers, suppliers,
shareholders, bankers, and so on (see STAKEHOLDERS). Within the organization, individual
SUBUNITS will develop relationships with particular parts of this task environment. So, for example,
the finance department will deal with external financial institutions and specific governmental agencies
such as the Inland Revenue, while the purchasing department will deal with suppliers and their agents.
Each department will therefore manage the interface between themselves and a segment of the total task
environment, acting on behalf of the organization as a whole.
Although the environment is often discussed as though it is completely separate from the "focal"
organization, in reality, organizational boundaries are not always easy to distinguish with absolute
precision. For example, are contracted-in cleaners or catering staff, those working on temporary
contracts, or consultancy and advisory staff really part of the organization or not? Furthermore, the
organization only selectively accepts environmental inputs – it is not necessarily open to everything.
For these reasons the organization may be said to be a "relatively" OPEN SYSTEM, with
semipermeable boundaries.
An open systems view sets the organization in the context of the environment. It recognizes that in
order to survive, the organization must interact with its environment, obtain resources from it, transform
them into products or services and export them back into it.
The environment represents UNCERTAINTY for the organization. This is because organizations
cannot exist without these resource

Document
Page 357
exchanges and they therefore do not have complete control over everything they need. Other
organizations are in a position to exert influence over the flow of critical inputs. Uncertainty can bring
instability since what is uncertain is less predictable. Organizations therefore need to "buffer"
themselves from the possibly damaging effects of the environment. BOUNDARY-SPANNING
departments can help by "environmental scanning," monitoring what is going on outside the
organization to try and forecast change. Part of the work of research and development departments,
marketing, and the human resource function, for example, is to monitor the environment to predict
changes in products and TECHNOLOGY, customer requirements, and labor markets. By doing this
they hope to establish a secure supply of resources and take proactive decisions to ward off threats and
take advantage of opportunities. Individuals such as the chief executive and senior managers also
perform this function, developing networks and relationships outside the organization. Interlocking
directorates are a specific way in which senior personnel form linkages across organizations, sitting as
directors, often in a nonexecutive capacity, on the boards of a number of different organizations and
influential agencies (see NETWORKING; INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS). In this way
they can gather information, build alliances and promote their own organizational interests, or, as it is
sometimes argued, the interests of their social sector or class (see COALITION FORMATION).
It is clear that organizations do not all face the same environment. Furthermore, the nature and
characteristics of the environment may be different for different organizations. Environments differ in
their degrees of COMPLEXITY and turbulence. Complexity refers to the number of environmental
factors with which the organization has to deal. For example, particularly since deregulation, the
banking industry now has to deal with a number of different competitors (insurance companies,
building societies, credit companies) all seeking to offer financial services to customers. Banks are
therefore facing an increasingly complex environment. In contrast, for many years universities faced a
relatively simple environment. The turbulence of the environment refers to the degree of change that is
present. A fashion company would be a good example of a firm operating within a fairly turbulent
environment. Changes in fashion are rapid, continuous, and relatively unpredictable. In contrast, until
the advent of lagers in the 1980s, the British beer industry faced a fairly stable environment. The market
was growing, but growth was relatively constant and predictable.
The levels of complexity and turbulence are obviously linked to the degree of uncertainty faced by
managers. The greater the rate of environmental change and the number of factors to be considered, the
less predictable the environment becomes and the greater the uncertainty for managers having to make
sense of it.
Theories of organization differ about what managers have to do to cope with this situation, and the
degree to which they have the freedom to manage environmental demands.

Document
CONTINGENCY THEORY takes as its central focus the way in which the organization needs to adapt
to environmental constraints. In this view the successfulness of an organization is predicated on the "fit"
between an organization and the environment in which it operates. A number of factors need to be taken
into account in order to ensure congruency. For example, Burns and Stalker (1961) suggested that
environmental features will influence the effectiveness of the structural arrangements that the
organization adopts. When the environment is fairly simple and relatively stable a mechanistic structure
will work reasonably well (see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC). Hierarchical (see HIERARCHY) lines of
COMMUNICATION that allow information to flow up and down the organization are sufficient,
decisions are taken centrally, and precise job specifications and routinized procedures allow tasks to be
performed in standardized ways that facilitate stability (see BUREAUCRACY; ROUTINIZATION).
But where the environment is highly volatile, firms need to respond quickly to changing demands. This
requires communication to be more free-flowing across the organization as well as through the usual
hierarchical channels. Whoever has information about changes needs to be able to pass this on, and
DECISION MAKING is more decentralized (see DECENTRALIZATION). Job specifications and
procedures are more flexible in order to speed up decision making. Organic structures

Document
Page 358
help firms to perform more effectively in this kind of environment.
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) noted that with more dynamic environments there is a need for
organizations to separate out activities to a greater extent to cope more directly with specific segments
of the environment. This DIFFERENTIATION has to be complemented by a reciprocal degree of
INTEGRATION – coordinating mechanisms that bring the differentiated parts together again for the
effective working of the whole organization.
However, one comment in relation to this school of thought is that the environment is not defined with
precision. This makes it difficult for managers to know which indicators are critical in signaling
whether there is an appropriate or inappropriate environmental fit. And if there is not, there are few
prescriptions about the actions they need to take to regain congruency.
Child (1972) responded to this early work in the contingency framework by arguing that much of this
did not make enough provision for the concept of STRATEGIC CHOICE by managers. His argument
was that managers often have a far greater range of options open to them than is generally allowed by
more deterministic views. They are not always constrained by environmental demands but can
sometimes shape their own environments by choosing to operate in certain markets and offer particular
products. This is especially true in the case of larger organizations, or those operating in monopolistic
situations. The power of multinational and global companies to influence their competitive environment
and the policies of host governments are well documented. Certainly, the ability of managers to make
strategic decisions should not be underestimated (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT). This suggests
that the allocation of power in the organization and the use of influence by subunits has a greater part to
play than the contingency approach allows.
A further point here is that the environment itself is mediated by the managers' own interpretations. The
environment is not "given" but has to be experienced and made sense of. This ENACTMENT leaves
room for differing interpretations and understandings. Selective PERCEPTION and biases may
influence this process and so affect the actions which managers take (see BEHAVIORAL DECISION
RESEARCH).

Document
The RESOURCE DEPENDENCE approach (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) also subscribes to much of the
above. In viewing organizations as resource exchanging entities, this perspective sees the environment
as playing a central part in any study of organizations. Organizations need to obtain external resources
in order to survive, and since these are located in the environment it has a central role to play in
organizational functioning. The resource dependence approach holds that a key function for managers is
to manage this interface, as well as managing the internal organizational processes. For Pfeffer and
Salancik, organizations can either try to change their environments or form interorganizational
relationships to control or absorb uncertainty. Methods of changing the environment would include
political lobbying to secure favorable trading or competitive conditions and choosing to operate in
different market sectors. The development of interorganizational relationships can be accomplished in a
number of ways. For example, by contracting arrangements, JOINT VENTURES, interlocking
directorates, MERGERS, AND ACQUISITIONS. All these measures seek to reduce the dependence the
organization has on its environment by securing access to external resources, including information.
The POPULATION ECOLOGY approach goes further than this. It too places the environment at the
center of organizational analysis, but it is rather more pessimistic about the ability of managers to
influence their situation. The view is that organizations do not so much adapt to their environment, but
need to be selected by it if they are to survive. This is very similar to the Darwinian model of evolution.
Organizations are subject to a process of natural selection, whereby the "fittest" survive, the rest do not.
To survive, organizations need to find a niche where the environmental resources they require are
available.
In the population ecology view, the environment is seen to have a number of dimensions in addition to
the ideas of complexity and turbulence discussed above. The "capacity" of the environment refers to
how rich or lean its stock of resources is. Rich environments

Document
Page 359
provide more resources for growth but also attract more organizations so competition is fiercer.
Environmental "concentration" describes a situation where environmental elements (such as customers,
or clients) are relatively concentrated, whereas "dispersion" indicates they are scattered. Organizations
will generally find it easier to operate within a more concentrated environment. Finally, the dimension
of "domain consensus-dissensus'' refers to the degree to which there is agreement about the area of
operation of an organization. If claims to a domain or market are contested then domain dissensus will
result.
This perspective goes beyond the analysis of individual organizations to study organizations as
populations and tries to provide a general explanation for growth and death (see ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE). Growth, if it happens at all, happens in stages. The first stage is when organizational forms
begin to vary. Some of these forms are then selected and survive – others do not. This is the second
stage. The final stage is retention, when those that are selected are duplicated or reproduced.
From the above discussion it will be seen that the environment occupies a central place in the analysis
of organizations. But, as has been shown, the concept is much debated. A great deal of discussion
focuses on the degree to which organizational actors are constrained by externalities or how far they
have a measure of strategic choice. A central theme here is the discourse surrounding the free-will –
determinism dialectic. Certainly, the environment is not always all-powerful and the ability of larger
organizations to control external forces should not be overlooked.
The environment is a complex concept and definitions of its constituent parts are offered with varying
degrees of precision and specificity. However, one significant point is that environments are perceived
and interpreted by organizational actors. In this way, managers can and do shape their own
environments.
See also Competitiveness; Five forces framework; Organization theory; Organizational

effectiveness; Resource based theory; Systems theory
Bibliography
Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sociology, (6), 1–22.
University Press.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence

Document
SUSAN MILLER
Organization Development
This is a field of applied behavioral science focused on understanding and managing

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE. As such, organization development (OD) is both a field of social and
managerial action and a field of scientific inquiry (Cummings & Worley, 1993; Woodman, 1989). As a
field of applied behavioral science, OD draws heavily from psychology and sociology, and, to a lesser
extent, from anthropology. In terms of organizational behavior topics, OD relies on information from
MOTIVATION theory, PERSONALITY theory, and LEARNING theory, as well as research on
GROUP DYNAMICS, LEADERSHIP, POWER, and ORGANIZATION DESIGN, among others. The
field is truly an interdisciplinary one, and many theoretical perspectives may inform the investigation
and management of organizational change processes.
Representative Definitions of OD
Some representative definitions help to frame the boundaries and identify the focus of the field.
[Organization development is] "a system-wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the
planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and processes for
improving an organization's effectiveness" (Cummings & Worley, 1993, p. 2).
"Organization development is a top-management-supported, long-range effort to improve an

organization's problem solving and renewal processes,

Document
Page 360
particularly through a more effective and collaborative diagnosis and management of

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE – with special emphasis on a formal work team, temporary team,
and intergroup culture– with the assistance of a consultant-facilitator and the use of the theory and
technology of applied behavioral science, including action research" (French & Bell, 1990, p. 17).
"Organization development is a set of behavioral science-based theories, VALUES, strategies, and

techniques aimed at the planned change of the organizational work setting for the purpose of enhancing
individual development and improving organizational performance, through the alteration of
organizational members' on-the-job behaviors" (Porras & Robertson, 1992, p. 722).
"Organization development means creating adaptive organizations capable of repeatedly transforming

and reinventing themselves as needed to remain effective" (Woodman, 1993, p. 73).
These and other definitions emphasize OD's focus on planful, systematic change, its knowledge base in
the behavioral sciences, and the ultimate goal of improving performance or effectiveness. Indeed, at
some level of abstraction, ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS is the goal of all planned change
interventions (see PLANNING).
Further Defining Characteristics
In addition to the themes appearing in the above definitions of the field, there are basic characteristics
that distinguish OD from other approaches to understanding and changing organizations (Beer, 1980, p.
10).
(1) OD seeks to create self-directed change to which people are committed. The problems and issues to
be solved are those identified by the organization members directly involved.
(2) OD is most typically a systemwide change effort. Making lasting changes that create a more
effective organization requires an understanding of the entire organization. It is not possible to change
part of the organization without changing the whole organization in some sense. Emphasizing this
characteristic, Burke (1994) defines OD as essentially a process of fundamental change in an
organization's culture.
(3) OD typically places equal emphasis on solving immediate problems and on the long-term
development of an adaptive organization (see LEARNING ORGANIZATION). The most effective
change program is not just one that solves present problems but one that also prepares employees to
solve future problems.
(4) OD places more emphasis than do other change approaches on action research – a collaborative
process of data collection, diagnosis, and action planning designed to create widely supported solutions
to organizational problems.
(5) OD has a dual emphasis on organizational effectiveness and human fulfillment through the work
experience.

Document
The emphasis on human fulfillment gives the field a reputation for a humanistic orientation which has
sometimes contributed to an unfavorable view of OD as being both a "soft" science and an equally
"soft" approach to managing human resources. However, the current trends toward TOTAL QUALITY
MANAGEMENT (TQM) and CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT philosophies have reaffirmed the
crucial role of committed human actors in organizational performance (Woodman, 1993).
Organizational effectiveness and employee well-being and development often go hand-in-hand –
something the field of management seems to relearn about every 20 years.
Development of the Field
Historically, OD has been more micro than macro in orientation, more focused on individual and group
behaviors than on organizational processes, perhaps more concerned with the tactics of intervention
design and conduct than with the strategy of changing whole systems. Organization development grew
out of early laboratory training methods (see SENSITIVITY TRAINING) and survey research and
feedback methodologies in the United States and SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY developments in

Document
Page 361
the United Kingdom and Sweden. However, the field has moved well beyond these early
conceptualizations. OD has been broadening its focus considerably – from a focus on interpersonal and
group processes to a greater focus on structure and strategy; from a focus exclusively at the individual
and group level to a focus which encompasses the organization as a system. In fact, the somewhat
longer-term "organizational change and development" is becoming increasingly popular in place of the
traditional OD label as a way of recognizing the expanding boundaries of the field. The reader is
referred to Cummings and Worley (1993, pp. 6–15) or French and Bell (1990, pp. 24–43) for an
overview of the early history of the field. For an understanding of the evolution of OD, see the
encyclopedic chapters by Mirvis (1988; 1990).
Organization Development Theory and Issues
A notable characteristic of the field of OD is the rich diversity of theories that have been employed in
attempts to explain organizational change. Porras and Robertson (1987; 1992) have identified two types
of organization development theory: change PROCESS THEORY and implementation theory. Change
process theory focuses on explaining the dynamics through which organizations change.
Implementation theory, most closely related to OD practice, focuses on specific interventions and
procedures that can be used to actually change organizations. This dichotomy of theories reflects the
dual nature of the field as one encompassing both scientific inquiry and organizational action. In
general, implementation theory is more fully developed than change process theory in OD (Porras &
Robertson, 1992).
The future of OD would seem bright, if for no other reason than the fact that the challenge and necessity
of managing change in complex organizations continues to be among the key issues that organizations
must address in order to be effective. However, as with many other applied sciences, the field suffers
from tensions between theory and practice. The schism between the science of organizational change
and the art of changing organizations perhaps represents the single greatest impediment to progress in
OD.
See also Consultancy intervention models; Group dynamics; Management development;

Organizational restructuring; Process consultation
Bibliography
Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Santa Monica, CA: Good-
year.
Burke, W. W. (1994). Organization development: A process of learning and changing, (2nd edn).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (1993). Organization development and change, (5th edn).
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West.

Document
French, W. L. & Bell, C. H. (1990). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for
organization improvement (4th edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mirvis, P. H. (1988). Organization development: Part I – An evolutionary perspective. In W. A.

Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds), Research in organizational change and development, (vol. 2, pp. 1–
57). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mirvis, P. H. (1990). Organization development: Part II – A revolutionary perspective. In W. A.

Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds), Research in organizational change and development, (vol. 4, pp. 1–
66). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Porras, J. I. & Robertson, P. J. (1987). Organization development theory: A typology and evaluation. In
R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds), Research in organizational change and development, (vol. 1,
pp. 1–57). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Porras, J. I. & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice, and research. In
M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (2nd
edn, vol. 3, pp. 719–822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Woodman, R. W. (1989). Organizational change and development: New arenas for inquiry and action.
Journal of Management, 15, 205–228.
Woodman, R. W. (1993). Observations on the field of organizational change and development from the
lunatic fringe. Organization Development Journal, 11, 71–74.
RICHARD W. WOODMAN
Organization Theory
This is a body of scholarship that attempts to explain variations in the structure and operating processes
of organizations. Its unit of analysis is the organization itself, or SUBUNITS of the organ-

Document
Page 362
ization, not individual people, the units of analysis to which ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR refers
(see LEVELS OF ANALYSIS). The term "organization theory" is a misnomer because this body of
scholarship includes empirical research and prescriptive analyses of managerial problems as well as
theory.
The field of organizational behavior emerged as industrial psychologists entered business schools in the
United States and sought a term to distinguish their positivistic research from the more normative field
of PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT. When other kinds of social scientists followed, organizational
research began to find a broader audience in business schools and other professional schools (see
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION). People already in the field sought a term to distinguish this new way
of looking at organizations from the previous focus on individual behavior. Since this new style of
research seemed quite abstract, it came to be known as "organization theory" as a complement to
"organizational behavior."
There is, however, a fundamental difference between how these two groups thought about human
behavior in organizations. Industrial psychologists generally have not believed human beings think
differently when they are in an organizational context. Consequently, their approach has applied
theories and methods developed for other purposes to understanding human behavior in organizations.
Organizational sociology, in particular, is not an application of some other theory to organizations.
Rather, sociologists believe that organizations are units of social organization manifesting phenomena
to be explained in ways that differ fundamentally from the explanations offered to account for
phenomena manifested by other units of social organization such as families or residential communities.
Organization theory began almost simultaneously in two places in the United States shortly after World
War II. In New York City, at Columbia University's Department of Sociology, people began to study
organizations as units of analysis, not simply as bureaucracies that were the instruments of political
process (see BUREAUCRACY). The inspiration for such a new interest was structural–functional
analysis in which social organization develops to satisfy functional requisites or "needs" of society.
Formal organizations are important units through which this is done. The other locus of organizational
research was the Carnegie Institute in Pittsburgh where the psychologist Herbert Simon, the political
scientist James G. March, and the economist Richard Cyert began to develop a different approach to the
study of organizations.
Philip Selznick, trained at Columbia, published The TVA and the Grass Roots (1949) and Leadership in
Administration (1957). They appeared at almost precisely the same time as Herbert Simon's
Administrative Behavior (1948) and March and Simon's Organizations (1958).

Document
The Columbia sociology department produced doctoral students who spread out across the United
States to develop organizational sociology. While Selznick went to Berkeley, Peter Blau eventually
took a job at Chicago where he trained a series of doctoral students including W. Richard Scott. Their
book Formal Organizations (1962) was the first textbook devoted exclusively to organization theory.
Scott moved to the Stanford sociology department where he teamed up with another Columbia
graduate, John Meyer, to found modern INSTITUTIONAL THEORY. Students from Carnegie-Mellon,
as it ultimately came to be called, include Oliver Williamson and Jeffrey Pfeffer (who received an
undergraduate degree and MBA from Carnegie).
Organizational theory penetrated business schools in the United States as CONTINGENCY THEORY
drew a new audience for learning about organizations. This audience was higher level managers and
students who aspired to such high positions. While organizational psychology and its normative cousin,
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, were principally about individuals and small groups, with emphasis
on the factory work settings, organization theory and its normative cousin, ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN, were principally about the organization as a whole. This new audience grew as a transition
toward more theoretically-based material gained impetus in US business schools. As the social sciences
invaded business schools and other professional schools as well, social science contributions to
organizational studies broadened and became more theoretical. So organizational theory grew rapidly
through the 1970s and 1980s.

Document
Page 363
At about the same time contingency theory emerged as the body of scholarship pushing organization
theory itself into the mainstream, SYSTEMS THEORY emerged from engineering and rapidly gained a
presence in the field of management science. Systems theory drew attention to the organization as a unit
of analysis, and thus was consistent with other strands of organization theory. Furthermore, it treated
organizations dynamically, with a focus on operating processes that linked organization with its
environment (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). It also stressed the problems associated
with self-regulating systems (sometimes called cybernetic systems), which are the properties of
organizations describing their tolerance for and adjustment to environmental and technical change.
Systems theory did not penetrate the mainstream of organizational theory very deeply, however. While
virtually all organization theorists adopted the metaphors of systems theory, including using the term
"system" itself, systems theory never developed a strong empirical base. Many of its more interesting
ideas were difficult to render observable in real organizations. In addition, the dynamic nature of the
systems conceptualization proved daunting to capture in formal mathematical models. This problem
proved a major weakness at the core of systems theory and it ceased to be a major PARADIGM, in
management science and operations research as well as in organization theory.
Interest by sociologists in the relationship between ORGANIZATION SIZE and structure developed a
literature that made small impact on organization theory as a whole. The main tenet of this work was
that larger organizations have more complex structures: more levels in the HIERARCHY of
AUTHORITY, more departments and sections on the horizontal dimension (see
DEPARTMENTALIZATION). Probably the most important and lasting contribution of the size and
structure literature was to encourage empirical quantitative research on organizations in which large,
systematically drawn samples of organizations were used to generate data. This in turn encouraged the
use of statistical methods and formalized theories. Organization theory developed methodological
sophistication at the same time other branches of scholarship in the social science and professional
schools developed such methods. This had the effect of keeping the field current with developments
elsewhere. It also had the effect of focusing interest on things that were measurable, diverting attention
from issues of great interest and importance to many scholars and students of organizations.
In the early 1970s two new branches of organization theory developed, both emanating from the
Carnegie school. Pfeffer and Salancik (see Pfeffer & Salancik (1978) for a summary) began a series of
studies drawing attention to the RESOURCE DEPENDENCE of organizations. While contingency
theorists wrote about uncertainties imposed on organizations by their environments, resource
dependence developed the argument first appearing in Cyert and March (1963) that organizations
developed their structures around access to resources. These resources are controlled by other powerful
actors whose preferences and practices constrain the organization under study. Control over resources is
the primary subject of dispute within organizations and thus conditions POWER structures (see
RESOURCE BASED THEORY).

Document
At about the same time Oliver Williamson was combining the organizational theories of the Carnegie
school with the institutional economics of John R. Commons and Ronald Coase to develop a new
version of TRANSACTION COST THEORY. While neoclassical economists treated organizations as
single, unified actors with clearly evident and consistent preferences, Williamson argued that their
internal structures mattered. People in organizations have their own agendas and will pursue them when
they can, sometimes to the detriment of the organization as a whole. Organizations are built as attempts
to create efficient structures where markets fail to do so.
Each of the strands of theory described thus far, with the exception of systems theory, took it as
axiomatic that organizations were to be understood as the purposeful creations of some recognizable
individual or group. They were treated as tools to be used to achieve specific purposes. Failure to
cooperate, then, is at least implicitly a form of subversion. The inherent conservatism of structural-
functional analysis continued in organization theory long after it disappeared in other branches of

Document
Page 364
sociology, political science, and anthropology. The research of the 1960s and 1970s, however, showed
the organizational goals are often more apparent than real. Much of what makes an organization
organized is the informal system that springs up spontaneously among the people. This organization is
often barely recognized and usually misunderstood by higher level managers. By definition, it is not
designed by them. So organizations can be seen as having lives of their own. If this is true, how do we
understand their structure and operations?
Two branches of organization theory appeared in the late 1970s as an explicit attempt to answer this
question. Both grew out of sociological studies of organizations: POPULATION ECOLOGY of
organizations and sociological institutional theory.
Population ecology focuses on the tendency of organizations to cluster together in social categories.
Observable variations in organizations do not blend smoothly and continuously so that it makes little
sense to refer to a "bank" as compared with a "hospital." The former do not blend seemlessly with the
latter so that in common parlance one is forced to refer to a "more or less bank." The variables on
whose dimensions we can distinguish banks from hospitals come distributed in discrete chunks called
organizational forms. The organizations manifesting a form are populations of organizations. Among
the features these population members share is a common dependence on resources and a common
dependence on other organizations for support. In this sense, the members of a population have a shared
fate. As resources, cooperation, and opposition from other organizations rise and fall, the population as
a whole is advantaged or disadvantaged. The rates of foundings and failure for that population rise and
fall. Members of these populations have the odds increasingly with them or against them in
consequence. As these populations expand, creating opportunity for organization founders and for
existing firms, and contract, signifying tough times for members of those populations, distributions of
interesting organizational variables shift. For example, as populations of locally owned and managed
banks decline, and nation-wide chains of banks expand, the employment opportunities, WORKING
CONDITIONS and services offered all change.
Population ecology focuses on the typical case, what population members have in common. As such it
provides context against which to gauge the behavior of individuals and single organizations,
particularly those that are chosen for study because of their unusual features.

Document
While population ecologists tend to stress the resource environments of organizations, institutional
theorists stress the cultural and political environments. For them, the societies in which organizations
operate impose expectations about structure and operating procedures on the individual organization
and its participants. So even if a bank is owned by a single individual, he or she is not perfectly free to
organize in any manner that might be possible. A body of social norms, including those formalized in
laws and banking regulations, constrains the bank organizer. Further, these patterned expectations
include more subtle constraints such as architecture, modes of dress, and styles of interaction.
Institutional theorists generally argue that operating efficiency is only one criterion affecting the mode
of organization. And efficiency itself is culturally defined (see SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM).
Population ecologists and institutional theorists agree that environmental factors limit the choices
available to those who organize and that such decisions are only some of the factors that generate
observed organizational patterns.
As population ecology and institutional theory developed in the 1980s, a growing interest in culture and
its effects on organization produced related streams of theory and research. Some of this work on
CULTURE blended with institutional theory but some focused more on differences between national
cultures and the challenges of organizing across such boundaries (see CULTURE, NATIONAL). Such
issues loom larger in the imagination of many European scholars who can see the political boundaries
between societies evaporating, marking the cultural distinctions even more clearly. As European
organizations expand across those boundaries, often by constructing JOINT VENTURE or by effecting
mergers (see MERGERS AND ACQUSITIONS), attempts to understand the consequences have
burgeoned. The gropings to understand "Japanese manage-

Document
Page 365
ment" and "corporate culture" often missed the point that culture is no more an option to be chosen and
designed by chief executives than being Japanese or French is a matter of choice for individuals (see
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE).
Finally, throughout this period interest in DECISION MAKING has continued. The Carnegie school
began with the assumption of BOUNDED RATIONALITY. This evolved into a critique of
organizations as tools designed by rational managers (see RATIONALITY). Organizations face
continuing ambiguity as decision makers face vague COMMUNICATIONS about how imprecise
TECHNOLOGY are being used or abused in pursuit of more or less understood goals. All of this leads
to a view of organizations as groping through time and space, muddling through rather than conquering
strategically chosen obstacles (see GARBAGE CAN model).
See also Critical theory; Postmodernism; Theory
Bibliography
Cyert, R. & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Mouzelis, N. P. (1968). Organization and bureaucracy: An analysis of modern theories. Chicago:

Aldine.
Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
Simon, H. A. (1948). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.
JOHN FREEMAN
Organizational Adaptation
Organizational Behavior

Document
Commonly referred to under its acronym "OB" by practitioners and students, and scholars in the field, it
is the study of human agency in organizations of all types. This means an interest in the behavior of
organizations as well as behavior in organizations, since the actions, cognitions, and motives of human
agents affect the structure, strategy, and functioning of organizations, as well as vice versa. Therefore,
OB seeks to explain and predict the experience and behavior at four LEVELS OF ANALYSIS:
(1) the individual actor: owners, managers, and staff at all levels;
(2) the group: WORK GROUPS, teams, and other organizational subunits, and the relations between
them;
(3) interest groups: occupational, professional, and representative groups such as TRADE UNIONS; and
(4) organizations: public institutions and private firms, voluntary and NOT-FOR-PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS.
At all these levels OB scholars are engaged in THEORY building and testing, methodological advance,
and practical applications for the benefit of organizations and their members. This breadth of scope
makes OB a multidisciplinary social science enterprise, rooted primarily in applied psychology and
sociology, but also drawing upon anthropology and economics (see ORGANIZATIONAL
ECONOMICS). The field also embraces applications including, HUMAN RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT and business strategy at the level of the firm or institution (see STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT). OB represents one of the major subject areas or departmental subdivisions of the
modern business school (typical others being finance, accounting, economics, marketing,
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, and decision science). As such it is a recent creation, of American
origin, from the post-war growth of business administration and management as substantive fields in
higher education (see MANAGEMENT EDUCATION). In the last 30 years it has become the principal
pedagogic and research focus for fields such as industrial sociology and industrial–organizational (I/O)
psychology, which formerly were located in the departments of their parent disciplines, but which
increasingly are centered on the OB departments of business schools. This development is more
advanced in

Document
Page 366
North America than in Europe and elsewhere, but is a visibly continuing trend.
See also Industrial relations; Organization theory; Personnel management; Research methods;
Research design
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Organizational Birth and Death
see ORGANIZATIONAL DEATH AND DECLINE; POPULATION ECOLOGY; FOUNDERS
Organizational Boundaries
These are perimeters that by convention are said to define an organization, with members designated as
"within" the boundary, and clients, customers, suppliers, and regulators, for instance, as "outside."
Transactions occur at the interface. Boundaries signify a distinction between the organization and its
environment, with members having particular rights and obligations not recognized in others (see
ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). Physical bounds, such as gates, fences, or doors, are
complemented by imagined boundaries, such as initiation or hiring, or the interaction (between a
salesperson and a customer, for instance). Members who interact regularly with outsiders are
responsible for BOUNDARY SPANNING.
Traditional ideas about organizational boundaries assume a clear distinction between those "inside" and
those "outside," but contemporary trends toward highly responsive organizations, close attention to the
customer, interorganizational collaboration, and information sharing dilute the concept of boundary
substantially (see INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS). Computer links can further diffuse
boundaries, as when a customer's computer executes a purchase by automatically scheduling production
on a vendor's computer, or customers and vendors jointly participate in product design. Such
arrangements suggest highly porous boundaries or overlap between the firms. STRATEGIC
ALLIANCES, JOINT VENTURES licensing agreements, and similar arrangements also diminish the
sharpness of boundaries, creating forms of LOOSE COUPLING.
See also Population ecology; Systems theory; Stakeholders; Open systems
Bibliography
Aldrich, H. & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of
MARIANN JELINEK
Organizational Change

Document
The study of organizational change is at the very core of management and ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR. Organizational change is a difference in form, quality, or state over time in an
organizational entity. The entity may be an individual's job, a WORK GROUP, an organizational
subunit, strategy, or product, or the overall design of an organization (see ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN). Change in any of these entities can be calculated by measuring the same entity at two or
more points in time on a set of dimensions, and then calculating the differences over time in these
dimensions. If the difference is greater than zero (assuming no measurement ERROR), we can say that
the organizational entity has changed. Much of the voluminous literature on organizational change
focuses on the nature of this difference, what produced it, and what are its consequences. Change can
take many forms; it can be: planned or unplanned, incremental or radical, and recurrent or
unprecedented. Trends in the process or sequence of changes can be observed over time. These trends
can be accelerating or decelerating in time, and move toward equilibrium, oscillation, chaos, or
randomness in the behavior of the organizational entity being examined (see CHAOS THEORY;
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM). Thus, the basic concept of organization change involves three ideas:
(1) difference;
(2) at different temporal moments; and
(3) between states of the same organizational unit or system.
As this definition suggests, changes in an organizational system can occur at various LEVELS OF
ANALYSIS, including the individual, group, organization, population or networks of organizations (see
NETWORK ANALYSIS), and even larger communities or societies of organizations (see SYSTEMS
THEORY). Understanding

Document
Page 367
organizational change therefore requires careful focus on what level of analysis is being examined if
one is to understand how changes occurring at these various levels interrelate. Organizational change is
often mediated through individual actors. Therefore, Van de Ven and Poole (1988) argue that theories
of organizational change should show how macro variables affect individual motives and choices and
how these choices in turn change the macro-organization.
The topic of change depends on what events or variables are used to measure differences in an
organizational entity over time. If an organization is viewed as a social system, the changes observed
may include the following issues:
• changes in composition (e.g., personnel mobility, RECRUITMENT, promotion, or lay-offs, and shifts
in resource allocations among organizational units);
• changes in structure (e.g., alterations of the organization's governance structure, centralization of

decision making, formalization of rules, monitoring and control systems, and inequalities of STATUS
or POWER among units or positions);
• changes in functions (e.g., organizational or subunit strategies, goals, mandates, products, or services);
• changes in boundaries (as brought about by MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS, or divestitures of

organizational units, establishing JOINT VENTURES or STRATEGIC ALLIANCES, modifying
membership admission criteria, organizational expansions or contractions in regions, markets, products/
services, and political domains) (see ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES);
• changes in relationships among organizational levels and units (e.g., increases or decreases in resource
dependencies, work flows, COMMUNICATIONS, CONFLICT, cooperation, competition, CONTROL,
or CULTURE among organizational entities) (see RESOURCE DEPENDENCE);
• changes in performance, including effectiveness (degree of goal attainment), efficiency (cost per unit
of output), and morale of participants (e.g., JOB SATISFACTION or QUALITY of WORKING LIFE
(see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS)); and
• changes in the environment (ecological munificence or scarcity, turbulence, UNCERTAINTY,

COMPLEXITY, or heterogeneity) (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT).

Document
Changes in any of these substantive areas can be planned or unplanned. In the late 1960s and 1970s,
much attention to planned organizational change came from scholars and practitioners identified with
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (OD). Beckhard (1969, p. 9) defined OD as "an effort (1)
planned, (2) organization-wide, and (3) managed from the top to (4) increase organization effectiveness
and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization's processes using behavioral science
knowledge" (italics in original). While Beckhard's definition implies a relatively conservative change
strategy, Bartunek (1993) discusses other OD views that are more revolutionary in purpose and focus
on bottom-up rather than top-down strategies for change. OD encompasses a variety of behavioral
science interventions and action research methods (see ACTION/INTERVENTION RESEARCH) that
may help organizational participants make decisions, solve problems, overcome resistance, resolve
conflicts, and play roles as needed to implement a planned change (see RESISTANCE TO CHANGE).
OD takes a normative and interventionist orientation that is useful to management consultants and
change agents who are frequently called upon to help undertake a variety of changes that are planned
and desired by organizational executives (see CONSULTANCY).
Other management and organizational scholars have taken a more descriptive and positive approach to
organizational change. Recognizing that varying degrees of change and stability are facts of any
organization over time, much of the literature has distinguished between two modes of change:
(1) incremental (first-order) change which channels an organizational entity in the direction of adapting
its basic structure and maintaining its identity in a stable and predictable way as it changes; and
(2) radical (second-order) change, which creates novel forms that are discontinuous and unpredictable
departures from the past (see review by Meyer, Brooks, & Goes, 1990).

Document
Page 368
Typically, observed changes represent small, incremental, convergent, or continuous differences in

localized parts of the organization, without major repercussions to other parts of the system. The
organization as a whole remains intact, and no overall change of its former state occurs in spite of the
incremental changes going on inside. While first-order changes may represent radical transformations of
organizational subunits, they typically represent only incremental or continuous changes in the overall
organizational system. Indeed, system stability often requires these kinds of incremental changes.
Occasionally, large differences may occur in all (or at least the core) components of the system,
producing a radical transformation or mutation of the overall organization. These second-order changes
lead us to treat the new organizational system as fundamentally different from the old one.
The borderline between these extremes is somewhat fluid. Incremental changes in organizational units
may accumulate and affect the core of the system, producing a radical change of the overall
organization. Path dependencies or positive FEEDBACK may exist among incremental change events
so that the timing of the changes may lead to major transformations. These incremental and radical
changes in organizations may also alternate over time. For example, in Tushman and Romanelli's
(1985) PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM model, organizational metamorphosis is explained by long
periods of incremental, first-order changes that refine an organization's operations, products, and
services. These convergent periods are occasionally punctuated by short periods of technological
ferment, which may produce radical and discontinuous second-order changes in the organization.
Theories Explaining Organizational Change Processes
Explaining how and why organizations change is a central and enduring quest of scholars in
management and many other social science disciplines (see reviews in Sztompka, 1993; and Van de
Ven & Poole, 1994). The processes or sequences of events that unfold in these changes are very
difficult to explain, let alone to manage. Van de Ven and Poole (1994) identify four different theories
that are often used to explain how and why organizational changes unfold: life cycle, teleology,
dialectics, and evolution. These four theories will be reviewed here, for they represent fundamentally
different explanations of organizational change in any of the substantive areas or topics listed before.
Each theory focuses attention on a different set of generating mechanisms and causal cycles to explain
what triggers change and what follows what in a sequence of organizational changes (see VICIOUS
CYCLES).
Life Cycle Theory

Document
Many OB scholars have adopted the metaphor of organic growth as a heuristic device to explain
changes in an organizational entity from its initiation to its termination (see applications in Huber and
Glick, 1993) (see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC). Witness, for example, often-used references to the life
cycles of organizations, products, and ventures, as well as stages in the development of individual
CAREERS, groups, and organizations: startup births, adolescent growth, maturity, and decline or death
(see ORGANIZATIONAL DECLINE AND DEATH). Life cycle theory assumes that change is
immanent; that is, the developing entity has within it an underlying form, logic, program, or code that
regulates the process of change and moves the entity from a given point of departure toward a
subsequent end that is already prefigured in the present state. What lies latent, rudimentary, or
homogeneous in the embryo or primitive state becomes progressively more realized, mature, and
differentiated. External environmental events and processes can influence how the immanent form
expresses itself, but they are always mediated by the immanent logic, rules, or programs that govern
development.
The typical progression of events in a life cycle model is a unitary sequence (it follows a single
sequence of stages or phases), which is cumulative (characteristics acquired in earlier stages are
retained in later stages) and conjunctive (the stages are related such that they derive from a common
underlying process). This is because the trajectory to the final end state is prefigured and requires a
specific historical sequence of events. Each of these events contributes a certain piece to the final
product, and they must occur in a certain order, because each piece sets the stage for the next.

Document
Page 369
Each stage of development can be seen as a necessary precursor of succeeding stages.
Life cycle theory is rooted in the approach of the gross anatomist in biology who observes a sequence
of developing fetuses, concluding that each successive stage evolved from the previous one. From this
perspective, change is driven by some genetic code or prefigured program within the developing entity.
This view can be extended to include a number of historically driven processes of cognitive
development in which each stage logically presupposes the next, such as when the development of
manipulative skills precedes writing (see MORAL DEVELOPMENT). There is no reason to suppose
organizational systems could not have such processes as well.
Life cycle theories of organizations often explain development in terms of institutional rules or
programs that require developmental activities to progress in a prescribed sequence. For example, a
legislative bill enacting state educational reform cannot be passed until it has been drafted and gone
through the necessary House and Senate committees. Other life cycle theories rely on logical or natural
properties of organizations. For example, Rogers' (1983) theory posits five stages of INNOVATION:
need recognition; research on the problem; development of an idea into useful form; commercialization;
and diffusion and adoption (see INNOVATION ADOPTION; INNOVATION DIFFUSION). The order
among these stages is necessitated both by logic and by the natural order of Western business practices.
Teleological Theory
Another family of process theories uses teleology to explain development. This approach underlies
many organizational theories of change, including functionalism, DECISION MAKING, adaptive
LEARNING, and most models of STRATEGIC CHOICE and GOAL SETTING. A teleological theory
is based on the assumption that change proceeds toward a goal or end state. It assumes that the
organization is populated by purposeful and adaptive individuals. By themselves or in interaction with
others they construct an envisioned end state, take action to reach it, and monitor their progress. Thus,
this theory views development as a cycle of goal formulation, implementation, evaluation, and
modification of goals based on what was learned or intended (see RATIONALITY). The theory can
operate in a single individual or among a group of cooperating individuals or organizations who are
sufficiently like-minded to act as a single collective entity (see GROUP CULTURE). Since the
individual or cooperating entities have the freedom to set whatever goals they like, teleological theory
inherently accommodates CREATIVITY; there are no necessary constraints or forms that mandate
reproduction of the current entity or state.

Document
Unlike life cycle theory, teleology does not presume a necessary sequence of events or specify which
trajectory development will follow. However, it does imply a standard by which development can be
judged: development is that which moves the entity toward its final state. There is no prefigured rule,
logically necessary direction, or set sequence of stages in a teleological process. Instead, these theories
focus on the prerequisites for attaining the goal or end-state: the functions that must be fulfilled, the
accomplishments that must be achieved, or the components that must be built or obtained for the end-
state to be realized. These prerequisites can be used to assess when an entity is developing; it is growing
more complex, it is growing more integrated, or it is filling out a necessary set of functions. This
assessment can be made because teleological theories posit an envisioned end state or design for an
entity and it is possible to observe movement toward the end state vis-à-vis this standard.
Teleological models of development incorporate the systems theory assumption of equifinality; i.e.,
there are several equally effective ways to achieve a given goal. There is no assumption about historical
necessity. Rather, these models rely on voluntarism as the explanatory principle. They posit a set of
functions or goals desired by an organizational unit, which it must acquire in order to ''realize" its
aspirations. Changes in organizations are viewed as movements toward attaining a desired purpose,
goal, function, or desired end state. There is no hard and fast order in which the organization must
acquire the means and resources to achieve this goal.
While teleology stresses the purposiveness of the individual as the generating force for change, it also
recognizes limits on action. The organization's environment and its resources of

Document
Page 370
knowledge, time, money, etc., constrain what it can accomplish. Some of these constraints are
embodied in the prerequisites, which are to some extent defined by institutions and other actors in the
entity's environment. Individuals do not override natural laws or environmental constraints, but make
use of them in accomplishing their purposes.
Once an entity attains this end state does not mean it stays in permanent equilibrium. Influences in the
external environment or within the entity itself may create instabilities that push it to a new
developmental path or trajectory. Theories that rely on a teleological process cannot specify what
trajectory development will follow. They can at best list a set of possible paths, and rely on norms of
rationality to prescribe certain paths (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT).
Dialectical Theory
A third family, dialectical theories, is rooted in the assumption that the organization exists in a
pluralistic world of colliding events, forces, or contradictory values that compete with each other for
domination and control. These oppositions may be internal to an organization because it may have
several conflicting goals or interest groups competing for priority. Oppositions may also arise external
to the organization as it pursues directions that collide with those of others (see Burawoy & Skocpol
(1982)).
Dialectical process theories explain stability and change by reference to the relative balance of POWER
between opposing entities (see CONFLICT). Stability is produced through struggles and
accommodations that maintain the status quo between oppositions. Change occurs when these opposing
VALUES, forces, or events gain sufficient power to confront and engage the status quo. The relative
power of an opposing PARADIGM or antithesis may mobilize to a sufficient degree to challenge the
current thesis or state of affairs and set the stage for producing a synthesis. More precisely, the status
quo subscribing to a thesis (A) may be challenged by an opposing entity with an antithesis (Not-A), and
the resolution of the conflict produces a synthesis (which is Not Not-A). Over time, this synthesis can
become the new thesis as the dialectical process recyles and continues. By its very nature, the synthesis
is something created new, discontinuous with thesis and antithesis.
Creative syntheses to dialectical conflicts are often not assured. Sometimes an opposition group
mobilizes sufficient power to simply overthrow and replace the status quo, just as many organizational
regimes persist by maintaining sufficient power to suppress and prevent the mobilization of opposition
groups. In the bargaining and CONFLICT RESOLUTION literature the desired creative synthesis is
one that represents a win–win solution, while either the maintenance of the status quo or its replacement
with an antithesis are often treated as win–lose outcomes of a CONFLICT engagement (see
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT). In terms of organizational change, maintenance of the status quo
represents stability, while its replacement with either the antithesis or the synthesis represents a change,
for the better or worse.

Document
In general, a PROCESS THEORY that focuses on the intercourse of opposites can explain
organizational changes that move toward:
(1) equilibrium;
(2) oscillation; and
(3) chaos.
First, organizational stability and inertia result when the routines, goals, or values of the status quo are
sufficiently dominant to suppress opposing minority positions, and thereby produce incremental
adaptations flowing toward equilibrium (see MINORITY GROUP INFLUENCE). For example, an
existing ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, structure, or system can remain intact by undertaking
incremental adaptations that appease or diffuse opposing minority positions. Such equilibrium-
maintaining adaptations underlie many structural–functional theories of exchange, power, and order
(see EXCHANGE RELATIONS). Second, organizational business cycles, fads, or pendulum swings
occur when opposing interest groups, business regimes, or political parties alternate in power and push
the organization somewhat farther from a stable equilibrium. Such cycles explain recurrent periods of
organizational feast and famine, partisan MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT among political parties, and
alternating organizational priorities on efficiency and innovation. Third, seemingly-random
organizational behaviors are produced when strong oscillations or shifts

Document
Page 371
occur between opposing forces that push the organization out of a single periodic equilibrium orbit and
produce multiple equilibria and bifurcations, each bounded by different strange attractors. Currently
there is growing interest in recent advances in catastrophe theory and CHAOS THEORY to explain
such seemingly random behavior in organizations. Thus, different patterns for resolving dialectical
oppositions can push an organization to flow toward equilibrium, to oscillate in cycles between
opposites, or to bifurcate far from equilibrium and spontaneously create revolutionary changes.
Evolutionary Theory
Although evolution is sometimes equated with change, evolution is used here in a restrictive sense to
focus on cumulative and probabilistic changes in structural forms of populations of organizations (see
POPULATION ECOLOGY). As in biological evolution, change proceeds through a continuous cycle
of variation, selection, and retention. Variations, the creation of novel forms, are often viewed to
emerge by blind or random chance; they just happen. Selection occurs principally through the
competition among forms, and the environment selects those forms that optimize or are best suited to
the resource base of an environmental niche. Retention involves the forces (including inertia and
persistence) that perpetuate and maintain certain organizational forms. Retention serves to counteract
the self-reinforcing loop between variations and selection (Aldrich, 1979). Thus, evolutionary theory
explains changes as a recurrent, cumulative, and probabilistic progression of variation, selection, and
retention of organizational entities.
Alternative theories of social evolution can be distinguished in terms of how traits can be inherited,
whether change proceeds gradually and incrementally or rapidly and radically, and whether the unit of
analysis focuses on populations of organisms or species. A Darwinian perspective argues that traits can
be inherited only through intergenerational processes, whereas a Lamarkian argues that traits can be
acquired within a generation through learning and imitation. A Lamarkian view on the acquisition of
traits appears more appropriate than strict Darwinism for organization and management applications of
social evolution theory. As McKelvey (1982) discusses, to date no adequate solutions have been
developed to identify operationally an organizational generation and an intergenerational transmission
vehicle.
Social Darwinian theorists emphasize a continuous and gradual process of evolution. In The Origin of
Species, Darwin wrote, "as natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable
variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps."
Other evolutionists posit a saltational theory of evolution, such as punctuated equilibrium, which
Tushman and Romanelli (1985) introduced to the management literature. Whether an evolutionary
change proceeds at gradual versus saltational rates is an empirical matter, for the rate of change does
not fundamentally alter the theory of evolution – at least as it has been adopted thus far by organization
and management scholars.

Document
The paleontologist, Gould (1989), argues that another basic distinction between Darwinian evolution
and his punctuated equilibrium theory is hierarchical level. This distinction has not yet been
incorporated in the management literature, but ought to be. Gould points out that classical Darwinism
locates the sorting of evolutionary change at a single level of objects. This sorting is natural selection
operating through the differential births and deaths of organisms, as exemplified in many population
ecology studies of organizational birth and death rates (see reviews in Hannan & Freeman (1989).
Gould's punctuated equilibrium model adds a hierarchical dimension to evolutionary theory by
distinguishing this sorting (a description of differential birth and death) from speciation (a causal claim
about the basis of sorting). "Speciation is a property of populations (organisms do not speciate), while
extinction [a sorting process] is often a simple concatenation of deaths among organisms" (Gould, 1989,
p. 122). This multilevel view of evolution is important for understanding how organizational adaptation
and selection can occur at multiple levels (both the species and organism levels). Adaptation is the class
of heritable characters that have a positive influence on the fitness of an organism within a constraining
situation. Selection focuses on the evolutionary process of choosing

Document
Page 372
new situations (i.e., variations). So selection assumes variation, while adaptation assumes fitting within
a selected environment.
Conclusion
Life cycle, teleology, dialectics, and evolutionary theories provide four useful ways to think about and
study processes of change in organizations. The relevance of the four theories will differ depending
upon the conditions surrounding the organizational change in question. Specifically, Van de Ven and
Poole (1994) propose that the four theories explain processes of organizational change and development
under the following conditions:
• Life cycle theory explains change processes within an entity when natural, logical, or institutional
rules exist to regulate the process.
• Teleological theory explains change processes within an entity or among a cooperating set of entities
when a new desired end-state is socially constructed and consensus emerges on the means and resources
to reach the desired end-state.
• Dialectical theory explains change processes between conflicting entities when the aggressor entities
are sufficiently powerful and choose to engage the opposition through direct confrontation, bargaining,
or partisan mutual adjustment.
• Evolutionary theory explains change processes between a population of entities when they compete
for similar scarce resources in an environmental niche.
Thus, to explain organizational change in any content area, one applies the theory that best fits the
specific conditions. Of course, changes in organizations are often more complex than these propositions
suggest. Conditions may exist to trigger interplays between several change theories and produce
interdependent cycles of change. While each of these types has its own internal logic or generating
mechanism, confusion and complexity arise when these logics interact. To deal with some of these
complexities, it is helpful to distinguish the myriad ongoing changes in organizational life into those
that are routine versus novel and the level of analysis at which they occur.
To stay in business, most organizations follow routines to reproduce a wide variety of recurring
changes, such as adapting to economic cycles, periodic revisions in products and services, and ongoing
instances of personnel TURNOVER and executive succession (see SUCCESSION PLANNING).
These commonplace changes within organizations are typically programmed by preestablished rules or
institutional routines, and can be analyzed and explained using a life cycle theory of change. At the
industry or population level, competitive or environmental selection for shifts in resources typically
govern the rates of reproduction (and resulting size and number) of various forms of organizations.
Evolutionary theory is useful for explaining these population-level changes as the probabilistic
workings of variation, selection, and retention processes.

Document
Occasionally, organizations also experience unprecedented changes for which no established routines or
procedures exist. They include many planned (as well as unplanned) changes in organizational creation,
innovation, turnaround, reengineering, cultural transformation, merger, divestiture, and many other
issues the organization may not have experienced (see TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT; BUSINESS
PROCESS REENGINEERING; MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS). These kinds of novel changes
can be usefully analyzed and explained with a teleological theory if they are triggered by a reframing or
frame-breaking goal of powerful people in control of the organization. Alternatively, a dialectical
theory might better explain the novel change process when conflicts and confrontations between
opposing groups occur to produce a synthesis out of the ashes of the conflict engagements.
The processes through which these novel changes unfold are far more complex and unpredictable than
routine changes because the former require developing and implementing new change routines, while
the latter entail implementing tried-and-tested routines. Novel changes entail the creation of originals,
whereas routine changes involve the reproduction of copies. Novel changes are organizational
innovations, whereas routine changes are business as usual.
An important concluding caveat is to recognize that existing theories of organizational

Document
Page 373
change are explanatory, but not predictive. Statistically, we should expect most incremental,
convergent, and continuous changes to be explained by either life cycle or evolutionary theories, and
most radical, divergent, and discontinuous changes to be explained by teleological or dialectical
theories. But these actuarial relationships may not be causal. For example, the infrequent statistical
occurrence of a discontinuous and radical mutation may be caused by a glitch in the operation of a life
cycle model of change. So also, the scale-up of a teleological process to create a planned strategic
reorientation for a company may fizzle, resulting only in incremental change.
See also Organization theory; Strategic management; Organizational learning
Bibliography
Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bartunek, J. M. (1993). The multiple cognitions and conflicts associated with second order
organizational change. In J. K. Murningham (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in
theory and research (Chapter 15). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Burawoy, M. & Skocpol, T. (1982). Marxist inquiries: Studies of labor, class, and states. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
French, W. L. & Bell, C. H. Jr. (1978). Organization development: Behavior science interventions for
organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gould, S. J. (1989). Punctuated equilibrium in fact and theory. Journal of Social and Biological
Structures, 12, 117–136.
Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Huber, G. P. & Glick, W. H. (1993). Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for
improving performance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics: Taxonomy, evolution, classification. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.
Meyer, A. D., Brooks, G. R. & Goes, J. B. (1990). Environmental jolts and industry revolutions:
Organizational responses to discontinuous change. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 93–110.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations, (3rd edn). New York: Free Press.

Document
Sztompka, P. (1993). The sociology of social change. London: Blackwell.
Tushman, M. L. & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of

convergence and reorientation. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior,
(vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. (1988). Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational
change. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in
organization and management. New York: Harper Collins, Ballinger Division
(1994). Explaining development and change in organizations. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Strategic Management Research Center, Discussion Paper #189.
ANDREW H. VAN DE VEN
Organizational Citizenship
The concept of organizational citizenship connotes membership in a polity that grants rights and
enforces responsibilities. It is related to the idea of corporate, or organizational, social responsibility. In
any society, major institutions and organizations constitute "interpenetrating systems," interrelated but
not completely overlapping sets (see INSTITUTIONAL THEORY). Rights and privileges of
organizations protect their independence in society; responsibilities acknowledge their interdependence.
In the United States, corporations are legally considered as persons, having many rights and duties as
though they were individual citizens. Other rights and duties devolve to organizations because of their
collective characteristics and their importance to societal welfare. In nations without legal
organizational citizenship, organizations may still be accorded citizen-like rights and be expected to
fulfill socially-defined responsibilities.
Responsibilities of business organizations as citizens include:
(a) economic duties such as providing jobs, creating wealth, and paying taxes;
(b) legal and regulatory compliance;
(c) responsiveness to ethical norms and principles; and

Document
Page 374
(d) discretionary social welfare or cultural contributions (Carroll, 1979) (see EQUAL
OPPORTUNITIES).
In addition, business organizations may have responsibilities as "world citizens," such as compliance
with international agreements governing commerce, human rights, or natural environment protection.
Scholarly debates over whether, or the degree to which, business organizations have social
responsibilities, or citizenship duties, have largely been supplanted by analysis of CORPORATE
SOCIAL PERFORMANCE (Wood, 1991), focusing on the consequences of business operations for
persons, groups, societies, and the natural environment. Business's economic responsibilities are only
part of the set of organizational responsibilities.
See also Governance and ownership; Stakeholders; Business ethics; Psychological contract;
Contract
Bibliography
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional model of corporate performance. Academy of Management

Review, 4, (4), 497–505.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, (4),
691–718.
DONNA J. WOOD
Organizational Climate
The concept of climate is clearly metaphorical implying that organizations, groups, teams, and other
collectives possess the equivalent of "prevailing atmospheric phenomena such as temperature,
humidity, wind, and clearness, etc." (OED). Definitions range from the shared perceptions of "the way
things are around here" (Schneider, 1990), to Payne's, ''a molar concept reflecting the content and
strength of the prevalent VALUES, norms, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors of the members of a social
system which can be operationally measured through the perceptions of system members or
observational and other objective means."

Document
One of its earliest uses was by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) who used it to describe the effects of
different LEADERSHIP STYLES on groups of young boys whose leaders were required to act in a
democratic, autocratic, or laissez-faire manner (see MANAGERIAL STYLE). This manipulation
produced climates which were, respectively, busy, co-operative, productive, enjoyable (democratic);
less busy, hostile, less productive, and unenjoyable (autocratic); and anarchic, less productive, less
cohesive, and less satisfying (laissez-faire). These descriptions were based largely on the observations
of the researchers/observers, but climate research really burgeoned when researchers developed
questionnaire measures which asked the members of the social groups themselves to describe how they
saw their environment. These early studies were carried out in organizations, leading to the most widely
used concept – organizational climate.
Large-scale comparative studies of organizational climate were first carried out in educational
organizations by Pace and Stern, though during the next decade Stern (1970) developed the work both
conceptually and empirically, and designed measures for industrial organizations. Both authors raised
fundamental problems with the concept which are still highly relevant today. Stern was concerned with
the relationship between PERSONALITY and PERCEPTIONS of the climate, and Pace with the
question: "What proportion of the population has to agree/disagree with a particular description of the
climate to justify describing the climate in that way?" This is the aggregation issue.
Pace had set 66 percent as the criterion, but others have argued that it should be much closer to 100
percent. In practice, most other researchers avoided the issue by using multiitem scales and taking the
mean score to represent the organization's climate. It was obvious from the standard deviations that this
cloaked wide variations in perceptions amongst members of organizations. This VALIDITY problem
became even clearer when studies showed mean scores differed by hierarchical level, and by functions/
departments. One possible response to this is to accept the existence of subclimates, but unfortunately
the aggregation problem also exists within levels and departments – there are still wide variations in
perceptions. It was then suggested that cluster analysis might be a technique for revealing groups of
people who see the climate in the same way (see STATISTICAL METHODS).

Document
Page 375
This has recently been tested empirically and the clusters labeled collective climates, but Payne (1990)
has argued that this approach is only justified if the collectives had some other meaningful socio-
psychological identity (e.g., were in the same department, clique, etc.) (see GROUP CULTURE). To
date this approach has rarely revealed clusters with such an identity.
In parallel with this activity researchers tackled the aggregation issue by calculating the degree of
agreement amongst the members of the organization, department, or team. The interrater
RELIABILITY coefficient has been used as well as versions of the intraclass correlation coefficient.
There is ongoing debate about the advantages and disadvantages of these various coefficients
(Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). Whatever their respective merits, the empirical fact is that the degree of
agreement shown is often not high enough to justify the claim that the mean is an accurate score of the
climate. In one study of 334 colleges Zammuto and Krakower (1991) report that only 25 percent of the
colleges studied had intraclass correlations better than 0.66. It should be noted that the number of raters
in each organization only varied from 10 to 19 and all were associated with the top of the organization
which should have optimized the chances of gaining agreement. This lack of agreement about the
organizational climate raises serious problems about the validity of the concept of collective climate.
One reason for the existence of variations in perceptions of environment is, of course, personality,
attitudes, values, etc., which returns us to Stern's work. He was able to test whether having a particular
need (e.g., achievement) influenced one's perceptions of the demand for achievement in the
organizational environment (see ACHIEVEMENT, NEED FOR). Correlations up to about 0.3 were
found. JOB SATISFACTION is also positively correlated with perceptions of climate, the more
satisfied people tending to report a more positive climate.
These sorts of findings, and the problem of the aggregation issue, led to the distinction of psychological
climate from organizational climate. Conceptually, however, this assumes that the individual is the unit
of analysis but many measures still asked the individual to describe the climate of the organization (see
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS). Because of the aggregation issue some argue that using the individual as the
unit of analysis is the only valid use of climate measures, but it is worth noting some conceptual
confusion. Would it not be more conceptually consistent to develop measures of the psychological
climate by exploring the person's immediate environment? Why should the climate of the chief
executive contain the same dimensions as that of the shop-floor worker? Sadly, the climate literature
contains a number of examples of such conceptual slippage.
Another type of conceptual slippage occurs in the content of climate measures. Many measures contain
items which really measure ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN such as centralization of AUTHORITY,
amount of rules, and structuring of processes and activities. Since most models of organization propose
that mechanistic structures produce different cultures/climates than organismic structures (see
MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC), it is surely sensible to keep the concepts separate. This does not mean
one cannot have perceptual measures of structure, of course, as long as people agree about the structure.

Document
Many measures of climate were developed in the 1960s and 1970s and changes in organizations
continue to lead to the developments of new dimensions (e.g., to do with attitudes and values toward
information technology, customer service, quality, etc.), but the following dimensions regularly appear
as independent dimensions of climate and give an idea of its content, as well as emphasizing that it is
multidimensional: interpersonal warmth and support; concern for conforming versus personal
autonomy; concern for being progressive and innovative; rewarding versus punishing orientation;
concern for results or achievement. Specialized measures of climate have also been produced (e.g.,
Service Climate and Safety Climate).
The content of climate measures overlap a lot with descriptions of organizational CULTURE.
Schneider (1990) edited a book Organizational Climate and Culture, which discusses the two concepts
without coming to definitive conclusions except that they are similar, but different in their approach to
measurement, and that climate is unlikely to reveal the deeper, taken-

Document
Page 376
for-granted aspects of culture that might be revealed by anthropological investigation.
Despite the measurement difficulties that exist for both culture and climate, empirical studies have
regularly demonstrated that the performance and survival of companies is affected by their climate/
culture (e.g., Dennison, 1990). Climate measures are also used with great practical benefits in survey-
feedback situations where they help to diagnose what the climate is like, prompt strategic thinking
about what a better climate would be like, and aid in monitoring progress toward the vision.
As a practical concept both social scientists and lay persons find it easy to grasp the idea of a social
climate and it is undoubtedly a useful thinking tool – as a scientific concept it continues to encounter
stormy weather.
See also Organizational culture; Attitude theory; Group norms
Bibliography
Dennison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within group agreement; disentangling
issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, (2), 161–167.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally
created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–299.
Payne, R. L. (1990). Method in our madness: A reply to Jackofsky and Slocum. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 11, 77–80.
Schneider, B. (Ed.), (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context. New York: Wiley.
Zammuto, R. F. & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational

culture. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds), Research in organizational change and
development, (vol. 5, pp. 83–114). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
ROY L. PAYNE
Organizational Commitment
see COMMITMENT
Organizational Culture

Document
The surface manifestations of a CULTURE must be distinguished from culture itself. Manifestations of
cultures in organizations include formal practices (such as pay levels, structure of the HIERARCHY,
JOB DESCRIPTIONS), informal practices (such as norms), espoused VALUES, RITUALS,
organizational stories, jargon, humor, and physical environment (including office/work spaces, dress
norms, architecture). These manifestations are interpreted, evaluated, and enacted in varying ways
because cultural members have differing interests, experiences, responsibilities, and values. The
underlying patterns or configurations of these interpretations, and the ways they are enacted, constitute
culture. Culture is not simply the espoused values of managers, supposedly shared by all or most
employees. Rather, culture is embedded in the everyday working lives of all cultural members.
Therefore, subcultural differentiation and the ambiguities that pervade organizational life are essential
features of any organization's culture.
The 1980s brought a renaissance of interest in organizational culture. The resulting proliferation of
research was accompanied by fundamental and fruitful disagreements about what culture is, how it
should be studied, if its content can be controlled by management, and whether a particular kind of
culture can result in stronger organizational performance. This dissension among cultural researchers,
regarding such fundamental issues, makes it difficult to define culture and summarize the results of this
growing literature.
Theoretical Hairsplitting or Differences of Consequence?
Given this dissension, it is reasonable to ask why applied researchers and practitioners should care
about cultural research. One reason is financial. Organizations have spent considerable amounts of
money in response to seductive promises of easy cultural change. Some managers have sought to
replicate the supposedly "strong" cultures of profitable companies, while others have tried "engineering
values" to generate COMMITMENT to a philosophy of management, in the hopes of increasing loyalty,
PRODUCTIVITY, or profitability. Some FOUNDERS or top executives have sought to create a culture
cast in their own image, to perpetuate

Document
Page 377
their own personal values and achieve an organizational form of immortality (see CEOs). Usually
practitioners respond to promises of easy solutions and quick fixes with well-deserved skepticism, but
organizational culture, at first, seemed immune from such skepticism. Later, disillusionment set in and
many dismissed culture as yesterday's fad. For some organizations, both responses have been expensive
mistakes.
This seesaw between credulity and disillusionment has caused considerable waste of time, money, and
emotional effort. Practitioners need to know enough to judge – with appropriate skepticism – what
researchers and strategic advisors are focusing on and what they are ignoring. Without some
understanding of why researchers come to different conclusions about how cultures change and whether
these transitions can be managed, it is impossible to judge whether the results of a particular study are
in some sense valid and whether they have practical applications in a given context. For all these
reasons, theoretical differences of opinion are not just hairsplitting debates of interest only to ivory-
tower scholars.
Overview
One way to make sense of this growing body of literature is to distinguish three traditions of cultural
research: the Integration, Differentiation, and Fragmentation perspectives (Martin, 1992). Below, this
essay defines the premises of each perspective, summarizes results of representative studies, identifies
problems inherent in each viewpoint, and outlines a three-perspective resolution of some of these
difficulties.
Integration Perspective
Of the three perspectives that have come to dominate organizational culture research, the Integration
perspective is the most popular and the least well supported empirically. Integration studies of culture
implicitly assume that a "strong" culture is characterized by consistency, organization-wide consensus,
and clarity. According to Integration studies, consistency occurs because people at the higher levels of
an organization articulate a set of espoused values, sometimes in the form of a philosophy of
management or MISSION STATEMENT; these values are then reinforced by a variety of cultural
manifestations which presumably generate organization-wide value consensus. In Integration studies,
there is clarity concerning what the organizational values are and should be, what behaviors are
preferable, and what a particular story or ritual means. Organizational members apparently know what
they are to do and they agree why it is worthwhile to do it. In the few instances when ambiguity is
acknowledged, it is described as "not part of the culture" or as a evidence of a failure to achieve a
"strong" culture.

Document
For example, MacDonald (in Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1991) studied the Los Angeles
Olympic Organizing Committee, as its employees and volunteers rallied to perform at their peak during
the Olympic games. According to MacDonald, attractive uniforms, elaborate rituals, brightly colored
stadium decorations, an intense working pace, and stories about a charismatic leader consistently
reinforced organization-wide commitment around a set of shared values (see LEADERSHIP,
CHARISMATIC). Schein (1985) focused attention on individual corporate leaders who attempt to
generate company-wide consensus regarding their personal values and corporate goals through a wide
range of consistent corporate policies and practices. Barley (in Frost et al., 1991) described how Funeral
Directors use a series of practices and rituals (e.g., putting make-up on a corpse, changing sheets on a
death bed, etc.) to reinforce the idea that death can be life-like.
In most but not all Integration studies, culture supposedly originates in the values articulated by a leader
or top management (see TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS); these values are then reinforced by
selectively hiring people with similar priorities and by attempting to socialize new employees
thoroughly (see SOCIALIZATION). The Integration perspective conceptualizes cultural change as an
organization-wide cultural transformation, whereby an old unity is replaced – hopefully – by a new one.
In the interim, conflict and ambiguity may occur, but these are interpreted as evidence of the
deterioration of culture before a new unity is established. Much of the research that has generated the
renaissance of interest in culture, particularly in the United States, falls within the Integration
perspective. This view of culture

Document
Page 378
has gained wide acceptance, in part because such a harmonious and clear environment is attractive,
particularly to managers who would like to think that they could create a vision and enact a culture that
would inspire such consensus.
Although all cultural manifestations mentioned in a given Integration study may be consistent with each
other, it is likely that inconsistent or ambiguous elements have simply been excluded from the account
as not part of the culture. Often an Integration study will cite just a few manifestations, for example, the
espoused values of top management or a collection of organizational stories – and claim that this subset
of cultural manifestations is characteristic of the entire culture. Most Integration studies rely primarily
on the views of managerial and professional employees, although it cannot be assumed that the view of
this minority of powerful individuals are shared by all employees, particularly given the likelihood of
conflicts of interest between different functional groups and among levels of a hierarchy. In addition,
employees' behavioral COMPLIANCE to top management's preferences or policies cannot be taken as
evidence of shared values or interpretations.
Given the absence of systematic studies which provide comparative data from a large number of
companies, claims that "strong" cultures are a key to improved organizational effectiveness, should be
regarded as, at best, unproved (Siehl & Martin, 1990). Many studies make a stronger claim: that it is
highly unlikely that any organizational culture, studied in depth, would exhibit the consistency,
organization-wide consensus, and clarity that Integration studies have claimed to find (e.g., Alvesson &
Berg, 1992; Martin, 1992; Turner, 1986; Van Maanen & Barley, in Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, &
Martin, 1985). Thus, Integration studies offer managers and researchers a seductive promise of
harmony and value homogeneity that is empirically unmerited and unlikely to be fulfilled.
Differentiation Perspective
Differentiation studies see the origins of culture in the fact that organizational members have different
interests, task responsibilities, backgrounds, experiences, and expertise. The material conditions of their
work, and the pay they receive for it, differ. In addition, individuals bring differing group identities
(such as class, GENDER, or ETHNICITY), and differing interpretations of the meanings of those
identities, to the workplace (Alvesson & Berg, 1992; Martin, 1992; Van Maanen & Barley, in Frost et
al., 1985). For these reasons, Differentiation studies describe organizations as composed of overlapping,
nested subcultures that coexist in relationships of intergroup harmony, CONFLICT, or indifference.
For example, in a Differentiation study, Bartunek and Moch (in Frost et al., 1991) show how five
subcultures in a food production firm reacted differently to management's imposition of a QUALITY
OF WORKING LIFE intervention. Top management was primarily concerned with control. In-house
consulting staff were cooperative. The management of the local plants where the program was
implemented were paternalistic, using imagery of employees as "children" to managerial "parents."
Line employees exhibited a dependent reaction, following management's preferences. Machinists,
historically an active, independent, and comparatively well-paid group, actively resisted the
intervention.

Document
A hierarchical alignment of subcultures is also evident in Van Maanen's (in Frost et al., 1991) study of
ride operators at Disneyland. Food vendors were allocated to the bottom of the STATUS ranking and
operators of yellow submarines and jungle boats share high status. Tension between ride operators,
customers, and supervisors was evident, as ride operators arranged for obnoxious customers to be
soaked with water when submarine hatches open and supervisors are foiled in their constant attempts to
catch operators breaking rules. In Young's (in Frost et al., 1991) study of "bag ladies" in a British
manufacturing plant, tensions between management and labor were evident, as were fissions within the
worker subculture between the younger and older workers who did different sewing jobs. As these
examples indicate, subcultures often appear along lines of functional and hierarchical
DIFFERENTIATION. Also evident in these studies is a subtext: many of these subcultural differences
also reflect class, RACE, ethnic, AGE, and gender

Document
Page 379
differences, in part due to occupational segregation (Cox, 1993) (see OCCUPATIONS).
Inconsistency across cultural manifestations is evident in Differentiation studies. For example, top
management in the bakery says one thing to employees, and does something different. At Disneyland,
ride operators appear to conform to management's rules, while doing what they please. In a particularly
detailed examination of the effects of such inconsistencies on an individual, Kunda (1991) studied
engineers' reactions as they conformed to a company ritual (designed to exhibit commitment to
supposedly shared company values) while "off stage" they expressed, through humor and sarcastic side
remarks, their internal ambivalence.
To summarize, a Differentiation study includes evidence of inconsistency between one cultural

manifestation and another. Consensus is evident, but only within the boundaries of a subculture. Within
a subculture all is clear, but ambiguities do appear at the interstices where one subculture meets another.
When viewed from the Differentiation perspective, the organization is no longer seen as a cultural
monolith; instead, it is a collection of subcultures (Christensen & Kreiner, 1984; Turner, 1986) (see
SUBUNITS). Some of these subcultures enthusiastically reinforce the views of the top management
coalition or operate cooperatively with each other. Others become pockets of ignorance or resistance to
top management initiatives. From the Differentiation perspective, change is localized within one or
more subcultures, alterations tend to be incremental, and change is triggered (if not determined) by
pressures from an organization's environment (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). That
environment is likely to be segmented, so different subcultures within the same organization experience
different kinds and rates of change.
Of the three perspectives, the Differentiation viewpoint is most congruent with research that emphasizes
environmental determinants of organizational behavior. The subcultures within an organization can
reflect, and be partially determined by, cultural groupings in the larger society (see CULTURE,
NATIONAL). For example, functional subcultures within a firm can reflect occupational subcultures
that cross firm boundaries, as when accountants appear to be the "same everywhere" or when
programmers change organizational affiliations, only to find the programming subculture at their new
job to be quite familiar (e.g., Trice & Beyer, 1993) (see ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES).
Thus, an organization is a nexus where a variety of societal cultural influences come together within an
organization's permeable boundaries (Martin, 1992). A few of the cultural elements within that
boundary will be truly unique to the organization. Other elements (some of which will be erroneously
believed to be unique) will reflect cultural influences external to the organization. What is unique and
"organizational" about a culture, then, is the way a particular mix of cultural influences combines and
interacts within a given organization's boundary. This nexus approach to the study of culture posits that
we cannot understand what goes on inside an organizational culture without understanding what exists
outside the boundary. The nexus approach brings environmental concerns into the domain of cultural
studies, complicating what is meant by the term organizational culture or, more precisely, cultures in
organizations.

Document
As is the case with Integration research, the methodological choices made in Differentiation studies
partially determine what results are found. For example, as can be seen in the Disneyland and "bag
lady" studies, there is a tendency for Differentiation research to focus on relatively low-ranking
employees or first-line supervisors–people who are less likely to share the views of top management.
And within any subculture, there is a tendency to focus on the ways subcultural members share the
same views, rather than the ways they differ or what they find ambiguous. As a result, Differentiation
studies do not distance themselves far enough from the oversimplifications and distortions of the
Integration view; within a subculture, consistency, consensus, and clarity still predominate.
Fragmentation Perspective
The Fragmentation perspective offers a quite different alternative. Rather than banning ambiguity from
the cultural stage (the Integration view) or relegating ambiguity to the interstices between subcultures
(the Differentiation view), Fragmentation studies see ambiguity

Document
Page 380
as the defining feature of cultures in organizations. Ambiguity pervades all but the most routine and
trivial aspects of organizational functioning. The meanings that different cultural members attach to
particular cultural manifestations are neither clearly consistent nor clearly in conflict. There are many
plausible interpretations of any one issue or event, making the idea of a single clear, shared cultural
reality highly unlikely. To the extent that consensus exists, it is issue-specific and transient – problems
or issues get activated, generate positive and negative reactions, and then fade from attention as other
issues take center stage.
For example, Meyerson (in Frost et al., 1991) studied the ambiguities of social work. Goals were
unclear; there was no consensus regarding the appropriate means to achieve those goals; success was
hard to define and even harder to assess. For social workers, ambiguity is the salient feature of working
life and any cultural description that excludes ambiguity from the realm that is considered cultural,
would be dramatically incomplete. Similarly, Feldman (in Frost et al., 1991) studied federal policy
analysts who analyze policy options, write reports that may never get read, and if they are read,
probably never will impact policy decisions. In such a context, ambiguities which cloud and undermine
claims of consistency, consensus, and clarity, are protective; cultural members might otherwise be
forced to confront directly the issue of the meaning (lessness) of their work (see ALIENATION).
Weick (in Frost et al., 1991) has worked within the Fragmentation perspective in a context where the
effects of ambiguities can be less benign: a foggy airport in Tenerife where one jet was attempting to
land while another waits to take off. Weick focused on the ambiguities of COMMUNICATION among
pilots, cockpit crews, and air traffic controllers, as they coped with the complexities of making
themselves understood across barriers created by differences in native language, prestige, and
incompletely shared knowledge. Hundreds of passengers died in the ensuing crash, making this study a
powerful illustration of the conclusion that most Fragmentation studies draw: that an understanding of
ambiguities should be a central component of any cultural study that claims to encompass the full range
of cultural members' working lives.
From the Fragmentation perspective, claims of clarity, consistency, and consensus are shown to be
idealized oversimplifications that fail to capture the confusing complexity of contemporary
organizational functioning. In a Fragmentation account, POWER is diffused broadly at all levels of the
hierarchy and throughout the organization's environment. Culture has no specific point of origin;
fleeting affinities are issue-specific. Change is a constant flux, rather than an intermittent interruption in
an otherwise stable state. Change is largely triggered by the environment or other forces beyond an
individual's control, so that Fragmentation studies of change offer few guidelines for those who would
normatively control the change process.

Document
The methodological choices made in Fragmentation research enable these kinds of conclusions to be
drawn. For example, Fragmentation studies tend to focus on highly ambiguous occupations (i.e., social
worker, policy analyst) and contexts (e.g., cross-national communication under STRESS, literally in the
fog). As noted regarding research conducted from the other two perspectives, Fragmentation studies
exhibit a form of methodological tautology: these researchers define culture in a particular way and then
find what they are looking for.
Advantages of Using All Three Perspectives
These problems of methodological tautology, and the theoretical blind spots associated with any single
perspective, can be avoided if a single cultural context is studied from each of the three perspectives,
permitting a more complete understanding to emerge. While most studies utilize only one of the three
perspectives, more recent research indicates that any organizational culture contains elements congruent
with all three viewpoints (e.g., Pettigrew, 1985). If any organization is studied in enough depth, some
issues, values, and objectives will be seen to generate organization-wide consensus, consistency, and
clarity (an Integration view). At the same time, other aspects of an organization's culture will coalesce
into subcultures that hold conflicting opinions about what is important, what should happen, and why (a
Differentiation

Document
Page 381
view). Finally, some problems and issues will be ambiguous, in a state of constant flux, generating
multiple, plausible interpretations (a Fragmentation view).
Thus, a three-perspective approach to the study of an organization's culture(s) yields a deeper

understanding than if only a single theoretical perspective had been used (Martin, 1992). A wide range
of organizational contexts have been examined using the three-perspective framework, including
studies of a temporary educational organization for unemployed women in England, a newly privatized
bank in Turkey, the problem of truancy in an urban high school in the United States, and changing
organizational cultures in the Peace Corps/Africa.
A Subjective Approach
Sometimes the three perspective framework is mistakenly taken to mean that some organizations will
be correctly described by an Integration viewpoint, while other contexts may better fit the
Differentiation or Fragmentation perspectives. This is a misunderstanding. The three perspectives are
theoretical viewpoints developed by organizational culture researchers. Although these perspectives are
empirically derived from the perspectives of cultural members, they are not objective representations of
the views of cultural members. Different researchers bring different sensitivities and preconceptions to
a cultural context. Who a researcher is affects what he or she sees and what questions she or he seeks to
address. And the identity of a cultural member also affects what information is shared, because of
HALO EFFECTS related to overall JOB SATISFACTION, social desirability of particular responses,
and IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT considerations. The measurement, collection, and interpretation
of cultural data are inevitably affected by subjective factors, whether quantitative or qualitative methods
are used (see RESEARCH METHODS).
Thus, none of the three perspectives is an objective description of empirical facts. Instead, it is an
interpretative framework that is subjectively imposed on the process of collecting and analyzing cultural
data. To say that a particular organization has an Integrated or Differentiated culture would be
mistaken; any cross-sectional (single time period) study of an organization, if thorough and deep
enough, will produce evidence congruent with all three cultural perspectives.
This subjective orientation is counter-intuitive for many. Often one perspective, labeled the "home"
viewpoint, is easy for cultural members and researchers to see, while the other two perspectives can be
more difficult to access. The harder it is to see applicability of a particular perspective, the more likely
it is that, in changed circumstances, insights from that perspective may be crucial for organizational
survival. Thus, the three perspective framework is particularly useful for understanding the process of
cultural change. For example, if most cultural members would like to see their organization as strongly
Integrated, perhaps around the personal values of a well-respected leader, they may repress, or avoid
seeing, evidence of any kind of subgroup conflict. If then that leader were to leave the organization,
subcultural conflicts might surface in a totally unanticipated way. As this example illustrates, awareness
of the perspectives that are less easily seen may provide a key to anticipating, or at least understanding,
organizational change.

Document
This brief review has explained why and how many cultural researchers have disagreed about such
fundamental ideas as to what culture is, how it should be studied, and whether it generates (and reflects)
harmony, conflict, and/or confusion. These disagreements may ultimately be fruitful if cultural research
enables us, through the utilization of all three perspectives, to understand organizations more
thoroughly, deeply, and holistically. Alternatively, as post-structural cultural theorists have argued (e.g.,
Alvesson & Berg, 1992; Calas & Smircich, 1987; Jeffcutt, in press; Wilmott, in press) (see
POSTMODERNISM), cultural studies may reveal the hidden biases and the silenced voices in
organizational accounts, broadening the scope of our inquiries to include a wider range of contradictory
theories and a greater number of cultural members' viewpoints, without coming to any single
conclusion about the superiority or predominance of any of these views.
See also Organization development; Organizational change; Organization theory; Symbolism;

Group culture

Document
Page 382
Bibliography
Alvesson, M. & Berg, P. (1992). Corporate culture and organizational symbolism. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Calas, M. & Smircich, L. (1987). Post-culture: Is the organizational culture literature dominant but
dead? Paper presented at the International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate
Culture. Milan Italy.
Christensen, S. & Kreiner, K. (1984). On the origins of organizational culture. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture. Lund, Sweden.
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco:
Berrit-Koehler.
Frost, P., Moore, L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C. & Martin, J. (Eds), (1985). Organizational culture (pp.
31–54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Frost, P., Moore, L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C. & Martin, J. (Eds) (1991). Reframing organizational
culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jeffcutt, P. (1995). Culture and symbolism in organizational analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pettigrew, A. (1985). The awakening giant: Continuity and change. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Siehl, C. & Martin, J. (1990). Organizational culture: The key to financial performance? In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 241–281). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Trice, H. & Beyer, J. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Turner, B. (1986). Sociological aspects of organizational symbolism. Organizational Studies, 7, 101–

115.
Wilmott, H. (In press) Postmodernism and excellence: The de-differentiation of economy and culture.
Journal of Organizational Change Management.
JOANNE MARTIN
Organizational Decline and Death

Document
Much research on organizational decline and death was published in the 1980s and 1990s, largely in
response to economic downturns in North America and Europe. Decline is a two-step process in which
deteriorating environmental adaptation leads to reduced internal financial resources (Cameron, Sutton,
& Whetten, 1988). An organization has environmental support when it has favorable EXCHANGE
RELATIONS with groups and individuals that hold critical resources and when its actions are endorsed
by powerful external groups and individuals (see RESOURCE-BASED THEORY; RESOURCE
DEPENDENCE). Lost environmental support results from the intertwined deterioration of an
organization's image and its resource base.
Following writings on sociobiology, deterioration in environmental support can be "k-type" or "r-type."

Deterioration of the k-type occurs when an organization is part of an industry, or population, with a
shrinking resource base and a decaying image; such deterioration threatens all organizations in the
niche. Conversely, r-type deterioration occurs when an organization is in a stable or growing niche, but
takes action that causes deterioration of its specific external resource base and image.
Both kinds of deterioration lead to reduced financial resources in the organization. Decline results in
pressure to reduce costs through means including workforce reduction, or "DOWNSIZING" (see
ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING). Although sometimes used interchangeably, downsizing is
distinct from decline (Sutton, 1990). Workforce reduction may reflect increased technical efficiency or
be used to please external constituencies rather than in response to shrinking financial resources.
Downsizing is also best viewed as a symptom rather than a cure for decline. At best, downsizing
reduces the need for internal resources. At worst, it hastens decline. Departures of key personnel can
harm an organization's image or its ability to produce quality products or services. Downsizing may
also increase costs when displaced employees are replaced with more expensive external contractors.
If decline persists, then organizational death may occur because there are not enough resources to
support core activities. Organizational death has, however, proved difficult to define and operationalize.
The disappearance of an organization's name from a population is often used as the measure of death
(or "mortality") in POPULATION ECOLOGY research. But it is debatable whether an organization
that has "disappeared" because of a name change or merger, but otherwise

Document
Page 383
continues operating, is dead. Furthermore, an organization may halt operations, but not disappear from
the listed population, because it persists as a legal entity (Hannan & Freeman, 1989).
Organizational death is unambiguous to the extent that two conditions are met (Sutton, 1987). First, past
participants agree that the organization has disappeared. Second, the activities once accomplished by
the organization have stopped or been transferred to two or more organizations. This second condition
is necessary for an unambiguous death because an organization's activities may continue intact even
though it is widely construed to have disappeared as a result of a merger or name change. Unambiguous
deaths often unfold through a process where the organization is first construed as a permanent entity
that can live indefinitely, then as a temporary entity that is disbanding the people, things, and activities
that compose it, and finally as a defunct entity.
See also Organizational change; Organization and environment; Redundancy
Bibliography
Cameron, K. S., Sutton, R. I. & Whetten, D. A. (1988). Readings in organizational decline:

Frameworks, research, and prescriptions. Boston: Ballinger.
Press.
Sutton, R. I. (1987). The process of organizational death: Disbanding and reconnecting. Administrative
Sutton, R. I. (1990). Organizational decline processes: A social psychological perspective. In B. M.

Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, (vol. 12, pp. 205–253).
ROBERT I. SUTTON
Organizational Demography

Document
The demography of an organization is the composition of its workforce on variables such as AGE,
GENDER, ETHNICITY, length of service, and education (Pfeffer, 1985). The diversity or homogeneity
of this composition has important implications for ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR at a number of
levels. Homogeneity is generally associated with cohesiveness, on the principle established within
social psychology that similarity is associated with COMMUNICATION frequency, interpersonal
attraction, and social integration (see GROUP COHESIVENESS). Demographic homogeneity is
therefore associated with "strong" ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. This may also apply to
organizational, SUBUNITS, such as the highly cohesive nature of certain professional or STATUS
defined subcultures within organizations (see PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS). It is also
apparent that homogeneity can have dysfunctional properties if it leads to excessive CONFORMITY,
such as the phenomenon of GROUPTHINK in decision making. A SYSTEMS THEORY perspective
would suggest that insufficient internal diversity in complex environments constitutes a breach of the
law of "requisite variety."
Diversity also has its costs. Not least is the extra management effort required to coordinate employees
and engender COOPERATION. Success in doing so, however, has the claimed benefit of SYNERGY,
especially in volatile, uncertain, and international operating environments (see INTERNATIONAL
MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT; UNCERTAINTY).
A primary focus of research on organizational demography has been the increased risk of TURNOVER
under conditions of diversity (Wagner, Pfeffer, & O'Reilly, 1984). Cohorts or similar age and other
characteristics entering an organization at the same time develop common attitudes via shared
experience and NETWORKING, especially when cohorts are small in size. Employees, who, through
difference from the cohort norms, distance themselves from the group and are more likely to quit
(O'Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989). The management of demography, either via hiring policies or by
placement and rotation strategies, is therefore a potentially powerful instrument for building
COMMITMENT and ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.
Internal demography is, of course, heavily dependent upon the external demography of LABOR
MARKETS, and organizations have to adapt their MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY according to the
circumstances they currently face, or which they have accommodated in the past. Thus companies with
homogeneous ageing

Document
Page 384
workforces, due to past expansion on the back of a demographic bulge, face special problems in trying
to create dynamic CAREER systems. The COMPETITIVENESS of businesses in different national
cultures (see CULTURE, NATIONAL) may owe much to their current demographic profiles and
projected future trends, and is likely to be an increasing focus of research and management attention as
the demography of societies shift and migration of labor compensates for deficits in the availability of
key groups.
See also Individual differences; Organizational change; Group decision making; Minority group
influence
Bibliography
O'Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration and
turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.
Pfeffer, J. (1985). Organizational demography: Implications for management. California Management

Review, XXXVIII, 67–81.
Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J. & O'Reilly, C. A. (1984). Work group demography and turnover in top
management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 74–92.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Organizational Design
This term is used rather loosely to refer to the choosing of structures and associated managerial
processes to enable an organization to operate effectively. The term, therefore, includes at least five
interconnected concepts:
1 Organization can be taken to cover a wide range of types such as business, NOT-FOR-PROFIT,
private, public, service, or manufacturing organizations. The extent to which societies have a capacity
to organize, Stinchcombe (1965) argues, will be dependent upon a number of factors such as the
literacy rate, degree of communication, existence of a money economy, political revolution, and the
density of social life. As most of these factors are on the increase around the world, the rate of increase
of organizational formation can be expected to be maintained and hence the need to design them more
effectively to be ever more urgent.
2 Design implies a deliberate attempt to find an effective organizational form and, therefore, a
managerial AUTHORITY to put into effect such structures, usually seen as a fundamental
responsibility of top management (see TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS). In democratic organizations
design would be more likely to also involve the total membership (see COOPERATIVES).

Document
3 Structure (see STRUCTURATION) can be seen as rules for making decisions. ORGANIZATION
THEORY has developed many variables and dimensions of structure concerning variables such as the
degree of specialization, FORMALIZATION, or centralization (see DECENTRALIZATION).
4 Effectiveness (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS) refers to the performance of an

organization as measured against a range of norms. Organizations generally have to satisfy
heterogeneous and variable norms coming from a wide constituency of supporters (or
STAKEHOLDERS). Following the principle of BOUNDED RATIONALITY organizations, when
faced with contradictory norms of performance, tend to concentrate upon a relatively small number of
norms demanded by their most powerful constituency.
5 Choice in the particular pattern of structures and processes adopted exists. If there was no choice and
all organizations were designed the same, the notion of organizational design would be meaningless.
The notion of choice also indicates that specific decisions about structures can be made in organizations.
Although it could be said that traditional organizations such as the church were ''designed," the earliest
organizational design principles that may be recognized as belonging to modern management theory
came from a group of practicing managers and engineers who wrote eruditely about their work (see
CLASSICAL DESIGN THEORY; SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT). Interest in organizational theory
developed in the post-World War II period as a result of the increasing complexity of organizational
and managerial problems, and in appreciation of the need to adapt designs to the contingencies of the
environment and technology (see CONTINGENCY THEORY; ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT).

Document
Page 385
Under the heading of sociotechnical systems (see SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY) a number of far-
reaching studies conducted by researchers at the Tavistock Institute immediately post-World War II on
organizational change in British coal mines and in an Indian textile factory can be seen as concerned
with organizational design. Mention of organizational design in the American organizational literature
appears around 1960 (Rubenstein & Haberstroh, 1965) and in March's edited Handbook of
Organizations (1965). It was the era of large-scale American military and quasi-military organizations,
the style that of systems analysis, simulations, and various optimizing methods. The American space
agency NASA and the RAND Corporation were major sponsors of such work.
The four editions of Daft's (1992) book Organization Theory and Design, and Nystrom and Starbuck's
(1981) Handbook of Organizational Design point to the sustained interest in this topic. In particular,
these books draw together a number of themes which were previously left to relatively separate
management subjects such as strategic management, marketing, production, and the like.
Some Principles
Attempts have been made to develop systematic theoretical underpinnings to organizational design
issues by drawing upon a growing body of literature on organizational information systems and
DECISION MAKING. Ashby's (1956) Law of Requisite Variety provides one such basis. This law
states that informational variety is needed to cope with variety. Hence, if a production process is highly
variable in the quality of its output, informational variety is needed to solve the coordination problem.
Building upon Ashby's Law is a tradition of treating organizational design as a problem of an optimal
control theory of decision making. A decision-based theory of organizational design (Huber, 1990)
draws attention to developments management information systems design (see COMMUNICATIONS).
Thompson's book (1967) Organizations in Action provides a framework for thinking about
organizational design which still has an immense influence. Building upon the work of Simon, March,
and Cyert with their view of organizations as indeterminate behavioral systems (see SATISFICING),
Thompson's propositions show how an organization can cope with the often conflicting demands of
technical and organizational RATIONALITY.
Many of Thompson's ideas were taken up by later writers on organizational design, particularly the
three types of coordination methods (rules, plans, and mutual adjustment) and the three types of
interdependencies for which each is most suited, respectively, pooled, sequential, and reciprocal
interdependency. Galbraith (1977) developed detailed propositions regarding organizational design, in
particular, concerning the need for horizontal and vertical communication in organizations (see
INTEGRATION).

Document
The theory of BUREAUCRACY has also been a major source of influence upon principles of
organizational design, particularly by those principles which emphasize the need to specify job
descriptions and formal hierarchical reporting relationships. It has been shown (Pugh and Hickson
1989) that an organization tends to increase centralization of decision making as its dependency in the
environment increases (see RESOURCE DEPENDENCE); a highly dependent organization is one that
relies for a high percentage of its inputs upon a small number of sources, or which sends a high
percentage of its output to a small number of outlets. An alternative more horizontal coordination
mechanism is structuring of activities, meaning that control resides in the standardized procedures that
are set up. Once set up, structuring allows a high degree of DELEGATION although writing the rules in
the first place and dealing with exceptions will require centralization.
Galbraith (1977) devised a typology of vertical and horizontal linkage mechanisms according to the
degree of coordination and the information capacity needed. Vertical linking providing the least
information capacity is hierarchical referral, with rules and plans, adding levels in the HIERARCHY
and finally vertical information systems providing increasing degrees of information capacity (see
INFORMATION PROCESSING). Horizontal linking mechanisms, in order of increasing information
capacity, are paperwork, direct contact, liaison roles, task forces, and teams. These proposed linkage
mechanisms are basically similar to the coordinating mechanisms suggested by Thomp-

Document
Page 386
son and illustrate the underlying accepted organizational design PARADIGM.
The transactions costs approach to organizations (Williamson 1975) also reflects attempts to see the
coordination problem of organization in terms of the type of information, and the cost of acquiring that
information for effective decisions to be made (see TRANSACTION COST THEORY). What has
become known as institutional economics (see ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS) proposes that
markets are replaced by hierarchies when informational variety is insufficiently high to match the
complexity of the transactions being conducted.
OPEN SYSTEMS theory of organization design emphasizes the relationship between task environment
and structure. Organizations create boundary structures (see ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES) to
cope with environmental uncertainties and interdependencies. As environments get more complex,
organizations tend to differentiate (see DIFFERENTIATION) their structures more indicating the need
for more integration, that is, coordination effort.
Related to an open-systems perspective are theories that more specifically link organizational structure
and business strategy. Chandler (1962) noted how the American corporation tended to develop
divisionalized or m-form organization structures in response to increasing size and diversified markets.
Miles and Snow (1978) developed four types of strategy (see STRATEGIC TYPES) (the defender,
prospector, analyzer, and reactor) and argued that, for effectiveness, firms need to find the right match
between environment, structure, and technology.
Due to the development of greater interorganizational linkages there has been increasing emphasis upon
cooperative strategies and the need to manage boundary transactions more effectively (see
INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS). Designs for this purpose include JUSTIN-TIME
management, JOINT VENTURES, use of CONTRACTS, and coopting. Increasing attention has also
turned to the issue of corporate governance and the need to ensure an appropriate membership of
governing bodies (see GOVERNANCE AND OWNERSHIP).
Determinants and Outcomes
Organizational design principles attempt to determine relationships between independent and dependent
variables in order to achieve effectiveness. DEPARTMENTALIZATION (who is grouped with whom)
is a major dependent variable of organizational design. Four principal ways of departmentalizing have
been outlined, namely, by function (or process), by product (or service), by area, or by client.
Functional departmentalization puts people of a similar skill together in groups representing different
stages in the production of a product or service (see FUNCTIONAL DESIGN). The advantages of a
functional organization are that they allow development of professional SKILLS; the disadvantages are
that workers lose contact with the overall product and its associated customers.

Document
Product departmentalization puts people of a similar product (or service) together in groups. This
arrangement provides the advantage of greater commitment to matching the product to customer need
but with the disadvantage of losing professional skill development (see PROFESSIONALS IN
ORGANIZATIONS).
Functional and product departmentalizations are therefore the inverse of each other but these are not
mutually exclusive types, however, and most organizations are hybrids. The MATRIX
ORGANIZATION is an attempt to provide the benefits of both functional and product types without the
disadvantages of each, although this can be difficult in practice. The project form of organization is
similar to the matrix except that projects have a definite life (Knight, 1976) (see PROJECT
MANAGEMENT).
Another approach to determining relationships between variables is to define "bundles" of variables

which occur together in particular configurations. Some configurations are empirically defined, such as
that of Pugh and Hickson (1989) who identify four types of bureaucracy according to the two
dimensions of degree of structuring of activities and concentration of authority:
(1) Full bureaucracy occurs when structuring of activities and concentration of authority is high.
(2) Workflow bureaucracy occurs when structuring is high but concentration of authority is low: in this
type, control of the work is so

Document
Page 387
precisely programmed into instructions that little direct decision making by management is needed.
(3) Personnel bureaucracy occurs when structuring is low but authority is concentrated: formal
procedures are now replaced by direct intervention by top management, or by outside fiat.
(4) Nonbureaucracy occurs when neither direct authority nor structuring is used: under these conditions
a number of things can happen, one of which is for a more collective form of organization based upon
TRUST to take over whereby participants come to control their own work more closely.
Markets and hierarchies represent two broad contrasting organizational types which are able to cope
with different types of transactions, the hierarchy being more costly but better able to cope with more
complex information (see COMPLEXITY). A third generic collective type of institutional arrangement
for managing transactions (Butler, 1991) has also been suggested. In the collective, the coordination of
transactions is governed by means of trust and MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT. The collective is therefore
the most suitable form of organization when complexity is very high since it allows the development of
trust and the use of special languages and a generally highly rich informational environment.
Mintzberg (1983) combined Thompson's propositions of coordination with a general SYSTEMS

THEORY defining the subsystems needed by an organization to produce five organizational
configurations. These are: the simple structure, machine bureaucracy, professional bureaucracy,
divisionalized form, and the adhocracy. Each configuration displays a prime coordinating mechanism, a
key part of the organization, a number of design parameters concerning especially the type of
decentralization used, and the situational factors to which each is most suited. For example, the simple
structure uses direct SUPERVISION for coordination, the key part of the organization is the strategic
apex, the main design parameters are centralization combined with an organic structure, and the
situational factors pertain to small size, youth, and a homogeneous dynamic environment (see
MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC).
The configurational approach to organizational design has produced a large number of typologies and
the problem is finding some underlying logic to these configurations. The relationship between
TECHNOLOGY and organizational design has received a lot of attention. Woodward (1965) classified
manufacturing technology on a continuum from craft through batch to process production. It was found
that craft and process technologies shared small SPANS OF CONTROL and a high ratio of skilled to
unskilled workers while MASS PRODUCTION was high on these features. Other structural features,
such as the proportion of support staff, showed a linear increase from craft to process production.

Document
Perrow's (1970) four types of technology is posited in terms of task analyzability and variability. The
routine type requires the most structuring of activities whilst the nonroutine requires a very flexible
structure; craft and engineering types can be seen as possessing intermediate structures. More recent
theories about the connection between technology and structure emphasize the need for flexibility. The
use of AUTOMATION, COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN (CAD), computer-aided manufacturing
(CAM), and ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY have tended to emphasize the ability
to introduce product design more rapidly with a vision, as yet not widely realized, of designs being
transferred directly to manufacturing instructions without many intermediate steps (Dudley & Hassard,
1990).
A fundamental variable is ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE which can be both an independent and a

dependent variable of organizational design. As an independent variable increase in size leads to an
exponential rise in management costs, in return the organization can gain economies of scale. In order
to cope with the complexities of increased size, organizations tend to routinize their activities or break
them down into autonomous units.
From a strategic viewpoint size can be used as a means of gaining advantage in the task environment.
Organizations can grow organically by going through a certain life cycle (see ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE). To grow can also be a deliberate strategy since by extending the domain of customers and
suppliers a firm can gain more secure support for itself. Growth can

Document
Page 388
also occur by means of acquisition (see MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS) and can include a
deliberate attempt to move out of a local market to national, international, and global markets. Although
the principles of organizational design should remain the same, the main difference would be the
requirement to take into account a wider range of cultures and to cope with extensive communication
problems over long distances. Reductions in size, or DOWNSIZING, is not necessarily a completely
reversible process. Recent research is showing that downsizing can also be accompanied by increases in
ROUTINIZATION.
Ideological Aspects
Ideological (see IDEOLOGY) and cultural aspects of organizational design have received increasing
attention. The distinction between the two terms is somewhat blurred but there appears general
agreement that variables capturing the underlying beliefs and VALUES of organizational members and
of the wider society need to be in a model of organizational design. These beliefs and values provide a
kind of organizational lens through which the context, ways of making decisions, and appropriate
structures are viewed.
There is, however, also a feedback link from structure to ideology. Particular types of structure will tend
to foster particular types of ideology. For example, if structure sets rules emphasizing highly
individualistic profit based pay (see PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY), it would be surprising if such
an organization managed to develop a robust ideology, that is, an ideology which encourages team work
and concern for overall organizational objectives.
We might expect connections between cultural symbols (see CULTURE; SYMBOLISM) and structures
since structures themselves can become symbolic of the intentions of management. For example,
reward systems indicate what kinds of behaviors are approved; executive pay can therefore become
very indicative of the key contingencies at any one time (see PAYMENT SYSTEMS). As with
ideology, culture provides a repertoire of managerial recipes which are used in organizational design.
Critiques and Syntheses
A critique of a coordination and decision cost paradigm of organizational design comes from the
POSTMODERNISM position which denies the notion of organizational rationality by arguing that
theories of organization are in themselves self-fulfilling and deny the essential chaos of social life.
However, chaotic as the post-modern world may be, the goods and services consumed in that society
can only be produced by means of high levels of intended RATIONALITY even though that rationality
may be, at some later point, found to rest upon an illusion. It seems unlikely, therefore, that interest in
organizational design will diminish. Developments within organizational theory which may impact
upon organizational theory design practice, such as FUZZY SETS analysis and CHAOS THEORY,
may give mathematical tools that can be used to make sense out of the inherent indeterminacy of
complex situations.

Document
A more specific current concern in this direction is seen in the interest in ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING as a major dimension of organizational effectiveness (see also LEARNING
ORGANIZATION). The notion of an organization as an error-coping and learning device shifts
attention from rationality to the need for developing new knowledge. Organizational design, therefore,
needs to create the conditions for learning to take place. Argyris and Schon (1978) have elaborated two
types of learning which link with the two types of error outlined above. Errors of under-capacity only
allow single loop learning, that is, learning to do better what is already being done. DOUBLE LOOP
LEARNING involves learning to do new things to enable the organization to adapt to complexity.
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY provides a critique of the dominant paradigm of organizational design

which focuses upon the need to minimize coordination costs. The institutional view sees organizational
structures as strongly determined by their institutional settings and that the dominant organizational
design PARADIGM as too rationalistic, a view which is particularly appropriate to professional,
educational and public service types of organizations (see GOVERNMENT AGENCIES).
Organizations, therefore, attempt to increase their legitimacy

Document
Page 389
by adopting structures which are institutionalized in society rather than structures which are the most
efficient for the task of producing products and services. This search for LEGITIMACY means that
structures can take on a ritualistic role in order to satisfy institutionalized norms.
A critical omission in much of the organizational design literature concerns the issue of how to achieve
change. Organizational design has tended to concentrate upon providing propositions connecting
variables on how to improve effectiveness, but change is a technical, political, and cultural problem,
although more recent books on organizational design now include sections on achieving change (Butler,
1991; Daft, 1992). A number of structural ideas have been suggested to allow organizations to make
changes which can, in general terms, be seen as ways of managing the tension between organizational
rigidity and FLEXIBILITY. The ambidextrous organization would incorporate both crisp and fuzzy
structures simultaneously. When, for example, introducing a new technology a fuzzy structure would be
used but as learning develops a more crisp structure would be needed. The use of venture teams, idea
champions, and ENTREPRENEURSHIP are ways of introducing change.
An attempt has been made to bring together these related approaches to the problem of organizational
coordination through an institutional model of organizational design (Butler, 1991). This model divides
the environment of an organization into the task and institutional environments. The task environment is
where the competitive exchange resources (with suppliers, customers, and the like) occur and here the
main problem is managing resource dependence (see EXCHANGE RELATIONS). The institutional
environment sets norms of performance for an organization and here the main problem is that of
gaining legitimacy. Legitimacy can be acquired in a number of ways, for instance, by performing well
in the task environment or by adopting appropriate structures. Achieving legitimacy by satisfying
minimum performance norms becomes the first objective of organizational design and, in order to
achieve this, attention needs to be paid to the interrelationship between four sets of variables:
(1) the technical and task context within which an organization operates, of which the notion of
complexity is the key descriptor;
(2) the structures adopted;
(3) the ideologies held by organizational participants; and
(4) the DECISION MAKING processes.

Document
Underlying the model is the notion that organizational design should be aimed at error coping and
learning rather than output optimizing (see LEARNING ORGANIZATION). In coping with complexity
errors will be made. If structures are too rigid and ideologies too narrowly focused for the degree of
complexity, errors of decision under-capacity are made; the problem becomes lack of organizational
adapt-ability. If structures are too fuzzy and ideologies too robust, errors of decision over-capacity are
made; the organization here achieves high adaptability but at the expense of efficiency. The institutional
model sees organizational design as a dialectic between conflicting features and alerts designers to how
a wide range of aspects of the institutional environment can impact upon design parameters. In
particular, changes in the political, social and cultural, and economic segments of the environment can
radically alter the performance norms to which an organization has to attend.
The Future
Until the 1980s the general trend was for organizations to grow and organizational theory was generally
built upon this premise. Since then reductions in size have become common. Reducing the number of
people does not necessarily mean a reduction in output, turnover, or capital employed. Number of
people employed has been the usual measure of size in organizational theory since the subject is most
concerned with organization as a social rather than as a financial or a technical phenomenon. Whether
size increases or decreases makes no difference to the principles of an intendedly rational organizational
design but will make a difference to the process of change.
The availability of networks of low-cost personal computers combined with the enormous information
processing capacity of larger computers means that networks of organizations can be created; airline
booking and bank telling

Document
Page 390
systems are archetypes (see NETWORK ANALYSIS; NETWORKING). This is allowing organizations
to develop flatter, less centralized, but probably more routinized, structures. Research continues to
show, however, that formal executive information systems are not used much by senior managers since,
in making the more complex higher-level decisions, they prefer to rely less upon formal and more upon
informal information (see CEOs).
In most Western economies there has been an increase in the number of small firms and it is
increasingly being observed that organizations do not need to employ people but can buy in goods and
services from a network of small suppliers. Taken to the limit the proposition of downsizing poses an
interesting paradox for organizational design since it would mean the replacement of large
organizations in the formal sense by transactions contract governance. Manufacturing a motor car, for
instance, would be a matter of buying in sufficient goods and services and managing a vast network of
contracts. Such an image suggests that some of the conventional variables of structure will have to
change. However, the underlying principles of transaction costs, requisite informational variety, and
requisite decision capacity should still hold.
See also Group structure; Formal organization; Loose coupling; Collateral organization
Bibliography
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ashby, W. R. (1956). Self-regulation and requisite variety. In F. E. Emery (Ed.), Systems thinking.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin (1969), Ch. 6. Originally in W. R. Ashby Introduction to Cybernetics.
New York: Wiley (1956), Ch. 11.
Butler, R. J. (1991). Designing organizations: A decision-making perspective. London: Routledge.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise.
Daft, R. L. (1992). Organization theory and design, (4th edn). St Paul: MN. West.
Dudley, G. & Hassard J. (1990). Design issues in the development of computer integrated
manufacturing (CIM). Journal of General Management, 16, 43–53.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Huber G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational

design, intelligence and decision making. Academy of Management Review, 15, 1.
Knight, K. (1976). Matrix organization: A review. Journal of Management Studies, 13, 11–130.

Document
March, J. G. (Ed.), (1965). Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Miles, R. E. & C. C. Snow (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structures in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Nystrom, P. C. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds), (1981). Handbook of organizational design, (vols. I & II).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view. London: Tavistock.
Pugh, D. S. & Hickson, D. J. (1989). Writers on organizations. Newburg Park, CA: Sage.
Rubenstein, A. H. & Haberstroh, C. J. (Eds), (1966). Some theories of organization. Homewood, IL:
Irwin & Dorsey.
Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of

organizations, (Ch. 4). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Trist E. L., Higgin G. W., Murray H. & Pollack A. B. (1963). Organizational choice. London:
Tavistock.
Williamson O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-Trust Implications: A Study in the
Economics of Internal Organization. New York: Free Press.
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
RICHARD BUTLER
Organizational Economics
There is little doubt that organizations are profoundly affected by the competitive environments within
which they operate. There is also little doubt that economics, and especially micro-economics, has a
great deal to say about competition and its implications. However, until the early 1980s, micro-
economic concepts were not included in most organizational research. Since that time, several
important economic models of organizational phenomena have been developed and

Document
Page 391
applied by scholars. These models, including transaction cost economics (Williamson, 1975) (see
TRANSACTION COST THEORY; AGENCY THEORY) (Jensen & Meckling, 1976); the evolutionary
theory of the firm (Nelson & Winter, 1982) (see POPULATION ECOLOGY); the STRUCTURE–
CONDUCT–PERFORMANCE paradigm (Bain, 1956); and, more recently, the resource-based view of
the firm (Barney, 1991) (see RESOURCE BASED THEORY); constitute what is known as
Organizational Economics (Barney & Ouchi, 1986).
These organizational economic models differ from traditional economics in two important ways. First,
the dependent variable in most organizational economic models is firm behavior, or even the behavior
of individuals and groups within a firm. In traditional economics, the dependent variable more often
than not is industry structure or social welfare. Second, organization economic models tend to relax one
or more of the strong assumptions underlying traditional economic analyses. For example, transaction
cost economics and agency theory replace the perfect information assumption of traditional economics
with the assumption of BOUNDED RATIONALITY. Evolutionary economics replaces traditional
equilibrium analyses with more dynamic analyses of firm behavior. The structure–conduct–
performance paradigm replaces perfect competition assumptions with imperfect competition
assumptions. Finally, the resource-based view replaces traditional assumptions of firm homogeneity and
resource mobility with assumptions of firm heterogeneity and resource immobility.
Organization economic models can be applied in the analysis of a wide range of organizational
phenomena from firm strategy and competitive advantage, to JOINT VENTURES and organizational
structure, to the analysis of internal compensation systems and the development of
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE (Barney & Ouchi, 1986).
See also Competitiveness; Organization theory; Prospect theory
Bibliography
Bain, J. (1956). Barriers to new competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–
120.
Barney, J. & Ouchi, W. (1986). Organizational economics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jensen, M. & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and
ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.
Nelson, R. & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.
JAY B. BARNEY

Document
Organizational Effectiveness
This has been defined in a variety of ways but no single definition has been accepted universally
(Cameron & Whetten, 1983). This is because organizational effectiveness is inherently tied to the
definition of what an organization is. As the conceptualization of an organization changes, so does the
definition of effectiveness, the criteria used to measure effectiveness, and frameworks and theories used
to explain and predict it. For example, if an organization is defined as a goal seeking entity,
effectiveness is likely to be defined in terms of the extent to which goals are accomplished. If an
organization is defined as the central focus of a social CONTRACT among constituencies, effectiveness
is likely to be defined in terms of constituency satisfaction. To understand what is generally agreed
upon about organizational effectiveness, it is helpful to discuss several of its important attributes. In
particular, effectiveness:
(1) is a construct,
(2) it is grounded in the VALUES and preferences of constituencies; and
(3) it must be bounded to be measured.
As a construct, effectiveness cannot be observed directly. This is because constructs are abstractions
"constructed" to give meaning to an idea (see SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM). In other words,
organizational effectiveness cannot be pinpointed, counted, or objectively manipulated. It is an idea
rather than an objective reality. In addition, effectiveness is reflective of the values and preferences of
various constituencies. What one group may prefer or label as

Document
Page 392
effective may not be the same as that of another group. Moreover, preferences may knowingly or
unknowingly change, sometimes dramatically, over time among individuals. The attachment of
effectiveness to goodness or to excellence makes judgments of effectiveness inherently subjective and
valued-based. This helps explain why no single definition of effectiveness is universal. Different
constituencies have different preferences, different values, and different evaluation criteria.
This does not mean, of course, that effectiveness cannot be measured. But in order for acceptable
criteria of effectiveness to be identified, the boundaries of the construct must be clearly delineated. This
means that the answers to seven questions must be answered which specify the construct boundaries:
(1) From whose perspective is effectiveness being judged (e.g., customers, stockholders, employees)?
(2) On what domain of activity is the judgment focused (e.g., service delivery, new product design,
production processes)?
(3) What level of analysis is being used (e.g., individual satisfaction, organizational profitability,
industry COMPETITIVENESS)?
(4) What is the purpose for judging effectiveness (e.g., to recognize achievements, to identify
weaknesses, to eliminate waste)?
(5) What time frame is employed (e.g., immediate snap-shot indicators versus long-term trend lines)?
(6) What type of data are being used for judgments (e.g., employee perceptions, financial results,
customer satisfaction)?
(7) What is the referent against which effectiveness is judged (e.g., effectiveness compared to an ideal
standard, compared to past improvement, compared to stated goals)?
Every judgment of effectiveness must answer these seven questions, either explicitly or implicitly, in
order to reach a conclusion. When the answer to each question is clearly specified, then acceptable
criteria of effectiveness can be clearly identified. Unfortunately, in the organizational behavior literature
few writers have been careful enough to specify their answers to each of these questions, so comparable
measurements of effectiveness have been difficult to find (see Whetten & Cameron 1994).

Document
Certain common approaches to the definition and measurement of organizational effectiveness have
emerged over time; each "era" with its own underlying definition of effectiveness. For example, the
earliest models of organizational effectiveness emphasized "ideal types," that is, forms of organization
that maximized certain attributes. Max Weber's characterization of BUREAUCRACY as the ideal form
of organization is an obvious and well-known example. The most common criterion of effectiveness
under this model was efficiency (maximum output with minimum input). The more nearly an
organization approached the ideal bureaucratic characteristics – which were designed to produce
maximum efficiency – the more effective it was. In other words, the more specialized, formalized, and
centralized, the better.
Subsequent models of organizing challenged this bureaucratic model, however, suggesting that many
effective organizations were actually nonbureaucratic. The most effective organizations, they argued,
were cooperative and participative. Effective organizations satisfied the needs of their members by
providing adequate inducements to sustain required contributions. They controlled employee activities
via goals, PARTICIPATION, or decision processes, not rules. They became legitimated by linking their
role in society to social values (e.g., Likert, 1967) (see HUMAN RELATIONS MOVEMENT).
Over the years, several ideal type approaches have been widely used. The most common model used
organizational goal accomplishment as the ideal indicator of effectiveness. If stated goals are achieved,
the organization is effective. Advocates of a "natural systems" view of organizations, however, argued
that effectiveness ultimately depends on obtaining critical resources (see SYSTEMS THEORY; OPEN
SYSTEMS). The more resources acquired (e.g., revenues, personnel, recognition), the more effective.
Others emphasized the organization's COMMUNICATION and "interpretation" systems, the
satisfaction of organizational members, the achievement of profitability, and the consistency of
activities with principles of social equity (see Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Scott, 1992). The common
ingredient among all these models was an advocacy of one definitive,

Document
Page 393
universalistic definition and set of criteria for assessing organizational effectiveness. Organizations are
effective if they are characterized by the ideal criteria.
Challenges to this universalistic approach to effectiveness, coupled with mounting frustration over the
truth of the claims of the competing models, gave rise to the "CONTINGENCY THEORY" approach to
effectiveness (e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). This approach argued that effectiveness is not a function
of the extent to which an organization reflects the qualities of an ideal profile, instead, it depends on the
match between an organization's profile and environmental conditions. Definitions of effectiveness
were built on the idea of "fit" between certain environmental characteristics and certain organizational
characteristics, such as between mechanistic organizational forms and stable, simple environments, and
organic forms with rapidly changing, complex environments (see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC).
The critical difference between the ideal type and the contingency theory approaches to effectiveness is
that the former assumes that "one size fits all." Effective organizations are distinguished by a universal
set of attributes. In contrast, contingency approaches argue that organizations are effective only to the
extent to which they match the conditions of their environments (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT).
A third approach to effectiveness arose when the focus shifted away from the abstract constructs (i.e.,
dimensions) associated with the organization itself and began to focus on the expectations of the
organization's constituencies. Effective organizations were defined as those that had accurate
information about the expectations of strategically critical constituents and that had adapted internal
processes, goals, and values to meet those expectations. Proponents of the "strategic constituencies"
perspective viewed organizations as highly elastic entities in a dynamic force field of constituencies that
manipulated organizational form and performance (see Connolly, Conlon, & Deutsch, 1980) (see
RESOURCE DEPENDENCE; STAKEHOLDERS). The organization was molded to the demands of
powerful interest groups such as stockholders, unions, regulators, customers, and top management.
Effectiveness became linked, therefore, to concepts such as customer satisfaction, learning, adaptability,
and LEGITIMACY. The assumption was that organizations are effective if they satisfy their customers,
or if they are learning systems, or if they are adaptable to constituency demands, or if they acquire
legitimacy with their publics (see LEARNING ORGANIZATION).
When the expectations of these various constituencies diverged from or contradicted one another,
however, organizations were faced with a dilemma. Which constituencies should the organization
satisfy and which criteria should be emphasized? Four alternatives emerged in the organizational
behavior literature (see Zammuto, 1984):
(1) strive to provide as much as possible to each constituency without harming any other constituency;
(2) strive to satisfy the most powerful or dominant constituency first;
(3) favor the least advantaged constituencies who are most likely to be harmed; and

Document
(4) adapt to the changing set of constituency expectations and respond as rapidly as possible to all of
them.
In other words, conscious choices were required under this approach regarding which constituency or
set of demands received priority.
This strategic constituencies approach to effectiveness, then, differs from the previous two approaches –
ideal type and contingency theory – by emphasizing dynamic criteria of effectiveness. Rather than
relying on ideal attributes or on appropriate fit to define effectiveness, this approach relies on key
constituencies to determine the most appropriate criteria.
An especially visible manifestation of this strategic-constituencies approach is the current quality

movement (see TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT). The term quality has overtaken effectiveness,
in fact, as the construct of choice in describing and assessing desirable performance in the
organizational behavior literature. This represents a significant change in the ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR literature because prior to the late 1980s, quality was treated as a predictor of
effectiveness, not a substitution for it. Quality referred to the rate of errors or

Document
Page 394
defects in goods-producing organizations, to institutional REPUTATION in educational organizations,

to ambiance and talent in arts organizations, to recovery rates in health care organizations, and to
customer satisfaction levels in service organizations. In every case quality was one of the desired
attributes organizations wanted to pursue, and a qualifier in describing a product or service, i.e., high-
quality products, high-quality education, high-quality art, high-quality health care.
However, with the increased visibility achieved by several quality gurus (e.g., Edwards Derning, Joseph
Juran, Philip Crosby, Kaoru Ishikawa), quality became an ultimate objective, something of a summum
bonum, for organizations. ''Quality is defined by the customer" was a commonly accepted definition,
through which organizational processes, attributes, behavior, and achievements were relevant only if
they helped achieve customer satisfaction. At the present time, this perspective, and the strategic
constituencies approach it represents, is currently the most frequently utilized approach to effectiveness.
However, the recognition that tensions exist among the demands placed on organizations, that different
customers may possess different expectations, and that focusing exclusively on customer satisfaction
implies a reactive orientation gave rise to a fourth approach to effectiveness – a PARADOX approach
(Cameron, 1986a). This approach emphasized the paradoxical nature of effective organizational
performance. It incorporated elements of each of the three previous models in defining effectiveness as,
for example, both fitting with and enacting the external environment, being both responsive to external
constituencies (e.g., customers) and being independent of them, being both short- and long-term
focused, being both flexible and rigid, being both centralized and decentralized, and being both efficient
and malleable. Organizational behavior that is most highly effective, it was argued, is that which is
characterized by seemingly paradoxical attributes.
One study concluded, for example, that the presence of simultaneous opposites in organizations created
the highest levels of effectiveness, as well as improvements in effectiveness over time, particularly
under conditions of environmental turbulence (Cameron, 1986b). Another pointed out that "it is not just
the presence of mutually exclusive opposites that makes for effectiveness, but it is the creative leaps,
the flexibility, and the unity made possible by them that leads to excellence . . . the presence of creative
tension arising from paradoxical attributes helps foster organizational effectiveness" (Cameron, 1986a).
In other words, proponents of this definition of effectiveness argued that effectiveness refers not just to
matching an ideal profile, nor matching environmental conditions, nor responding to constituency
expectations. Instead, they emphasized that effectiveness is inherently tied to organizations that are
Simultaneously defensive and aggressive, entrepreneurial and conservative, consistent and inconsistent,
reinforcing and destroying traditions, growing and declining, tightly coupled and loosely coupled (see
LOOSE COUPLING).

Document
This paradoxical approach to effectiveness also had impact on the definition of quality. Among some
(especially the Japanese), quality began to focus on more than the mere pursuit of customer satisfaction,
by encompassing attributes of process, structure, and employee behavior as well as the production of
products and services. It has taken on the broader meaning and more encompassing label of total quality
management.
Despite the fact that organizational effectiveness lies at the center of all theories of organizations (i.e.,
all theories of organization ultimately rely on the fact that some way to organize or behave is more
effective than others) despite the fact that organizational effectiveness is an ultimate dependent variable
in organizational behavior (i.e., all relationships among organizational elements assume that achieving
effectiveness is an ultimate objective), and despite that fact that individuals and organizations are
constantly required to maintain accountability for effectiveness (i.e., individuals and organizations are
regularly appraised on their performance, which assumes that one kind of performance is more effective
than another), one common definition of effectiveness has remained elusive. However, at least four
approaches to effectiveness are currently available, each of which has legitimacy and value.

Document
Page 395
See also Organization theory; Seven S framework; Structure-conduct-performance model
Bibliography
Cameron, K. (1986a). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptualizations of

organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539–553.
Cameron, K. (1986b). A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors. Management Science,
32, 87–112.
Cameron, K. & Whetten, D. A. (1983). Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple models.

New York: Academic Press.
Connolly, T., Conlon, E. & Deutsch, S. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple-constituency

view. Academy of Management Review, 5, 211–217.
Lawrence, P. & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, J. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
Scott, R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Whetten, D. & Cameron, K. (1994). Organizational effectiveness: Old models and new constructs. In J.
Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science. Northvale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Zammuto, R. (1984). A comparison of multiple constituency models of organizational effectiveness.

KIM S. CAMERON
Organizational Learning
Work in the behavioral tradition of organization level learning since then is summarized well by Levitt
and March (1988, p. 319), who describe organizations as experiential learning systems that are " . . .
routine-based, history-dependent, and target-oriented." A brief exposition of these three characteristics
summarizes the key points of the organizational learning perspective.
The first characteristic is that organizations are routine-based systems that respond to experience.
Models of organizations as experiential learning systems typically focus on three categories of routines:
search, performance, and change (Mezias & Glynn, 1993):

Document
Search Routines
Models of search routines address the process by which organizations attempt to discover adaptive
opportunities in an ambiguous world via a costly and routinized process of search.
Performance Routines
Models of performance routines suggest that organizations compare actual outcomes against a moving
target: an aspired level of performance that changes over time in response to experience. The functional
forms guiding the adaption of aspiration levels and empirical evidence for these different forms is
presented in some detail by Lant (1992).
Change Routines
Models of change routines suggest that ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE, whether an attempt to refine
current capabilities or to implement new and different capabilities, is a stochastic response to
experience.
The second characteristic of models of organizations as experiential learning systems is an emphasis on

the fact that the learning process is history-dependent; there are no unique equilibria or closed form
solutions. Past behavior constrains the path that future behavior by organizations can take in a way that
is difficult to specify a priori. The prime example of this is the effect of increasing competence with
current routines, e.g., the well-known learning curve (see CORE COMPETENCE). It is well established
that over time, organizations improve their performance with new TECHNOLOGY but at a decreasing
rate. This is one reason why organizations may be reluctant to innovate: They will lose the
competencies they have built using the status quo (see INNOVATION). As a result, inferior alternatives
with which the organization has competence might be preferred to superior alternatives with which the
organization lacks competence. Indeed, this notion is at the heart of concepts like the competency trap
(Levitt & March, 1988) and the distinction between competence-enhancing and competence-destroying
technological change (Tushman & Anderson, 1986).
The third and final characteristic of models of organizations as experiential learning systems is an
emphasis on the importance of aspiration levels in mediating the execution of change

Document
Page 396
routines. Organizations are more likely to persist in activities associated with success and desist
activities associated with failure. The importance of aspiration level is in determining whether a
particular level of performance is defined as success and failure: Performance above aspiration level is
defined as success while that below aspiration level is defined as failure. Thus, organizational change
will be more likely under conditions of failure than under conditions of success.
See also Community ecology; Exchange relations; Learning organization; Population ecology
Bibliography
Hall.
Lant, T. K. (1992). Aspiration level updating: An empirical exploration. Management Science, 38, 623–
644.
Levitt, B. & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
Mezias, S. J. & Glynn, M. A. (1993). The three faces of corporate renewal: Institution, Revolution, and
Evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 77–101.
Tushman, M. T. & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational

environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–65.
STEPHEN J. MEZIAS
Organizational Life Cycles
see POPULATION ECOLOGY; ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Organizational Neurosis

Document
Organizational research has traditionally focused on telling executives how to do things correctly by
creating models for rational analysis. However, the reality of the situation often requires a radically
different approach. Organizations are not immune to neurotic behavior patterns, disturbing interpersonal
interactions, and rigid defensive mechanisms. An organization cannot perform successfully if the quirks
and irrational processes that are part and parcel of individual behavior are ignored. Many observers and
practitioners of organizational life have come to understand that the "irrational" PERSONALITY traits
of the principal decision makers can seriously affect the management process. There is a substantive
body of evidence to support the contention that organizational leaders are not necessarily rational,
logical, sensible, and dependable human beings, but, in fact, are prone to a fair amount of irrational
behavior (see CEOs). Organizations are not spared the impact leaders have on their environment.
Clinical investigation demonstrates that many organizational problems originate in the private, inner
world of an organization's senior executives – in the way they act out their conflicts, desires, fantasies,
and defensive structures (see TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS).
In most individuals, we can discern the predominance of one particular style of functioning or character
pattern that consistently typifies many aspects of their behavior. Extreme manifestations of a single
style or a lack of adaptive behavior, however, can eventually lead to psychopathology and serious
functional impairment. Not surprisingly, the clinical study of organizations shows that parallels can be
drawn between individual pathology – excessive use of one "neurotic style" – and organizational
pathology, the latter resulting in poorly functioning organizations. Particularly, in dysfunctional,
centralized firms, the rigid neurotic styles of the top executives will be strongly mirrored in the nature
of inappropriate strategies, structures, and ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES of their firms.
For example, the former CEO of ITT, Harold Geneen, is a good illustration of how the personality of a
leader can affect an organization. His suspicious outlook toward the world transformed ITT into a
corporation where paranoid thinking became rampant. Geneen became infamous for his search for
"unshakable facts" leading to elaborate information processing systems which eventually became a
serious burden to organizational functioning. DECISION MAKING became overly sluggish, strategic,
and too reactive, and capable executives started to leave.
Neurotic organizations are troubled firms whose symptoms and dysfunctions may combine to form an
integrated "syndrome" of pathology. Just as numerous symptoms combine to form a human disorder,
similar patterns of

Document
Page 397
Table 1 The characteristics of "Neurotic" Organizations.

Type Organization Executive Culture Strategy Guiding theme
Dramatic Too primitive for its Needs attention, Dependency needs of Hyperactive, impulsive, Grandiosity: ''I want to
many products and excitement, activity, nd subordinates venturesome, get attention from and
broad market; stimulation; feels a sense complement "strong dangerously uninhibited; impress the people who
overcentralization of entitlement; has a leader" tendencies of executive prerogative to count in my life"
obstructs the tendency toward chief executive; leader is initiate bold ventures;
development of effective extremes idealized by "mirroring" diversifications and
information systems; subordinates; leader is growth rarely consistent
second-tier executives catalyst for subordinates; or integrated; action for
retain too little influence initiative and morale action's sake;
in policy-making nonparticipative
decision-making
Suspicious Elaborate information- Vigilantly prepared to "Fight-or-flight" culture, Reactive, conservative; "Some menacing force is
processing; abundant counter any and all including dependency, overly analytical; out to get me; I had
analysis of external attacks and personal fear of attack, emphasis diversified; secretive better be on my guard. I
trends; centralization of threats; hypersensitive; on the power of cannot really trust
power cold and lacks emotional information, anybody"
expression; suspicious, intimidation, uniformity,
distrustful, and insists on lack of trust
loyalty; overinvolved in
rules and details to
secure complete control;
craves information;
sometimes vindictive
(table continued on next page)

Document
Page 398
(table continued from previous page)
Table 1
Type Organization Executive Culture Strategy Guiding theme
Detached Internal focus, Withdrawn and not Lack of warmth or Vacillating, indecisive, "Reality does not offer
insufficient scanning of involved; lacks interest emotions; conflicts, inconsistent; the product satisfaction; interactions
external environment, in present or future; jockeying for power; of narrow, parochial with others will fail; it is
self-imposed barriers to sometimes indifferent to insecurity perspectives safer to remain distant"
free flow of information praise or criticism
Depressive Ritualistic; bureaucratic; Lacks self-confidence, Lack of initiative; "Decidiphobia"; "It is hopeless to change
inflexible; hierarchical; self-esteem, or initiative; passivity; negativity; attention focused the course of events; I
poor internal fears success and lack of motivation; inward; lack of vigilance am just not good enough"
communications; tolerates mediocrity or ignorance of markets; over changing market
resistant to change; failure; depends on leadership vacuum conditions; drifting with
impersonal messiahs no sense of direction;
confinement to
antiquated "mature"
markets
Compulsive Rigid formal codes; Tends to dominate Rigid, inward directed, Tightly calculated and "I don't want to be at the
elaborate information organization from top to insular; subordinates are focused, exhaustive mercy of events: I have
systems; ritualized bottom; insists that submissive, uncreative, evaulation; slow, to master and control all
evaluation procedures; others conform to tightly insecure unadaptive; reliance on a the things affecting me"
thoroughness, exactness; prescribed procedures narrow established
a hierarchy in which and rules; dogmatic or theme; obsession with a
individual managers' obstinate personality; single aspect of strategy,
status derives directly perfectionist or is e.g., cost-cutting or
from specific positions obsessed with detail, quality, the exclusion of
routine, rituals, other factors
efficiency, and lockstep
organization
Reproduced from 'Unstable At The Top'. Copyright Manfred Kets de Vries & Danny Miller (1984). Permission granted.

Document
Page 399
strategic and structural defects often point to an integrated organizational pathology.
Kets de Vries and Miller (1984) have extrapolated findings from the psychoanalytic and psychiatric
literature to identify five very common neurotic types of organizations: dramatic, suspicious,
compulsive, detached, and depressive. Each type has its specific characteristics: structure, executive
style, culture, strategy, and predominating guiding theme. (See table 1 for a summary of the five
organizational types.)
See also Emotions in organizations; Organizational effectiveness; Mental health; Managerial

behavior
Bibliography
Hirschhorn, L. (1988). The workplace within: Psychodynamics of organizational life. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993). Leaders, fools and impostors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. & Associates (1991). Organizations on the couch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levinson, H. (1981). Executive: The guide to responsive management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Zaleznik, A. (1989). The management mystique. New York: Harper Collins.
MANFRED KETS DE VRIES
Organizational Performance
see COMPETITIVENESS; ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
Organizational Size
The way that organizational size has been defined is mostly in terms of its OPERATIONALIZATION.
Organizational size has been measured as: the number of employees (full-time equivalents); the sales
revenue of the firm; the number of product lines offered; or, more generally, the scale of operations
most relevant to the industry being studied (i.e., patients in hospitals, assets in mutual funds). Despite
some early controversy over which measures for size were best, most studies showed high correlations
between multiple measures when a single industry was being analyzed.

Document
The apparent simplicity of the concept masks the fact that size has been perhaps the single best
predictor of organizational structure and behavior in the history of the field (see ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN). Studies conducted by Blau and associates and by the Aston group in Great Britain in the late
1960s and early 1970s, showed that the size of an organization is consistently and uniformly related to
its DIFFERENTIATION, specialization, SPAN OF CONTROL, centralization, and stage of growth or
development. Other authors argue that these relationships may be driven by contextual factors other
than size alone, or that size may merely be causally difficult to untangle when other factors are present.
Because of the almost universal impact of size on ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR it is often
included as a control variable in empirical studies. The inclusion of size as a control often obliterates or
reduces the magnitude of effect of an alternative independent variable.
Change in size, in terms of growth or retrenchment also influences organizational behavior. A large
literature has developed around the organizational life cycle concept with many researchers suggesting
that as growth occurs organizations go through a series of predictable set of gestalts of strategy and
structure that can best be thought of as stages. Organizational DOWNSIZING and
ORGANIZATIONAL DECLINE AND DEATH also have been shown to have regular effects on
organization behavior.
It is almost impossible to summarize the literature on size because of its frequent use as an independent
variable. Size has been used as a contextual factor in CONTINGENCY THEORY where size and
structure interact to predict organizational performance (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS).
In the POPULATION ECOLOGY literature size has been used as a predictor of survival. Small, new
organizations are predicted to be more susceptible to failure than larger older organizations.
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY argues that large organizations often adopt innovations and legitimize
them and then smaller organizations imitate the larger organization's behavior.

Document
Page 400
Where size is not used explicitly it is implied through the choice of organizations researchers choose to
study. Samples of organizations often fall into three categories. Small entrepreneurial business or family
run operations, moderate size corporations or GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, and, monolithic, often
international conglomerates (see MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS). The choice of problem to
study, the theories generated and the methods of data collection all depend on the size of the
organization being studied. Size then is indirectly included in the analysis of these organizations
because the phenomena being observed are, in great part, due to size.
See also Organization theory; Organization and environment; Organizational change
Bibliography
Hall, R. H. (1977). Organizations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
ROBERT DRAZIN
Organizational Structure
see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN; RESTRUCTURING
file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_5F400.html [2008-04-01 01:29:51]

Document
Page 401
Paradigm
Confusion over the meaning of the term is not just related to its wide-spread use, and thus vulgarization,
but because Kuhn (1970), the originator of the idea in his celebrated book Scientific Revolutions,
implied a variety of definitions as well. This multiplicity flows from two critical characteristics of the
use of THEORY in science:
(1) there are many definitions of what is theory; and
(2) there is a wide range of styles across various disciplines.
For example, theory can mean either formal deductive laws or mathematical models or geometric
representations or empirical GENERALIZATIONS (such as in statistical analysis) or iconographic
models. Furthermore, what distinguishes the disparate disciplines is their particular emphasis on one or
another of these ways of representing reality. Finally, there is even some disagreement as to whether or
not theory, regardless of how this is defined, and paradigm can be equated. This is because of Kuhn's
emphasis on the consensual aspects of the set of ideas and problems that represent the focus of a
particular discipline.
However, despite this diversity in the interpretation of the meaning of the word paradigm, Kuhn's
central idea, namely, that a paradigm is the single consensual model of the discipline that most
members accept, suggests that it may have limited application to the organizational sciences. Even
within the social sciences, it would appear that only economics has achieved a wide-consensus on the
theoretical ideas and problems associated with the micro-economic model of supply and demand (see
ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS). This is a discipline that emphasizes formal deductive reasoning
and mathematical models (see COMPUTER MODELING), much as does physics. No other social
science has the same degree of unity. In particular, the organizational sciences are distinguished by the
wide variety of theoretical models and perspectives as is illustrated in this dictionary. Examples are the
headings: CLASSICAL DESIGN THEORY, INSTITUTIONAL THEORY, POPULATION
ECOLOGY theory, SYSTEMS THEORY, and CONTINGENCY THEORY among others.
Kuhn's particular interest was in the problems of changing the paradigm once it is widely accepted,
hence the title scientific revolutions. But an equally important question which may be raised is whether
there will be any development or codification of knowledge so long as the field or speciality is divided
into a multitude of perspectives.
See also Process theory; Critical theory; Punctuated equilibrium
Bibliography

Document
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
JERALD HAGE
Paradox
During the 1980s a number of studies of ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS have suggested that
this concept is inherently paradoxical in the sense that to be effective, an organization must possess
attributes that are simultaneously contradictory. Thus Peters and Waterman (1982) suggested that
excellent companies have learned how to manage paradox, possessing both loose and tight properties, a
"soft" concern for people and a "hard" bias for action, both ENTREPRENEURSHIP and focus (see

Document
Page 402
EXCELLENCE). There is growing evidence that organizations in dynamic and competitive

environments require such opposite yet complementary attributes – high specialization of ROLES and
broad generalist perspective, continuity of LEADERSHIP and the infusion of new blood, deviation
amplifying processes associated with INNOVATION and deviation reduction processes linked to
efficiency.
Cameron (1986) summarizes evidence for the paradoxical nature of effectiveness, arguing that
extremity in any criterion of effectiveness creates dysfunctions. A good illustration is the study by
Miller (1990) on the failure of successful companies. Cameron also argues that while reconciliation or
synthesis of opposites may be desirable, paradox need not be resolved to enhance effectiveness. The
mere recognition that two contradictory elements are simultaneously true may create a constructive
tension that facilitaties ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Pascale, 1990).
The paradoxical perspective has also significant implications for research methodology (see
RESEARCH METHODS), particularly if the dependent variable is some form of effectiveness. For
example, conventional statistical analysis based on means, linear trends, and assumptions of normal
distributions masks the presence of paradox (see STATISTICAL METHODS). The absence of an
attribute does not necessarily indicate the presence of its opposite; both complementary qualities need
to be measured. The phenomenon of paradox is also seen in the study of dilemmas or dualities (see
DILEMMAS, ORGANIZATIONAL) for a more extended discussion).
See also Theory; Metaphor; Punctuated equilibrium; Rationality; Critical theory
Bibliography
Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of

organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539–553.
Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall.
New York: Harper Business.
Pascale, R. T. (1990). Managing on the edge: How successful companies use conflict to stay ahead.
New York: Viking.
Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of Excellence: Lessons from America's best run
companies. New York: Harper & Row.
PAUL EVANS
Participant Observation
see RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH METHODS

Document
Participation
In an OB context, the term participation usually refers to EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT in decision

making within enterprises. This distinguishes it from other forms of participation, such as financial
participation (e.g., GAINSHARING or employee stock ownership). There is no universally agreed
definition of participation, though the concept of INFLUENCE is regarded as central by most
researchers and practitioners (Hollander & Offerman, 1990). Thus, participation may be said to increase
as the degree of subordinate influence over decisions increases from no influence (decision is made by
management, with no advanced warning to employees) through consultative decision making
(employees are asked for their opinion, before management decides) to joint decision making (where
the influence of parties to the DECISION MAKING process is equally balanced). For some the
continuum of influence extends to a situation where the employee or group of employees make the
decision alone. Others argue that the process used reaching a decision is important, suggesting that true
participation is characterized by an absence of the exercise of coercive power.
In addition to the degree and nature of influence, employee participation may also be characterized by
the degree of formality of the process. Formal participation involves set rules and procedures directing
the process of decision making (e.g., formally constituted QUALITY CIRCLES). However,
participation may also merely reflect an informal consensus reached between managers and
subordinates, and as such can be viewed as a function of a particular LEADERSHIP STYLE.
Participation may also be direct or indirect, depending on the extent to which employees are personally
and actively involved in making the decision. Programs of JOB ENRICHMENT and structures such as
AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS typically lead to

Document
Page 403
employees personally participating in the decision-making process. However, this form of participation
is to be distinguished from the many which involve some form of collective representation of employee
interests, leading to more "distant" involvement of most employees (e.g., an elected worker
representative on a company board or a consultative committee). Participative mechanisms may also be
distinguished from each other in terms of their time span. Some are relatively transient (e.g., a
temporary task force or a SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEMS design team) and some long-term (e.g., a
permanent work team). Finally, there is the issue of what decisions employees are allowed to participate
in. These potentially include decisions about technical matters and the work itself, employment and
personnel matters, as well as company strategic, economic, and policy matters.
Participation is a central concept within the "human relations" tradition of management theorists and, by
extension, the QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE movement (see HUMAN RELATIONS
MOVEMENT). Within this view, participation is related to JOB SATISFACTION and thence to
PERFORMANCE by virtue of facilitating the satisfaction of various "higher-order" needs, such as
SELF-ACTUALIZATION and GROWTH NEED STRENGTH. This "affective" model may be
contrasted with ''cognitive" frameworks, in which the causal mechanism for participation's effect on
PRODUCTIVITY is seen in terms of better information flow and knowledge generation (Miller &
Monge, 1986). Both frameworks would predict a range of positive outcomes for participation, including
job satisfaction and organizational COMMITMENT, positive MENTAL HEALTH, increased
MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE, reduced turnover and ABSENTEEISM as well as reduced
incidence of industrial CONFLICT (see COLLECTIVE ACTION). However, Vroom and Yetton
(1973) have developed a normative contingency model of the effects of participation in which
situational factors (see LEADERSHIP CONTINGENCIES), such as the requirements for a quality
solution or for employee commitment, critically define the effectiveness of varying degrees of
employee influence within the decision-making process.
Given the number of dimensions on which particular forms of participation may vary (influence,
content of decisions, direct/indirect, formal/informal, short-term/long-term), it is not surprising that
studies of the impact of participation on employee attitudes and performance have produced extremely
varied results, an outcome also influenced by the poor design of many studies (Wagner & Gooding,
1987) (see RESEARCH DESIGN). Reviews of participation research generally conclude that it has a
moderate positive correlation with positive work attitudes and a small positive effect on performance.
However, even in well-designed studies, the specific form and context of participation does appear to
determine its impact (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall & Jennings, 1988). For example, in a
longitudinal quasi-experimental field study (see QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN), Wall, Kemp,
Jackson and Clegg (1986) found that employees in autonomous work groups (which may be
characterized as formal, immediate, long-term participation involving a high level of influence in task-
related and routine personnel decisions) reported increased job satisfaction, though not increased
MOTIVATION, performance, organizational commitment or mental health. On the other hand,
Griffin's (1988) longitudinal study of quality circles found that employee attitudes and performance
both improved significantly over an 18-month period following implementation. Both sets of outcome
variables then declined to pre-intervention levels, suggesting that duration of participation is also a

Document
factor. Certainly, tests of the Vroom-Yetton model have generally supported the model's contention that
there are situations where a relatively low level of employee involvement in decision making will be
associated with optimum outcomes, and others where a relatively high level of involvement is called for
(Vroom & Jago, 1988) (see PATH-GOAL THEORY).
Participation in enterprise decision making, whatever the form, is a key component of organizational
DEMOCRACY. Programs of employee participation in work-related decisions also feature strongly in
strategic approaches to HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT aimed at enhancing quality and
INNOVATION, where employee COMMITMENT to the organization is seen as a source of competitive

Document
Page 404
advantage (Beaumont, 1992) (see COMPETITIVENESS). Whether such programs actually enhance
democracy has been questioned, however, on the grounds that in practice they may subtly strengthen
managerial control over employees, whilst proscribing the degree of real influence employees have over
the operation of the enterprise as a whole (e.g., limiting the domain of participation to task-related
matters and the degree of influence to consultation) and weakening attachment to the structures and
institutions of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (Guest, 1990).
See also Trust; Employee involvement; Empowerment; Self-managing teams; Self-management
Bibliography
Beaumont, P. B. (1992). The U.S. human resource management literature. In G. Salaman (Ed.), Human
resource strategies. London: Sage.
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L. & Jennings, K. R. (1988).
Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13, 8–
22.
Dachler, H. P. & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in

organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 1–39.
Griffin, R. W. (1988). Consequences of quality circles in an industrial setting: A longitudinal

assessment. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 338–358.
Guest, D. E. (1990). Human resource management and the American dream. Journal of Management
Studies, 27, 399–416.
Hollander, E. P. & Offerman, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in

transition. American Psychologist, 45, 179–189.
Miller, K. I. & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction & productivity: A meta-analytic review.
Vroom, V. H. & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Vroom, V. H & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of

Pittsburgh Press.
Wagner, J. A. & Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influence and organizational behaviour: A meta-
analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Academy of

Document
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R. & Clegg, C. W. (1986). Outcomes of autonomous work groups:
A long-term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 280–304.
JOHN CORDERY
Path–Goal Theory
The Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness (House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974) was developed
to explain how leaders influence subordinates' MOTIVATION, satisfaction, and performance (see
MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE). In the initial version of the theory it was asserted that
"The motivational function of the leader consists of increasing personal payoffs to subordinates for
work-goal attainment and making the path to these payoffs easier to travel by clarifying it, reducing
roadblocks and pitfalls, and increasing the opportunities for personal satisfaction en-route." (House,
1971, p. 324).
The theory assumes that individuals choose the level of effort they will devote to their tasks on the basis
of the degree to which they expect to receive, or experience, valued outcomes as a result of their effort
(see VIE THEORY). Thus the theory makes a strong RATIONALITY assumption about the nature of
subordinate's work motivation. The theory further assumes that the experience of ROLE AMBIGUITY
is stressful and unpleasant and that reducing ambiguity will lead to subordinate satisfaction and
effective performance (see JOB SATISFACTION). Finally, the theory assumes that when leaders
reduce subordinate dissatisfaction or increase subordinate ROLE clarity, subordinate self-confidence
and motivation will be increased.
The central propositions of the theory are:
Directive-role and goal clarifying leader behavior, when enacted in a nonauthoritarian manner, will
clarify subordinates' perceptions of relationships concerning the degree to which their efforts will result
in successful performance (goal attainment) and the degree to which performance will be extrinsically
rewarded with recognition by the leader, pay, advancement, job security, and the like.
Supportive-subordinate oriented leader behavior will be a source of follower social satisfaction and
confidence, especially when

Document
Page 405
followers perform dissatisfying tasks or work under dissatisfying conditions.
Participative-consultative leader behavior will be motivational when subordinates have a high need for
independence and/or knowledge that can contribute to effective DECISION MAKING by the leader.
Achievement-improvement oriented leader behavior will add challenge to subordinate's jobs and thus
increase the instrinsic satisfaction subordinates experienced as a result of goal accomplishment (see
EXTRINSIC/INTRINSIC MOTIVATION).
When the task demands of followers are satisfying but ambiguous, leader-directive behavior will be a
source of clarification.
Subordinates whose jobs are satisfying, but which have ambiguous performance demands will view
leader-directive behavior as satisfying and instrumental for performance.
Subordinates whose jobs are dissatisfying, but impose unambiguous performance demands, will view
leader-directive behavior as over-controlling and dissatisfying.
When subordinates' tasks or work environment are dangerous, monotonous, stressful, or frustrating,
supportive-leader behavior will lead to increased subordinate effort and satisfaction by increasing self-
confidence, lowering ANXIETY, and unpleasant aspects of the work.
When tasks are interesting and enjoyable, and subordinates are confident, leader consideration will have
little effect on follower satisfaction, motivation, or performance.
Unfortunately, as Yukl (1994) has noted, the theory has not been adequately tested to date. Overall, the
findings provide more support for the predicted effects of supportive-leader behavior than for directive-
leader behavior. The findings suggest that leader-directive leader behavior does not always have the
role clarifying and performance enhancing effects predicted by the theory.
Because of the strong rationality assumptions of the theory it is most likely invalid when subordinates
are under conditions of substantial STRESS or UNCERTAINTY. Such conditions make it impossible
to formulate accurate and rational expectations of REWARDS contingent on effort expended. It is most
likely that the theory holds under conditions of certainty or risk, and when subordinates are not highly
stressed. Under such conditions probabilities can be assessed rationally. Therefore these conditions
satisfy the underlying rationality assumptions of the theory.
See also Goal-setting; Leadership; Leadership contingencies; Performance, individual
Bibliography
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16,
321–338.

Document
House, R. J. & Mitchell, J. R. (1974). Path goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary
Business, 3, 81–97.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
ROBERT J. HOUSE
Pay and Performance
see MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE; MOTIVATOR/HYGIENE THEORY; PAYMENT

SYSTEMS; PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY
Payment Systems
The employment relationship is a social exchange where both the employee and the organization must
receive something of value to enter into and continue to participate in the relationship (see
EXCHANGE RELATIONS). For most employees, pay is a significant reward that influences their
decisions about employment. In return for such payments, which are often the single largest operating
cost, the organization expects employees to lend their effort to achieving the goals of the organization.
Payment systems, broadly defined, differ across employment units (organizations, business units, and
facilities) in several ways. The focus of the employee compensation literature has been on defining
these dimensions, understanding why organizations differ on them (determinants), and whether such
differences have consequences for employee attitudes and

Document
Page 406
behaviors, and ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. The following discussion is organized

accordingly around payment dimensions, determinants, and consequences.
Payment System Dimensions and Pay Programs
Payment systems vary significantly across employing units and to some degree, across jobs. We discuss
the form, level, structure, mix, and administration of payment systems (Heneman & Schwab, 1979;
Milkovich & Newman, 1990).
First, pay can be in the form of cash or benefits (e.g., health care, retirement, paid vacation). On
average, about 70 percent of payments to US employees are in the form of cash, leaving 30 percent in
the form of noncash benefits.
Second, cash compensation can be described in terms of its level (how much). Most organizations use
one or more market pay surveys to determine what other organizations pay for specific jobs in making
their own pay level decisions. Both cash and benefits need to be compared. Moreover, comparisons of
labor costs need to consider PRODUCTIVITY differences by comparing, for example, the number of
employees doing various types of work.
Third, the structure refers to the nature of pay differentials within an employing unit. How many steps
or grades are in the structure? How big are the pay differentials between different levels in the
structure? Large organizations often have over 20 such levels, although a number of organizations have
recently reduced the number of steps ("delayered") (see RESTRUCTURING). Are employees at the
same hierarchical level in different parts of the organization (e.g., different product sectors or different
occupational groups) paid the same? Yet another aspect of structure is the timing of payment over
employees' careers. Some organizations may bring entry level people in at a relatively high rate of pay,
but then provide relatively slow pay growth, while another organization may bring employees in
relatively low but offer greater opportunities for promotion and pay growth over time.
For better or worse, much of the effort in the structure area has focused on job evaluation, a tool for
measuring the relative internal value of jobs to the organization. Job evaluation is used in conjunction
with pay surveys to set rates of pay for jobs. Critics, however, suggest that job evaluation is associated
with several drawbacks such as too much BUREAUCRACY, employees only doing what is in their
JOB DESCRIPTION, and a lack of focus on market comparisons, which are critical for
COMPETITIVENESS. Indeed, some organizations are moving away from linking pay to job content
through job evaluation and instead paying workers for the SKILLS they possess. Skill-based pay links
pay to the breadth or depth of employee skill. The goal is to encourage learning, which in turn
facilitates FLEXIBILITY in work assignments and encourages learning as a way of life to help with
future ORGANIZATION CHANGE.

Document
Fourth, payment systems differ in their mix (how and when cash compensation is disbursed). Some
organizations pay virtually all employees a base salary that is adjusted once per year (almost always
upward, very rarely downward unless times are very tough). Other organizations use so-called variable
pay or pay at risk, which means that some portion of employees' pay is uncertain and depends on future
profits, stock performance, or productivity. Specific pay programs that influence pay mix are merit pay,
incentive pay, GAINSHARING, profit sharing, and stock plans (e.g., stock options) (see BONUS
PAYMENTS; PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY).
Fifth, payment systems are administered differently in different organizations. The design of pay
policies differs, for example, in terms of who is involved in the process. The roles of human resource
departments, line managers, and rank and file employees differ across situations (see HUMAN
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT). Line managers may design plans, often with assistance from human
resources. In other cases, human resources takes the lead. Less frequently, employees to be covered by
a payment system are involved, and in some cases, may actually design plans for themselves.
COMMUNICATION is another aspect of administration. EQUITY THEORY suggests that employee

perceptions of what they contribute to the organization, what they get in return, and how their return–
contribution ratio compares to others inside and outside the organization, determine how fair they feel
their employment relationship is. The most technically sophisti-

Document
Page 407
cated payment plan can generate desired employee reactions or exactly the opposite, depending on
whether the rationale for the payment plan is understood and accepted and whether employees'
perceptions of the facts (e.g., the company's financial health, the pay of employees in other jobs or
organizations) are the same as the perceptions of those charged with seeing that the payment plan has
the intended effects.
Determinants
Four general factors determine pay level, pay mix, and the cash-benefits tradeoff. First, pay decisions
are influenced by personal characteristics. Economists speak of education and other TRAINING as
investments in human capital (Becker, 1975). The more a person invests in him- or herself, the higher
their expected productivity and thus the higher their expected lifetime earnings (i.e., returns on their
investment). Other individual factors such as cognitive ABILITY, MOTIVATION, and possibly
personality characteristics also contribute to pay through their impact on productivity.
Second, the job or type of work influences pay. Managers and professionals are paid more than
production workers, presumably because more human capital is required and because incentives are
needed for employees to take more complex and demanding jobs. Higher job levels also tend to have a
higher percentage of pay at risk. The rationale is twofold. The lower the pay, the less an employee can
afford to have his or her pay fluctuate because a greater portion of his or her pay likely goes to cover
relatively fixed living costs (e.g., housing, utilities). Also, any individual employee in the hourly ranks
is usually thought to have less opportunity to influence organization performance than top managers
(see CEOS).
Third, different employers have different pay policies and practices. Industry, life cycle stage (e.g.,
growth versus maintenance), organization strategy (e.g., cost leadership versus DIFFERENTIATION
through INNOVATION or quality), union status, and size are examples of organization characteristics
that influence pay decisions. Industry effects, for example, reflect the fact that each company faces
similar cost pressures that limit the level of pay. If Ford pays its employees much more than General
Motors or Toyota pay theirs, it will have more expensive cars that are more difficult to sell, unless its
employees can offset the higher labor costs with higher productivity.
Employees covered under COLLECTIVE BARGAINING contracts are often paid differently than
those not covered. In the United States, for example, many union employees work under single rate
systems, under which all employees in a particular type of job are paid an identical amount. Individual
differences in performance are not compensated (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). Union-
represented employees promotions are also more formally based on seniority (often in conjunction with
performance) than is the case for nonunion employees where promotion based almost solely on
performance is usually the stated policy.

Document
Fourth, in a global market, differences between countries are increasingly relevant in determining pay
(see INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT). Even limiting comparison to the
two largest economies, the United States and Japan, reveals significant differences in pay practices. For
example, relative to US employers, Japanese organizations tend to link pay more closely to seniority
and less closely to individual performance. Japanese production employees also receive a large share of
their cash compensation in the form of semiannual bonuses, whereas US production employees are
more likely to be paid a straight base salary.
Perhaps the most interesting question under determinants is to what extent do different organizations
have different pay strategies and why? Also, on what dimensions of pay do organizations differ most?
Organizations have some flexibility in how much they pay, but there are limits, because if they pay too
much, their product will be more expensive than that of their competitors, making it difficult for them to
compete in the product market. If they pay too little, they will have difficulty competing in the LABOR
MARKET for quality employees.
Organizations may have the most flexibility in the mix of cash compensation – how they pay (Gerhart
& Milkovich, 1990). For example, two organizations that each pay new MBAs an average of $50,000
per year can differ significantly in the basis for that amount of pay. The first organization could pay all
the $50,000 in

Document
Page 408
the form of base pay. In contrast, the second organization could pay $45,000 in base pay, with the
potential for an additional $5,000 to $15,000 coming from a short-term bonus plan (e.g., linked to
quarterly profits) and a stock ownership plan that pays out only if the stock price increases. The portion
of pay that does not come in base salary is not guaranteed and thus is sometimes referred to as variable
pay or pay at risk. It may not be paid at all or the amount paid may result in earnings that are higher
than would have been the case if pay was based only on base salary. The payment varies, depending on
stock price, production, and quality goals, or some other measure of individual, group, or organization
performance. In any case, if the expected value of the bonus in the second organization is $5,000, its
pay level (and labor cost) is the same as in the first organization, but its pay mix may send a very
different message to prospective employees.
As with pay mix, the structure, form, and administration of pay can be designed in a variety of ways
without necessarily having significant consequences for overall cost. Therefore, although there is little
empirical evidence to tell us the degree to which organizations differ on these dimensions (but, see
Gerhart, Milkovich, & Murray, 1992), there should be considerable discretion in such decisions.
Consequences
From a policy perspective, we need to know what types of payments systems are most effective and
how their effectiveness differs according to contingency factors such as business strategy, national
culture, competitive environment, and employee characteristics. Effectiveness is a multifaceted concept
that could include cost, productivity, innovation, quality, financial, and attitudinal dimensions (Gerhart
& Milkovich, 1992).
Most research on payment system consequences has examined payment system influences on individual
employee attitudes and behaviors and has been in the context of behavioral theories such as AGENCY
THEORY, Expectancy Theory (see VIE THEORY), REINFORCEMENT Theory, and Equity Theory.
Although the theories differ in important ways, there are some fundamental areas of agreement. First,
each theory (particularly the first three) as it has been applied to payment systems suggests that making
pay contingent on particular objectives (e.g., performance measures) makes attainment of those
objectives more likely. So, quite simply, pay can be a powerful motivator. Second, each theory suggests
that pay influences employees in two general ways. Most obviously, it influences the attitudes and
behaviors of current employees. In addition, however, pay can influence which employees are attracted
to the organization and which employees decide to stay or leave (see TURNOVER). The level of pay
may influence the quality of employees and the other dimensions of pay may influence the types of
employees (e.g., VALUES, goals, PERSONALITY traits, such as individualism, RISK-TAKING
propensity, and so forth). So, payment systems help determine whether the types of employees fit with
the CULTURE and strategy of the organization (see ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE).

Document
Much of the research on consequences has been in the context of studying specific types of payment
programs such as incentive pay, gainsharing, profit sharing, and so forth. Some of the conceptual
underpinnings of these plans is discussed in PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY.
More recently, economic theories of efficiency wages, TRANSACTION COST THEORY, and rank-
order tournament models have also been proposed (see TOURNAMENT PROMOTION). Strategy
concepts are also now being applied to the payment literature with a focus on determining what types of
payment strategies fit different types of business strategies (e.g., cost leadership, differentiation, or
STRATEGIC TYPES) and whether a better fit contributes to better ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS. The initial evidence suggests the answer to both questions is "yes" (Gomez-Mejia
& Balkin, 1992).
See also Rewards; Assessment; Performance appraisal
Bibliography
Becker, G. (1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to
education (2nd edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gerhart, B. & Milkovich, G. T. (1990). Organizational differences in managerial compensation and

Document
Page 409
financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 663–691.
Gerhart, B. & Milkovich, G. T. (1992). Employee compensation: Research and practice. In M. D.

Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (2nd edn, Vol.
3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gerhart, B., Milkovich, G. T. & Murray, B. (1992). Pay, performance, and participation. In D. Lewin et
al. (Eds), Research frontiers in industrial relations and human resources. Madison, WI: Industrial
Relations Research Association.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R. & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Compensation, organizational strategy, and firm

performance. Cincinatti, OH: South-Western.
Heneman, H. G., III & Schwab, D. P. (1979). Work and rewards theory. In D. Yoder & H. G. Heneman,
Jr. (Eds), ASPA handbook of personnel and industrial relations. Washington, DC: Bureau of National
Affairs.
Milkovich, G. T. & Newman, J. (1990). Compensation. Homewood, IL: BPI/Irwin.
BARRY GERHART
Perception
This can be defined as the psychological process by which individuals select, organize, and interpret
sensory information. Perception is distinguished from sensation in that sensation is the physiological
process by which stimuli are received through the five senses. Perception begins with sensory
registration and is the active cognitive process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting the multitude of
stimuli that are received.
Perception is of key importance to ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR because people's behavior is a

function of their perceived as opposed to their objective world. Although individuals may occupy nearly
identical objective realities and receive similar sensory information, their perceptions of reality may
differ markedly. These differences in perceptions are important determinants of behavior. Thus
although two individuals may attend the same meeting and receive essentially the same information,
they may have very different interpretations and reactions to the information.

Document
Several topics are commonly included in discussions of perception within organizational contexts.
Perceptual selectivity addresses the issue of why certain stimuli are perceived and processed whereas
others are apparently ignored. Thus it has been found that environmental factors such as size, repetition,
familiarity, and contrast increase the probability that individuals will attend to a stimulus. Internal
personal factors are also viewed as influencing selection as well as interpretation. These factors include
the PERSONALITY of the perceiver (e.g., thinking versus feeling oriented); LEARNING (i.e., prior
experience); MOTIVATION (e.g., the effects of needs such as the need for power, mastery, and
affiliation) (see AFFILIATION, NEED FOR; POWER, NEED FOR); and expectations. Thus, an
individual who identifies with an organization's culture, has extensive experience with the culture, and
has aspirations for promotion within the organization is likely to view organizational actions more
positively than an outsider who has no affiliation with or interest in the organization.
Principles of perceptual organization are concerned with how the information is developed into
cohesive patterns and impressions. Principles of perceptual organization include figure-ground
relationships, closure, proximity, and similarity.
Recent work has emphasized social perception which is concerned with the issue of how people form
impressions of each other. This area includes the process of social categorization and addresses how
information is organized into schemata and stereotypes which provide cognitive "short-cuts" for
developing impressions and making decisions about other people. A key aspect of social perception is
the ATTRIBUTION process. These causal interpretations about the behavior of others form an
important part of people's perceptions of each other. In addition, research on IMPRESSION
MANAGEMENT has described how people create and manage specific impressions thereby enhancing
their image to others or reducing their responsibility for poor performance. There is also a fairly
extensive literature which describes the development and impact of perceptual ERRORS such as
STEREOTYPING and HALO EFFECTS on HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT processes such
as SELECTION METHODS and PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL.
See also Cognitive processes; Projection; Role

Document
Page 410
Bibliography
Arvey, R. & Campion, J. (1984). Person perception in the employment interview. In M. Cook (Ed.),
Issues in person perception. London: Methuen.
Bierhoff, H.-W. (1989). Person perception and attribution. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Gardner, W. L. & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of

Management, 14, (2), 321–338.
Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Luthans, F. (1992). Organizational behavior, (6th edn), New York: McGraw-Hill.
MARK J. MARTINKO
Performance, Individual
The performance of an individual at work is one of the most fundamental and central constructs in all of
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. It exists at the intersection of three major systems in the work
setting – the physical/task system, the human system represented by the person himself or herself, and
the social system in which the performance takes place. Thus, individual performance serves as a link
and a potential integrating construct among many diverse areas.
Two major clusters of work capture how organizational behavior has addressed individual performance.
The first is descriptive. It involves defining and measuring individual performance. Performance is
typically defined in reference to a person's job. Dimensions capturing the domain of what is meant by
performance are identified and standards established on those dimensions. The units of the standards
depend upon the nature of the job, but should reflect the quality and quantity of the work accomplished.
Descriptions of performance dimensions and the establishment of standards on those dimensions are
necessary but not sufficient for describing individual performance. Missing is the measurement of an
individual's behavior in terms of the performance dimensions and standards. Although measurement
may seem simple, often it is not. There are a number of reasons for this. First, since individual
performance often occurs in interaction with other people, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to
separate any one person's performance from that of others. Second, even when this is possible,
differences in the TECHNOLOGY used to do the job (e.g., a word processor versus a typewriter) or
other unique conditions not under the control of the person (e.g., the ease or difficulty of the district to
which a salesperson is assigned) may be inextricably entangled with the person's observed behavior,
making it very difficult to decide what can be attributed to the individual's performance.

Document
Finally, to evaluate performance requires the use of some measuring instrument. If the performance
dimension is simple, allowing easily recognized outputs to be counted, then the instrument is
straightforward; it consists of whatever is used to count and record the units produced. However, for
many jobs, such simple measures of performance are rarely available. In their absence, subjective
judgments of supervisors or others are often used. The person using some rating scale or
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL in effect serves as the measuring instrument.
Years of research have focused on developing good rating scales for this purpose. From this work has
emerged a number of ways to reduce UNRELIABILITY and improve the VALIDITY of individual
performance measures. However, in spite of the gains, the reliability and validity of performance ratings
are limited by the very nature of the rating process, since it must be conducted in a social system where
TRUST, COOPERATION, and many other variables intervene in ways which cannot be fully
anticipated or controlled. Measuring individual performance with rating scales will remain an imperfect
exercise.
Some of the more promising recent attempts to measure individual performance are those that have
expanded the number and types of jobs on which performance is measured by means other than ratings.
This has been done for a number of military occupational specialities in a large-scale study conducted
during most of the 1980s in the US Army (Campbell, 1990).
The second major domain of research activity takes definition and measurement for granted and focuses
upon why individuals perform as they do. The goal is understanding individual performance, with
performance often viewed as a function of three major sets of variables.
The first domain contains variables external to the individual. Here the focus is on how to

Document
Page 411
design the job so that people perform it well. Practitioners in the fields of ERGONOMICS (human
factors) and industrial engineering approach individual performance from this perspective, but,
unfortunately, this work is rarely cited in the organizational behavior literature, where attention is
concentrated almost exclusively on the effects of JOB DESIGN on work MOTIVATION (see
MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE).
The other two foci are internal to the person. Both view individual performance as a function of a
person's ABILITY and motivation, but each focuses on one subdomain or the other. The ability focus
sees individual performance as the criterion to be predicted from stable characteristics of people (see
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES). This model is the backbone of HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT practice associated with SELECTION METHODS, placement and TRAINING.
The third approach is that of searching for motivational influences on performance. It tends to be more
dynamic in the sense that it relies less on stable traits or abilities for explanations of performance and
more on temporary states in the work environment or the person. It incorporates work place
mechanisms designed to influence individual performance. FEEDBACK, GOAL SETTING, and
PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY are a few of the ways that an individual's performance at one point
in time is used to attempt to influence their performance at some time in the future.
Two implicit assumptions underlie almost all interest in individual performance. The first is that
policies and practices can be developed which increase the likelihood of good individual performance
and decrease the likelihood of poor individual performance. The validity of this assumption is well
supported. Cases too numerous to mention have demonstrated that through the design of jobs, proper
selection, placement and training of job holders, effective REWARD systems, and good supervisory
practices, individual performance can be influenced in a positive way.
The second assumption is so basic that it rarely is recognized. It is the assumption that individual
performance in organizations is positively correlated with ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. It
is assumed that, if we improve the effectiveness of individuals who populate organizations, the
performance of organizations will improve. Yet, given the complex mix of technical, social, and
individual system outputs affecting individual and organizational performance, it should be clear that
this assumption may not always hold. The fact that it may not, has only recently been confronted as
researchers have become more sensitive to interactions across LEVELS OF ANALYSIS.
Although there is no reason to doubt that in many instances positive relationships between individual
and organizational performance do exist, sensitivity to possible exceptions to the assumptions and
discovery of their boundary conditions will be important themes in future work.
See also Productivity; Competitiveness; Learning, individual
Bibliography

Document
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H. & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N.
Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J. & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of
jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 313–333.
Wigdor, A. K. & Greene, B. F. Jr. (1991). Performance assessment for the workforce, (vols. I & II).
Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
DANIEL R. ILGEN
Performance Appraisal
This term refers to organizational practices whereby the performances of individuals in the organization
are formally appraised by others for a number of purposes. Usually, the appraisers are direct supervisors
of the employees. Usually, the appraisal is in the form of a subjective judgment by the appraiser.
Performance appraisal (PA) is usually classified as a HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT practice.
Purposes
PA practices have arisen to serve a number of purposes. PA results are used as inputs into pay
determinations as part of PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY. PA processes are used as

Document
Page 412
mechanisms for FEEDBACK from the appraiser to the appraisee. PA results are often used to
determine developmental and TRAINING needs of employees (see MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT). PA results sometimes have been used as convenient data for input into layoff
decisions. PA results sometimes are used as inputs into promotion decisions. Frequently, PA results
become part of employees' personnel files and are accessible for various personnel decisions. They are
also often reduced to summary ratings and stored in computer human resource data files. PA results can
be used to inform human resource planning endeavors and to evaluate such practices as SELECTION
METHODS and training programs.
Approaches
A number of approaches are used to appraise performance. Most involve methods by which appraisers
record their judgments or ratings of the appraisee's performance on paper-based instruments
(increasingly these are electronic forms for use with personal computers and computer networks). These
instruments are partly determined by the aspects of performance to be measured. Some measures focus
on the end results of performance such as the units produced, profit realized, value of goods sold,
quality of service, PRODUCTIVITY, dollars saved, patents awarded, and publications. Sometimes the
desired results are predetermined as part of the job, such as in the form of standards that must be met
and sometimes they are predetermined through GOAL-SETTING processes. Performance is then
evaluated, perhaps in terms of whether goals were accomplished or surpassed, how difficult the goals
were, or whether standards were met or surpassed. When goal-setting practices are coupled with
appraisals that measure the degree to which the set goals are attained, the resulting process has most
commonly been known as MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES.
Another set of approaches focus on the behaviors that the performer exhibits during performance. The
behavioral focus is often adopted because end results are considered to be inadequate measures of a
person's performance since they are subject to contextual influence. For instance, goals might not be
met because some aspect of the performer's environment prevented it, such as a system breakdown.
Furthermore, the way an employee behaves may be as important to an organization as the achievement
of results. Behavioral approaches describe the actions of the performer. Appraisal is accomplished by
different behaviors being mapped onto valuations of performance in various ways.

Document
The core elements of all behavioral approaches are the behavioral descriptions of performance.
Differences arise as to how the behavioral descriptions are generated and how they are used to value
performance. Critical incident approaches to behavioral appraisals focus on describing the performer's
behavior during specific incidents that in the opinion of the appraiser represent various good or poor
levels of performance. Other approaches use generic descriptions of behavior. A common approach is
to present the appraiser with a number of behavioral descriptions that each represent good or poor
performance on some dimension and to then ask the appraiser to rate the degree to which the appraisee
tends to exhibit the behavior described in each. Sometimes several behavioral statements, each
describing a different level of performance on some dimension, are arranged along a continuum from
poor to good performance. The appraiser then selects the single behavioral description on the
continuum that best describes the behavior of the appraisee. The evaluation of the appraisee's
performance is represented by the position of the selected behavioral statement on the poor–good
continuum of the dimension. Such a continuum is called a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale. There
are a number of other variations on behavioral measures.
Other approaches to appraisal try to measure qualities of the performer. The most dominant example of
this approach is the measurement of performer traits. In this approach the appraiser is presented with
some word or phrase such as "honesty" or "initiative" and asked to rate the person on that trait
according to some rating scale supplied on the appraisal form. The trait approach has fallen out of favor
since it heightens the appearance of subjectiveness because there are usually no concrete behaviors or
results to point to that exemplify the trait. More recently, some appraisal approaches have

Document
Page 413
tried to measure the skills of the performer by looking at whether or not the person can behave in a way
that represents the presence of the skills (see COMPETENCIES).
Most contemporary examples of appraisal practices are eclectic combinations of several appraisal
approaches. In addition, the actual appraisal is usually embedded in a system of related practices, such
as goal setting, work PLANNING, feedback of appraisal to the appraisee, determination of
developmental needs, planning for development, CAREER planning, and determination of
compensation changes or bonuses based directly or indirectly on the appraisal (see BONUS
PAYMENTS). These more extensive systems may go by such names as performance planning and
review, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, and performance related pay to signify a scope broader
than just performance appraisal. Because of multiple approaches to appraisal and because appraisals are
embedded in a system of related practices, appraisal forms can become fairly complex. It is not
uncommon to find forms that have space for writing down the goals set, adjoining space for recording
and describing the degrees to which goals have been attained, a section with predefined dimensions of
performance that may be more or less behaviorally worded and are responded to on some rating scale, a
section that is filled in with job responsibilities idiosyncratic to the performer, each of which are to be
rated on how well the performer accomplishes it, a section for listing development needs, a section for
specifying developmental plans, a section in which the appraisee is rated for promotability, and a
section with a summary rating scale meant to sum up all the component measures of performance in
preceding sections. The summary rating is often used as input for pay or bonus decisions.
Processes
Feedback to the appraisee is a formal part of almost all PA systems. Most systems require some type of
face-to-face discussion between the appraiser and the appraisee. This can be solely a discussion of the
supervisor's rating or in more complex systems it can include such things as goal-setting, work
planning, developmental planning, career advice, and discussions of how the appraisal might affect pay
decisions and bonuses. In many cases these various processes can stretch across several sessions. Each
of these discussion topics and tasks can require skills and knowledge on the part of the appraiser and the
appraisee.

Document
Appraisals vary in the ways practices are carried out. Appraisals can be done in an extremely one-sided
hierarchical fashion, in which the appraiser/supervisor fills out the forms and submits them to his or her
manager before telling the subordinate the results of the appraisal. On the other hand, appraisals can be
highly participative with all phases jointly carried out by appraiser and appraisee. For instance, manager
and employee might each fill out the appraisal forms independently then come together and mutually
agree on what the final version of the forms should be. In other systems the performer is expected to
compile the bulk of the forms and/or materials illustrating performance, with the manager commenting
and perhaps making a summary judgment of the performance as shown by the materials provided.
Research in appraisal has strongly suggested that PARTICIPATION in the appraisal process (whatever
it entails) by the performer will result in higher acceptance of the appraisal, increased satisfaction, and
improved performance. Research also shows that process dimensions of appraisal are probably much
more important to successful appraisal than the forms used.
Issues
The multiple purposes of appraisal systems are often at cross purposes. For instance, a common practice
in the United States is to use appraisals as the basis for salary increases. These same organizations
usually require that employees receive feedback about their performances with the purpose of helping
them improve their performance and identify developmental needs. Each purpose drives a different
approach to measuring performance: salary decisions require that individual performances be ranked
relative to one another since they involve the distribution of a fixed budgeted amount, feedback requires
that employees receive specific information about their work relative to their job-based criteria. This
state of affairs leads to the following dilemma. It is possible, indeed likely, that an individual may
perform well in terms of

Document
Page 414
the job criteria but when ranked against others who also performed well fall in the bottom half of the
ranking. Management is then faced with the problem of telling people they performed well but are
going to receive a below average salary increase. This conflict is often resolved by giving everyone a
similar pay raise or by making salary actions secret, both of which compromise pay for performance.
Sometimes organizations choose to start with the ranking process and then write the appraisals to be fed
back so that they reflect the ranking. The result is that some employees are told that they are performing
lower on job criteria than either they or their appraisers feel they actually are. This sacrifices accurate
feedback.
Different purposes demand different ways of measuring performance. For example, ranking employees
to determine who should be promoted will often result in a different ranking than when the same
employees are ranked to determine who should be laid off.
Much of established PA practice developed within the dominant organizational forms of the 1950s,
1960s, and 1970s. New organizational forms have begun to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s. Two
emergent directions bring new issues for appraisal:
(1) New organizational forms bring change with them; not just the change associated with transitioning
from the old to the new, but change as a continuing aspect of organizations that must be managed. In
particular change will constantly undermine appraisal practices and demand their adaptation to new
realities.
(2) New organizations also accentuate the lateral or horizontal dimensions of form in addition to the
vertical or hierarchical. Within lateral settings others in addition to the supervising manager have a
direct stake in and access to the performance of an employee, such as customers and coworkers.
The definition of performance is relatively problematic (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). As

long as organizations are relatively stable and based on a hierarchical breakdown of jobs and tasks, then
the performance definition problem can start with some description of duties, accountabilities, and
responsibilities and proceed to describing the performance in whatever ways are appropriate given the
purpose of the appraisal.
In contemporary organizations that are frequently changing and in which performers are embedded in a
lateral network as well as a hierarchical system the definition of what an individual's performance
should be is heavily tied up in the processes of aligning and realigning performances of individuals with
the performance needs of the organization, the business unit, the team, customers, and coworkers. Such
alignment is the result of vertical and horizontal NEGOTIATION processes between the performers and
their STAKEHOLDERS.

Document
Definitions of what performance should be are, at best, imperfect momentary alignments of what is
expected of a performer from those that have a stake in the person's performance. A person's
performance will tend to be differently appraised depending on the stakeholder's perspective. Under this
set of circumstances performance appraisal is obviously not a cut-and-dried affair. It needs to involve a
process by which multiple stakeholder viewpoints are surfaced and balanced. This highlights the need
for processes for negotiating and balancing among multiple stakeholders. An emerging approach to
appraisal is called 360º feedback and involves input from managers, subordinates, coworkers,
customers, and the appraisee.
See also Knowledge of results; Human resources planning; Succession planning; Management of
high potential
Bibliography
Anderson, G. C. (1993). Managing performance appraisal systems. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Bernardin, H. J. & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: assessing human behavior at work.
Boston, MA: Kent.
DeVries, D. L., Morrison, A. M., Shullman, S. L. & Gerlach, M. L. (1986). Performance appraisal on
the line. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Latham, G. P. & Wexley, K. N. (1981). Increasing productivity through performance management.

Mohrman, A. M. Jr., Resnick-West, S. M. & Lawler, E. E. III (1989). Designing performance appraisal
systems: Aligning appraisals and organizational Realities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Document
Page 415
Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
ALLAN M. MOHRMAN JR.
Performance Management
There is no universally accepted definition of performance management, and it is sometimes used

simply to refer to PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL or to PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY. However,
it is increasingly coming to mean a general, integrated HUMAN RESOURCES STRATEGY that seeks
to create a shared vision of the purpose, aims, and values of the organization, to help each individual
employee understand and recognize their part in contributing to them, and in so-doing to manage and
enhance the performance of both individuals and the organization. Typically, elements of such a
strategy will include developing the MISSION STATEMENT and business plan, objective setting, and
other methods of performance measurement, appraisal, performance related pay, and various
approaches to enhancing internal COMMUNICATIONS. Two of the attributes that differentiates
performance management from other systems (such as MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES or
appraisal) are:
(1) that it is supposed to be line management-owned and driven; personnel departments have a mainly
facilitative role; and
(2) that it seeks to combine and integrate the various elements into a coherent set of procedures.
See also Human resource management; Performance, individual; Payment systems
Bibliography
IPM (1992). Performance management in the UK: An analysis of the issues. London: Institute of
Personnel Management.
Fletcher, C. (1993). Appraisal: Routes to improved performance. London: Institute of Personnel

Management.
Spencer, L. M. (1991). Performance management systems. In M. L. Rock & L. A. Berger (Eds), The
compensation handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
CLIVE FLETCHER
Performance Related Pay

Document
Pay for performance is a term that typically refers to a host of pay programs that seek to link pay to the
individual, group, and organization level performance measures. Merit pay continues to be widely used,
but organizations are also increasingly using other pay for performance programs, at least in parts of
their organizations as several surveys and case studies can attest (Conference Board, 1990). Human
resource executives, academics, and consultants expect this trend to continue for all employee groups,
with much of the new emphasis being on programs linking pay to group and organization performance
(Dyer & Blancero, 1993).
Milkovich and Wigdor (1991) classify pay for performance programs according to whether payments
are linked to group/organization versus individual performance and whether payments become part of
base pay or are variable (e.g., bonuses) and must always be reearned. Lawler (1989) offers a similar
classification, adding payout frequency and typical employee groups covered by the programs. The
basic features of some of the most common pay for performance programs are summarized in Table 1.
In analyzing the potential consequences of these pay programs, we can look at both cost and behavioral
objectives. On the cost dimension, an organization will, all else equal, prefer a pay program where labor
costs move in the same direction as ability to pay. A profit-sharing plan, for example, pays a bonus only
when the organization hits a particular profit target (see BONUS PAYMENTS). Therefore, labor costs
are higher when the ability to pay (e.g., profit) is higher and when ability to pay is low (low or negative
profit), labor costs are lower because no bonus is paid. In contrast, merit pay and GAINSHARING
payments are not necessarily dependent on profits, so an organization can encounter a situation where
its labor costs remain high despite a lack of profits.
On the other hand, programs that do well on the cost dimension may have drawbacks in achieving
behavioral objectives. According to expectancy theory (see VIE THEORY), MOTIVATION is higher
to the extent that employees see a clear link between their effort and REWARDS. This so-called line of
sight, however, may be poor under profit sharing plans because profits

Document
Page 416
Table 1 Features of pay for performance programs.

Individual Merit Pay Merit Bonus Gainsharing Profit Sharing Ownership Skill Based Pay
Incentives
Payment Method Bonus Changes in Bonus Bonus Bonus Equity Changes Changes in base pay
base pay
Payout Frequency Weekly Annually Annually Monthly or Semiannually or When stock When skill acquired
quarterly annually sold
Performance Output, Performance Performance Production or Profit Stock value Skill Acquisition
Measure productivity, rating rating controllable costs
sales
Coverage Direct labor All employees All employees Production or Total organization Total All employees
service unit organization
Source: Adapted from Milkovich & Wigdor; Lawler.

Document
Page 417
depend on so many factors beyond the control of most employees (aside from the higher-level
managers). In addition, AGENCY THEORY suggests that employees are typically risk averse (see
RISK TAKING). Consequently, sharing business risk with employees by placing some portion of their
pay at risk (e.g., linking bonuses to profit levels) is not a costless decision for the organization because
employees are hypothesized to require a compensating premium for risk, otherwise they would choose
other employment. Programs that link pay more closely to individual performance are likely to provide
for a better line of sight and thus, stronger motivation. In addition, strong individual contributors may
be more likely to gravitate toward and remain in situations that recognize and reward their individual
achievements. Of course, individual contributions are not always sufficient for ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS, and programs that direct employees efforts toward purely individual objectives
may be ill-suited for settings where teamwork and cooperation are also important. Therefore,
organizations may find that a mix of pay for performance programs is needed to help achieve a balance
in the various and sometimes partially conflicting goals that employees are expected to work toward.
See also Payment systems; Performance, individual; Extrinsic/intrinsic motivation; Feedback
Bibliography
Bureau of National Affairs (1988). Changing pay practices: New developments in employee
compensation. Washington DC.
Bureau of National Affairs (1991). Non-traditional incentive pay programs. Personnel Policies Forum
Survey, No. 148. Washington, DC:.
Conference Board (1990). Variable pay: New performance rewards. Research Bulletin No. 246.
Dyer, L. & Blancero, D. (1993). Workplace 2000. Working paper, Center for Advanced Human
Resource Studies, Cornell.
Milkovich, G. T. & Wigdor, A. K. (1991). Pay for performance. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Lawler, E. E. III (1989). Pay for performance: A strategic analysis. In L. R. Gomez-Mejia (Ed.),
Compensation and benefits. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
BARRY GERHART
Persistence

Document
This is defined by psychologists as the phenomenon of increased or persistent effort after failing in a
task. Although this quality is often highly valued in Western CULTURE – ''if at first you don't succeed;
try, try again" – it is also often irrational and costly behavior in organizations. Unreasonable persistence
can be seen to underlie major problems at both corporate and individual levels in organizations, such as
CRISES and STRESS, where investments of time and effort continue to be sunk into failing projects
and improbable causes.
Persistence as a dysfunction can be seen as the opposite of "learned helplessness," where failure on a
task leads to lack of persistence on subsequent tasks, a phenomenon associated with depressive
conditions (see MENTAL HEALTH). Persistence often closely resembles escalating commitment (see
COMMITMENT, ESCALATING), where continued investment in a failing project is due to the desire
to recoup sunk costs or to justify past expenditure. It differs in being more due to psychological than
material investments, amounting to a disorder in SELF-REGULATION. In these terms researchers have
explained it as caused by highly self-focused attention in situations where the individual has
expectations of control and high standards to do well – the triumph of hope over experience where
SELF-ESTEEM is at stake.
Research also indicates that persistence is encouraged by task difficulty, since failure may be attributed
to the task rather than personal qualities such as ABILITY (see ATTRIBUTION). Experimental studies
have also shown that individuals with high self-esteem persist longer and perform worse following
failure FEEDBACK on a task than people with lower self-esteem. They may also actually ignore or
reject helpful information about when to persist – rejecting advice for the sake of the chance to enhance
their self-credit. There is also evidence of SEX DIFFERENCES in persistence – males being more
likely to engage in unreasonable persistence.
The phenomenon has only recently attracted the attention of psychological research, and

Document
Page 418
remains largely unexamined within ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, though it is clearly highly

relevant to many of the failings in individual performance (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL),
GROUP DECISION MAKING, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, and ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS.
See also Locus of control; Knowledge of results; Self-efficacy
Bibliography
Kernis, M. H., Zuckerman, M., Cohen, A. & Spadafora, S. (1982). Persistence following failure: The
interactive role of self-awareness and the attributional basis for negative expectancies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1184–1191.
Miller, A. & Klein, J. S. (1989). Individual differences in ego value of academic performance and
persistence after failure. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 124–132.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Person Specification
The knowledge, SKILLS, ABILITIES, and other person characteristics (often referred to as "KSAOs")
deemed necessary for satisfactory job performance. Usually included as part of a JOB DESCRIPTION,
and used for various HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT activities, particularly selection (see
SELECTION METHODS).
Harvey (1991) makes a distinction between KS- versus AO-based specifications. He argues that
knowledge ("a body of information applied directly to the performance of a function") and skills ("a
present, observable competence to perform a learned act") (see COMPETENCIES) can be directly
linked to job activities, whereas abilities and other characteristics (e.g., PERSONALITY TRAITS) are
constructs ("theoretical concepts . . . that have been constructed to explain observable behavior
patterns'') that can be linked only indirectly to job requirements (Harvey, 1991, pp. 75–79).
In the United States, litigation has decidedly favored human resource DECISION MAKING based on
directly observable knowledge and skills (KS). However, this preference for narrow, observable
decision criteria has been challenged on a number of fronts, particularly by findings that constructs such
as ability and conscientiousness (a personality trait) are valid predictors across a wide range of settings
(Schmidt, Hunter, & Pearlman, 1981). Concerns have also been expressed that KS-based specifications
are too inflexible for today's rapidly-changing work environments.
Whether or not there is a substantial shift toward AO-based specifications in future practice will depend
on additional research findings, as well as continued developments in litigation and social constructions
of such constructs as "fairness" and "efficiency" (see EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES).

Document
See also Job analysis; Recruitment; Assessment; Succession planning
Bibliography
Harvey, R. J. (1991). Job analysis. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology, (2nd edn, vol. 2, pp. 71–163). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. & Pearlman, K. (1981). Task differences as moderators of aptitude test
validity in selection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 166–185.
SARA L. RYNES
Person–Job Fit
This refers to the extent to which the dispositions, abilities, expectations, and performance contributions
of an individual worker match the job demands, situational demands, expectations, and available
REWARDS of a particular job. Individuals bring to their respective jobs a set of dispositions and
expectations about what they can and want to accomplish at work and what they expect in return. They
also contribute their effort, talents, SKILL, ABILITY, education, and experience. In return, they expect
certain outcomes, including (but not limited to) financial compensation, security, stimulation, and
opportunities for growth, development, and advancement.
At the same time, individual jobs require certain things of the people who perform them. In particular,
job incumbents must have the physical, cognitive, and emotional skills and abilities necessary to meet
minimum performance requirements, as well as the MOTIVATION to perform at an adequate level. At
a more

Document
Page 419
general level, organizations also expect certain levels of attendance, various forms of "citizenship
behaviors," and other contributions (see ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP). In exchange, the
organization provides direct and indirect compensation and other forms of inducement (see
EXCHANGE RELATIONS; EQUITY THEORY).
The higher the level of congruence between what an individual provides to and expects from the
organization and what the organization expects from and provides to the individual, the greater the
degree of person–job fit. When the person–job fit is poor, several outcomes are possible. Individual
STRESS, FRUSTRATION, ANXIETY, job dissatisfaction, and low performance are all likely
outcomes (see JOB SATISFACTION; PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). As a consequence, the
organization may find it necessary to replace the worker and/or to invest heavily in additional
TRAINING or to seek a new job assignment for the individual.
It is also important to recognize that person–job fit is likely to change over time. For example, a job that
seems exciting, motivating, and stimulating to an organizational newcomer may seem boring and
tedious after a longer time. Similarly, as such contributors to person–job fit as job demands, salary,
ability, and motivation change, the overall level of congruence may also change.
See also Personality; Age; Individual differences; Job design; Psychological contract; Quality of
working life; Work adjustment
Bibliography
Brousseau, K. R. (1983). Toward a dynamic model of job–person relationships: Findings, research

questions, and implications for work system design. Academy of Management Review, 8, 33–45.
RICKY W. GRIFFIN
Personality
As far back as 1937, Gordon Allport identified fifty different definitions for the term personality. The
most widely used scientific definition identifies personality as that set of nonphysical and
nonintellectual psychological qualities which make a person distinct from other people.
Status within OB

Document
Within the field of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, personality has been defined, measured, and
studied in vastly different ways. Moreover, the very value of personality constructs in understanding
organizational behavior has itself been a matter of much controversy over the decades and has been
questioned on both conceptual and empirical grounds. Conceptual criticism has come from both ends of
the theoretical spectrum. On the one hand, radical humanists see the use of personality dimensions as
reductionist, as breaking apart the essential uniqueness of each individual. On the other end of the
theoretical spectrum, radical behaviorists see the study of personality as attempting to measure variables
not directly observable, an incursion into the "black box" which falls beyond the scope of scientific
inquiry.
On empirical grounds, the proved contributions of personality variables to our understanding of work
behavior have been limited. Positive findings, when they appear, are often of marginal significance and
personality effects within a given research area are often inconsistent. These disappointing results
within OB are consistent with empirical findings in other areas of personality research. Best known is
Mischel's (1968) famous critique of personality research in which he claimed, after reviewing the
literature, that behavior is inconsistent across situations, and that rarely do personality variables account
for more than 10 percent of the variance in criterion behaviors of interest. Mischel argued that behavior
is largely determined by situational factors.
Many scholars within OB, following Mischel (1968), have made the same argument, that behavior in
work organizations is largely situationally determined. Accordingly, the thrust of research on JOB
ENRICHMENT, expectancy, VIE THEORY of work MOTIVATION, job attitudes and many other
areas has emphasized situational determinants. The approach recommended to organizations for
creating a motivated work force, for example, is not necessarily to hire people who are dispositionally
high in motivation, but rather to expand job scope, alter reward contingencies, and empower the work
force.

Document
Page 420
Weiss and Adler (1984) questioned this bias against personality, arguing that the potential for
personality in theory, research, and practice within OB has, in fact, scarcely been explored. In area after
area, research typically does not adequately test for personality effects. Often personality is of
secondary interest to the researcher and is accordingly treated marginally, given little thought, and
studied in inappropriate settings using inappropriate designs. A conservative evaluation of the role of
personality within OB, conclude Weiss and Adler, is that this role has simply not yet been adequately
examined.
The negative view of personality was so widely accepted within OB for so long that there are whole
areas of personality research which once were productive and then almost completely abandoned.
Selection testing (see PERSONALITY TESTING), the study of work attitudes, and LEADERSHIP all
were areas in which decades of interest in personality were followed by decades of uninterest. Only
very recently have researchers in these areas begun reexamining the value of personality. The past few
years indeed have generally seen some increased interest in personality within OB, marked by the
publication of several important summaries of theory and research on this topic (e.g., Barrick & Mount,
1991; Brockner, 1988; Furnham, 1992; Hogan, 1991).
Personality Traits
OB researchers and practitioners have studied a wide range of personality constructs. Among the more
widely studied are SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-EFFICACY, achievement motivation (see
ACHIEVEMENT, NEED FOR), LOCUS OF CONTROL, and EXTROVERSION. These constructs all
reflect a particular conception, which describes personality in terms of traits. There have been other
approaches to conceptualizing personality, the most prominent being psychoanalytic approaches. These
nontrait approaches have contributed insightful analyses of important aspects of behavior in
organizations (see e.g., ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSIS). Psychodynamic approaches have also been
used in clinical applications to human resources management, such as in treating psychopathology that
impacts on work behavior or in screening out high-risk candidates for positions that involve potential
danger to the public (e.g., police officers and airline pilots). However, the overwhelming preponderance
of empirical personality research in OB has adopted traits as the unit of analysis.
Personality traits are seen as internal psychological structures or properties that relate to regularities in
behavior. For example, people scoring high on a measure of the trait of conscientiousness are more
likely than those scoring low in that trait to attend to details when performing a task, to double-check
calculations before submitting financial projections to their manager, and to exert a high level of energy
to achieve an assigned objective.
A somewhat different conception of traits has been advanced by Hogan (1991) who has suggested that
personality traits can better be understood as dimensions of a person's social reputation. That is, if your
behavior leads others to see and describe you as conscientious, then you are high in the trait of
conscientiousness, whether or not this trait really exists internally.

Document
Personality traits are generally thought of as dimensions or continuous variables. People are seen as
being arrayed on a continuum with respect to the attribute in question, being low, medium, or high in
self-esteem, for instance. Thinking of personality traits as continuous variables corresponds to how
ABILITY attributes (e.g., intelligence, see also INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES) are generally
conceptualized. Continuous trait measures are also amenable to the correlation-based statistical
techniques that have been the primary tools of organizational researchers (see STATISTICAL
METHODS). There is some evidence, though, that a few personality traits may be more fruitfully
conceptualized as typologies or class variables. The extent to which people are or are not disposed to
adapt their behaviors and attitudes to environmental cues, entitled Self-Monitoring, is one such
typology. Programmatic research (Gangestad & Snyder, 1985) supports the notion that high- and low-
self-monitors are really two different types of people, and not merely opposite ends of a single
continuum. There is similar evidence that the trait of STRESS-proneness is a class variable yielding two
distinct types of people, TYPE A and Type B.
Rather than developing their own models of personality, OB researchers almost always draw on
personality constructs and measures from

Document
Page 421
existing personality models, although unfortunately without always examining in-depth the theoretical
and empirical base from which these constructs and measures are drawn. Some OB researchers, though,
have both drawn on and contributed to basic personality theory. For example, Brockner (1988) has
developed a model of self-esteem and behavioral plasticity, defined as the susceptibility of people low
in self-esteem to social influence. Brockner has systematically examined that influence on the
expectations, motivations, and attributions of those high and low in self-esteem before, during and after
task performance (see ATTRIBUTION). This work has contributed to both OB and basic self-esteem
theory.
OB researchers have similarly developed an appreciation of work in personality theory identifying

dispositional differences in emotionality and have applied these developments to better understand the
causes and consequences of JOB SATISFACTION. Staw and his colleagues (see Judge, 1992, for a
summary of this area) first demonstrated the surprisingly strong consistency of job attitudes over
relatively long periods of time (3–5 years), even as respondents change jobs and organizations. Later
research showed that general tendencies toward a positive or negative evaluation of life evidenced as
early as the teen years can predict specific job attitudes decades later. People with optimistic,
emotionally positive, dispositions are consistently more satisfied on the job than those with more
negative, anxious, pessimistic, and cynical dispositions. Subsequent research demonstrated the role of
these differences in affective disposition in the complex linkages between job satisfaction, other work
attitudes and stress. Recent evidence from studies of identical twins reared apart suggests that these
dispositional differences in positive and negative emotionality may actually be reflected in genetic
effects on job attitudes, though the linkage remains controversial (see ATTITUDES, DISPOSITIONAL
APPROACHES).
These two examples represent a trend toward the more serious consideration of basic personality theory
when its constructs are incorporated into OB models.
Role in OB Models
There are essentially four ways that personality has been treated in models of work behavior:
1. As Simple Predictors. In these models a single personality trait is hypothesized to have a direct effect
on some relevant criterion variable. For example, a measure of Extraversion is expected to predict sales
performance. These simplistic bivariate models are conceptually limited; most complex behaviors of
interest to organizations cannot be adequately explained by isolated personality traits. Indeed, these
models have also proved to be empirically limited; rarely does a single trait explain more than a small
proportion of variance in work-relevant criteria. Moreover, although much of the OB research fitting
this model is actually cross-sectional in design – that is, both the personality trait and the criterion are
measured at the same point in time – significant correlations between traits and criteria are too often
interpreted in terms of the personality variable having had a causal effect on the criterion in question. It
is a well-known principle that correlation is not necessarily proof of causality.

Document
2. Interacting with Other Factors. In this more sophisticated conceptualization, the effects of a
personality variable on a criterion are considered at least partially dependent on another factor, most
commonly a situational factor. For example, people high in Achievement Motivation will show more
effort than those low in Achievement Motivation only in competitive situations. In noncompetitive
situations, no significant difference in task effort is expected between those high and low in
Achievement Motivation. This kind of interaction model underlies work on PERSON–JOB FIT, the
notion that people will be most content and productive in work situations that provide REWARDS and
challenges suited to the individual's ability and personality dispositions. Correspondingly, some
interaction models posit that the effects of a situational factor on behavior depend on a personality
factor. For instance, high-pressure work environments are more likely to produce symptoms of stress in
those with Type A rather than Type B personalities. The interactive effect of two or more personality
constructs on behavior can and has been studied in the same way. As an example of this configural
approach, McClel-

Document
Page 422
land's Leadership Motive Pattern (see LEADERSHIP STYLE) predicts that the most effective leaders
will be those who are high in need for power, low in need for affiliation, and high in Activity Inhibition
(see POWER, NEED FOR; AFFILIATION, NEED FOR). In contrast with models focused on single
personality predictors, interactive models can be used to investigate more complex multivariate
relationships.
3. As Impacted by Situations. In both the simple and complex models described above, personality is
seen as a causal factor. It is possible to treat personality as a dependent variable, impacted by situational
factors. Longitudinal research has shown, for instance, that long-term assignment to simple,
REPETITIVE WORK results in a decrease in an individual's cognitive complexity and flexibility.
Personality has been conceptualized as the dependent variable in studies on the effects of rural versus
urban upbringing on adult work needs and of job mobility on Locus OF CONTROL. The Management
Progress Study (Howard & Bray, 1988) conducted over a 20-year period at AT&T similarly showed
how certain personality traits can change as a function of CAREER advancement (see CAREER
DEVELOPMENT). Obviously, research on how work experiences affect personality are of immense
theoretical and practical interest, especially since most people spend such a large portion of their
waking hours in the work place. However, it is important to remember that adult personality traits are
likely to change slowly and only with prolonged exposure to psychologically salient environmental
factors. Testing models of this type requires carefully planned longitudinal research.
4. In Dynamic Interplay with Situational Factors. Even more rare are those dynamic models which
describe some process in which personality, behavior and situations are seen as continuously
influencing each other. The following model serves as an illustration. More Dogmatic individuals, if
given a choice, will prefer to interact with people whose opinions are likely to be similar to their own.
Prolonged exposure to like-minded others will subsequently strengthen the confidence that Dogmatic
people have in the veracity of their own opinions, making their thinking become more rigid over time.
This type of polarization of traits over time, in fact, was noted for several of the personality factors
studied in the AT&T longitudinal study (Howard & Bray, 1988). New managers who were initially high
in achievement orientation were more likely to advance up the managerial hierarchy than those low in
achievement orientation. As a consequence of having advanced, achievement orientation grew stronger
over time. The opposite was true for those who failed to advance. These dynamic models suggest that
the most important role for personality may be through the influence of personality traits on the choices
people make about which situations to enter. Once in a particular situation, indeed situational forces
may have the dominant role in shaping how people behave, as Mischel (1968) and others have argued.
It should also be noted that in any given study based on dynamic models of the reciprocal influences of
personality and on personality, the personality construct of interest may be treated as either the
dependent or independent variable. Sophisticated multivariate techniques are now available for
untangling the effects of personality and situational factors on each other.

Document
Whatever the role assigned to personality in OB models, these models also vary in the extent to which
the links between the personality construct and the criterion of interest are specified. Brockner's (1988)
Behavioral Plasticity Model very clearly specifies how self-esteem is ultimately linked to plasticity.
Those low in self-esteem are more concerned with securing social approval. Consequently, they are
more attentive than those high in self-esteem to social cues relevant to approval, such as negative
FEEDBACK or INFLUENCE attempts. When these cues occur, people low in self-esteem are more
likely to notice and respond with CONFORMITY, a strategy more likely to bring the desired approval
from others.
In contrast, Fiedler's CONTINGENCY THEORY of leadership, for example, hypothesizes that leaders
with a relations-oriented personality are most effective in certain leadership situations and least
effective in other situations. However, the theory does not specify the mediating processes which link
the leader's personality to work group performance. Several reviews of the literature have shown that
carefully thinking through the potential linkages of personality and job performance (e.g., by first
conducting a JOB

Document
Page 423
ANALYSIS to identify tasks that might be impacted by a particular trait) enhances the chances of
finding significant validities for measures of personality in predicting performance criteria (see
VALIDITY).
Although there are various ways, then, that personality could potentially be incorporated within OB
models, it is clear that most existing models have either ignored personality altogether or have assigned
to it a conceptually limited role. Many of the models that do incorporate personality variables fail to
adequately specify how those variables are linked to criteria of interest. Few studies have employed
longitudinal designs; the emphasis has been on correlational designs or relatively short-term
experimentation (see RESEARCH DESIGN). Consequently, it has not been possible within OB to
adequately study the effects of work on personality or the dynamic interplay of personality and
situations. Hopefully, the future will see the emergence of more elaborate, conceptually rich treatments
of personality in OB theory to guide productive research and application.
Predictive Power
The availability of multiscaled inventories widely used in organizations to measure personality has been
partially responsible for atheoretical approaches to studying personality in OB. These inventories yield
scores on 10–30 different traits, allowing researchers to take a "shotgun" approach: since it is probable
that a few of these traits will significantly correlate with a criterion. Not surprisingly, this body of
research produced little by way of consistent and meaningful findings.
One of the major developments in personality psychology has been the consolidation of this assortment
of individual, particularistic traits into a more coherent taxonomy, the Big Five Model (Barrick &
Mount, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 1987). The Model proposes five broad dimensions of personality:
Extraversion (or Surgency), Stability (or Neuroticism), Agreeableness (or Likeability),
Conscientiousness (comprising achievement-orientation and Dependability), and Openness. Several
personality inventories have been developed around the structure of the Big Five Model and specifically
validated for use in employment settings (e.g., the NEO Personality Inventory, McCrae & Costa, 1987).
These inventories have demonstrated a high degree of stability over time, perhaps because they measure
fewer, more abstracted, personality dimensions than did the earlier inventories.

Document
Using the Big Five model to statistically summarize previous research, Barrick and Mount (1991) found
that Conscientiousness is moderately predictive of a range of performance criteria across a range of
occupational categories (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). Some of the other Big Five
dimensions were specifically related to particular criterion categories for particular occupational groups.
For example, Openness was moderately predictive of training proficiency across occupational groups.
The analysis by Barrick and Mount (1991) as well as other statistical reviews make it very clear that, at
best, within simple predictive models, individual Big Five dimensions will have only moderate power
in predicting job performance criteria. However, it is important to note that these broad personality
dimensions have little or no relationship to the mental ability dimensions so often used to predict
performance criteria. Consequently, measures of the Big Five may well significantly enhance the
predictive power of existing ability-focused models of individual performance.
Although the Big Five Model has brought some coherence to the study and measurement of traits, there
is still controversy about whether five broad dimensions is adequate to describe individual differences
in personality. Different scholars, and various inventories, break the Big Five down into a list of
anywhere from 6 to 11 somewhat more narrowly defined dimensions. For example, Hogan (1991)
distinguishes between two aspects of Extraversion, Sociability, and Ambition. Those proposing a longer
list of dimensions argue that the Big Five do not allow for fine-tuned analyses of personality profiles,
especially needed when diagnosing the suitability of job candidates. On the other hand, it should be
noted that one of the earliest, most sophisticated and enduring of trait taxonomies, that developed by
Hans Eysenck (see Furnham, 1992), consists of just three broad dimensions: Neuroticism, Extraversion,
and Psychoticism.

Document
Page 424
Attempts to enhance the predictive power of personality variables go beyond consideration of how
those constructs are categorized and address the organizational context in which personality-criteria
relationships are examined. One critical contextual factor is situational strength. Strong situations are
those which provide people with: salient and clear cues, a high degree of structure, uniform
expectancies about what will or will not happen, and incentives for the performance of a particular
response pattern. Strong situations, then, constrain the range of behaviors that people are likely to
exhibit and consequently minimize the impact of individual differences. Weak situations are
ambiguous, low in structure, and allow for a wide range of behaviors. It is in weak situations that
personality factors are most likely to make a difference.
One relatively unstructured context in which personality has been shown to have an impact is
NEGOTIATION. For example, people high in the trait of MACHIAVELLIANISM are more effective
in novel bargaining situations and, based on past success in such situations, also set higher negotiating
goals relative to those low on this trait (see GOAL-SETTING). In stronger, more structured situations
within organizations, personality is unlikely to predict criterion behaviors.
Also, it should be clear that a trait is unlikely to predict any criterion if the population under study
shows little range on the trait. For example, since it is unlikely that shy, retiring types would apply for a
high-pressure commission sales position, there is little reason to expect Surgency to predict sales
performance within this particular population of sales applicants. Relative homogeneity on
organizationally relevant traits may be the rule, rather than the exception, within work environments.
Organizations tend to create homogeneity with respect to particular personality traits by differentially
attracting people of a certain type, selecting those who most closely fit the desired type, and causing
relatively high rates of attrition among those not fitting in (see ORGANIZATIONAL
DEMOGRAPHY). Thus, the personality traits most likely to predict behavioral criteria are those
criterion-relevant traits on which people in the sample vary widely, a relatively uncommon set of
circumstances within a single organization (see WORK ADJUSTMENT).
Serious consideration of the relevance of personality to behavior in a particular context can also
enhance the predictive power of personality variables. As an illustration, Field Independent individuals
have consistently been found to be more instrumentally oriented and effective on group tasks than Field
Dependent people. However, research on these relationships has almost always employed structured
tasks in a mechanistic group environment (see MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC). In performing
unstructured tasks in an organic T-group type setting (see SENSITIVITY TRAINING), Field
Dependents are actually more task-oriented and effective than Field Independents. In such contexts, the
self-focused, autonomous, individualistic style of Field Independent types tends to place psychological
distance between themselves and other group members and to minimize their contributions to the more
emotion-centered group process (Gruenfeld & Lin, 1984). By analyzing critical contextual factors and
developing a clear, theory guided understanding of how linkages between personality and behavior are
affected by these contextual factors, researchers can arrive at creative interactive hypotheses and more
accurate predictions of behavior.

Document
Criteria
There are three critical facets of criteria that are likely to impact on predictor–criterion relationships.
These facets are: (a) criterion type; (b) criterion level; and (c) time of criterion measurement.
(a) Type. As noted above, individual personality traits typically have at best a moderate relationship
with mean, total, or typical job performance criteria. However, personality traits may relate to the
reliability or consistency of an individual's performance across tasks, situations, or time. Similarly,
personality traits are only weakly related to the effectiveness of an appointed group leader, but are
related to an individual's informal emergence as a group's leader. The key here, as noted above, is to
carefully analyze the criterion to identify personality-sensitive elements.
(b) Level. Virtually all personality research in OB has focused on the prediction of individual-

Document
Page 425
level criteria. In contrast, Staw and Sutton (1993) have proposed an approach they entitle "macro
organizational psychology," using individual-level personality traits to explain organizational-level
criteria. For example, there is some evidence that the personality of the organization's leader may
influence organizational structure. In one study, CEOs who were high in need for achievement were
found to create more centralized structures, establish more individual organizational units so that
concrete results could be more clearly monitored, and engage in more planning activity requiring
integration across units. As expected, these effects of CEO personality on organizational structure were
stronger in newer and smaller firms. Similarly, the personality of those organizational members with
high visibility to the organization's exchange partners may impact on organizational-level exchange
behaviors.
(c) Time. Another criterion-relevant issue concerns the period of time over which criterion measures are
aggregated. Low correlations typically found in personality research may be due to poor
RELIABILITY in behavioral criterion measures. When criterion measures are collected over several
occasions and aggregated into composite scores, their stability increases and their correlations with
personality predictors increase as well. Thus, personality is more likely to predict employee lateness
aggregated over a year's time than lateness during any given week of that year.
In addition, the effects of personality on criterion measures may vary over the course of time.
Specifically, basic ability factors, and most importantly general mental ability, seem to account for
much of the variance in performance early on, when the employee is learning the job. Personality
comes to play a more significant role once this SKILL acquisition phase is over. In a sample of airline
reservation agents, for instance, correlations of personality measures with performance over the first 3
months after the completion of training were not significant. Personality measures were significantly
correlated with reservationist performance when criterion measures were collected after 6 months and 8
months on the job.
In sum, developments within basic personality theory and research and within OB have created an
intellectual climate that is more conducive than in the recent past to a serious consideration of the role
of personality and organizational behavior.
See also Authoritarian personality; Learning, individual; Attitude theory; Role; Managerial style;
Leadership, charismatic
Bibliography
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Furnham, A. (1992). Personality at work. London: Routledge.

Document
Gangestad, S. & Snyder, M. (1985). To carve nature at its joints: On the existence of discrete classes in
personality. Psychological Review, 92, 317–349.
Gruenfeld, L. W. & Lin, T. R. (1984). Social behavior of field independents and dependents in an
organic group. Human Relations, 37, 721–741.
Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Howard, A. & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition. New York: Guilford.
Judge, T. A. (1992). The dispositional perspective in human resources research. In G. R. Ferris & K. M.
Rowland (Eds), Research in personnel and human resource management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Staw, B. M. & Sutton, R. (1993). Macro-organizational psychology. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social

psychology in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weiss, H. M. & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
SEYMOUR ADLER
Personality Development
see LIFE STAGES; CAREER STAGES; PERSONALITY

Document
Page 426
Personality Testing
Although this is the term in general use, it is not one liked by psychologists, on the grounds that
measures of PERSONALITY are not tests because they do not have answers that are right or wrong.
The concept of personality is complex, and measures of personality attributes tend to reflect particular
theoretical approaches to explaining personality. For example, projective tests of personality (see
PROJECTION) are based on Freudian and psychodynamic theories which emphasise unconscious
processes as determinants of behavior. These tests present individuals with a vague stimulus, such as an
ink-blot, and ask them to say what they see in it; on the assumption that they unconsciously "project"
aspects of their personality in making their interpretations. These tests are what many of the public have
in mind when they think of personality testing, but they are, in fact, seldom used as most lack any
VALIDITY (see PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING).
In organizational settings, the most commonly encountered form of personality ASSESSMENT is the
questionnaire method, yielding scores on various personality characteristics, usually based on the work
of trait theorists. They may, however, also focus on MOTIVATION (see MOTIVATION AND
PERFORMANCE; NEED THEORY), cognitive styles, interests or other aspects of personality.
Personality questionnaires may be administered on paper or, increasingly, by computer. Like other
forms of psychological testing, their use in employment selection has grown greatly in recent years. In
the United Kingdom, it tripled in the period of 1984–1989, and there are indications of a similar trend in
other parts of Europe (Shackleton & Newell, 1991), though personality measures are still not as widely
used as tests of cognitive (intellectual) ability (see INTELLIGENCE TESTING). Amongst the most
popular are the Cattell 16PF, the Myers Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI), the Occupational Personality
Inventory (OPQ), and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). All of these measure a range of
psychological characteristics, but there are many others with more limited aims, assessing just one or
two attributes.
There are two broad ways in which personality inventories can be used (Toplis, Dulewicz & Fletcher,
1991). The first is in a holistic fashion, trying to secure an overall picture of the individual by looking at
their pattern of scores and examining the interrelationships between the different traits. So, for example,
a manager given a personality questionnaire may have produced a profile indicating high levels of
emotionality and aggression. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the individual concerned
will frequently display these dispositions in an overt way. Other scores may suggest that the person is
actually very restrained, exercises firm self-control, and has a high level of objectivity and insight,
indicating that the subject is unlikely to be someone who is easily offended. Only by taking account of
the wider pattern of personality scores can the implications for behavior be inferred. This approach to
interpreting personality data is sometimes called the clinical method, since it reflects the way a
psychologist might use the information to try to gain a deeper understanding of the personality of a
particular individual. To be effective, it calls for considerable skill and experience, coupled with an
underlying knowledge of the psychology of personality. The alternative to this, which is generally used
in organizations, is to take a more statistical and mechanistic approach. Here, the objective is not to
focus on interpretation of individual personality scores, but to be guided by the established empirical

Document
relationships between the scores and various criteria of job success. The aim is to select people who
have the kind of personality questionnaire scores associated with effective performance – irrespective of
any possible interrelationships there might be between individual dimension scores.
The value of personality measures is a contentious subject, amongst academics and practitioners alike.
Many organizations are willing to use tests of congnitive ability but not personality. A key question is
about their VALIDITY – the relationship between personality scores and performance measures. The
most recent and thorough reviews of the evidence on this indicate that modern personality
questionnaires do predict job performance (Jackson & Rothstein, 1993; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein,
1991), with correlations averaging around 0.25–0.40 (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). However,
this does not mean that they automatically achieve success. Poorly constructed tests, or even good ones
applied

Document
Page 427
inappropriately, will not be effective. Also, personality questionnaires are not as predictive as cognitive
tests or ASSESSMENT CENTERS (they are often used in conjunction with both of these).
Another issue is honesty. Do candidates simply dissimulate and present an image of their personality
they think will get them the job (Anastasi, 1990)? The evidence on this is mixed. Certainly, people can
simulate certain personality characteristics if briefed to, but it is not always easy to know exactly what
the selecting organisation is looking for. Also, some inventories have "motivational distortion" (lie)
scales to detect deliberate IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT. Giving FEEDBACK, sharing the results
with the candidate, seems to reduce defensiveness and increase openness. The other point is that most
other SELECTION METHODS are just as open to dissimulation as are personality questionnaires.
Finally, what are the most important personality attributes to measure? In one sense, the answer to this
question depends on the analysis of the job in question (see JOB ANALYSIS), but it can also be
interpreted in terms of the most stable and well-established personality characteristics. Attention is
increasingly focused on what are known as the "big 5" – extraversion, neuroticism, openness,
conscientiousness, and agreeableness – which have repeatedly come through in analyses of personality
data and which show consistent correlations with other behavioral measures (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
One of the most commonly used measures of these is the NEO-PI-R inventory (see Costa & McCrae,
1985). However, it is unlikely that organizational selection needs will be met by these five traits alone;
usually, a more detailed analysis and assessment of the personal qualities – including APTITUDES and
ABILITIES, as well as a wider range of personality dimensions – for successful performance in the job
is required.
See also Individual differences; Recruitment; Human resource management
Bibliography
Anastasi, A. (1990). Psychological testing (6th edn). New York: Macmillan.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A
field study. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Manual for the NEO personality inventory. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Jackson, D. & Rothstein, M. (1993). Evaluating personality testing in personnel selection. The
Shackleton, V. J. & Newell, S. (1991). Management selection: A comparative survey of methods used
in top British and French companies. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 23–36.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance:
A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.

Document
Toplis, J., Dulewicz, V. & Fletcher, C. (1991). Psychological testing: A manager's guide, (2nd edn).
London: Institute of Personnel Management.
CLIVE FLETCHER
Personality Traits
see ASSESSMENT; PERSONALITY; PERSONALITY TESTING
Personnel Management
This is the traditional term applied to the specialist function responsible for the development and
administration of policies and practices concerned with the management of employees. Chief among its
areas of coverage are SELECTION METHODS, TRAINING, and REWARDS.
Personnel management grew as a specialist function in response to the need to solve problems such as
labor shortages and poor employee relations, to deal with the increasing amount of employment
legislation, and the growing complexity of organizations in general and the specific body of knowledge
about management of employees in particular. Personnel managers are the managers most likely to have
studied and remained interested in organizational behavior and can be important GATEKEEPERS for
its application in industry.
Although many people make a career as professional personnel specialists, every manager is, in some
respects, a personnel manager, responsible, for example, for motivating and communicating with their
own employees. This has led to analysis of the ambiguities in the personnel role over allocation of
responsibility between the specialist and line manager, the

Document
Page 428
blurring of boundaries, and the consequent difficulty of attributing credit or blame for outcomes.
Concern with the sometimes excessive emphasis on administration and problem solving by personnel
managers has helped to foster interest in HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, which places
greater emphasis on a more strategic, integrated management of people at work.
See also Human resource strategy; Professionals in organizations
Bibliography
Sisson, K. (Ed.), (1993). Personnel management in Britain (2nd edn). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
DAVID GUEST
Planning
An important idea central to the early study of management was the ''principles of management" –
planning, organizing, and control (e.g., Koontz & O'Donnell, 1968). Indeed, in his classical book on
management, Terry (1972) included four separate chapters on planning. According to Terry, planning is
a fundamental function of management. He defines planning as " . . . the visualization and formulation
of proposed activities believed necessary to achieve desired results" (Terry, 1972, p. 192).
In more recent years, planning has also become integrated with the notion of goals and objectives.
Donnelly, Gibson, and Ivancevich (1987) define planning as " . . . those managerial activities that
determine objectives for the future and the appropriate means for achieving those objectives" (p. 92).
The outcome of the planning process is a written document that articulates alternative courses of action.
According to Donnelly et al., (1987) planning consists of the following elements: (1) objectives; (2)
actions; (3) resources; and (4) implementation.
Planning has also become more closely associated with the notion of "strategic planning," or, just plain
"strategy." Strategic planning entails the analysis of the environment and a definition and formulation of
a mission and strategies for the organization (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT).
See also Management, classical theory; Managerial behavior; Decision making; Rationality;
Management by objectives
Bibliography
Donnelly, J. H. Jr., Gibson, J. L. & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Fundamentals of management. Plano, TX:
Business Publications.
Koontz, H. & O'Donnell, C. (1968). Principles of management, (4th edn). (New York). McGraw-Hill.
Terry, G. R. (1972). Principles of management (6th edn). Homewood, II: R. D. Irwin.

Document
HENRY P. SIMS JR.
Politics
Politics in organizations may be defined as POWER in action. Specifically, this refers to behaviors
designed to INFLUENCE others to reach an outcome one favors. Such behaviors usually reflect
competing individual (CAREER) and collective (SUBUNIT) interests that must somehow be managed
for an organization to be effective. Politics exist in varying degrees in all organizations, as the article
will indicate.
Old Paradigms:
Politics Is Bad
Virtually every major management scholar writing on politics, including Kanter, Kotter, and Pfeffer,
has emphasized that it was a neglected subject until the mid-1970s, and it still lags relative to other
specialties. They argue that politics was seen traditionally as representing the nonrational, underside of
organizational life, deflecting people away from task performance, emphasizing instead devious,
Machiavellian maneuverings for personal career or group (e.g., department, division) advantage.
Politics, as Bennis was quoted to have said, "is the organization's last dirty secret."
A dichotomy was often posed between "rational," "businesslike" organizations and "political" ones. In
the former, decisions regarding strategy, organization design, and personnel, for example, were
presumably made "on their merits." Managers were seen as using "objective" (financial, economic,
organizational, and behavioral) approaches, e.g., optimization models, SWOT analysis, motivational
theory. Political organizations, by contrast, were seen as making decisions by manipulation, logrolling,

Document
Page 429
and compromise, reflecting mainly turf and personal career interests.
New Paradigms:
Power and Politics Are Universal and Can Be Good
Since the early 1960s, several streams of writing have converged, arguing for the universality of politics
in organizations. They also argue that politics may well be functional for individual and
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, holding organizations together, aligning them with their
environments, and distinguishing successful from unsuccessful managers (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT).
One stream from Simon, Cyert, and March emphasizes the cognitive limits to rationality in DECISION
MAKING, given managers' limited information, noting that many decisions ultimately involve matters
of judgment and are made and implemented by shifting coalitions, depending on their importance to
different groups.
Sociologist James Thompson argued that many important organizational decisions – e.g., on strategy –
involve matters on which there is no consensus regarding goals and no clearly established or agreed on
programs or means. The result, again, is an intrusion of politics, with decisions emerging as resultants
from negotiations among various coalitions, rather than as rationally planned through the use of
sophisticated analytic techniques or models (see COALITION FORMATION; NEGOTIATION).
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) observed that all organizations differentiate into various subunits, as they
adapt to their environments, with these subunits establishing separate functions, interests, and
tendencies toward territoriality – e.g., across departments, divisions, and levels. A critical problem is
then one of INTEGRATION, usually through bargaining and, again, that involves politics.
Political scientists added their perspective in the 1960s and 1970s, arguing that organizations may be
seen as collections of interest groups or stakeholders. One of the main tasks of the manager, so they
argue, is to negotiate agreements with these STAKEHOLDERS in establishing organizational goals.
This theme is picked up in Pfeffer and Salancik's work (1978) on RESOURCE DEPENDENCY.
A particularly relevant contribution in this regard is David Hickson and Derek Pugh's strategic
contingencies theory of power. It posits that power gravitates to those individuals and subunits whose
expertise enables them to control for the organization's critical uncertainties. Effective organizations,
from this perspective, are those whose dominant coalition have the SKILLS most relevant to the
dominant issues those organizations are facing.
John Kotter argues that the manager must negotiate with more and more individuals and groups who
fall outside the chain of command, as organizations become less hierarchical and more horizontal, and
as more decisions are made in cross-functional teams. He writes of the "power gap" that managers
increasingly face, as they attempt to manage these stakeholders. Managing dependency, then, is a
central task of all managers, particularly those at higher levels.

Document
An underlying theme from all these writings is that organizations are not just tools for rational action
whose decisions may be systematically programmed and implemented. They have both increased in
COMPLEXITY – with many more stakeholders than before – and in environmental uncertainty – faced
with much more change that is harder to read and predict. For both reasons, managing effectively under
such circumstances is incredibly challenging. The recent emphasis on politics as a central feature of
organizational life takes up an important component of that challenge.
Key Substantive Issues in Politics
There are many ways of conceptualizing key issues in organizational politics. Pfeffer's is particularly
useful, dividing the field into four broad questions:
(1) assessing politics by developing a map indicating the key players, their goals and resources, and
how they play the game;
(2) developing a power base;
(3) using it through various tactics; and
(4) the role of politics in shaping organizational change.
This framework is particularly useful for practicing managers. Thus, for a manager to be effective in
getting decisions implemented, it is critical to gain the support of key players with

Document
Page 430
stakes in the decision. Gaining that support requires building a political base and then applying it in
various influence tactics, e.g., framing or defining the issue, timing, using data and analysis to
legitimate one's positions, exercising interpersonal influence, and using the appropriate SYMBOLISM
(the manager as "evangelist") necessary to get others to collaborate (see LEGITIMACY). This is not, of
course, a linear process, and effective managers are engaged constantly in various political resource
building activities and power tactics.
Ultimately, politics is only important as it shapes how things get done in organizations, particularly how
organizations adapt (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE). This last issue on the consequences of
politics for organizational performance is critical.
Still another way of conceptualizing the field is in terms of the politics of key relationships and career
stages for managers. This is Kotter's approach, as he characterizes the relational and life cycle contexts
of managers.
Some Illustrative Propositions
This field is a long way from being easily codified. It is possible, however, to indicate some
propositions. One set relates to the following conditions under which organizational decisions are more
likely to be political: in highly differentiated organizations, where subunits are very interdependent,
where there is considerable resource SCARCITY, on high stakes decisions whose outcomes are
important for several participants, and where AUTHORITY and power are widely dispersed. In
addition, the larger the organization, the more uncertain its environment, the more it is dependent on
outside groups, the more ambitious its goals, the more complex and sophisticated its TECHNOLOGY,
the more consolidated it is geographically, the less its measurement systems clearly measure individual
performance, and the less the reward system rewards individual performance, the more political the
organization is likely to be (see ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE).
Taking a more micro perspective, those managerial positions that have more responsibilities, more
direct and indirect reports, and more formal authority will be more political by virtue of having in each
instance more job related dependence. In general, those decisions where discretion is high, where there
is much AMBIGUITY, and where it is difficult to apply techno-economic criteria, are more likely to be
political. This would include strategic decisions at high levels, decisions around interdepartmental or
interdivisional coordination, those relating to budgets, resource allocation across subunits, and
purchasing, ORGANIZATION DESIGN, and many personnel decisions – e.g., promotions and
transfers.
Finally, from Pfeffer, power is likely to be most effectively exercised when it is done so in unobtrusive
ways, when it makes decisions and processes stemming from its exercise look rational, and when it
involves much coalition building. Given industrialized societies' cultural emphasis on RATIONALITY
and objectivity, any appearance of manipulation or MACHIAVELLIANISM may lead to a manager
being seen as unethical and losing coalition support.

Document
Examples of political behavior that reflect this rationalistic bias include the selective use of objective
criteria, the use of outside consultants, controlling the agenda (which issues get discussed and in what
order), selective hiring and promotions, and coopting potential opponents, often through committees.
Each of these tactics often involves managing appearances and may be represented as appealing to
objective criteria in making decisions. In actual fact, it is a way of breaking a deadlock on highly
complex decisions where there are no clear, objective solutions, where power is widely dispersed
among multiple players with different interests, where the stakes for the organization and these players
are high, and where the costs of a continuing stalemate are too great to allow it to continue. Such
political tactics thus become the means of generating a consensus enabling the organization to make and
implement decisions that are vital to its future and on which it had been unable to act in the past.
Future Directions
Even though the new emphasis on politics is a significant advance over traditional writings, one main
objective from past paradigms still prevails: Make organizations more effective. The only difference is
that politics is a new tool in such an effort.
Little attention is given in this new politics literature, however, to what is meant by

Document
Page 431
effectiveness or to the question of effectiveness for whom. In particular, there is little emphasis on how
politics may contribute to inequality in organizations, to "unfair treatment" of particular categories of
employees (women, blacks, other minorities), or to social harm that organizations may incur on the
communities and society in which they are located (see DISCRIMINATION). Following from that,
little attention has been given to how politics might be used within organizations to effect social change
in humanistic ways in relation to these issues.
European academics have been ahead of Americans in recognizing how formal organizations are often
the arenas in which class and ethnic struggles are enacted. Organizations may be seen from this
perspective as tools through which elites maintain their dominance by controlling their employees and
by preventing noncompliance with organization goals and policies (see CEOs). A distinction may be
made, between power to and power over. In the former, the emphasis is on how politics may be
harnessed for career mobility for managers and for organizational adaptation, narrowly defined by the
senior managers of organizations (see TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS). In the latter, it is on
domination and control.
An alternative research agenda that might well flow from these points would be to look more critically
at the ways senior managers use politics to control stakeholder demands. The larger context of such
research might be to devise ways of enabling dispossessed stakeholders to use political skills and
analysis to effect more organizational responsiveness to their concerns. This might be a way of
promoting social change by developing the countervailing power of an underclass who may well be
victimized by the top down decisions of senior managers. While such decisions may be defined in
existing paradigms as contributing to organizational effectiveness, that may be a narrow definition,
reflecting the interests of those senior managers who make the decisions. A more humanistic and social
change oriented politics, driven by such perspectives as CRITICAL THEORY in the organizations
field, might well move it in such intriguing new directions.
Another agenda for politics research would take as its starting point new trends and organizational
forms in the 1980s and 1990s. One is MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS. Though the conglomerate
craze of the 1970s and 1980s has passed, growth through mergers is still common throughout
industrialized nations. The political problems of postmerger integration – e.g., who will gain control,
over what functions and levels – are major issues for managers. A second is the politics of
DOWNSIZING, an experience many corporations are going through, though with few guidelines on
how to manage it (see ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING).
Still a third trend is for corporations to form STRATEGIC ALLIANCES and JOINT VENTURES to
stabilize their market position in globally competitive industries. The large US auto companies – GM
with Toyota or Ford with Nissan – are examples. Managing the power struggles involved in these
ventures is a critical issue.

Document
Finally, such new forms as the "horizontal corporation" and the "virtual corporation" generate their own
politics. With regard to the former, the interest in the politics of managing cross-functional teams was
mentioned earlier. We need to know much more about that process. The virtual corporation involves the
out-sourcing that many corporations have engaged in, to shed nonessential businesses in an era of down-
sizing. Working out the political dynamics of such relationships with subcontractors requires major
political skills.
In conclusion, between the humanistic politics of the dispossessed in organizations and the politics of
emerging organizational forms, a rich agenda of future research should generate new knowledge – both
for managers and for academics. This is a field with a promising future.
See also Collective action; Collective bargaining; Democracy; Consultancy intervention models;
Organizational culture
Bibliography
Hall.
Gandz, J. & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management
Journal, 23, 237–251.

Document
Page 432
Hickson, D. et al. (1971). A strategic contingencies' theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative

Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kotter, J. (1979). Power in management. New York: Amacom.
Kotter, J. (1985). Power and influence. New York: Free Press.
University Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
DAVID ROGERS
Pooled Interdependence
see TECHNOLOGY
Population Ecology
This theoretical perspective attempts to explain organizational diversity as resulting from natural
selection processes. The perspective was introduced in 1977 by Michael Hannan and John Freeman,
who proposed that the organizations we see around us can be understood as the survivors of past
processes of organizational founding and dissolution (Hannan & Freeman, 1989) (see FOUNDERS).
The theory and methods of organizational ecology attempt to explain the empirical record of these
processes, and have expanded in scope to include the study of organizational aging, growth, change,
and performance (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE).
Environmental Selection

Document
The primary unit of analysis is the "organizational form", the various "blueprints" that guide
organization building. A basic ecological principle is that selection processes favor one organizational
form over all others in a given niche, or segment of the organizational environment (see
ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). Based on this idea, studies typically model how
conditions of the organizational environment select among organizational forms. The estimates of these
models can then be used to determine an environment's "carrying capacity" for a particular
organizational form – the number of a particular form that can be supported in a given environment.
The initial Hannan and Freeman paper (1977) discussed the survival prospects of specialist and
generalist organizational forms. They predicted, and later found, that specialist organizations are
favored over generalists under most conditions. Only when resource availability is highly variable and
the time between variations is long did they predict an advantage for generalists.
Other work has extended the study of environmental selection processes to include political and social
forces (see POLITICS). Work in this vein finds that political upheaval tends to increase both failure and
founding rates – jeopardizing existing forms while freeing up resources for the founding of new
organizations. Carroll and Huo (1986) looked at the effects of both the task and institutional
environments on newspaper organizations, finding that institutional factors were most important for
predicting vital rates while aspects of the task environment most strongly predicted organizational
performance (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS).
Formal government policies and regulations have become standard variables explaining the vital rates
of organizations. In most cases these variables are found to have their expected effects, but under some
conditions public policies have had unintended consequences due to ecological dynamics. Other work
has looked at how organizational viability is affected by institutional affiliations.
Resource Partitioning
While most research has treated the structure of environmental niches as given, Carroll (1985) proposed
a model that accounts for the evolution of niche structure over time. In his resource partitioning model,
Carroll argued that the availability of niches for specialists changes when an organizational population
becomes more concentrated. As concentration increases, generalists become more suited to the "mass
market" but less tailored to particular specializations. Consequently, his model predicts that increasing
concentration actually increases the

Document
Page 433
niches available to specialists, making them more viable. Carroll found evidence in support of this
prediction in his study of newspaper publishing organizations, and recent work on other populations
also supports the model.
Ecological Interdependence
A growing body of research looks at selection forces endogenous to organizational populations – where
organizations affect one another's life chances.
Density Dependence
Interest in ecological interdependence has sky-rocketed since Hannan developed the so-called "density
dependence" model (Hannan & Carroll, 1992). The model is based on the idea that both LEGITIMACY
and competition increase with the density (number) of organizations in a population (see
COMPETITIVENESS). When an organizational population is new it lacks legitimacy. At this point
increases in numbers enhance legitimacy considerably but intensify competition only a little. At high
levels of density, however, additional increases in density add little to the legitimacy of the form but
increase competition significantly due to overcrowding. Together, these arguments predict that
increases in density at low levels increase founding rates and decrease failure rates, while increases in
density at high levels should drive founding rates down and failure rates up. A sizeable empirical record
mostly supports these predictions (Singh & Lumsden, 1990).
Other work has sought to specify the geographic levels of analysis where competition and legitimation
occur, under the idea that legitimation may develop more broadly across societies while competition is
more localized. Results do not break into this neat pattern, however, but suggest:
(1) that higher-level patterns may conceal important differences between rural and urban areas; and
(2) that ENTREPRENEURSHIP may be driven more by local factors while the ultimate fates of these
organizations may depend on broader regional competition.
Carroll and Hannan extended the density-dependence model to include "density delay" – a reduction in
an organization's viability experienced over its lifetime due to competition at the time it was founded.
Two ideas combine for density delay. First, organizations are thought to be made more frail when they
are founded under crowded, high-density conditions. Second, this initial frailty is argued to be
permanent since it effects the characteristics "imprinted" into an organization at its time of founding.
Other generalizations of the density model look at how competition depends on ORGANIZATIONAL
SIZE and experience.
Multiform Models

Document
Why do different forms of organizations sometimes coexist in the same domain? Ecologists typically
answer this question by proposing that the environment is segregated into distinct niches were the
conditions are right for different organizational forms (see STRATEGIC TYPES). The more that these
niches are segregated by institutional boundaries, technological barriers, and the like, the less "overlap"
will exist between them and so the less their organizational forms will compete (see
ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES). With competition attenuated, different organizational forms
can coexist in equilibrium.
Empirical tests have searched for such differentiation in several ways. The most widely used approach
is to apply the density-dependence model, specifying density effects between forms. McPherson (1983)
developed a different approach by conceiving of competition among particular organizations, and then
directly measuring the extent to which they depend on common resources.
Extending the idea of segregated niches, Hannan, Ranger-Moore, and Banaszak-Holl (1990) proposed
that competition is "size-localized", so that similar-sized organizations compete more strongly than
organizations of different sizes. The idea is that size typically covaries with many other aspects of an
organization's form. If organizations of similar forms tend to occupy the same niche, and so compete
more strongly, then we should see greater competition among organizations when they are more similar
in size. Baum and Mezias (1992) find support for this prediction and extend the model.
A new application of multiform competition models was developed by Carroll and Swami-

Document
Page 434
nathan (1992), who argue that the concept of organizational form is essentially the same as the idea of
strategic group developed in the strategy literature (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT). With this in
mind, multiform competition models have been used to test hypotheses about strategic behavior and its
effects on competition.
Population Dynamics
The evolution of organizational populations is also shaped by the effects of foundings and failures at
one point in time on ensuing foundings and failures, so-called population dynamics. Failures are
followed by foundings, since they free-up resources – although periods of extremely high failure rates
act to lower founding rates by dissuading potential entrepreneurs. By contrast, observed foundings in
one period encourage potential entrepreneurs and so increase the ensuing founding rate. However, this
effect is reversed at high levels since very large numbers of foundings deplete resources for further
organizing.
Organization-Level Processes
Ecological theory can be applied to the evolution of individual organizations (Aldrich, 1979), and
ecological processes are often modeled using data where individual organizations are the units of
analysis (see LEVELS OF ANALYSIS). Consequently, researchers have investigated regularities that
vary from organization to organization – especially age- and size-dependent failure, organizational
change, and organizational growth.
Age- and Size-Dependent Failure
Researchers have argued that organizations are more likely to fail when they are young, since the
internal roles and routines as well as the external position, legitimacy, and relations of a new
organization are not yet well developed. Researchers in organizational ecology have usually found
support for this so-called "liability of newness."
More recently, some have questioned the ubiquity of this effect. Halliday, Powell, and Granfors (1987)
studied US state bar associations. They described these organizations as "minimalist" in that they incur
low costs and are supported by other organizations, and did not find that they suffer a liability of
newness (although they do suffer from a liability of smallness). Others have found that the liability of
newness does not start immediately when an organization is born, but only after an initial period when a
new organization can survive on its initial resource endowment.
Barron, West, and Hannan (1994) argue that the finding of negative age-dependent failure rates reflects
only an uncontrolled "liability of smallness". In a study of credit unions, they find that controlling for
organizational size, organizations are more likely to fail as they get older – evidence of internal
problems that become worse over time (senescence) and obsolescence (see ORGANIZATIONAL
DECLINE AND DEATH).

Document
Organizational Change
A controversial tenant of the ecological perspective is that organizations are unlikely to change in
dramatic ways, and are likely to fail when they do try to change. In what is known as Structural Inertia
Theory, Hannan and Freeman laid out the logic behind this tennet. Their central argument is that
selection processes favor inert organizations. Organizations are rewarded for performing reliably, and
for being able to account rationally for their behavior. Such reliability and accountability are greater for
organizations with stable routines that resist change. Thus selection forces tend to favor the creation of
inert organizations.
This theory has testable implications for the study of change in "core" organizational characteristics.
With respect to the likelihood of change, it implies that organizations become more stable as they age
and grow. ROLES, political coalitions, routines, and ties to other social actors in the environment
(among other factors) tend to resist change. Furthermore, these forces become well established – and so
more resistant to change – as time passes and as organizations grow in size. This implies that
organizations become less likely to change as they age and grow. Should change occur, however, this
stabilizing process is restarted. The newly changed organization has not yet had time for new internal
processes, structures, and external ties to stabilize. Consequently, change rachets up the likelihood of
additional change – an effect that again falls away as time passes (see PUNCTUATED
EQUILIBRIUM).
When change does occur it is predicted to be hazardous, since organizational action often generates
unanticipated consequences. Further-

Document
Page 435
more, even when organizations do change as planned, this is not sufficient for success. The question is
whether an organization can change fast enough to match its environment – which typically also is
changing. For these reasons, dramatic organizational change is predicted to make organizations again as
likely to fail as a new organization – essentially "resetting" the liability of newness clock. As time
passes, however, organizations are predicted to recover from the shock of having changed, as internal
processes and routines develop and external legitimacy and ties are again secured. Thus the hazard
associated with change should wear off over time – if the organization does not die first.
Amburgey, Kelly, and Barnett (1993) found support for the predictions of structural inertia theory in a
thorough test on the Finnish newspaper industry, and Barnett (1994) found that technological change
increased failure rates among telephone companies. By contrast, Haveman (1992) found that change
enhanced viability among savings and loans during a period when not changing implied nearly certain
failure. Other studies have shown mixed effects, probably because they analyzed changes in peripheral
as well as core characteristics.
Organizational Growth
Organizations differ dramatically in size, and several studies attempt to explain these differences from
an ecological perspective. Researchers typically start with the null hypothesis that proportionate
organizational growth is random and independent of current size – so-called "Gibrat's law." Studies then
test whether ecological dynamics can account for deviations from this baseline model. In most cases,
researchers have applied theoretical propositions developed in studies of vital rates to explain
organizational growth. For instance, Barron, West, and Hannan (1994) find support for the density-
dependence model in their analysis of credit union growth.
See also Interorganizational relations; Institutional theory; Organizational design; Organization

theory
Bibliography
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Amburgey, T. L., Kelly, D. & Barnett, W. P. (1993). Resetting the clock: The dynamics of
organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 51–73.
Barnett, W. P. (1994). The liability of collective action: Growth and change among early American
telephone companies. In J. Baum & J. Singh (Eds), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Barron, D. N., West, E. & Hannan, M. T. (1994). A time to grow and a time to die: Growth and
mortality of credits 1914–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 381–421.

Document
Baum, J. A. C. & Mezias, S. J. (1992). Localized competition and organizational failure in the
Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 580–604.
Carroll, G. R. (1985). Concentration and specialization: Dynamics of niche width in populations of

organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1262–1283.
Carroll, G. R. & Huo, Y. P. (1986). Organizational task and institutional environments in ecological
perspective: findings from the local newspaper industry. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 838–873.
Carroll, G. R. & Swaminathan, A. (1992). The organizational ecology of strategic groups in the
American brewing industry from 1975–1990. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1, 65–97.
Halliday, T., Powell, M. J. & Granfors, M. W. (1987). Minimalist organizations: Vital events in state
bar associations: 1870–1930. American Sociological Review, 52, 456–471.
Hannan, M. T. & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations: density, competition,

and legitimation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hannan, M. T. & Freeman,J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of
Sociology, 83, 929–984.
Press.
Hannan, M. T., Ranger-Moore, J. & Banaszak-Holl, J. (1990). Competition and the evolution of
organizational size distributions. In J. V. Singh (Ed.), Organizational evolution: New directions (pp.
246–268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Haveman, H. A. (1992). Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance
under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,
48–75.

Document
Page 436
McPherson, J. M. (1983). An ecology of affiliation. American Sociological Review, 83, 340–363.
Singh, J. V. & Lumsden, C. J. (1990). Theory and research in organizational ecology. Annual Review of
Sociology, 16, 161–195. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
WILLIAM P. BARNETT
Positivism
see CRITICAL THEORY; POSTMODERNISM
Postmodernism
This is a cultural movement of the late twentieth century, which may be defined in opposition to
modernism. Modernism is characterized by a rationalistic, positivistic technological knowledge base
which, allied to a belief in metanarratives (large-scale theoretical interpretations of purportedly
universal truth and application, e.g., marxism, capitalism), promised linear progress through rational
planning and development, aimed at mass producing standardized goods and private and public services
for mass markets/citizens. Modernism is typified by authoritarianism and élitism, through a belief in
bureaucratic and hierarchical systems as instruments and guarantors of order, control, and efficiency
(see BUREAUCRACY; HIERARCHY; RATIONALITY; SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT) and in "art
for art's sake," divorced from popular culture, reserved for the appreciation of an artistic establishment.
The institutions of modernity are industrialism, capitalism, the nation state, and surveillance (see
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY). The individual finds a coherent, if often alienated, identity as a
productive worker (see ALIENATION).
Postmodernism, often seen as a reflection of "disorganized" (i.e., deregulated) capitalism and time–
space compression consequent on electronic media, rejects positivism's tenet of absolute truths in favor
of relativism. This is reflected in a rejection of metanarratives in favor of a plurality of "language
games," in which the medium is the message, and both may vary depending on situation and which
image of our fragmented selves we wish to project (see IDEOLOGY; SYMBOLISM). Postmodernists
suggest that our shifting identities are defined by our patterns of consumption, rather than by our roles
as productive workers, but, as postmodernists would assert, it is images we consume rather than purely
the use value of products and services. The images are created and transmitted by a new middle class of
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS in the media (e.g., in advertising, PR and TV). Postmodernists suggest that
our tastes, erasing distinctions between high and popular culture (e.g., Pavarotti mingling opera with the
football World Cup) are eclectic, playful, and transient, focusing on style rather than substance and on
immediate gratification rather than long-term aspiration. Further, that time-space compression disrupts
any sense of linear continuity or spatial boundaries (e.g., use of video, global village). Hence history
becomes a repository of images to be mined by politicians, leisure industry and advertisers, which are
more readily consumed when presented through shock tactics, such as pastiche or collage forms, or as
spectacle (e.g., Spielberg films, Disneyland). Truth and fiction, fact and artefact are confounded, as the

Document
"real" world looks a pale copy of a media created world (e.g., UK royal family as soap stars, virtual
reality). In this fragmented world postmodernists believe that relationships tend to be temporary and
that many boundaries are blurred.
Postmodernism provides several insights into OB/OT. It suggests the end of rationalistic planning,
based on extrapolation from the past, and points to emergent strategy formation, concerned with
scenario painting of future shocks. It recognizes an enacted rather than discovered environment (see
ENACTMENT). It suggests that the popularity of "EXCELLENCE" gurus lies not in the substance of
their messages so much as in the images they project of the US transformational leader as hero (see
LEADERSHIP, SEVEN S MODEL). It proposes that in managing corporate cultures (see
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE) such leaders engage in stylish media-based performances to sell a
vision – often about customer awareness, including the employee as customer – that legitimize decision
making based on hunch rather than rationality (see COMPETITIVENESS; DECISION MAKING;
JUST-IN-TIME; MISSION STATEMENTS). This is necessary because postmodernism's relativism
calls into question AUTHORITY based on bureaucratic hierarchies while recognizing that pure
rationality is impossible in a world characterized by UNCERTAINTY and accelerat-

Document
Page 437
ing rates of change (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE). Postmodernism would consider that new
loosely coupled organizational forms such as teams, partnerships, alliances, joint ventures, as well as
moves to functional flexibility and flexible specialization, reflect the blurring of boundaries. It regards
such phenomena as delayering, downsizing, CAREER BREAKS, and numerical flexibility as
expressions of the increasing temporariness of relationships (see CAREER; FLEXIBILITY;
ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING). In blurring boundaries and confounding "truth" and
fiction postmodernism is comfortable with the contradictions embedded in organizations (see
PARADOX). For example, that relationships with "outsiders," such as partners, may be more
permanent than those with "insiders," such as employees; that TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
may represent labor intensification rather than EMPOWERMENT (see EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT; CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT).
See also Critical theory; Social constuctionism; Theory
Bibliography
Clegg, S. (1990). Modern organizations, organization studies in the postmodern world. London: Sage.
Cooper, R. & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An

introduction. Organization Studies, 9, 91–112.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Lash, S. & Urry, J. (1987). The end of organised capitalism. Oxford, UK: Polity.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Parker, M. (1992). Postmodern organizations or postmodern organization theory? Organization Studies,

13, 1–17.
KAREN LEGGE
Power
This can be defined as the probability of carrying out one's own will despite resistance (Weber, 1947).
It is neither all-or-none, nor generalizable across situations. To have power is relative, not absolute,
since it relies on the specifics of the context and the relationships there.

Document
Power and INFLUENCE are not the same. Although the terms are sometimes used as if synonymous,
behaviors associated with them have been found to be distinctive from one another (e.g., Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 1990). Influence is usually more dependent upon persuasion than upon explicit or implicit
coercion. However, in given circumstances, power and influence may be intertwined. This is seen when
those in AUTHORITY employ persuasion rather than power, since restraint in its use saves unnecessary
costs in resistance and negative feelings.
Power need not be exercised to get results. It holds a potential for gaining intended effects. An evident
instance occurs when a person cannot be forced to do something, but is aware of the negative later
consequences of failing to comply. This is seen, for example, if a person is concerned about a needed
letter of recommendation (see OBEDIENCE). Furthermore, power implies various psychological states,
i.e., motivational, perceptual, as well as behavioral. McClelland (1975) has investigated the motive to
exert power over others (see POWER, NEED FOR), which he finds has many implications,
interpersonally and organizationally. For example, people with a strong power motive may present
themselves well when seeking a post but prove to be disastrous choices once selected. They may also
perceive situations in power terms, and act accordingly, as exemplified in MACHIAVELLIANISM.
Organizational power is basically structural insofar as it comes from imposed authority (see BASES OF
POWER). Pfeffer (1981) observes that most studies of power in organizations focus on hierarchical
power, i.e., the power of supervisors, or bosses over employees. There are, however, at least two other
forms that power may take, in addition to power over. These are power to and power from, represented
respectively by power sharing or empowerment (see EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT), and the ability to
fend off the unwanted power demands of others (Hollander & Offermann, 1990).
The "power and POLITICS" view of organizations considers such realities by looking at the ways
individuals and groups in organizations contend for resources and other desired ends. This affords a
more reality-based picture of the organizational world than is presented by seeing only formal
structures, or accepting images of

Document
Page 438
common purposes being sought with little CONFLICT.
Special attention is given to resources and REWARDS, including promotions, pay, and other career
goals, sought by individuals and units within the organization. Control of these is illustrative of position-
based legitimate power that comes with authority, but can be accorded by the acceptance of others (see
LEGITIMACY). Higher status as a leader usually equates with having more benefits to allocate at one's
discretion, which represents reward power in the short and long range.
Though power is imputed to an organizational role, actualizing it depends upon who occupies it and
how that person is perceived by others, and relates to them. In short, power becomes a reality when
others perceive it and respond accordingly. Some power still depends more on personal qualities, such
as relevant knowledge and expertise than on position, and is designated expert power.
Power and LEADERSHIP
Power is not the same as leadership, but is a feature of it. Analyses of leadership and power usually
begin with the basis on which one person, a leader, is able to exert power over others. In organizations
the most fundamental sources of power are structural and personal. These refer to position or place and
to individual qualities, respectively, including ''RESOURCE DEPENDENCY" (Pfeffer, 1981).
Excessive reliance on power can have negative effects, but the reverse is also true. A failure to employ
power can be limiting. As Gardner (1990) says, "Leaders who hold high rank in organized systems have
power stemming from their institutional position, and they do not hesitate to use that power to further
their purposes. They may be very persuasive, but they do not live by persuasion alone – rather by
persuasion interwoven with the exercise of power" (p. 56).
Holding and wielding power have unintended effects, as Kipnis (1976) details in The Powerholders. It
is not the fate of the powerholder that concerns Kipnis so much as it is the destructive effects of
excessive power on relationships. He presents a set of concepts about the "metamorphic effect of
power," going beyond Lord Acton's famous adage that "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts
absolutely," and analyzing its redounding effects. Four corrupting influences of power are seen to
operate:
(1) the desire to have power becomes an end in itself, with implications for the means–end relationship;
(2) access to power tempts the individual to use institutional resources for illegitimate self-benefit;
(3) false FEEDBACK is elicited from others, with an exalted sense of self-worth; and
(4) others' worth is devalued with a desire to avoid having close social contacts with them.
Uses and Abuses of Power

Document
The uses of power come from its perception as well as its reality. In the process of NEGOTIATION, for
example, the perception of power is important both for one's self and others. Bargainers who perceive
themselves as more powerful will delay concessions, while those who perceive themselves as less
powerful may be encouraged to try to build their power, or make unilateral concessions. The self-
definition of relative power therefore can be consequential to the outcome.
Similarly, in exercising "legitimate power" it is still necessary to have the "endorsement" of followers,
who must perceive its appropriateness (Hollander, 1992). Granting the effect of position, a leader's
acquiescence to group pressure may depend upon a sense of that affirmation. A leader experiencing low
endorsement from followers accordingly may feel it necessary to use coercive power on them so that it
becomes a response to weakness and a sense of threat.
Even in a clear social exchange, power does play a part, though Blau (1964) accentuated the distinction
between a noncoercive social exchange relationship versus one characterized by power. Coercive power
may operate in various subtle ways so that the idea of having noncoercive choice is illusory. In such
cases, dependence is made more prominent. This occurs for instance when discontent produces a desire
to resign from an organization, but one is reminded of what would be lost by such a course of action.

Document
Page 439
Harassment, sexual or otherwise, exemplifies the power-dependence connection which underlies

organizational relationships. Throughout one's CAREER, there is the continuing need to have the
approval of superiors, not least for later recommendations. It is therefore understandable that the less
powerful are seen to be more vulnerable and open to exploitation by the more powerful. SEXUAL
HARASSMENT is one variant of the coercive use of power as it applies to GENDER distinction.
Another instance of it is seen in negative power, which is saying no to a request, a proposal, program, or
whatever, to substantiate the greater power of the rejector, independently of the merits of the case at
hand. It may be designed to keep down younger, threatening members of the organization. This tactic
sometimes takes the form of asking questions to trivialize and dismiss the points being raised.
Lukes (1974) has considered overt and covert conflicts in power relations. In the overt case, both parties
are aware of a manifest conflict of interest. However, one party may see benefits in obscuring the
conflict, and keeping it covert, lest others look behind the scenes to see who in fact is "pulling the
strings."
Sharing Power
Whatever the leader's source of power, the quantitative variable of how much power is of fundamental
importance, as the social psychologist Mark Mulder noted in the 1950s. He said, for example, that
power differences can act as an impediment to authentic worker PARTICIPATION in organizations. A
good part of this effect may be due to variations in available information and expertise related to
STATUS in organizations. Accordingly, low status participants may feel even more FRUSTRATION
when exposed to a supposed participation situation where they are not equipped with these resources.
Hence his conclusion that no participation is preferable to sham participation.
There also may be informal as well as formal power in organizations. These can be highly dispersed,
with people of both lower and higher status having access to power. Informal power may be exercised
by people who are relatively low on the status ladder – such as secretaries, bookkeepers, and hospital
attendants – but who are structurally well placed. Such positions provide for opportunities to control
others, not because of a grant of authority or personal qualities, but by their location in the organization.
An emphasis on power over others has tended to obscure the important place of power to, as well as
power from (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). Among other things considered are the benefits of, and
sources of resistance to, delegation and empowerment of followers. On balance, by sharing power and
allowing followers to influence them, leaders foster leadership skills in others, as well as achieving
other gains through their greater participation and involvement.
Delegation comes out of a cognitive growth approach to job enrichment, and represents distibuting
power beyond traditional participation. Self-managed work teams exemplify groups to whom such
authority has been successfully delegated (Goodman, Devadas, & Hughson, 1988). Despite such
evidence, there are clear barriers to extending a process of power sharing in organizations.

Document
The largest barrier to employee empowerment is the commonplace belief that the amount of power is
fixed in an organization. This zero-sum conception supports the fear that power granted to others is lost
to one's self or unit. Banas (1988) reported the difficulties in introducing an employee involvement
program at the Ford Motor Company, until supervisor concerns were allayed about losing their
authority and jobs (see RESISTANCE TO CHANGE).
Finally, there is the reality of ACCOUNTABILITY. In many organizational settings, even with
assurances to the contrary, supervisors are ultimately held responsible for decisions made in their units.
This source of resistance to power sharing needs to be understood and addressed, given the sensitivities
and concerns that power generates about one's strengths and vulnerabilities in the organization.
See also Decision making; Conformity; Leadership; Leadership contingencies
Bibliography
Banas, P. A. (1988). Employee involvement: A sustained labor/management initiative at the Ford Motor
Company. In J. P. Campbell & R. J.

Document
Page 440
Campbell (Eds), Productivity in organizations (pp. 388–416). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press.
Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R. & Hughson, T. L. (1988). Groups and productivity: Analyzing the
effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds), Productivity in
organizations (pp. 295–327). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hinkin, T. R. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate perceptions of

supervisory influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human Relations, 43, 221–237.
Hollander, E. P. (1992). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of

leadership. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions. San Diego: Academic Press.
Hollander, E. P. & Offermann, L. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in

transition. American Psychologist, 45, 179–189.
Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
McClelland, D. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (Translated and edited by T.
Parsons & A. M. Henderson.) New York: Oxford University Press.
EDWIN P. HOLLANDER
Power, Need For

Document
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES in this motivational disposition to seek positions of INFLUENCE are

commonly measured by content coding responses to a projective instrument such as the Thematic
Apperception Test (see PERSONALITY TESTING; PROJECTION). Those high in npow have
stronger impulses toward aggressive acts, although the likelihood that they will actually act in an
aggressive manner is also a function of SOCIALIZATION and maturity. There is evidence that those
high in n pow tend to gravitate toward CAREERS in which they can influence but not necessarily
dominate others, such as teaching or the ministry. Those who develop high n pow were more likely to
have been raised in an environment that was permissive toward aggressive acts. Npow appears to have
strong physiological correlates. Compared to those low in npow, those high in npow have higher rates
of hypertension, cardiac disease, and stress-related symptoms (see STRESS; MENTAL HEALTH;
TYPE-A). High npow combined with low impulse control is also associated with relatively high rates
of alcoholism (see ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE). The relationship between npow and
LEADERSHIP is more complex than originally thought. Effective leaders appear to channel their
POWER needs into more socially beneficial, rather than personally beneficial or egotistical, activities.
The combination of high n pow combined with high activity inhibition and, in bureaucratic
organizations (see BUREAUCRACY) also low-to-moderate levels of need for affiliation produces a
PERSONALITY profile that McClelland has labeled the Leadership Motive Pattern. This profile has
been found to strongly predict managerial advancement over a 20-year period. In addition, n pow is a
significant determinant of the charisma attributed to political leaders (see TRANSACTIONAL/
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP; LEADERSHIP, CHARISMATIC).
See also Politics; Machiavellianism; Achievement, need for; Affiliation, need for
Bibliography
House, R. J. (1988). Power and personality in complex organizations. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 10, 305–357.
McClelland, D. C. & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The leadership motive pattern and long term success in
management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737–743.
McClelland D. C. & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review,
54, 100–110, 159–166.
Winter, D. G. (1972). The power motive. New York: Free Press.
SEYMOUR ADLER
Power Bases
POWER as conventionally used is the ability to bring about a desired effect despite opposing forces.
Power is relative, not absolute, since it depends upon the context and the relationships there. In
organizations, power

Document

Document
Page 441
derives from two fundamental sources. These are structural and personal, as a function of position or
place, and individual qualities. Illustrating the former, Pfeffer (1981) contends that power is "first and
foremost a structural phenomenon" based on holding a position of AUTHORITY, as in appointed
LEADERSHIP.
Counterposed to this structural view is attention to individual personal qualities, such as knowledge and
expertise, on which others rely. Kanter (1979) extends these to include the ability to get cooperation in
doing what is necessary, as in securing organizational resources. Such dependence creates power, with
dependence of the less powerful person on the more powerful one presenting an imbalance in their
relationship, which can make for discomfort for both. However, even lower-level organization members
have means by which to gain power through others' dependence on them. Included in these means are
their personal attributes of COMMITMENT, effort, interest, willingness to use power, SKILLS, and
attractiveness. Other factors making for dependence are such structural elements as one's
irreplaceability and position location, e.g., a secretary who serves as a "gatekeeper" outside the door to
a major executive (see RESOURCE DEPENDENCE).
The well-known formulation of "bases of power" proposed by French and Raven (1959) identifies
many of these, including expert power and legitimate power. The latter requires an acceptable mode of
legitimation of a person in an authority position, as in leadership (see LEGITIMACY). This can be
achieved through appointment by the upper levels in organizations, or by an electorate in the political
realm (see POLITICS). Reward and coercive power, as the terms indicate, are based upon gains or
losses for compliance or noncompliance with a person in authority. Referent power extends reward
power through a process of IDENTIFICATION with that person. Once such identification has occurred,
it is no longer necessary for the person in authority to monitor the less powerful person's behavior
continuously. Expert power, as already suggested, comes from specialized knowledge or distinctive
competence (see COMPETENCIES).
These bases of power are not likely to be so categorically discrete, but rather to overlap and be
intermingled, depending upon the particular people involved and their circumstances. Among the issues
this consideration raises are the effects of a sense of powerlessness (Kanter, 1979), and of the "power
distance" between leader and led regarding access to benefits and information.
See also Influence; Leadership contingencies; Obedience
Bibliography
French, J. R. P., Jr. & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
social power (pp. 118–149). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review July–August.

Document
EDWIN P. HOLLANDER
Power Distance
The power distance between two people in a social system is the degree of inequality of POWER
between the two. In general, the less powerful person will tend to reduce the power distance while the
more powerful person tries to increase it. These efforts equilibrate at some level, which depends on the
characteristics of the individuals and their social system.
Within organizations, power distance is commonly examined in the relationship between superior and
subordinate. In relationships with larger power distances, the subordinate is more likely to accept the
close supervision and autocratic behavior of a superior. In relationships with smaller power distances,
participative decision-making processes are more likely (see PARTICIPATION; DEMOCRACY;
EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT).
Power distance norms among people in an organization or society are related to ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN and ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR (see GROUP NORMS). In the latter case, employees
are more cooperative and perceive a strong work ethic in social systems which have smaller power
distance norms. In the context of organizational design, countries with lower power distance norms
have flatter

Document
Page 442
organizational structures, less centralization, and smaller wage differentials.
See also Reciprocity; Equity theory; Role distancing
Bibliography
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
DAVID L. DEEPHOUSE
Practical Intelligence
This construct pertains to differences among individuals in the ABILITY to manage mental capacities
in achieving desired ends in real-world environments. It is distinct from general intelligence in that it is
not highly related to a general g factor, academic ability, or working memory capacity. Practical
intelligence is better conceptualized as the mental functions used to adapt to and shape real-world
environments. It is developed through experience, but also depends on executive processes that plan
and monitor activities, and performance components through which one executes plans (Sternberg,
1985). Practical intelligence is important because effective performance on many organizational tasks
depends on practical rather than academic intelligence.
Three research traditions relate to practical intelligence. First, Sternberg's triarchic (1985) theory of
intelligence provides a political model of mental self-government based on executive processes,
performance components, and knowledge acquisition components. Second, research on expertise shows
that as SKILL develops, people do tasks in different ways. Experts rely more on organized knowledge,
recognizing rather than creating appropriate responses. Experts also have exceptional meta-monitoring
capacities. Third, research distinguishing among implicit and explicit processing shows these two
constructs are neurologically and behaviorally distinct. Implicit (or tacit) knowledge is often used
without conscious awareness in the performance of tasks, whereas explicit processes demand attention.
Practical intelligence may depend more on implicit processes, whereas academic intelligence
emphasizes explicit processing capacities.
See also Intelligence, testing; Performance, individual; Knowledge workers; Individual

differences; Training
Bibliography
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Human intelligence: The model is the message. Science, 230, 1111–1118.
ROBERT G. LORD
Prejudice

Document
This can be defined as a negative attitude toward a social group and members of that group, usually
based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization or stereotype (Van Oudenhoven & Willemsen, 1989)
(see STEREO-TYPING).
Modern social psychology theories for explaining prejudice include social identity theory, social
categorization theory, ATTRIBUTION THEORY, and the contact hypothesis. These theories assume
that prejudice underlies racism and DISCRIMINATION and focus on explaining the origins,
functioning, and reduction of intergroup conflict (Van Oudenhoven & Willemsen, 1989) (see
INTERGROUP RELATIONS).
The phenomenological approach of social identity and social categorization theory postulates that
individuals depend on social group (e.g., men, women, blacks, whites, etc.) membership for their
identity, and they tend to strive for a positively valued social identity (Tajfel, 1981). The evaluation of
one's own group is determined with reference to specific other groups through social comparisons in
terms of value laden-attributes and characteristics. Categorization and cognitive biases result in stereo-
types and the mere categorization of persons into ingroup and outgroup membership is sufficient to
affect interpersonal PERCEPTIONS of behavior. The solution to prejudice is a reduction in the salience
of group boundaries.
Social attribution theory refers to how members of different social groups explain the behavior,
outcomes of behavior, and the social conditions that characterize members of their own group (ingroup)
and other (the outgroup) social groups (Hewstone, 1989, p. 25) (see FUNDAMENTAL
ATTRIBUTION ERROR).
The contact hypothesis suggests that an increase in intergroup interaction will result in a reduction in
prejudice under certain condi-

Document
Page 443
tions. While its VALIDITY has been partially established in laboratory studies, there has been less
support in field studies (Van Oudenhoven & Willemsen, 1989).
Theoretical controversy centers around the dominance of cognitive approaches to the neglect of
structural and institutional influences (Van Oudenhoven & Willemsen, 1989). Pettigrew and Martin
(1987) offer an approach that combines cognitive and structural elements of prejudice. Research also
suggests that there are contradictions in the way individuals hold prejudiced attitudes and their
subsequent behavior. Some scholars have proposed constructs that capture new forms of racism and the
persistence of prejudice (see RACE). These constructs include symbolic racism, modern racism, and
aversive racism, and identify a new form of racial prejudice composed of a blend of antiblack affect and
the traditional moral values embodied in the Protestant ethic and egalitarian beliefs (Dovidio &
Gaertner, 1986).
Much of the research on racial prejudice in organization settings can be found under the literature on
discrimination. Additionally, there is a substantial body of literature that has demonstrated the
relationship between social categorization and prejudiced behavior. The simple creation of group
boundaries resulting in ingroup and outgroups can create prejudiced attitudes and behaviors. Individuals
who are members of the ingroup tend to see outgroup members as more similar to one another and may
think of them in stereotyped terms or evaluate them negatively.
See also Attitude theory; Cognitive processes; Group norms.
Bibliography
Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Hewstone, M. (1989). Intergroup attribution: Some implications for the study of ethnic prejudice. In J.
Van Oudenhoven & T. Willemsen (Eds), Ethnic minorities: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 25–
42). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Pettigrew, T. & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for Black American inclusion.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P. & Willemsen, T. M. (Eds), (1989). Ethnic minorities: Social psychological
perspectives. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
STELLA M. NKOMO
Prisoners' Dilemma

Document
This is a strategic interaction originally based on the story of two burglars who were caught, separated
by the police, and offered the opportunity to confess and receive a reduced sentence – if their partner
did not confess. This story provided the basic model for any number of situations where two (or more)
parties' mutually cooperative payoffs exceed their mutually noncooperative payoffs but where each is
tempted by larger, short-term individual outcomes if they do not cooperate. Argyris (1957) framed this
problem organizationally as the CONFLICT between the person working for self versus working for the
organization. If everyone works for the organization, it thrives. "Free riders," who work more for
themselves, take advantage of others' organizational contributions and do not incur the costs of
contributing (see SOCIAL LOAFING). With many free riders, organizations struggle and/or die. The
basic prisoners' dilemma is inherent in most group interactions (see GROUP DYNAMICS), and
explains the interest shown by researchers and theorists throughout the social sciences (anthropology,
economics, political science, psychology, sociology, etc). The prisoners' dilemma can act as a model for
competitive strategy (Porter, 1980), romance (Murnighan, 1991), energy conservation (Dawes, 1980),
international politics (Poundstone, 1992), or many other interactions.
Axelrod has shown that the tit-for-tat strategy (see RECIPROCITY) can be a particularly effective
response in repeated prisoners' dilemmas. By starting cooperatively and responding as one's counterpart
has, this strategy trains others to be cooperative, so that all can benefit, by being both retaliatory and
forgiving. Difficulties arise when others' choices are not easily identified as cooperative: Then more
relaxed strategies (e.g., a tit for two tats) become necessary, even though they increase risk.
Research has shown that other factors can also increase cooperative solutions, including diminishing the
temptation to defect (via payoff changes), information about the consequences

Document
Page 444
of noncooperation (which may deter all but the most competitive party), cooperative personal VALUES
(some people have strong drives toward cooperation), constant and effective COMMUNICATION (e.
g., stressing morality), and the establishment of a group identity (by promoting the ingroup and its
mutually cooperative benefits; Murnighan, 1991).
See also Coalition formation; Game theory; Group norms; Cooperation; Risk taking
Bibliography
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper.
Dawes, R. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.
Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The dynamics of bargaining games. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. Boston: Free Press.
Poundstone, W. (1992). Prisoner's dilemma. New York: Doubleday.
J. KEITH MURNIGHAN
Privatization
This is the sale of government-owned firms to private entities or cessation of provision of certain
services by government in favor of their provision by private entities. The government may retain some
control rights through general regulation of the firm's activities (e.g., in the privatization of utility
companies), or by concluding individual contracts with private suppliers (e.g., to fund provision of
certain social welfare services by private entities, often nonprofit organizations (see NOT-FOR-
PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS).
Privatization occurs for a number of reasons. Where nationalization was motivated by the desire to
expropriate owners of firms who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II, the motive for
government ownership has expired. In economies that underwent transformation from plan to market,
the need to control firms through direct ownership has evidently expired. In several industries critical to
national security or which supplied services and products under conditions of nearly natural monopoly,
technological changes in production and marketing, the increase in the size of markets due to improved
communication and the lowering of barriers to trade, and the improved ability of governments to
regulate private entities have combined to reduce the advantages of government ownership of firms (see
GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS). The extent to which these changes should call for privatization in
various industries and countries is difficult to evaluate, but the belief that this may be so has gained
widespread support among the governing parties in many countries.

Document
The importance of the "belief factor" is particularly salient in the case of the evaluation of the relative
performance of government-owned firms (GOFs) and conventional capitalist firms (CFs). Whereas
during the period around World War II the main debate was on the role of markets versus plan as key
determinants of economic performance, developments in economic and management theory called for
increased emphasis on the organization of firms and their ownership. In particular, the development in
the early 1970s of agency (or principal-agent) theory (see AGENCY THEORY), in combination with
public choice theory, lead to the consolidation of the argument that GOFs are less efficient than CFs.
The argument concerns the absence of an adequate principal in GOFs and proceeds as follows. Citizens
have no interest in becoming experts in the affairs of GOFs because their individual returns are likely to
be too low to merit the bother, and because their ability to influence matters is diluted by the multitude
of voters. This leaves sufficient scope for politicians to pursue their interests related to GOFs, resulting
in the exercise of insufficient control over management of these firms. As a result, management will be
more lax, pursuing in turn their own objectives, taking it more easily in managing firms and in
bargaining with their employees or getting them to work efficiently, thus generally running firms less in
the interests of their owners – the citizenry – than they should or would if they were privately owned.
The absence of tradable shares prevents the external control mechanism embedded in the stock
exchange – the takeover threat – from working and disciplining management and compensating for the
insufficient control by citizens and politicians. In addition, governments tend to employ GOFs for
purposes that sometimes can be accomplished better through other policy means, such as increasing
inefficiently the number of employees to achieve

Document
Page 445
higher national employment levels, or employing individuals who cannot find gainful employment in
the private sector.
There are those who doubt the general validity of this argument. They claim that GOFs will be less
efficient than closely-held CFs where the owners are actively involved in control, and than publicly-
traded CFs that operate in financially sophisticated environments where shares are traded on efficient
stock exchanges. However, the stock markets of even most developed economies do not operate as
effective arenas for control over the management of firms. Further, it is suggested that shareholders
have their own incentives to freeride and therefore may not exercise adequate control over management.
Hence, all things considered, CFs may perform better or worse as compared with GOFs, especially if
those selected to positions of management are well-trained management and are committed to the
effective running of the GOFs. Such commitment may stem from IDEOLOGY, ordinary decency, or
from perceived prospects of promotion in government and the private sector, and may be enhanced if
the politicians behind them are substantially honest, are accountable to the citizenry, and exercise
control over management.
The two opposing arguments have merit, and their relative weight cannot be determined in general. The
evidence on comparative performance by GOFs is mixed: in samples that contain firms in multiple
industries and several countries the efficiency of GOFs is often (but not always) lower than that of CFs,
whereas in samples that include firms that produce a similar product (railway transport, cement, electric
power) the differences mostly disappear and GOFs are found at times to be more efficient than their
private counterparts.
In GOFs that produce marketable outputs, many organizational practices are similar to those employed
in CFs, with the important exception of various incentive schemes connected to the distribution of
shares to management or employees (see SHARE/EQUITY OWNERSHIP). In GOFs that earn a large
share of their revenue from subsidies or government transfers or have significant nonfinancial goals, the
feasibility of financial incentives is further weakened, and even tying part of remuneration to output
may not be feasible. This places added importance on the selection of upper management. In addition,
as compared with CFs, there is a tendency in GOFs to rely on administrative–bureaucratic means that
substitute for profit-related measures. This manifests itself in greater incidence of rules, promotion
ladders, monitoring, and HIERARCHY in general (see BUREAUCRACY).
See also Governance and ownership; Government agencies; Organizational change
Bibliography
Aharoni, Y. (1981). State and enterprise: An agent without principal. In L. P. Jones (Ed.), Public
enterprise in less developed countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ben-Ner A., Montias J. M. & Neuberger, E. (1993). Basic issues in organizations: A comparative
perspective. Journal of Comparative Economics, 17, no. 2, 207–242.

Document
Boardman, A. & Vining, A. (1989). Ownership and performance in competitive environments: A

comparison of the performance of private, mixed and state-owned enterprises. Journal of Law and
Economics, 32, 1–33.
Cakmak, E. H. & Zaim, O. (1992). Privatization and comparative efficiency of public and private
enterprise in Turkey: The cement industry. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 63, no. 2,
271–284.
Rathgeb Smith, S. & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of
contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vickers, J. & Yarrow, G. (1991). Economic perspectives on privatization. Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 5, no. 2, 111–132.
AVNER BEN-NER
Problem Solving
see ACTION THEORY; DECISION MAKING
Procedural Justice
see JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL
Process Consultation
There is a subtle but important difference between process and content which is fundamental to process
consultation (see PROCESS THEORY; CONTENT THEORY). Process refers to how something is
done by an individual, a group, or an organization. For

Document
Page 446
example, how goals are set or how conflicts are managed – who is involved, when, how, their actions,
beliefs, and attitudes, their power, their influence, whom they represent, and so on. Content, on the
other hand, is subject matter, the specifics, for example, of goals such as a market share target, or
conflicts such as which of three marketing plans should be followed to reach a target. Process
consultation posits that how something is done, process, determines the content, quality, and
implementation of decisions. For example, a work group with a poor CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
process will have difficulty confronting and solving its serious, work problems.
Process consultation consists of efforts to increase an organization's effectiveness (see

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS), with the aid of a process analysis consultant, by identifying
faulty processes and then analyzing and improving them. Processes which may be diagnosed as faulty
and which become targets of learning and change include COMMUNICATION – who communicates
with whom, about what, when, arousing what EMOTIONS, who is ignored, who is interrupted – and
other processes such as GOAL SETTING, task ROLES, maintenance roles (see TASK AND
MAINTENANCE), problem solving, DECISION MAKING, LEADERSHIP styles (see
MANAGERIAL STYLE), trust, conflict management, norms (see GROUP NORMS), interaction
patterns, GROUP COHESIVENESS, ROLE CONFLICT, intergroup conflict (see INTERGROUP
RELATIONS), SOCIALIZATION, CULTURE, POWER, INFLUENCE, and REWARD systems.
Process consultation is used most often with individuals and groups although it applies to larger
organizational units as well.
A primary goal of process consultation is to increase the client's process awareness and skills so that
with coworkers s/he can analyze and improve processes and become less dependent on the consultant.
The transfer of process analysis SKILLS to a client is best accomplished by using the joint-diagnosis
consulting model. The client learns to see and solve process problems him/herself by participating in
diagnosing process difficulties and generating a solution. In the joint diagnosis model, the client and
consultant jointly gather data, diagnose the situation, define change goals, and design and implement
change. This contrasts with the expert model of consulting, such as the conventional purchased services
or doctor-patient relationship, in which the hired expert unilaterally gathers data, diagnoses the
situation, and generates a solution and the client is expected to accept and use the hired expert's
conclusions.
The knowledge and skills used in process consultation primarily come from the areas of GROUP
DYNAMICS, SENSITIVITY TRAINING, leadership, ACTION RESEARCH, and ORGANIZATION
DEVELOPMENT. Methods to describe and analyze a current process include observation of behavior
in meetings, interviews, and other forms of data gathering, FEEDBACK, joint diagnosis, FORCE
FIELD ANALYSIS, and sociotechnical analysis (see SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY). Methods to
facilitate change include modeling, in which the consultant or group leader exhibits the desired new
behavior, simulations, exercises, COUNSELING, coaching, TEAM BUILDING, confrontation
meetings, TRAINING, and OPEN SYSTEMS analysis.

Document
Process consulting depends on a voluntary relationship between client and consultant. A manager who
feels forced into process analysis becomes defensive and strongly resists learning because s/he is not
prepared to examine his/her leadership or relationships with coworkers, subordinates, or superiors. The
consulting relationship itself is a critical, changing process which client and consultant must continually
review as goals and methods change and as the client's process skills increase. Client and consultant
must develop a mutually trusting relationship which will facilitate the client's process learning and
increased self-sufficiency.
See also Change methods; Consultancy; Consultancy intervention methods; Interpersonal skills
Bibliography
Schein, E. H. (1987). Process consultation: Lessons for managers and consultants. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation: Its role in organization development, (2nd edn). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
DALE E. ZAND

Document
Page 447
Process Technology
This refers to the TECHNOLOGY used to transform material inputs into outputs in an organization. It
is usually contrasted with product technology, which refers to the knowhow embedded in a product or
service, and administrative technology, which refers to the knowledge embedded in a firm's
administrative routines. Often, these are intertwined; for example, an iron steamship represents a
different product technology than does a wooden ship, and is made with different process technology (e.
g., welding instead of carpentry).
Process technology has assumed importance in organizational research principally because a firm's
process technology is thought to influence its structure (see CONTINGENCY THEORY). Woodward
(1970), for example, showed that critical factors such as number of levels in a HIERARCHY, SPAN
OF CONTROL, and the ratio of administrative to other employees systematically differed depending on
whether a firm employed BATCH PRODUCTION, MASS PRODUCTION, or continuous production.
Although evidence is mixed, achieving fit between process technology and ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN structure may be one key to high performance (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS).
Many scholars suggest that ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY may revolutionize

industry by permitting batch-like production in lots of one with the same economies found in mass
production. This might allow most products to be customized for each different user, perhaps
revolutionizing organizational structure and strategy.
See also Automation; Organization and environment; Operations management; Business process
re-engineering
Bibliography
Piore, M. J. & Sabel C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York:
Basic Books.
Woodward, J. (1970). Industrial organization: Theory and practice, (2nd edn). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
PHILIP ANDERSON
Process Theory
The term "process" is ubiquitous throughout social science; it has long been clear that processes have
great potential as basic elements of the conceptualization and understanding of social life, at least equal
to "events."

Document
Mohr (1982) drew a distinction between "process theory" and "variance theory." A variance theory,
typified by a regression equation, explains variance in one dimension with variance in others, so that
scores on some outcome variable Y are a function of scores on a set of explanatory variables {X} (see
STATISTICAL METHODS). For example, the degree of innovativeness is hypothesized to be
explainable by variables indicating the degree of MOTIVATION to innovate and the resources
available for INNOVATION.
The target of explanation in process theory is not a score on a variable but rather an encounter between
two or more elements. It therefore demands a different kind of theorizing, one that is not as well
understood. Perhaps the best-known process theory is Darwin's theory of the origin of species by
natural selection. The THEORY consists primarily in illuminating that what is required to produce
viable individuals and species is a probabilistic fit between characteristics of the individual and of the
environment. The GARBAGE CAN MODEL of organizational choice (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1963)
is in the same genre, since it portrays the making of a decision as the probabilistic encounter of choice
opportunities, problems, participants, and energy in certain balance (see DECISION MAKING). Any
theory of success or failure would have to be similar, as would theories of a large number of other
events of great interest.
Mohr (1982) also pointed out the category of "descriptive quasi-theory." The description involved is
one of a process, taking place in identifiable stages over time, such as a process of organizational
innovation or decision making. The idea of "theory" comes in with the claim that the particular
description captures the essence of how the phenomenon generally proceeds or unfolds. Here, the target
of explanation is not an event, as in the case of scores on variables or encounters between two or more
elements, but a process itself.

Document
Page 448
What is critical is that variance theory and the two sorts of theory involving processes are quite distinct;
they are not easily mixed together without muddle and confusion, although the tendency to combine
them is common.
See also Levels of analysis; Research design; Systems theory
Bibliography
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, (no. 1), 1–25.
Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior: The limits and possibilities of theory and
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LAWRENCE B. MOHR
Productivity
This term was originally used in the early 1900s by labor economists. By the 1970s, the term had come
into much broader use and the issue of productivity became much more important, especially in the
United States. American superiority in productivity was being threatened by other countries and this
was seen as a major contributor to serious long-range economic problems. Continued productivity
improvement/growth was seen as the solution to national economies and as having a positive impact
either directly or indirectly on everyone's quality of life (see QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE).
Because of this, productivity growth has become an issue of great social and political importance in all
industrialized nations.
Defining ''productivity" is a difficult task. Since the 1970s, behavioral scientists of many types have
done a great deal of work in this area. One result has been a proliferation of definitions of
"productivity." The term has been used to refer to individuals, groups, organizational units, entire
organizations, industries, and nations. It has been used as a synonym for output, efficiency,
MOTIVATION, individual performance (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL),
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, production, profitability, cost/effectiveness,
COMPETITIVENESS, and work quality. Productivity measurement has been used interchangeably
with PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL, management information systems, production capability
assessment, quality control measurement, and the engineering throughput of a system.
However, the vast majority of definitions of "productivity" fall into three categories. The first is that
productivity is a measure of outputs divided by inputs. Thus, the number of outputs generated such as
refrigerators, potatoes, or university graduates are divided by the inputs used. Such inputs usually
include raw materials, labor, energy, etc. Typically, both outputs and inputs are measured in terms of
cost so that the two can be divided to form a ratio that is interpretable across different settings. This
definition is used by most economists and by some behavioral scientists.

Document
When all the input and output factors are included in the ratio, the resulting measure is termed "total
factor productivity." When selected measures are used, the result is termed "partial factor productivity."
The most common type of partial factor productivity measure is labor productivity where monetary
value of outputs is divided by cost of labor used to produce the outputs.
The second definition is that productivity is a combination of efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency in
the productivity literature is the output/input measure used in the first definition. Effectiveness is the
ratio of outputs relative to some standard or objective. For example, the number of trucks produced
relative to a specific, quantitative goal is an effectiveness measure. Those taking the approach that
productivity should include both efficiency and effectiveness argue that both are necessary for a
complete definition of productivity.
The third type of definition is the most broad and essentially includes any characteristic that makes the
organization function better. This approach includes efficiency and effectiveness, but also includes such
factors as quality of output, work disruptions, ABSENTEEISM, TURNOVER, customer satisfaction,
etc. It is important that anyone working in the area of productivity be aware that these different
definitions exist. Some researchers and practitioners are very rigid in their choice of one of these
definitions and do not accept that the other definitions are "productivity." Thus, for effective
communication, it would be well to make sure that the same definition of "productivity" is being used
by all.

Document
Page 449
There have been two major approaches to improving productivity. The first is through a change in
TECHNOLOGY. Some economists argue that most or all major improvements in productivity can be
traced to technology improvements. Behavioral scientists argue that the investment in new technology
can only generate a reasonable return on investment if organizational personnel use it effectively.
In order to improve productivity, it is important to measure it, and measure it well. Productivity
measurement is a very complex issue. The first step is to decide on the purpose of the measurement
since that decision will affect how the measurement is done. One purpose in measuring productivity is
to compare large aggregations of organizations to each other. Comparing national economies such as
the United Kingdom with Japan or comparing the electronics industry to the automobile industry are
examples of this purpose. Another purpose is to evaluate the overall productivity of individual
organizations for comparison with each other or with some standard. A third purpose is as a
management information system or CONTROL system. Here the focus is on a single organization and
the measurement deals with the functioning of the human/technological system (see
SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY; SYSTEMS THEORY). Finally, productivity could be measured for
use as a motivational tool. This is the typical purpose of the organizational behavior specialist. The
objective is to improve productivity, and the assumption is that if individuals change their behavior
appropriately, productivity will increase. Personnel are typically given FEEDBACK on the productivity
measures with the assumption that such feedback will help produce the behaviors that will increase
productivity. Research has indicated that such feedback can be very effective in improving productivity.
There are a large number of specific issues that must be considered in measuring productivity by the
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR specialist. These include insuring that all important aspects of the
work are measured, having reliable and valid measures, using measures that the personnel have control
over, and developing a measurement system that will be accepted by both managers and the people
doing the actual work. These are more fully discussed in Campbell and Campbell (1988), Muckler
(1982), Pritchard (1990), (1992), and Sink (1985).
A number of specific techniques for measuring productivity have been proposed. Those which focus on
using productivity measures to help personnel improve their productivity are summarized by Pritchard
(1992).
See also Advanced manufacturing technology; Information technology; Total quality

management; Automation
Bibliography
Brief, A. P. (Ed.), (1984). Productivity research in the behavioral and social sciences. New York:
Praeger.
Campbell, J. P. & Campbell, R. J. (Eds), (1988). Productivity in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Document
Kendrick, J. W. (1984). Improving company productivity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Muckler, F. A. (1982). Evaluating productivity. In M. D. Dunnette & E. A. Fleishman (Eds), Human

performance and productivity, (Vol. 1), Human capability assessment (pp. 13–47). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Pritchard, R. D. (1990). Measuring and improving organizational productivity: A practical guide (p.
248). New York: Praeger.
Pritchard, R. D. (1992). Organizational productivity. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds),

Handbook of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, (2nd edn, vol. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Sink, D. S. (1985). Productivity management: Planning, measurement and evaluation, control and
improvement. New York: Wiley.
ROBERT D. PRITCHARD
Professional Bureaucracy
see BUREAUCRACY; ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN; PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Professionalism
In its everyday sense professionalism is used broadly to convey notions of technical competence, a
concern to meet high standards of quality in the product or service and high ethical standards of
behavior (see COMPETENCIES). It also has a more specialized meaning to refer to the behavior of
occupational groups with the STATUS or aspirations of the

Document
Page 450
established professions. Current dilemmas which raise doubts about how meaningful the concept of
professionalism is include:
(i) a general decline in the social status of professions and semiprofessions and a reduction in the degree
of deference accorded to them by clients, probably because of the wider access to knowledge through
education systems and increased social mobility;
(ii) publicized failures to maintain appropriate ethical and technical standards (see BUSINESS
ETHICS);
(iii) professionalism and commercial or cost efficiency pressures, particularly a problem for public
(nonprofit) sector professionals resulting in efforts to control their decision-making autonomy through
the introduction of tighter budgetary systems and resource allocation; and
(iv) the persistence of competition for professional jurisdictions among disparate occupational groups.
Notwithstanding these issues, professional projects continue because of the material and prestige
benefits professional status bestows (Larson, 1977). Professionalism is arguably evolving from a term
which connotes attention to client interests above material gain to one which refers to high technical
expertise in solving certain types of client problem.
See also Not-for-profit organizations; Occupations; Knowledge workers; Labor markets;

Professionals in organizations
Bibliography
Larson M. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of

California Press.
TIM MORRIS
Professionals in Organizations
A common trend in the employment patterns of professionals has been the move away from self-
employment to the STATUS of salaried employees in organizations. This has raised questions about the
influence of bureaucratic controls on professional AUTHORITY, and the effects of organizational goals
on professionals' CAREER paths, work goals, and sources of satisfaction and COMMITMENT.
Latterly, it has also led to theorizing about the effects of increasing numbers of professional employees
on the structures and goals of employing organizations.

Document
From the professional's point of view, subordination to the organization's goals and CONTROL by a
management HIERARCHY raise questions about goal congruency and career paths. Some
professionals (e.g., engineers; city planners) have to confront the problem that their expertise on its own
offers limited scope for career progression and that the adoption of managerial responsibilities is
necessary to acquire higher-organizational status and REWARDS. This, in turn, leads to the risk that
expertise becomes outdated because it is not applied to contemporary problems.
Certain professions have found the integration with managerial functions much less problematic. The
classic contrast between "cosmopolitan" professionals and "local" non-professionals (Gouldner, 1957)
has to be tempered to the extent that some professional groups have developed within large bureaucratic
organizations (see BUREAUCRACY), for instance, management accountants, personnel, and
purchasing specialists. These occupations are likely to see less distinction between organizational and
professional interests and would expect to practice their profession within an organizational context.
Indeed, their professional status complements their managerial authority: the dominance of accounting
in many areas of business in the United Kingdom and North America is a case in point (Armstrong,
1993).
Nonetheless, the notion of a distinction between professional and organizational interests has prompted
a stream of research on professionals' work satisfaction (see JOB SATISFACTION) and commitment.
Although professionals' alienation from their organizations and their work is cited as a frequent
managerial problem, other work has concluded that professionals are able to reconcile organizational
and professional interests (Morrow & Wirth, 1989).
Research has also been concerned with the ways in which features of bureaucratic organization impinge
upon professional authority. At issue here is the compatibility of a bureaucratic system where authority
is derived from hierarchical position and control is exerted through

Document
Page 451
procedures and rules, with the self-regulating aspects of the professional's work, the importance of
authority based on expertise and the emphasis of collegial decision making (see SELF-
REGULATION). While the assumption of Parsons and others was that the bureaucratic model was
incompatible with professional norms, empirical research suggests that organizations have rather
successfully combined the two systems in the hybrid organization form, the professional bureaucracy,
in which control is relatively decentralized and is balanced between powerful groups of professionals
(Montagna, 1968; Smigel, 1964) (see DECENTRALIZATION). Empirical work has also shown how
different forms of professional bureaucracy may evolve within a single organizational field and that
these differences in structure may have important influences upon the process of STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT (Hardy, 1990).
Nonetheless, CONFLICT between professionals and managers does seem to be an endemic feature of
the professional bureaucracy, particularly where managers have the POWER to impose bureaucratic
goals on professionals, supervise their activities, and evaluate their performance. A common form of
CONFLICT RESOLUTION is to promote professionals to senior managerial roles but as this does not
dissolve the structural differences underlying the professional/managerial conflict, success depends
upon considerable personal competence on the part of the professional-cum-manager.
An associated area of debate about the influence of bureaucracy on professionals concerns the issue of
deprofessionalization. The line of argument has been that professions are deskilled in forfeiting the
rights to determine the objectives, methods, and evaluative criteria applying to their work, but on
empirical grounds a generalized deprofessionalization thesis is unsustainable: historical analysis would
show much greater variation in the experience of specific professions and professional subgroups (see
JOB DESKILLING).
Much of the foregoing discussion has reflected the concern with the influence of bureaucracy on
professionals. More recently, this relationship has been examined from the other direction, asking how
professionals may influence organizations. In particular, the work of the neoinstitutional school of
sociology has argued that professionals are an important source of isomorphism or organizational
homogeneity (see INSTITUTIONAL THEORY). Isomorphism refers to the adoption of similar
structures and systems by organizations operating in a particular field. Neoinstitutionalists argue that
isomorphism occurs because of custom and taken-for-granted assumptions about appropriate structures
or through imposition of externally derived standards and values rather than competitive pressures. The
adoption of similar "professional" personnel systems of RECRUITMENT or reward by different
organizations would be examples of such isomorphic influences (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). While
there is some empirical work examining how isomorphism occurs (see, e.g., the work of Tolbert (1983)
on the recruitment practices of law firms) this is an area which requires further enquiry.
See also Managerial behavior; Organizational design; Knowledge-workers; Occupations; Labor

markets
Bibliography

Document
Armstrong, P. (1993). Professional knowledge and social mobility: Postwar changes in the knowledge
base of management accounting. Work Employment and Society, 7, no. 1, 1–21.
DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds), The new institutionalism and
organizational analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gouldner, A. (1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: Towards an analysis of latent social roles.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 281–306; 444–480.
Hardy, C. (1990). Strategy and context: Retrenchment in Canadian universities. Organization Studies,
11, no. 12, 207–237.
Montagna, P. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization in large professional organizations.

American Journal of Sociology, 74, 138–145.
Morrow P. & Wirth, R. (1989). Work commitment among salaried professionals. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 34, 40–56.
Smigel, E. (1964). The Wall Street lawyer: Professional organization man?. New York: Free Press.
Tolbert, P. (1983). Institutional sources of organizational culture in major law firms. In L. G. Zucker
(Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations:

Document
Page 452
Culture and environment (pp. 101–113). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
TIM MORRIS
Profit Sharing
This is a formal plan to share a portion of a corporation's profits with most, if not all the employees. In
the United States actual registration of profit-sharing plans takes place via the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and special tax laws have been written to cover profit sharing as a defined benefit if
it is used as deferred compensation for RETIREMENT purposes. Often confused, profit sharing and
GAINSHARING are not the same. While both contribute to income, they are not similar. For the most
part, profit sharing is a financial plan. Almost always, it pays annually. It is a measure of financial
profitability and not necessarily performance PRODUCTIVITY. Thus, gainsharing could have deficits
all year long and profit sharing could pay huge dividends if a financial windfall befell a corporation (yet
employees neither worked harder nor increased their skills).
See also Bonus payments; Payment systems; Rewards; Performance related pay
Bibliography
Kruse, D. (1993). Profit sharing: Does it make a difference? Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research.
BRIAN GRAHAM-MOORE
Project Management
Some kinds of tasks are completed in a short period of time, making permanent organizational units
unwieldy and unnecessary. Examples include film making and commercial construction. In these
instances, managers rely on project structures, where individuals and resources are assembled
temporarily, their task is completed, then the unit is disbanded. They are important to managers who
must deal with nonroutine tasks where people work together on a temporary basis (see MATRIX
ORGANIZATION). A project's entire duration is by definition short compared with an organization's
traditional activities. Success therefore depends on managers' SKILLS over a compressed life-cycle of
venturing, learning, administering, and disassembling the project upon completion (Ford & Randolf,
1992).
Project management requires recognition that tasks are temporary and rather unique. Where managers
see the contrasts with permanent organizations, they can solve operational issues effectively. Venturing
calls for managers to champion their projects, acquire resources, and assemble them into a structure. In
venturing, top-echelon support and focused but flexible management are key factors (see JOINT
VENTURES).

Document
The agenda for project administration is influenced by time pressures and by ambiguity concerning
AUTHORITY relationships (Boal & Bryson, 1987). First, even for companies with extensive
experience, each project is unique. Without the continuity that defines permanent organizations,
managers must be attuned to an extraordinary amount of learning (see ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING). Success begins with managers whose needs and abilities are suited to unique, temporary
situations (see PERSONALITY). With care, familiar methods might be used in new situations: both
differences and similarities must be understood. Specialization in a function or market helps, so does
recognizing and responding to new conditions. Finally, if settings and parties change over different
projects, then issues associated with one-time contracting may arise. Managers might anticipate
opportunism and asymmetric information since contracts are not repeated (see AGENCY THEORY)
(Harrison & Harrell, 1993). REPUTATION is therefore important in project management. Contractual
precautions (e.g., bonding or completion bonuses) can also be taken. Additionally, projects are typically
time-sensitive. So long as they are not yet complete, opportunity costs are absorbed, and benefits may
be deferred. Scheduling key events and maintaining time-lines are familiar problems, and established
techniques can help. Many are available in the form of software applications. PERT and Gantt charts
are examples.
Authority and responsibility lines are complicated since projects are typically staffed with individuals
who have different organizational homes, incentives, and orientations. Among the responses found in
the project management literature are that project managers can take the

Document
Page 453
role of facilitator. They must identify means to cooperate, formally or otherwise, with functional
managers. Awareness, anticipation, and NEGOTIATION are all components of managing
COOPERATION (Bryson & Bromiley, 1993; Pinto, Pinto, & Prescott, 1993).
Natural consequences of even successful projects – disestablishing the project structure and detaching
personnel – call for careful implementation. Contracting is more complex, since future transactions are
not the incentive they are in permanent relationships, for example with personnel and procurement. For
instance, performance and morale suffer where personnel leave early, anticipating a project's end.
Disestablishing a project starts before the task is complete. Incentives and sanctions, outplacement
assistance, diligence around contract completion, and managing contingencies all increase chances for
success.
See also Collateral organization; Contract; Organizational design; Innovation
Bibliography
Boal, K. & Bryson, J. (1987). Representation, testing, and policy implications of planning processes.
Bryson, H. & Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major
projects. Strategic Management Journal, 14, (5), 319–337.
Ford, R. & Randolph, W. (1992). Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix
organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18, (2), 267–294.
Harrison, P. & Harrell, A. (1993). Impact of adverse selection on managers' project evaluation
decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, (3), 635–643.
Pinto, M., Pinto, J. & Prescott, J. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-
functional cooperation. Management Science, 39, (10), 1281–1297.
MICHAEL LAWLESS
Projection
The process of ascribing to someone else one's own impulses, wishes, desires, or dispositions.
Projection is often an individual's unconscious strategy for expelling undesirable impulses or personal
failures and attributing these to others. This primitive defense mechanism accomplishes the avoidance
of personal responsibility. It is a way of denying that one possesses these undesirable tendencies
oneself. Projective processes are commonly a part of paranoid delusions whereby individuals, through
blaming others, convince themselves that people are plotting against them.

Document
For example, the director of the sales department of a robotics firm was accusing the head of marketing
of trying to eliminate his job. As could be predicted his accusations led to a serious deterioration in the
atmosphere between the two departments. The truth of the matter was, however, quite different. It was
the sales director who had been responsible for starting the process. Somewhat less than a year before
he had lobbied the president of the firm to put him in charge for both sales and marketing. But his effort
to push this kind of change through had failed. Now, it seemed, he was taking a defensive stand,
projecting what he had wanted to do himself. He blamed the head of marketing for doing the same thing
to him.
See also Organizational neurosis; Personality; Mental health; Trust
Bibliography
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization. New York: Harper Business.
MANFRED KETS DE VRIES
Promotion
see CAREER TRANSITIONS; SUCCESSION PLANNING; TOURNAMENT PROMOTION
Prospectors
see STRATEGIC TYPES
Prospect Theory
This modification of expected utility theory was developed to predict and explain patterns of choices
that appear to be incompatible with the theory. One such pattern occurs when managers persist in
committing resources to a risky and questionable project in an attempt to recoup prior invested costs.
This tendency to consider "sunk costs" as relevant violates the expected utility theory principle that
prior losses should be ignored in risky DECISION MAKING (see RISK TAKING).
According to prospect theory, choice among risky alternatives, or prospects, is influenced by

Document
Page 454
the magnitudes as well as the probabilities of outcomes. Outcomes are defined and evaluated as positive
or negative deviations (gains or losses) from a neutral reference point (normally the status quo). Gains
and losses are typically evaluated according to an S-shaped value function that is concave above the
reference point and convex below it. This value function implies that the displeasure of losing a given
amount of a resource (e.g., money) is greater than the pleasure associated with winning the same
amount (see REWARDS). The function also implies contrasting preferences in situations of gains
versus losses. Individuals will tend to prefer a sure gain over a probabilistic gain of equal expected
value, but will prefer a probabilistic loss over a sure loss of equal expected value. Thus, in general, a
sure gain of $10,000 is preferred to a 0.5 chance to win $20,000, but a 0.5 chance of losing $20,000 is
preferred to a sure loss of $10,000.
Prospect theory distinguishes two phases in the choice process: editing and evaluation. In the editing
phase, the individual cognitively organizes and reformulates the prospects to simplify choice. In the
evaluation phase, the individual evaluates the edited prospects by, in effect, multiplying the value of
their outcomes by their respective decision weights. The prospect with the highest overall subjective
value is then chosen.
Prospect theory has several implications for decision making under risk. The most important of these
follow from the notion that because gains and losses are evaluated relative to a neutral reference point,
any factors that affect the placement of that point can influence risky choice (see RISKY-SHIFT). For
example, the way in which prospects are presented, or "framed," can influence the reference point an
individual adopts, and therefore his or her choices. A set of prospects framed in terms of losses will
elicit risk-taking, whereas the identical set of prospects framed in terms of gains will elicit risk-
aversion. Thus a proposed 3 percent raise in wages may be framed as a gain, if the current wage rate is
used as the reference point, or as a loss, if the projected inflation rate of 5 percent is used as the
reference point. A labor union member will be more inclined to reject the proposed raise and support
the risky alternative of striking for higher wages if the proposed 3 percent raise is framed as a loss.
Numerous factors can influence the placement of the reference point, including prior losses or gains,
social norms, comparison with other individuals, and goals or aspiration levels (see SOCIAL
COMPARISON).
In organizations, observed patterns of decision making under risk are consistent with prospect theory
predictions. For example, firms with returns above a target level tend to be risk-averse; those with
returns below a target level tend to be risk-seeking. The aforementioned "sunk cost" effect, in which the
decision maker risks additional resources in order to recoup prior losses, is likely to occur when the
decision maker retains his or her initial aspiration level as a reference point. For example, consider a
brand manager who has set a high target return for a new product that has been developed at great cost.
If he retains this target level in the face of a poor reception of the product by consumers, the manager
will prefer to risk additional resources (e.g., in advertising) on the product, rather than withdraw the
product from the market and thereby accept the prior costs as a loss. In sum, although some aspects of
prospect theory remain to be investigated, the theory appears able to account for a wide range of
individual and organizational choice behavior under risk.

Document
See also Organizational economics; Strategic management; Negotiation; Game theory; Prisoners'
dilemma; Behavioral decision research
Bibliography
Bazerman, M. H. (1994). Judgment in managerial decision making, (3rd edn). New York: Wiley.
Fiegenbaum, A. (1990). Prospect theory and the risk-return association: An empirical examination in 85
industries. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 14, 187–204.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Osborn, R. N. & Jackson, D. H. (1988). Leaders, riverboat gamblers, and purposeful unintended
consequences in the management of complex, dangerous technologies. Academy of Management
Journal, 31, 924–947.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,
211, 453–458.

Document
Page 455
Whyte, G. (1986). Escalating commitment to a course of action: A reinterpretation. Academy of

ARIEL S. LEVI
Psychoanalysis/Psychodynamics
see INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSIS; PERSONALITY
Psychological Contract
As with any other form of CONTRACT, the concept of the psychological contract implies an
agreement between parties whereby each commits to future actions. These actions are seen as a form of
exchange between the parties: if you do this, I will do that. The word "psychological" is used in contrast
with formal legal contracts, especially in employment. The psychological contract has thus come to
mean those aspects of the employment relationship between organization and employee over and above
the legal requirements. However, "psychological" in this context also carries the connotation of
perception. Psychological contracts are in the eye of the beholder.
The concept was first used by Argyris (1960), who emphasized that many psychological contracts were
implicit in nature, and that considerable benefits were to be gained for both parties if they were made
explicit. For Argyris, the employment relationship as a whole was interpretable as a psychological
contract.
The parties to the psychological contract may differ in their perceptions of its terms. There may be
ambiguity about what each has agreed to do or when and how they will do it. There may even be
ambiguity about whether a psychological contract exists in the first place; for example, a temporary
worker employed on strictly formal terms of employment might believe a CAREER was on offer.
Moreover, this ambiguity may not itself be perceived; each party may believe that the other shares
exactly the same view of the contract as they hold themselves. This may even be true if the
psychological contract has been made verbally explicit: "We will develop you further if you stay with
us for a reasonable period after initial training." What does "develop" imply? What is a "reasonable
period?"
The scope for disagreement about the nature and the fulfillment of the psychological contract is
therefore considerable. There are, perhaps, three mitigating factors. First, custom and practice in the
organization or sector; for example, in the banking and finance sector until 10 years ago, the universal
assumption was of a security-for-loyalty contract. Second, general social NORMS, such as keeping
agreements and RECIPROCITY, can support the contract. Third, there is evidence that there is
considerable agreement among reasonable third parties as to what the contract is and whether it is fair.

Document
Why is the concept of current importance? As the social, economic, political, and business
environments change ever more rapidly, so do organizations in their efforts to keep pace. Changes in
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN, processes, and personnel imply changes in the nature of the
psychological contracts operating (see ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING). Partly as a
consequence of environmental change, organizations are determined to optimize the use of their so-
called human resources to achieve business objectives (see HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT).
In an effort to achieve such optimization, they expect more and more from their employees. They even
try to alter the fundamental VALUES and assumptions of their workforce by means of culture change
programs (see ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE;
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE). Furthermore, especially during the recent global recession,
demanning, delayering, and casualization of labor have increased. By way of response, individuals have
increasingly seen their employment and their careers as entirely their own affair, and their
employability as their main asset.
If employment becomes more an organizational career than a job, a contract becomes more relational
than transactional. In other words, specific agreements of exchange (e.g., wage rates for overtime) give
way to more general exchanges based on TRUST and reliance. Where there is a long delay between
formation and fulfillment of the psychological contract (as, e.g., with the promise of CAREER
DEVELOPMENT by the organization) then trust that the bargain will be fulfilled is of the essence. In
relational contracts, the elements of the bargain are not agreed independently of each

Document
Page 456
other. Rather, there is a general exchange of support, the social and emotional nature of which has often
been likened to family or ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP. The good family member and the good
citizen will go the extra mile, beyond the call of duty.
The corollary is clear. Just as both parties invest much in a relational contract, so the costs are greater
when that relationship breaks up. When promised promotion is withheld or JOB SECURITY shattered
by compulsory REDUNDANCY, strong emotional reactions to the perceived violation of trust may
result. If the relational contract is broken but the individual remains in employment, they may
contribute less than before. It is not merely that the perceived terms of the contract have been broken, it
also is how they are broken that concerns. People made redundant often express more anger about how
they were told than about the redundancy itself. In theoretical terms, they feel that procedural as well as
distributive injustice has been done them (see JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE; JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL).
While the concept of the psychological contract and its implications appears to be relevant and
powerful, there is relatively little empirical research directly aimed at testing its predictions. What
research there is has been well summarized by Rousseau. It is mostly concerned with demonstrating
that expectations of reciprocal exchange of both a transactional and a relational nature do exist in
employees' minds; and that external observers are capable of agreeing what the contract is, and how
equitable it appears (see EQUITY THEORY).
While the concept of the psychological contract is fruitful, there remain at least two issues which need
to be addressed. First, if the contract is between the individual and the organization, who exactly is "the
organization?" A recruiter might promise training for which the recruit's line manager will not release
them. A professional mentor offers technical development, while the HR Director expects cross-
functional job change. Different people representing " the organization" have different expectations
regarding the terms of the contract. A response is to argue that this is all part of the AMBIGUITY
inherent in the contract. However, this still leaves the identity of the parties incompletely determined.
The second issue relates to POWER. For the idea of contract to have any validity, the parties have to be
reasonably commensurate in the power that each wields. Otherwise, there is a degree of dependency
which prevents bargaining between free and equal partners. In particular, where there is mainly a
buyer's labor market, as during recession, power is clearly with the organization. Unequal contracts may
result, with the organization expecting more and more COMMITMENT for less and less security or
prospects.
See also Career theory; Organizational culture; Exchange relations; Joining-up process;
Socialization
Bibliography
Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Document
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management,
16, 399–432.
Handy, C. (1985). The future of work. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Herriot, P. & Pemberton, C. (1996). Contracting careers. Human Relations, 49, 6, pp. 757–790.
Kanter, R. M. (1989). When giants learn to dance. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rousseau, D. M. & Anton, R. (1991). Fairness and implied contract obligations in job terminations: The
role of contributions, promises and performance. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 12, 287–299.
Rousseau, D. M. & Parks, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In L. L.

Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behaviour, (vol. 15, pp. 1–43). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Weick, K. E. & Berlinger, L. A. (1988). Career improvisations in self-designing organisations. In M. B.

Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
PETER HERRIOT
Psychological Testing
A psychological test is a procedure for the evaluation of psychological functions. The distinction is
sometimes made between tests of maximum performance and tests of habitual performance; the former
refer to tests of intellectual abilities, the latter to personality measures (see PERSONALITY TEST-

Document
Page 457
ING). People may display their maximum performance on intellectual tests, but whether they will
achieve equivalent levels on a day-to-day basis may depend on PERSONALITY factors, which may tell
us more about their habitual performance. Within the category of intellectual measures (also referred to
as Cognitive tests), a differentiation is sometimes made between tests of Ability and of Aptitude; the
former assessing existing capabilities, the latter assessing the individual's potential to acquire specific
SKILLS and knowledge needed to perform particular kinds of work (Anastasi, 1990).
An effective psychological test (also called Psychometric Tests) must possess five key attributes
(Toplis, Dulewicz, & Fletcher, 1991):
Reliability
This means that it is consistent in the results that it gives. Most tests are seeking to measure stable
characteristics of the individual, and a test of, for example, reasoning ability would be of no value if it
gave widely differing scores for the same group of people from one week to the next.
Reliability is not sufficient; a test might be consistent in the scores it yields, but still not measure what it
claims to – which means the concept of VALIDITY.
Validity
This is the most fundamental attribute of a sound test. A test has validity if it measures what it purports
to measure, but to establish validity is a complex matter. Because a test has Face Validity, i.e., it looks
as if it measures what it sets out to, does not prove anything. Normally, validity evidence is expressed in
terms of empirically established relationships with external criteria, for example, showing that scores on
a test of numerical reasoning correlate with success in accountancy examinations. Such evidence can be
obtained by correlating test scores with existing measures of performance (Concurrent Validation) or
with measures of performance taken at a future date (Predictive Validation).
Objective Scoring
Tests are scored by machine or hand according to a fixed marking system. In other words, the feelings
or judgments of the person doing the scoring do not affect the results (in contrast, say, to examinations).
Standardized Administration
This ensures that all candidates receive the same instructions and take the tests in as near identical
conditions as possible.
Appropriate Norms

Document
A person's score on a test is only meaningful when interpreted against a spread of scores and norms for
a particular group. For the comparison and interpretation to be sound, the group against which the
individual's score is viewed must be appropriate; graduates compared with graduates, senior managers
with other senior managers, and so on.
These attributes are not easily established, and the development of new psychological tests is a slow,
methodical, and quite scientific process. Tests may take many forms, but the most common are
essentially paper-and-pencil tests (or their equivalent administered on a computer). The use of tests has
become increasingly popular for selection and ASSESSMENT in employment settings (see
SELECTION METHODS). One reason for this is evidence of their validity (see Robertson & Kinder
(1993), for a discussion of this topic); for cognitive tests, correlations with external criteria average
around 0.50–0.60, for modern personality measures around 0.25–0.40, compared to the average
interview correlation of 0.10–0.20 (where 0 equates with no relationship between assessment and
criterion, and 1.0 with perfect prediction). In the United States, where tests were first used on a wide
scale, EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES legislation temporarily put a brake on their application, though the
problems in this context do seem largely to have been overcome. In the United Kingdom and the rest of
Europe, their popularity has been a more recent phenomenon, but deployment of tests is clearly growing
(Shackleton & Newell, 1991). They are used in initial screening of candidates, as part of
ASSESSMENT CENTERS, in promotion assessment, for in-depth assessment of senior management
candidates, and for individual development and TEAM BUILDING purposes.
There are many issues that surround test use, and it is a topic which often engenders strong feelings, not
least because people are often poorly informed on what is quite a complex topic. Some of the main
issues fall under four headings:
(1) Conceptual Basis. The nature of human personality and intelligence (see INTELLIGENCE
TESTING; INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES) is open to

Document
Page 458
analysis from differing perspectives, and their conceptualization in psychological testing is not
universally accepted; hence the accusation that intelligence tests simply measure the ability to do
intelligence tests.
(2) Test Quality. There are literally thousands of psychological tests available, and new ones appear
frequently, often marketed with considerable sophistication, which is not necessarily matched by the
quality of the test itself. Tests which appear quick, cheap, and easy to use generally offer illusory
benefits. Any test should be evaluated against the five attributes listed above; in particular, it should
have documented evidence of its reliability and validity. Its relevance to the organization's needs,
should be assessed against alternatives tests or other assessment methods.
(3) Misuse of Tests. Even where a test is well constructed, there is no guarantee that it will be applied
correctly. The TRAINING and competence of those using tests is difficult to control, and different
countries have adopted different solutions, though none is perfect. In some European countries,
attempts are made to restrict tests to qualified psychologists, whereas in the United Kingdom and the
United States, tests are more widely available to anyone who has gone through an approved course.
Incompetent use of tests is still common, however.
(4) Ethical Considerations. These range from issues about candidate FEEDBACK (should they get it,
what is the best way to give it) on test results to the danger of GENDER and ethnic bias in test scores.
See also Human resource management; Performance appraisal; Recruitment
Bibliography
Anasatasi, A. (1990). Psychological testing (6th edn). New York: Macmillan.
Robertson, I. T. & Kinder, A. (1993). Personality and job competences: The criterion-related validity of
some personality variables. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 225–244.
Shackleton, V. J. & Newell, S. (1991). Management selection: A comparative survey of methods used
in top British and French companies. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 23–36.
Toplis, J., Dulewicz, V. & Fletcher, C. (1991). Psychological testing: A manager's guide, (2nd edn).
London: Institute of Personnel Management.
CLIVE FLETCHER
Public Scrutiny
Research on public scrutiny considers the consequences enjoyed or suffered by people and
organizations that try to operate under the bright, and sometimes harsh, spotlight of public attention.
Unchecked scrutiny is present when a person or organization encounters constant:

Document
(1) attention from others;
(2) performance evaluation by others;
(3) interruptions from others;
(4) questions about past, current, and future actions, along with pressure to explain the reasons for these
actions; and
(5) advice, especially unsolicited advice.
Little research has explicitly examined scrutiny in organizations explicitly, but related psychological
studies suggest that, if unchecked, consequences include less CREATIVITY and learning, more
perseverance at planned and ongoing activities, frequent setbacks in ongoing tasks, and devoting more
resources to managing impressions (see IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT) about plans and actions and
less resources to other aspects of planning and acting.
People and organizations facing intense public scrutiny often develop defenses to reduce its negative
consequences. Individual defenses include limiting interactions with purveyors of scrutiny, using vague
and innocuous platitudes when answering questions, and being boring. Structural defenses implied by
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY include decoupling people in visible symbolic roles from people who
accomplish the organization's primary tasks and adopting visible and socially desirable procedures and
structures that have little effect on the organization's core activities. Other defenses include using
gatekeepers to screen purveyors of scrutiny and ostracizing those who ask about or reveal unflattering
organizational or individual actions.
See also Social facilitation; Corporate social responsibility; Stakeholders; Organization and
environment

Document
Page 459
Bibliography
Sutton, R. I. & Galunic, D. C. (1994). The consequences of intense public scrutiny for leaders and
organizations. Dallas, TX: Academy of Management Meetings.
Tetlock, P. (1991). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency
model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331–376.
ROBERT I. SUTTON
Punctuated Equilibrium
This phrase expresses a view of change as an alternation between relatively long periods when things
stay basically the same (equilibrium), with relatively short periods of metamorphic change
(punctuation). The term ''punctuated equilibrium" comes from the field of biological evolution.
Eldredge and Gould (1972) proposed the concept as an alternative to the dominant, Darwinian
"gradualist" view that new species emerge through the smooth, gradual accumulation of insensibly
small changes. Without disputing Darwin's central evolutionary mechanisms, variation, and selection,
Eldredge and Gould argued that the punctuated equilibrium concept better fits the fossil record, where
life forms are stable for long periods, and change appears abruptly, not gradually. Taken more broadly,
the punctuational and gradualist views constitute contrasting PARADIGMS, with different implications
for studying, interpreting, predicting, and planning change.
To understand this concept, and how it differs from gradualism, it is important to appreciate the close
link between equilibrium and punctuation. Each derives from the same central feature of systems that
exhibit punctuated equilibrium: deep structure. Entities with deep structure (e.g., a living cell versus a
pile of sand, or a gymnastics class versus random playground activity) share two characteristics:
(1) they have differentiated parts; and
(2) the parts exchange resources with the environment in ways that both maintain, and are controlled
by, this differentiation (see Prigogine & Stengers, 1984, pp. 154 and 287).
Punctuated equilibriums occur because such interdependence of parts and working mechanisms makes
a system tenaciously self-reinforcing. Deep structure persists and actively limits change during
equilibrium periods; in punctuational periods, deep structure disassembles, reconfigures, and enforces
wholesale transformation.

Document
Sport provides an illustrative METAPHOR. The deep structure of a sport, for example basketball, is its
interdependent system of basic rules and court design. Equilibrium is like a game in play. The term
indicates neither lack of variation nor tranquility. Each match is unique; teams play well or disastrously;
their memberships change; they play in different cities. Much incremental change and activity can
occur, yet the sport, its deep structure intact, will still be basketball. If the baskets were to be removed,
however, the rules and court would stop working as an internally coherent system. Such an action
would dismantle the game's deep structure, triggering punctuational change. If a central element of a
system's deep structure is altered, the ramifications cascade to affect everything depending on that
element.
Punctuated Equilibrium in Organizational Theories
Punctuational theories pertinent to ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR have appeared in several fields

and LEVELS OF ANALYSIS. Examples range from Kuhn's (1970) distinction between normal science
and scientific revolution, to Levinson's (1978) theory of adult development (see LIFE STAGES) as an
alternation between periods of stability and transition (see CAREER TRANSITIONS). Within
organizational literature, Abernathy and Utterback (1982) have contrasted evolutionary and radical
innovation in industry, and Gersick (1988) has modeled momentum and transitions in GROUP
DEVELOPMENT.
Tushman and Romanelli's (1985) work on convergence and reorientation in organizational evolution
provides a good example of punctuated equilibrium in organizations. They describe deep structure
("strategic orientation") in organizations in terms of five attributes or sets of choices (1985, p. 176):
(1) core beliefs and values regarding the organization, its employees, and its environment;

Document
Page 460
(2) products, markets, technology, and competitive timing;
(3) the distribution of POWER;
(4) the organization's structure; and
(5) the nature, type, and pervasiveness of control systems.
During "convergent" periods, these attributes become increasingly consistent with one another. The
organization's resources and repertoire of SKILLS, its members' interests, its operating routines, and its
very perceptions of reality become intertwined, and deeply tied to the existing system. Without
equilibrium, organizations could not learn from experience or increase their efficiency and
effectiveness. However, the kinds of change that can occur in an equilibrium period are limited.
Organizations have trouble recognizing problems or inventing solutions that fall outside accustomed
boundaries; vested interests resist threats to existing POWER structures; INNOVATIONS that don't
"fit" tend to wither or get rejected. Especially when convergence periods have been long and successful,
it is hard for organizations to adapt to radical shifts in their situations or environments. They are used to
problem solving by playing harder at their own game, not by switching to a whole new sport.
Tushman and Romanelli (1985) propose that performance CRISES (experienced or anticipated) are
required to break convergence periods, and that in most – but not all – cases it takes new top
management from outside the organization to mount a "reorientation." Gersick (1991) outlines this and
other circumstances that trigger punctuations in human systems. Nadler and Tushman (1989) discuss
the challenges of steering through the difficult process of punctuational change.
Implications for Theory, Research and Intervention
In the gradualist paradigm, almost any type of change is possible if it is small enough. Large, dramatic
shifts are expected to occur through incremental changes over very long time periods; there is no
postulated deep structure maintaining a system's basic configuration. Gradualist theories permit the
assumption that the distant future can be predicted by extrapolation from past trajectories. In contrast,
punctuational models assume that systems' deep structures normally restrict the type and degree of
change accepted. However, special circumstances (such as system failure, radical environmental
change, or recognized resource limits) can disrupt the equilibrium, triggering wholesale change in
relatively short time periods. These models caution against distant future predictions, because
trajectories can change fundamentally during punctuations.
The two paradigms foster different research approaches. Traditional theorists of system evolution have
assumed that organizations, groups, individual careers, etc., move gradually from one stage to another;
they have sought to identify universal stage sequences. Punctuational theorists, arguing that systems
evolve through alternating momentum and metamorphosis, have been more interested in explicating
mechanisms that enforce equilibrium and catalyze punctuation, and are more likely to portray systems'
evolutionary pathways as varied than as universal.

Document
Finally, the contrasts between the two paradigms raise questions about planned change intervention.
Gradual (or incremental) change may be achievable through small, relatively manageable steps. While
there is a place for such change in punctuational models, they also portray a second, radical type of
change process which cannot be accomplished so easily. They portray major change as faster, riskier,
and more difficult than it appears in traditional models.
See also Organizational change; Organization theory; Group decision making; Population ecology
Bibliography
Abernathy, W. & Utterback, J. (1982). Patterns of industrial innovation. In M. Tushman & W. Moore
(Eds), Readings in the management of innovations (pp. 97–108). Boston: Pitman.
Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J.

Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology (pp. 82–115). San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctu-

Document
Page 461
ated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10–36.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Knopf.
Nadler, D. A. & Tushman, M. L. (1989). Leadership for organizational change. In A. M. Mohrman, Jr.,
S. A. Mohrman, G. E. Ledford, Jr., T. G. Cummings and E. E. Lawler III (Eds), Large scale
organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature. New York:
Bantam.
Tushman, M. & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of

convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational
behavior, (vol. 7, pp. 171–222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
CONNIE J. G. GERSICK
Punishment
The concept of punishment in organizations has to do with the delivery of some aversive event to an
employee (or employees) contingent on behavior, or the withdrawal of some valued work outcome as a
result of behavior which has violated organizational rules, policies, and practices, as well as sometimes
unstated norms. Two elements are central here. First, there are the kinds and types of sanctions and
aversive events delivered as punishment. Second, is the process by which aversive sanctions are
delivered. While punishment, and the related concept of discipline, is generally thought of as a formal
procedure involving such sanctions as formal warnings, dismissal, and oral warnings by management, it
can also be informal, such as supervisors withholding information, delaying actions on requests, and
shouting at employees.
Punishment and discipline have received surprisingly little research attention compared to positive
reward systems. While there is a good deal of speculation, little solid research evidence exists
establishing the empirical correlates of punishment, even when "everybody knows" punishment exists
in organizations and has some kind of impact. On the other hand, there is a large body of information
based on labor law and arbitration hearings establishing principles of fair treatment in the delivery of
and penalties associated with discipline in organizations.

Document
Punishment and discipline in organizations may serve several different functions. It may serve as a
direct behavior control system by which employees learn through their experiences not to violate
specific policies, practices, and procedures, as set out by the organization. Disciplinary systems, formal
and informal, also serve to provide indirect cues and signals to employees concerning what is
acceptable and what is unacceptable, through social-learning processes from observing other
employees. The process of punishment involves several related steps. First, there must be a perception
by a disciplinary agent of a rule infraction. Research has developed taxonomies of the kinds of
behaviors likely to trigger punishment (Arvey & Jones, 1985). The most common are ABSENTEEISM,
tardiness, dishonesty, incompetence, violation of SAFETY rules, intoxication, fighting, horseplay,
trouble-making, insubordination, and disputes with supervisors. Most disciplinary policy manuals in
organizations set out the major classes of behaviors which constitute violations. Second, there must be a
decision to take some punitive action. Studies have identified a number of variables which influence the
decision to take action. Punitive action is more likely to be taken when infractions involve high cost and/
or risk to the organization, when the employee has a history of poor job performance and/or disciplinary
history, when there is a poor relationship with the supervisor, and when the infraction is thought to be
volitional and under the control of the employee. Third, there is the choice of what kind of punishment
is to be administered, such as whether formal sanctions are applied or more informal tactics chosen to
control behavior. Finally, there is the manner in which the punishment is administered. Research and
theory suggests that punishment which is applied soon after an infraction, is administered consistently,
is accompanied by a clear explanation for the punishment, and is not unduly harsh, will be more
effective than punishment administered haphazardly, with little explanation, or a long delay after the
infraction (Arvey, Davis, & Nelson, 1984).
There is conflicting research evidence concerning the impact and effect of punishment in

Document
Page 462
organizational settings. The literature generally supports the proposition that when punishment is
administered contingently, a relationship develops or exists between punishment and satisfaction and/or
performance. However, when punishment is viewed as random or noncontingent, there is no
relationship. Perhaps when punishment is noncontingent employees turn to other mechanisms to escape,
avoid, or gain retribution and it is these conditions which lead to FRUSTRATION, apathy,
SABOTAGE, or EMPLOYEE THEFT (see WITHDRAWAL, ORGANIZATIONAL). However,
research has tended not directly to examine the impact of punishment on the specific behaviors
associated with rule violations, but instead on more broad band job performance criterion measures (e.
g., overall job performance). Punishment and disciplinary systems in organizations will also affect
perceptions of employees regarding the fairness and justice of such systems. Recent research has
discussed the role of procedural justice (how punishment is carried out) and outcome justice (the
relative fairness of the sanctions) on these perceptions (see JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL). In addition,
labor arbitration cases and principles also emphasize procedural and outcome issues in relation to the
fairness of specific disciplinary acts and systems. Generally speaking, disciplinary systems are
perceived as just when there appears to have been good cause, when prior notice has been given, when
the sanctions are not unduly harsh, when proper investigative procedures are employed, and when
consistent and equal treatment is applied (Koven & Smith, 1982).
See also Feedback; Learning, individual; Reinforcement; Human resources management
Bibliography
Arvey, R. D., Davis, G. A. & Nelson, S. M. (1984). Use of discipline in an organization: A field study.
Arvey, R. D. & Jones, A. P. (1985). The use of discipline in organizational settings: A framework for
future research. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, (vol. 7,
pp. 367–408). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Koven, A. M. & Smith, S. L. (1992). Just cause: The seven tests, (2nd edn). Revised by D. F. Farwell.
Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
Podsakoff, P. M. (1982). Determinants of a supervisor's use of rewards and punishments: A literature

review and suggestions for further research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 58–
83.
RICHARD D. ARVEY

Document
Page 463
Quality
see TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; QUALITY CIRCLES
Quality Circles
A quality circle (QC) is a small group of employees from a common work area who meet regularly to
solve problems they encounter in their work. Specific characteristics include the following (Ledford,
Lawler, & Mohrman, 1988; Van Fleet & Griffin, 1989).
Membership typically is voluntary, although often only nominally so in Japan. Usually only some
employees in a work area are QC members. The group is responsible for making suggestions to
management, and does not have the POWER to decide about implementation. The goals of QCs in
Japan focus almost exclusively on quality, but also focus on PRODUCTIVITY and costs in the United
States. Meetings usually are held on company time in the United States, on personal time in Japan. A
typical circle meets for 1 hour per week. QC members receive 1 to 5 days of training in GROUP
DECISION MAKING techniques. A staff of facilitators conducts TRAINING, assists with group
process, provides communication links to the organization, and administers the program. The
organization usually offers no financial REWARDS for group suggestions, except normal suggestion
awards, although there may be extensive nonfinancial recognition. The circle typically receives
information specifically relevant to its problem.
QCs belong to a class of employee PARTICIPATION groups that provide employees with suggestion
involvement. Such groups are special COLLATERAL ORGANIZATION structures that are dependent
on the FORMAL ORGANIZATION for the implementation of changes. Other types of suggestion
involvement groups may differ from QCs along one or more of the design dimensions listed above.
Suggestion involvement is more limited than job involvement, which builds employee DECISION-
MAKING power into the job through JOB DESIGN. It is also more limited than a high involvement
design, which systematically reinforces EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT through various human
resource practices (Lawler, 1988) (see EMPOWERMENT).
By the early 1980s, several million Japanese were QC members. Western firms began borrowing QC
designs from successful Japanese competitors in the late 1970s. By 1990, two-thirds of Fortune 1000
firms reported using QCs, and more than 20 percent of employees were members in about one-third of
the firms (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992). By this time, however, QCs had become less common
than other types of employee participation groups. Other designs were being used by 85 percent of the
sample.

Document
Several key questions remain about QCs (Ledford et al., 1988; Van Fleet & Griffin, 1989). First, how
effective are they? The practitioner literature on QCs is much larger and more positive than the research
literature. Research indicates that quality circles sometimes improve organizational performance, but
tend not to have strong effects on employee attitudes such as JOB SATISFACTION. Second, how
sustainable are QCs? QC programs typically survive only a few years in the United States. QC designs
appear to generate self-destructive forces even when they succeed. Third, what organizational
conditions and types of employees are conducive to QC effectiveness? Not enough research has been
conducted to answer these questions definitively, although existing research provides a number of
models and suggestions.

Document
Page 464
For example, some research supports the particulars of the QC model. However, volunteerism and
limited participation opportunities, which are more characteristic of QCs in the United States than
Japan, are negatively related to success (Ledford et al., 1988). A large literature examines societal and
cultural factors. For example, Cole (1985) argues that the use of small groups such as QCs depends on
LABOR MARKET conditions, an infrastructure of supportive associations and other organizations, and
the orientation of organized labor (see INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS). Others contend that cultural
factors such as INDIVIDUALISM, worker attitudes and skills, and management style make Western
societies less hospitable to QCs than Japan. The available research does not permit resolution of these
issues.
See also Team building; Total quality management; Continuous improvement; Group culture
Bibliography
Cole, R. E. (1985). The macropolitics of organizational change: A comparative analysis of the spread of
small-group activities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 560–585.
Lawler, E. E. III (1988). Choosing an involvement strategy. Academy of Management Executive, 2, (3),
197–204.
Lawler, E. E. III, Mohrman, S. A. & Ledford, G. E. Jr. (1992). Employee involvement and total quality
Ledford, G. E. Jr., Lawler, E. E. III. & Mohrman, S. A. (1988). The quality circle and its variations. In
J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds), Productivity in organizations: New perspectives from industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 255–294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van Fleet, D. D. & Griffin, R. W. (1989). Quality circles: A review and suggested future directions. In
C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organization psychology
1989 (pp. 213–233). New York: Wiley.
Quality of Working Life

Document
The term "quality of working life" (QWL) refers to people's reactions to work, particularly personal
outcomes related to JOB SATISFACTION, MENTAL HEALTH, and SAFETY. Attention to QWL
issues started initially in Scandinavia and Europe in the 1960s and spread to North America in the
1970s. The major impetus was the growing concern among industrialized nations for the health, safety,
and satisfaction of workers. In Norway and Sweden, QWL has become a national movement fostered
by cultural and political forces advocating employee rights to meaningful work and PARTICIPATION
in work decisions. In the United States and Canada, QWL has been more pragmatic and localized, often
limited to work situations where unions and management have a strong commitment to improving
WORKING CONDITIONS.
QWL research has focused on three major issues:
(1) identification of work conditions that contribute to QWL;
(2) development of methods and techniques for enhancing those conditions; and
(3) understanding how QWL affects PRODUCTIVITY.
Researchers have discovered a number of conditions that affect whether employees experience work as
satisfying, psychologically healthy, and safe. These include: challenging jobs, development of human
capacities, safe and healthy work environment, adequate and fair compensation, and opportunity for
balancing work and home life (see NONWORK/WORK). Considerable attention has been directed at
developing methods for improving these conditions. Among the QWL innovations that have been
implemented successfully in modern organizations are JOB ENRICHMENT, AUTONOMOUS WORK
GROUPS, FLEXITIME, and EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT. A key finding of this applied research is
that the success of these QWL interventions depends on a variety of contingencies in the work setting
having to do with INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, TECHNOLOGY, and task environment (see
CONTINGENCY THEORY).
An assumption underlying QWL research is that there is a positive linkage between QWL and
productivity. This derives from the idea that increased satisfaction with work will motivate employees
to perform at higher levels (see MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE). Research has shown,
however, that the satisfaction-causes-productivity premise is too simplis-

Document
Page 465
tic and sometimes wrong. A more realistic explanation for how QWL can affect productivity is that
QWL innovations, such as job enrichment and participative management, can improve employee
COMMUNICATION, coordination, and capability. These improvements, in turn, can enhance work
performance (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). QWL innovations can also improve the well-
being and satisfaction of employees by providing a better work environment and more fulfilling jobs.
These positive work conditions can indirectly increase productivity by enabling the organization to
attract and retain better workers (see RECRUITMENT; TURNOVER).
Over the past two decades, both the term QWL and the meaning attributed to it have undergone
considerable change and development. Concerns about employee well-being and satisfaction have
expanded to include greater attention to ORGANIZATION EFFECTIVENESS, particularly in today's
highly competitive, global environment. QWL research and practice have given rise to current attention
to employee involvement and EMPOWERMENT, reflecting the need to make organizations more
decentralized (see DECENTRALIZATION) and responsive to customer demands. Today, QWL finds
expression primarily in union–management cooperative projects in both the public and private sectors.
These involve committees, comprised of employees and managers, that seek to address common
workplace issues falling outside COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, such as safety, quality,
TECHNOLOGY management, and job satisfaction.
See also Industrial relations; Democracy; Job characteristics; Job design; Manifest and latent
functions
Bibliography
Cummings, T. & Molloy, E. (1977). Improving productivity and the quality of work life. New York:
Praeger.
Davis, L. & Cherns, A. (Eds), (1975). The quality of working life. New York: Free Press.
THOMAS G. CUMMINGS
Quasi-Experimental Design
Quasi-experiments usually test the causal consequences of long-lasting treatments outside of the
laboratory. But unlike "true" experiments where treatment assignment is at random, assignment in quasi-
experiments is by self-selection or administrator judgment. All experiments seek to identify whether a
treatment made a difference in a particular outcome rather than to explain why the difference occurred.
Experiments can be made more explanatory by selecting theory-relevant treatment and outcome
variables or by adding measures of potential moderator or mediator variables. Yet the structure of all
experiments, including quasi-experiments, implies a more important goal for causal description than
causal explanation.

Document
Campbell and Stanley (1966) explicated some of the VALIDITY threats that random assignment rules
out but that have to be explicitly probed in quasi-experiments to ensure they were not artifically
responsible for results. Cook and Campbell (1979) added more validity threats, arguing they should be
ruled out by experimental design rather than through measuring them and then statistically manipulating
the data to purge their influence from the treatment–outcome relationship. As Cook, Campbell and
Peracchio (1990) illustrate with many examples from ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, quasi-
experimental designs are stronger for descriptive causal inference:
(1) the more pretreatment (and posttreatment) measures they have on the dependent variables under
examination so as to estimate the most immediate time trends;
(2) the better matched are comparison groups so as to minimize the initial difference from treatment
groups; and
(3) the more instances there are of a treatment that has been implemented at different times on different
sets of respondents.
Some scholars within econometrics (Heckman & Hotz, 1989) still maintain it is possible to adjust
statistically for all the initial differences between nonequivalent treatment groups. But empirical
research on the selection adjustment techniques they prefer has shown them to be fallible. Statisticians
prefer direct measurement of the selection process whereby different kinds

Document
Page 466
of persons come to be in different treatments groups, since there is no doubt that a fully known selection
model can lead to unbiased treatment effects. Indeed, the randomized experiment is effective, not
because it creates initially comparable groups, but because the differences between these groups are
fully known. The regression discontinuity design – where a quantitative score on a scale (say, of
individual PRODUCTIVITY) is used to determine which members of an organization deserve special
treatment because of their exceptionally high level of merit (or need) – is another instance where
selection into treatment is therefore completely known. Hence, unbiased treatment effect estimation is
also potentially possible in this case (see BIAS). However, in all other contexts it is not easy to assume
that the selection model is completely known and that unbiased treatment estimates are possible.
Over the last 25 years (Cook, 1991), we have come to see that causal inferences are superior under two
conditions. First, when obtained data patterns corroborate causal predictions that are point-specific, i.e.,
the outcome is predicted to change either at a predicted time point (as with the interrupted time series
design) or at a predicted point along the continuous variable used for determining treatment assignment
(as with regression discontinuity). Second, causal inferences are generally superior when the causal
hypothesis under test has multiple empirical implications. This happens when a quasi-experimental
design has multiple comparison groups, multiple pretreatment time points, multiple introductions of the
treatment at different times, or some dependent variables which theory says should change because of
the treatment and other dependent variables which theory says should not change. It will be rare for an
alternative interpretation to predict the specific data patterns associated either with interventions at a
specific time or point or with interventions that have multiple causal implications. But it will not be
impossible.
See also Research design; Reserch methods; Statistical methods; Generalization
Bibliography
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cook, T. D. (1991). Clarifying the warrant for generalized causal inferences in quasi-experimentation.
In M. W. McLaughlin & D. Phillips (Eds), Evaluation and education at quarter century. Chicago:
National Society for the Study of Education 1991 Yearbook.
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field
settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. & Peracchio, L. (1990). Quasi-experimentation. In M. D. Dunnette & L.

M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology (2nd edn). Palo Alto, CA:

Document
Heckman, J. J. & Hotz, J. (1989). Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating
the impact of social programs: The case of manpower training. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 84, 862–874.
THOMAS D. COOK

Document
Page 467
Race
Prior to the eighteenth century in Europe, race referred to descendants of a common ancestor with an
emphasis on kinship ties and not biological or physical characteristics. It was in the late-eighteenth
century that race gradually came to signify an inherent physical quality and there was a hierarchy of
races. This biological view was advanced by a number of scientists in Western Europe and the United
States who proposed that phenotypical features (e.g., skin color, hair texture) explain differences in
mental and cultural behavior of racial groups (Banton, 1987). Modern genetic science dislodged the
biological meaning of race and contributed to its reconceptualization as a social construct. Although,
race is without a scientific basis in biological terms, in everyday discourse, the vast majority of people
believe that "races" exist. Their beliefs about race affect their behavior. Thus, race denotes the particular
way in which phenotypical differences among people come to be constructed or understood. Race in
this sense is not natural or immutable. Racial categories are unstable and fundamentally social in nature.
Their meanings are determined by political, social, and cultural systems (Omi & Winant, 1986) (see
CULTURE).
Much of the research on race in organizations lies along the PREJUDICE–DISCRIMINATION axes
with an emphasis on discovering objective evidence of racial discrimination and racial differences in
behavior, primarily between blacks and whites (Cox & Nkomo, 1993; Nkomo, 1992). The results of the
studies are mixed. Studies using obtrusive methods have shown no effects, effects of low magnitude, or
counterintuitive effects for race (Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992). Results yielding no effects often lead
scholars to conclude that race is not an important explanatory variable. Unobtrusive studies in social
psychology, however, show clear effects of race on such variables as helping, aggression, and other
variables. When studies have been performed in organizational settings, there are clear effects of race
on such variables as performance ratings, upward mobility, ratings of LEADERSHIP or managerial
potential, JOB SATISFACTION, and interview-based ratings of job suitability (Cox & Nkomo, 1993).
For instance, the accumulated evidence on the effects of race on performance ratings suggest that ratees
receive higher ratings from raters of the same race (see ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL). Similarly, research has demonstrated the effects of race on upward mobility with
nonwhites experiencing lower upward mobility compared to whites.

Document
The fact that much of this research fails to provide an understanding of the social construction of race in
organizations has led some organizational scholars to call for a rethinking of race (see SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTIONISM). This reconceptualization would not treat race as a demographic variable but
one that views it as a necessary and productive analytical category for theorizing about and
understanding organizations (Nkomo, 1992). This view implies a move toward phenomenological and
historical RESEARCH METHODS. Such methods would help to foster understanding of how rules,
policies, practices, and POWER relations tend to reproduce race in everyday organizational life and
how it is a core feature of organizations. Race should also be understood as just one part of the more
complicated web of socially constructed elements of identity such as GENDER and class that influence
social relations in organizations.

Document
Page 468
See also Equal opportunities; Stereotyping; Culture; Intercultural process
Bibliography
Banton, M. (1987). Racial theories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, T. Jr. & Nkomo, S. M. (1993). Race and ethnicity. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 205–229). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to 1980s. New
York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Nkomo, S. M. (1992). The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting race in organizations. Academy of
Stone, E., Stone, D. & Dipboye, R. (1992). Stigmas in organizations: Race, handicaps, and physical
attractiveness. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology
(pp. 385–456). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
STELLA M. NKOMO
Rationality
This denotes the selection of preferred behavioral alternatives in terms of systems of values through
which the consequences of behavior can be evaluated. Especially in the disciplines of economics and
statistics, rational behavior is defined as making a decision that, after a review of all the alternatives,
promises to maximize satisfaction or utility. Herbert Simon argued that it is not feasible to attempt a
search for each and every alternative. Because of their limited cognitive capacities, decision makers use
only part of the relevant information. Time and money considerations also play a role in determining if
there will be a search for more information and how long it will last. The search process generally stops
when a "SATISFICING solution" has been found: alternatives are not studied exhaustively. This is
implied by Simon's concept of BOUNDED RATIONALITY.
In other words, rational behavior in the DECISION MAKING process simply involves the evaluation
and selection of some relevant alternatives which offer a perceived advantage to the decision maker. All
that is necessary to make a choice a rational one is that an objective exists and that the decision maker
perceives and selects some alternative which promises to meet the objective (Harrison, 1987, p. 107).
See also Garbage can model; Paradox; Postmodernism; Social constructionism
Bibliography
Harrison, E. F. (1987). The managerial decision-making process, (3rd edn). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Document
PAUL KOOPMAN
Realistic Job Previews
The realistic job preview (RJP) is a RECRUITMENT technique in HUMAN RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT designed to facilitate the JOINING UP PROCESS for new organization members.
The RJP contains accurate information about job duties, and especially about the major sources of JOB
SATISFACTION and dissatisfaction, and it is given to recruits prior to organizational entry. The RJP is
focused on inflated expectations of high importance to most recruits. The RJP can be presented during
the interview, in a booklet or video, during a job visit (which may include meeting future co-workers),
or in a combination of methods (see SELECTION INTERVIEWING; SELECTION METHODS).
The RJP is designed to increase the degree of PERSON–JOB FIT and WORK ADJUSTMENT of new
recruits by allowing them to make better job choices (which are typically made as predicted by VIE
theory) based on much more information than is typically available. The primary effects of RJPs are to
increase newcomer job satisfaction and COMMITMENT, resulting in lower TURNOVER rates because
the RJP is one type of ANTICIPATORY SOCIALIZATION. The most recent review (Wanous, 1992,
pp. 78–82) calculated the average amount of increase in job survival from RJPs as 10 percent for
business versus 3 percent for military recruits. For example, if a business retains 50 percent of new hires
over a 1 year period without an RJP, then using the RJP will increase this survival rate up to 55 percent.
There are several explanations for the effects of RJPs on turnover. First, because the RJP makes more
informed job choices possible, those who actually accept a job offer are likely to have better person–job
fit. Second, the RJP is also viewed as a "vaccination" against disappointment after organizational entry,
because

Document
Page 469
the most important dissatisfying job factors are already anticipated. Thus, newcomer expectations are
lowered and are thus more likely to be fulfilled. Third, the information contained in an RJP may also
help newcomers to cope more effectively with both job duties as well as newcomer STRESS. Because
of more effective coping, newcomer performance is enhanced, thus decreasing turnover.
Research continues to specify the possible limitations of RJPs. First, the severity of an organization's
turnover problem among newcomers is one limiting factor. If turnover is extremely high, the RJP may
have no effect because the job may be so undesirable that accurate expectations are irrelevant to the
decision to quit. One year job survival rates among newcomers of 50–85 percent seem to be where RJPs
increase survival (Wanous, 1992, p. 82). In very low turnover organizations, the RJP may still improve
the PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT via expectations clarification. Second, in ''tight" LABOR
MARKETS where the recruit has only one job offer, the possibility of increased person–job fit via
informed job choices is eliminated. Third, the earlier the RJP is presented in recruitment, the better.
Those which are given after a job offer has been accepted are less effective because the information
cannot be used to make an informed job choice (see CAREER CHOICE; VOCATIONAL
GUIDANCE).
See also Job description; Person specification; Career transitions
Bibliography
Dawis, R. V. & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.
Premack, S. L. & Wanous, J. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 70, 706–719.

Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L. & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects of met expectations on
newcomer attitudes and behavior: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288–
297.
Weitz, J. (1956). Job expectancy and survival. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40, 245–247.
JOHN P. WANOUS
Reality Shock

Document
This term refers to the phenomenon that the expectations of new job incumbents are often inconsistent
with their experiences in a new setting. Studies of reality shock have identified three important and
distinct entry features: change, contrast, and surprise (see JOINING UP PROCESS). Unfortunately,
companies often contribute to prospective employees' unrealistic expectations in their effort to convey a
positive image of themselves.
Reality shock poses considerable affective and cognitive challenges. For instance, first-time managers
are often caught off-guard by the starkness of the transition from an individual contributor to
managerial ROLE and the associated stress (see CAREER TRANSITIONS). New managers may have
to make decisions and act before they understand what they are supposed to do. Only through on-the-
job experience do they discover what their new responsibilities are. Reality shock is associated with
dysfunctional outcomes including newcomer dissatisfaction, poor subsequent adjustment, and
TURNOVER (see Wanous (1992) for a literature review) (see WORK ADJUSTMENT).
Much of the research has focused on what organizations can do to reduce reality shock and/or facilitate
the sense-making process. A number of organizational entry tools have been identified – REALISTIC
JOB PREVIEWS, formal orientation programs, and informal SOCIALIZATION practices such as peer
MENTORING.
See also Expatriates; Role ambiguity; Role taking; Management development
Bibliography

LINDA A. HILL
Reciprocal Interdependence
see TECHNOLOGY; MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT

Document
Page 470
Reciprocity
This is a strong, pervasive, ancient norm that can be represented by three sayings: one negative ("An
eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth."), one positive ("You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."), and one
general ("Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.") (see GROUP NORMS). The positive
and general sides of reciprocity have considerable social value: if people fulfill each others'
expectations, everyone is well served. Ignoring negative reciprocity, however, provides the basis for
unfulfilled expectations and interpersonal CONFLICT.
Cialdini (1985) notes that all societies subscribe to the norm of reciprocity. Organizationally,
reciprocity is most obvious during COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, where reciprocating concessions is
an almost immutable norm that contributes toward the resolution of labor–management conflict (see
CONFLICT RESOLUTION; MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICT).
But reciprocity's positive side can be turned around and used manipulatively (see INFLUENCE):
having received a favor, an individual may feel obligated to reciprocate. Thus, a subordinate who
flatters the boss can establish subtle pressures for the boss to reciprocate. Differentiating between a
favor (positive reciprocity) and a sales strategy (manipulative reciprocity), then, becomes an important
interpersonal and organizational skill (see INTERPERSONAL SKILLS). Unfortunately, most people's
needs for social affirmation also encourage flattery. Thus, while reciprocity provides the potential for
enormous interpersonal good, it also can tempt people toward ingratiation rather than actual work
performance (see IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT).
See also Exchange relations; Moral development; Game theory
Bibliography
Cialdini, Robert B. (1985). Influence: Science and practice (2nd edn). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
J. KEITH MURNIGHAN
Recruitment
Traditionally, recruitment has been conceptualized as the organizational process that precedes selection.
More specifically, recruitment has been described as the process of generating pools of applicants for
job vacancies; selection as the process of choosing from among those applicants. Recruitment has been
regarded as an attraction activity, selection as a screening or winnowing activity.

Document
More recently, recruitment and selection have come to be regarded as less distinct activities. For
example, because recruitment decisions (e.g., where to advertise) inevitably affect the characteristics of
the applicants generated, recruitment is in a very real sense the first stage in selection. Furthermore,
recruitment and selection often take place simultaneously and thus are difficult to disentangle in
practice (as when applicants are both enticed and evaluated in pre-employment interviews) (see
SELECTION INTERVIEWING).
Following a thorough review of the literature, Breaugh (1992) offered the following definition:
"Recruitment involves those organizational activities that:
(1) influence the number and/or the types of applicants who apply for a position; and/or
(2) affect whether a job offer is accepted" (p. 4).
However, a close examination of the recruitment literature reveals that only a small subset of the
potentially large number of organizational decisions that influence application and acceptance behaviors
have historically been considered part of the recruitment domain. This point is elaborated below.
Three topics have heavily dominated discussions of recruitment. They are recruiters, recruitment
sources (e.g., employment agencies, newspaper advertising), and recruitment messages (realistic versus
inflated). Although these variables clearly are capable of influencing application or job choice
behaviors, other variables that may have similar (or even greater) effects on applicants have been
largely ignored. For example, although PERSON SPECIFICATIONS, starting salaries, and hours of
work clearly affect application and choice behaviors, they have rarely been included as part of the
recruitment domain (see Rynes, 1991).
A number of factors probably account for this pattern. First, discussions of recruitment may focus
primarily on recruiters, sources, and messages because those topics are largely unique to the prehire
phase of employment. In contrast, JOB DESIGN, person specifications, and

Document
Page 471
PAYMENT SYSTEMS are believed to influence a variety of outcomes in addition to job acceptance,
such as performance and TURNOVER. These multiple roles have probably caused some of these
variables to be regarded as less manipulable solely for recruitment purposes. Finally, there has been a
high degree of fragmentation in the recruitment literature, with each main topic being considered in
isolation from the others. This fragmentation has made it difficult to get a holistic view of recruitment,
its antecedents, and its consequences.
For example, research on recruiters has tended to use field surveys to assess what applicants like or
dislike about recruiters, and how much it matters to their job choice intentions. Note that these are all
prechoice, prehire outcomes. In contrast, research on recruitment sources has used archival data to link
source of entry (e.g., campus placement) with posthire outcomes (performance, length of service).
Recruitment realism research has also looked primarily at posthire outcomes, employing field
experiments to do so (see REALISTIC JOB PREVIEWS).
In summary, there is some (perhaps unavoidable) confusion over the boundaries between recruitment
and selection, the range of activities that comprise recruitment, and the variety of factors that influence
recruiting success. These distinctions are important operationally, because taking an overly narrow view
of recruitment can result in ineffective staffing practices. For example, taking the traditional
perspective, an organization wishing to improve its recruiting outcomes would modify its sources,
replace its recruiters, or revise its recruiting messages. However, a broader view of recruitment would
suggest that solutions are equally likely to be found by such means as job redesign or the tailoring of
inducements.
Additional progress in the recruitment area will require that future studies examine recruitment in a
broader context (e.g., tight versus loose LABOR MARKETS; desirable versus undesirable
organizations). This is critical because strategies effective under certain conditions are unlikely to
succeed in others (Rynes & Barber, 1990). For example, minor refinements of traditional recruitment
practices may suffice for organizations with positive reputations, while a much broader set of tactics
(changes in job design, person specifications, or payment systems) may be required in poor-image
environments.
Research is also needed that jointly examines recruitment and selection as interactive, longitudinal
processes. Recruitment and selection have long been conceptualized as semiconflicting activities (with
the purported purpose of recruitment being to attract applicants; selection, to screen them out).
However, this conceptualization tends to obscure emerging evidence that there may multiple
opportunities for "win–win" strategies with respect to both objectives. For example, it appears to be
possible to construct SELECTION METHODS that are both valid and impressive to applicants (see
Rynes, 1992). Additionally, failure to conceptualize recruitment and selection as two-way decision
processes can cause organizations to lose candidates by being unduly complacent about prompt follow-
up between stages (Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991).

Document
A third area in need of increased attention concerns applicant quality. Because most vacancies are
eventually filled with somebody, the most critical questions regarding recruitment effectiveness involve
the longterm performance and work adjustment of new hires, relative to those who rejected offers or
who never applied. To date, most investigations of INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES in reactions to
recruitment have focused on gross, observable characteristics such as race or sex. Examination of
characteristics that are more closely aligned with WORK ADJUSTMENT and performance (e.g.,
cognitive ability, conscientiousness) would be highly desirable.
Finally, both researchers and practitioners need to be more aware of possible methodological biases in
reported results. For example, conclusions about the importance of recruiters (or pay) in applicants' job
choices appear to depend on the method used to generate the results (Rynes, 1991; Rynes, Bretz, &
Gerhart, 1991). More generally, applicant responses to questions about job choice (as well as
interviewer responses to questions about applicant selection) seem to be fraught with social desirability
biases and lack of self-insight. These findings prescribe caution with respect to reliance upon the results
of any single study,

Document
Page 472
and argue for a broader range of methodological approaches to major questions in this area.
See also Joining-up process; Job description; Human resources management; Human resources
planning; Vocational guidance
Bibliography
Breaugh, J. A. (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. Boston: PWS-Kent.
Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new research
directions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, (2nd edn, vol. 2, pp. 399–444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rynes, S. L. (1992). Who's selecting whom? Effects of selection practices on applicant attitudes and
behaviors. In W. C. Borman & N. W. Schmitt (Eds), Personnel selection (pp. 240–274). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Rynes, S. L. & Barber, A. E. (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspective.

Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D. & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A
different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487–521.
Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers.

SARA L. RYNES
Redundancy
This denotes loss of employment where the job is no longer required. Redundancy may occur in:
organizational "DOWNSIZING"; PRODUCTIVITY enhancement; SKILLS obsolescence;
externalization of services. It is sometimes used to avoid invoking the disciplinary procedure. Many
writers treat redundancy and UNEMPLOYMENT as interchangeable concepts but this is misleading.
Employees may be redundant but move to other jobs without unemployment. Some unemployed are not
redundant.
Redundancy has been compared with bereavement, with early stages of shock and disbelief and later,
acceptance. However, this implies the employee preferred to stay in the job and did not foresee its loss.
Some employees volunteer for redundancy. The bereavement model may be useful for some but not all
employees.

Document
Redundancy involves the loss of financial income and probably prestige, STATUS, and social identity.
Psychological well-being is reduced upon announcement of redundancies (see AFFECT).
ATTRIBUTION theory is used to explain:
(1) scapegoating of redundant employees;
(2) redundancy as less difficult psychologically where the experience involves large numbers; and
(3) adjustment easier for those with external attributions for redundancy and internal attributions for
regaining employment (see LOCUS OF CONTROL).
Some outplacement counseling has built on attribution theory (see COUNSELING IN

ORGANIZATIONS).
Longer-term effects, especially when followed by unemployment, include re-employment often at a

lower level, and the employee more vulnerable to future redundancies (Daniel, 1972). The
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT may change, though some recover their COMMITMENT upon re-
employment.
"Survivors" (colleagues remaining employed) feel guilty and are willing to work harder: explained by
EQUITY THEORY. However, JOB INSECURITY research suggests survivors become insecure. The
perception of procedural justice mitigates some negative effects (see JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL).
See also Mental health; Organizational decline and death; Career transitions
Bibliography
Daniel, W. W. (1972). The unemployment flow. London: Policy Studies Institute.
JEAN HARTLEY
Reference Group
see SOCIAL COMPARISON; JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE
Referent Power
see POWER BASES
Regulation
see GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS; INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY

Document

Document
Page 473
Regulations
see BUREAUCRACY; MANAGEMENT, CLASSICAL THEORY
Reinforcement
Operant reinforcement refers to a procedure, a behavior change process, and a single event. As a
procedure, reinforcement is the creation of a contingency between an operant behavior and a known
reinforcer. As a process, reinforcement is the increased rate of an operant behavior above its naturally
occurring base-line rate when occurrences of the behavior are followed by occurrences of a known
reinforcer. As a single event, reinforcement refers to an instance in which a reinforcer follows an
operant behavior, i.e., "the response produced a reinforcement" or each time the student correctly
imitated the model's behavior a reinforcement was delivered. Operant behavior rates and patterns of
rates during both reinforcement and EXTINCTION, at least under laboratory conditions, depend on the
schedule of reinforcement experienced during a person's exposure to operant reinforcement procedures.
Schedules of reinforcement are rules specifying conditions under which a reinforcer will follow a
behavior. A fixed ratio (FR-N) schedule specifies that every Nth response will be followed by a
reinforcement. When N = 1 the FR-N schedule is called a continuous reinforcement schedule, or CRF.
A variable ratio (VR-N) schedule specifies that the N between reinforced behaviors vary randomly
within some range so that on average every Nth behavior is followed by reinforcement. Slot machines or
one armed bandits exemplify VR-N schedules that exert powerful (sometimes addictive) control over
operant behaviors. The following equation is a feedback function for ratio schedules: R = B/N, where R
is rate of reinforcement received, B is rate of behavior performances, and N is the ratio schedule value.
It clearly indicates that, if performance occurs on ratio schedules, a virtually perfect correlation between
performance rate, B, and reinforcement rate, R, will occur regardless of values taken by N. In part, this
functional relationship accounts for the fact that ratio schedules support very high performance rates.
Fixed interval (FI-t) schedules specify that the first response to occur after passage of t time units since
the last reinforcement occurred will be followed by reinforcement. Variable interval (VI-t) schedules
specify that the interval of time that must elapse between one reinforcement and the next reinforcement
vary over some range so that the average time between reinforcements will be t. Empirical evidence
indicates that in general (i.e., except for exceedingly small values of t, and large values of N,
respectively, for interval and ratio schedules), ratio schedules virtually always support higher behavior
rates than do interval schedules. The fixed time (FT-t) schedule specifies that a reinforcement be
delivered every t time units contingent only upon the person being in a specific location when the
reinforcement is delivered. Concurrent reinforcement schedules (e.g., conFR/VI = concurrent FR and
VI) specify that two or more alternative schedules be continually available so the person can continually
choose between them.

Document
Applications of operant CONDITIONING procedures in organizations resemble applications of the law

of gravity in everyday affairs in that both applications represent analogue of the processes originally
described and quantified under controlled laboratory conditions. In organizations reinforcements can be
contingent on performance but follow with too long a delay to be isomorphic with reinforcement as it
occurs under laboratory conditions (Malott, 1992). Nevertheless, effective use has been made of
laboratory based operant learning concepts in the design of field interventions, and the process can be
described in terms of recently refined operant concepts (see Agnew & Redmon, in Mawhinney, 1992b).
Field interventions typically involve procedures of behavior specification, observation (measurement),
and scheduling consequences contingent on performances, e.g., constructing ratio-like schedules of
incentives and bonus pay (see BONUS PAYMENTS; PAYMENT SYSTEMS; REWARDS). For
example, Latham and Dossett (see Latham & Huber, in Hopkins & Mawhinney, 1992) constructed
continuous (CRF) and variable ratio four (VR-4) schedules of monetary pay contingencies among 14
beaver trappers who were randomly assigned to either the CRF or VR-4 schedule of bonus pay added to
their normal wages. The amount of bonus pay per occasion of "reinforcement" was, respectively, $1.00
and $4.00 contingent on each beaver

Document
Page 474
trapped and the reinforcement schedule. Note that the feedback functions for the two schedules are as
follows: CRF: R = $1 • B/1 and VR-4: R = $4 • B/4; thus, net value of reinforcements received (rate
times amount) was equal across the two schedules for equal performance rates. The number of beavers
trapped per trapper hours worked was 0.44 prior to the intervention and 0.63 during the intervention.
During the intervention, trapper hours per beaver trapped were 0.67 under the CRF and 0.58 under the
VR-4 schedule. A reinforcement schedule-by-experience level of the trappers was observed;
inexperienced trappers performed at a higher rate on the CRF and experienced trappers performed at a
higher rate on the VR-4 schedule. This interaction conforms with operant-based laboratory results that
suggest SKILL learning occurs more rapidly on CRF schedules while maintenance can be achieved
with VR schedules of partial reinforcement. The cost per beaver caught fell from $16.75 prior to the
intervention to $12.86 during the intervention. Verbal reports indicated high satisfaction with the
intervention among the unionized trappers and their supervisors. Performance increases in the classic
Hawthorne Experiments (see HAWTHORNE EFFECT) have been related to operant conditioning (see
Parsons, in Hopkins & Mawhinney, 1992) and the pay and cultural practices of the highest paid and
most productive work force in the United States, and perhaps the world, within the Lincoln Electric
Company can be considered applied principles of operant conditioning whether the formal principles
guided development of that work environment or not (see Handlin, in Hopkins & Mawhinney, 1992).
Verbal praise and other forms of social recognition from one's superiors, when properly scheduled, can
be powerful reinforcements often rivaling monetary reinforcement in their effects on behavior.
PREE refers to Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect, in which partial reinforcement (number and
random order of reinforced and unreinforced occurrences of B during reinforcement) results in greater
resistance to extinction (number of responses occurring before responding ceases) during an extinction
procedure (Capaldi, 1966). Researchers have provided experimental subjects with histories of
continuous and partial (and irregular) reinforcement of their decisions to allocate limited resources
among alternative investments or industrial projects and then exposed them to extinction procedures. As
predicted by PREE, subjects with histories of partial irregular reinforcement were more resistant to
extinction and allocated more resources to failing investments and projects (see PERSISTENCE), than
subjects who provided a history of regular (more predictable) partial or simply continuous
reinforcement (Hantula & Crowell, 1994). These results may well have implications for executive level
DECISION MAKING.
Recent develops in the literature include analyses of linkages between operant learning (see
LEARNING, INDIVIDUAL) processes and the role they may play in understanding and dealing with
practical issues such as ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE analysis and change (Mawhinney, 1992b),
pay-for-performance (see PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY) (Hopkins & Mawhinney, 1992), and
quality improvement (Mawhinney, 1992a) (see TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT). For current
accounts of social learning theory, SAFETY, ethics, and other topics viewed from an operant stand
point, see Organizational performance: Behavior analysis and management (Johnson, Redmon, &
Mawhinney, 1995).
See also Feedback; Knowledge of results; Punishment

Document
Bibliography
Capaldi, E. J. (1966). Partial reinforcement: A hypothesis of sequential effects. Psychological Review,

11, 459–477.
Hantula, D. A. & Crowell, C. R. (1994). Intermittent reinforcement and escalation processes in

sequential decision making: A replication and theoretical analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 14, (2), 7–36.
Hopkins, B. L. & Mawhinney, T. C. (Eds), (1992). Pay for performance: History, controversies, and
evidence. New York: Haworth Press.
Johnson, M., Redmon, W. K. & Mawhinney, T. C. (Eds), (1995). Organizational performance:

Behavior analysis and management. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Malott, R. W. (1992). A theory of rule-governed behavior and organizational behavior management.

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12, (2), 45–65.

Document
Page 475
Mawhinney, T. C. (1992a). Total quality management and organizational behavior management: An

integration for continual improvement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 225–243.
Mawhinney, T. C. (Ed.), (1992b). Organizational culture, rule-governed behavior and organizational

behavior management: Theoretical foundations and implications for research and practice. New York:
Haworth Press.
THOMAS C. MAWHINNEY
Reliability
In the context of organizational research, reliability refers to the degree of self-consistency among the
scores earned by an individual on a measure or the degree of consistency that exists among observations
made (e.g., of service quality) over repeated attempts to do so. More technically, it is the extent that a
set of scores, quantitative descriptions, or observations is free from unsystematic (ERROR variation,
when some aspect of an individual, organization, or a phenomenon is measured more than once.
Reliability is usually estimated from statistical evidence of covariation among a set of items, scores, or
observations (see STATISTICAL METHODS). Good reliability is a necessary condition for a useful
measure or procedure. Evidence of poor or low reliability is a clue that it would be unwise to accept the
information, "facts" or data in question at face value (e.g., we should not try to generalize from what we
have (see GENERALIZATION)). Moreover, low reliability sets limits to the order of magnitude and
stability of statistical relationships that we can expect in research. High reliability can be promoted by
using appropriate operational definitions (see OPERATIONALIZATION), standardized measurement
procedures, careful training of observers/recorders, or by choosing to measure phenomena that are not
too subtle or elusive.
See also Research methods; Psychological testing; Research design; Validity; Bias
Bibliography
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P. & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences.
San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

RICHARD KLIMOSKI
Repetitive Work

Document
This term refers to the repeating of some act or chain of acts in the completion of tasks at work. It is
commonly assumed that repetitive and monotonous work can have detrimental effects on psychological
and physical well-being (see MENTAL HEALTH; STRESS). However, this view is simplistic and
challenged by psychological evidence that some workers may prefer repetitive tasks. Some types of
repetitive work can have severe psychological and physical consequences: repetitive strain injury (RSI)
or repetitive trauma disorder (RTD) are examples. RSI is a label given to a variety of painful,
debilitating conditions believed to be caused by rapid repetitive movements of the hands, wrists, or
arms when awkwardly positioned. RSI was traditionally associated with manual work (e.g., carpentry)
but a significant new group of affected workers has been identified – computer keyboard operators.
Exacerbating factors for these individuals appeared to be the static load imposed on certain parts of
their body (e.g., keeping wrists and shoulders in the same position for lengthy periods). Other
occupational risk factors which may cause, contribute to, or aggravate RSI or RTD can be reduced or
eliminated through careful JOB DESIGN: repetitive or sustained exertions, certain postures, vibration,
low temperatures, and mechanical stress on the palmer side of the hands or on the sides of the fingers.
See also Ergonomics; Job satisfaction; Scientific management; Quality of working life;
Technology; Role
Bibliography
Philips, C. R., Bedeian, A. G. & Molstad, C. (1991). Repetitive work: Contrast and conflict. Journal of
Socio Economics, 20, 73–82.
NOEL SHEEHY and A. GALLAGHER
Representation
This involves the articulation and expression of the interests of employees to the management of an
organization. It differs

Document
Page 476
from PARTICIPATION, which is the active involvement in organizational activities. In practice, the
distinction is often blurred as representative structures allow some participation in DECISION
MAKING. Representation can be achieved on an individual or collective basis. Individual mechanisms
include single-issue means, such as grievance procedures and "open door" policies, and multiple-issue
methods such as opinion surveys (see SURVEY FEEDBACK). The former permit responses to specific
concerns but are not designed to cover more general issues. The latter collect wider sets of views but do
not allow direct NEGOTIATION between managers and workers. Collective systems, allowing the
aggregation of the interests of workers as a group, involve elected committees, which may cover
specific issues such as health and safety or the whole of an organization's activities. Representation can
occur through special-purpose bodies such as works councils (see DEMOCRACY) or as part of the
wider system of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. Representation systems operate at various levels, from
the immediate work place to the corporate head office, though representation at the highest levels is rare
except in countries where it is legally required.
See also Trade unions; Decision making; Industrial relations; Collective action
Bibliography
Fox, A. (1985). Man mismanagement (2nd edn). London: Hutchinson.
PAUL EDWARDS
Reputation
Companies rely on both tangible and intangible resources to gain competitive advantage against rivals
(see COMPETITIVENESS). Chief among intangible resources is a company's "reputation" – the salient
characteristics that external observers ascribe to the company (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). When
surveyed, senior managers point to a company's reputation as among the most important success drivers
and ponder how to induce and maintain favorable assessments of their companies by outside observers.
Efforts to understand how corporate reputations develop draw on the perspectives of either economics,
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, or sociology.
The Economic View
Economists adhere to a view of reputation as either a trait or a signal. Game theorists regard reputations
as character traits that distinguish among "types" of companies and can explain their strategic behavior
(see GAME THEORY). Signalling theorists emphasize the informational content of reputations. Both
recognize that reputations are perceptions of companies held by external observers.

Document
Weigelt and Camerer (1988, p. 443) point out that " . . . in game theory the reputation of a player is the
perception others have of the player's values . . . which determine his/her choice of strategies."
Information asymmetry forces external observers to look for proxies to describe the preferences of
rivals and their likely courses of action. Consumers rely on a company's reputation because they have
less information than managers do about the company's commitment to delivering desirable product
features (Stiglitz, 1989). Similarly, since outside investors are less informed than managers about a
company's future actions, a favorable reputation increases investor confidence that managers will act in
ways that are reputation-consistent. For game theorists, reputations are therefore functional: they
generate perceptions among employees, customers, investors, competitors, and the general public about
what a company is, what it does, and what it stands for.
Signaling theorists concur: reputations derive from the prior resource allocations managers make to first-
order activities likely to create a perception of reliability and predictability to outside observers. Since
many features of a company and its products are hidden from view, reputations are information signals
which increase an observer's confidence in the company's products and services.
Managers can make strategic use of their company's reputation to signal its attractiveness. When the
quality of a company's products and services is not directly observable, high-quality producers may
invest in reputation-building in order to signal the greater quality of their products and services
(Shapiro, 1983). Their

Document
Page 477
initial investments in building reputation allows them to charge premium prices and earn rents from the
repeat purchases that their reputations generate. In contrast, low-quality producers avoid investing in
reputation-building because they do not expect repeat purchases.
Similar dynamics may operate in the capital and labor markets. In the capital markets, managers
routinely try to signal investors about their company's economic performance. Since investors are more
favorably disposed to companies with high and stable earnings, managers often try to smooth quarterly
earnings and keep dividend pay-out ratios high and fixed, despite earnings fluctuations. In the labor
market, sometimes companies will also pay a premium price to hire high-reputation auditors and
outside counsel. They rent the reputations of their agents in order to signal investors, regulators, and
other publics about their company's probity and credibility (Wilson, 1983).
The Strategic View
When viewed strategically, reputations are mobility barriers (Caves & Porter, 1977) that produce
returns to companies because they are difficult to imitate. By circumscribing companies' actions and
rivals' reactions, reputations act as a distinct source of industry-level structure.
In part, reputations are barriers to competition because they derive from unique internal features of
companies that are difficult to duplicate. They describe the history of a company's past interactions with
STAKEHOLDERS and so suggest to observers what the company stands for (Dutton & Dukerich,
1991). Reputations are also difficult to replicate because they are externally perceived, and therefore
difficult to manipulate. Rivals cannot generate the performance results of their better-regarded rivals
because, other things being equal, all stakeholders favor the products and services of the more reputable
companies. After all, it takes time for a reputation to congeal in observers' minds, and empirical studies
show that even when confronted with negative information, observers resist changing their reputational
assessments.
Like economists, then, strategists call attention to the competitive benefits of acquiring favorable
reputations and support a focus on the longitudinal resource allocations that companies must make to
erect reputational barriers to the mobility of rivals. Since primary resource allocations also stand to
directly improve organizational performance, however, it proves difficult to isolate their unique impact
on performance and reputation. That's why empirical studies have had difficulty untangling a causal
ordering: Both are produced by the same underlying initiatives (Chakravarthy, 1986).

Document
Although most strategists dwell on the economic and competitive aspects of managerial decision
making, a subset call attention to the social aspects of these decisions. Social performance theorists tend
to take the moral highground to suggest principles and practices that managers should adhere to in order
to induce ethically sound strategic decisions (see CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY).
However, current approaches now emphasize that companies have diverse stakeholders with valid
claims on the strategies that companies pursue, and so advise politically savvy managers to address
social concerns in order to secure external LEGITIMACY (Cameron & Whetten, 1983). Implictly, they
suggest that corporate reputations may well gauge the legitimacy of companies' strategic initiatives
(Fombrun & Shanley, 1990).
The Sociological View
Sociologists suggest that economic and strategic models both distort the socio-cognitive process which
actually generates reputational rankings (Granovetter, 1985). To them, rankings are social constructions
that come into being through the relationships that a focal company establishes with its stakeholders
within an institutional field (see SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM). Companies have multiple
evaluators, each of whom apply different criteria in assessing companies. Reputations come into being
as individuals struggle to make sense of a company's past and present actions. So that reputational
rankings represent aggregated assessments of institutional prestige and describe the stratification of the
social system surrounding companies and industries (Shapiro, 1987).
Faced with incomplete information about a company's actions, observers not only interpret

Document
Page 478
the signals that a company routinely broadcasts, but also rely on the evaluative signals refracted by key
intermediaries such as market analysts, professional investors, public interest monitors, and media
reporters. These intermediaries are key nodes in an intercompany network that transmits and refracts
information among companies and their stakeholders (see NETWORK ANALYSIS). An empirical
study of companies involved in nuclear-waste disposal and photovoltaic cell development demonstrated
how in both these industries reputational status depended, not only on structural factors like company
size and economic performance, but also on a company's position in the interaction networks linking
companies in each institutional field (Shrum & Wuthnow, 1988).
An Integrative View
Jointly, these three perspectives suggest that reputations constitute subjective, collective assessments of
the credibility and reliability of companies, with the following characteristics:
Reputations are derivative, second-order characteristics of an industrial social system that crystallize
the emergent status of companies in the field.
Reputations develop from companies' prior resource allocations and histories and constitute mobility
barriers that constrain companies' actions and rivals' reactions.
Reputations crystallize from the bottom-up constructions of diverse evaluators, each applying a
combination of economic and social, selfish and altruistic criteria.
Reputations reconcile the multiple images of companies among all of their stakeholders, and signal
their overall attractiveness to employees, consumers, investors, and local communities.
Reputations embody two key dimensions of companies' effectiveness: An appraisal of companies'

economic performance, and an appraisal of companies'success in fulfilling social responsibilities
(Etzioni, 1988).
So that a corporate reputation is a collective representation of a company's past actions and results that
describes the company's overall attractiveness to its diverse stakeholders.
See also Organizational effectiveness; Trust; Organization and environment; Structure-conduct-

performance model
Bibliography
Cameron, K. S. & Whetten, D. A. (Eds), (1983). Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of

multiple models. New York: Academic Press.
Caves, R. E. & Porter, M. E. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 91, 421–434.

Document
Chakravarthy, B. (1986). Measuring strategic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 437–458.
Dutton, J. E. & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.
Fombrun, C. J. & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation-building and corporate strategy.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high-quality products as returns to reputations. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 98, 659–681.
Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 623–
658.
Shrum, W. & Wuthnow, R. (1988). Reputational status of organizations in technical systems. American
Journal of Sociology, 93, 882–912.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1989). Imperfect information in the product market. In R. Schmalensee & R. Willig
(Eds), Handbook of industrial organization (Chap. 13, pp. 769–847). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Weigelt, K. & Camerer, C. (1988). Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and
applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 443–454.
Wilson, R. (1983). Auditing: Perspectives from multiperson decision theory. Accounting Review, 58,
305–318.
CHARLES FOMBRUN
Requisite Variety
see OPEN SYSTEMS; SYSTEMS THEORY
Research and Development Management
Research and development (R&D) are sources of profits from new products and

Document
Page 479
services that raise a distinctive set of issues for managers. In simple terms, research leads to the
discovery of new knowledge or technology, and development is taking them to market as a product or
service.
R&D brings both high potential for profits and high UNCERTAINTY, introducing several groups of
management issues: investment under uncertainty, interfaces with marketing and production, R&D
alliances, and managing scientific professionals (Pearson, 1989) (see PROFESSIONALS IN
ORGANIZATIONS).
Managers are likely never to face as much uncertainty as when they select R&D projects to fund.
Where new technologies are involved, technical performance, production feasibility, and market
response are all poorly understood. Still, the short market life of many TECHNOLOGY products makes
these decisions recurring – although not routine (see DECISION MAKING). Managers can reduce
some uncertainty with technology forecasting and market analysis. However, the research on innovation
management indicates that intangibles, for instance, the effectiveness of project champions, are also
important (Cohen & Levanthal, 1990).
The more critical is INNOVATION to firms' performance, the greater the demands to effectively
manage the R&D/Marketing interface. Marketing is often cited as a weak spot for technology
companies. However, customers' acceptance of new products is the ultimate test of the value of R&D.
New products sometimes represent a discontinuous break with the familiar. It is likely that customers
perceive no need for such products, technical superiority notwithstanding. Companies can gain
advantages with the proper balance of technology push-and-market pull. R&D and marketing personnel
jointly identify needs, assess market response, design products, and develop a product presentation.
Organizational structures, like cross-functional teams, have been recommended (see MATRIX
ORGANIZATION). New information and COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES also have potential
to improve coordination in unprecedented ways (Ancona, 1990; Keller, 1994).
A second important interface is with PRODUCTION SYSTEMS. Speed to market and reduced cycle
times may both lead to competitive advantage (see COMPETITIVENESS). Customers also value high
reliability, even in new products. Relations between R&D and production are important to each.
Products can be designed for manufacturability, to minimize the number of components, automate
assembly, simplify handling, and promote quality (see TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT).
Coordination and proper balance of influence between the two functions are key functions. As in the
case of marketing, champions, organizational structures like teams, and COMMUNICATIONS are
some of the solutions from organizational research (Katz & Allen, 1985).

Document
STRATEGIC ALLIANCES involving R&D are an outgrowth of firms specialization. Companies can
realize the benefits of R&D even though they are not vertically integrated (see VERTICAL
INTEGRATION). Instead, managers may choose to specialize in activities where they are best, and
leave other tasks to other companies. Advantages of specialization are an incentive behind alliances.
They can efficiently carry out R&D transactions, and concentrate on their advantages. However,
managing PARTICIPATION in alliances presents a different challenge from managing activities in-
house. Differences occur in the needs to evaluate partners, contract for contingencies, assess costs and
benefits, and control the flow of proprietary information (see TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER).
Finally, cultures and values can conflict between engineers and scientists and their managers. Some
sources are alignment of professional orientation with organizational goals, individual versus team
INCENTIVES, advancement, and information sharing. Responses include cross-TRAINING of
technical and management people and communication.
See also Knowledge-workers; Professionalism; Project management; Innovation adoption;

Innovation diffusion
Bibliography
Ancona, D. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Organization
Science, 3, 321–341.
Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation.

Document
Page 480
Katz, R. & Allen, T. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix.
Keller, R. (1994). Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups:
A test of contingency theory. Academy of Management Journal, 37, (1), 167–179.
Pearson, A. (1989). Twenty-one years of research into the management of R&D. R&D Management,
19, (2), 99–101.
MICHAEL W. LAWLESS
Research Design
This can be defined as the methodological strategy employed by empirical investigators in order to
contribute to knowledge in a field of inquiry. It is the lynch-pin between ideas and data, and the
adequacy of research design determines whether THEORY is tested, whether concepts are applied (see
OPERATIONALIZATION), whether data are analyzable, whether measures are reliable (see
RELIABILITY), whether results are generalizable (see GENERALIZATION), and whether inferences
are valid (see VALIDITY).
Research design involves a number of choices:
1. Strategy/Procedure. The overall research strategy can be seen as embodying the investigator's
implicit model of the relationship between ideas and data. Four main types of approach can be
distinguished:
(a) Deductive – the design constrains and manipulates variables in order to test hypotheses, usually
about causal relations or other associations among them, e.g., whether A is consistently linked with
B;
(b) Inductive – the design seeks to accumulate data to add to an existing corpus, or build ''grounded
theory" (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) by accretion for empirical or ecological generalization, e.g.,
whether all As are Bs;
(c) Interpretive – the design explores the interior dynamics of a phenomenon by observation and
description at close hand within an interpretive frame, e.g., how A works; and
(d) Interventionist – the design involves the recording of the results of controlled intervention in a
social setting, e.g., how B changes as a result of action on A.
These approaches are not mutually exclusive, and a researcher may adopt more than one of them within
the compass of a single study. It is termed "methodological triangulation" when different approaches
are used to converge and cross-validate each other.

Document
2. Measurement. Measurement is defined here as any systematically applied method of data gathering
and classifying. Within ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR (OB) a wide variety of measurement
methods are to be found, broadly divided into qualitative and quantitative types (see RESEARCH
METHODS). These include records of observational data, archival analysis, paper and pencil measures
(e.g., questionnaires), diary methods, and individual and group interviews. Each has strengths and
weaknesses, as summarized in various sources (Nachmias & Nachmias, 1982; Bryman, 1989; Gill &
Johnson, 1991).
3. Control. The essence of research design is what kinds of controls are applied to data gathering. Thus
how the design is structured determines both the form of data to be analyzed and what range of data
analytic techniques could be applied. The most common forms of research design to be found in OB are:
(a) Experiments – Control is applied by the assignment of subjects to groups, either randomly or
selectively by a specified criterion. In the "experimental" (or "treatment") group, potentially
explanatory variables are manipulated. In the control group these factors are held constant, or, in
some variations, a treatment is applied which is expected not to generate equivalent effects (e.g., a
"placebo" treatment). Thus the differential effects on one or more dependent variables can be
observed and interpreted. Additionally, to eliminate unconscious experimenter BIAS, "blind" and
"double blind" controls are often applied, keeping experimenters and subjects in ignorance during
the experiment about whom has been assigned to which group. Areas where experimental methods
are commonly used include laboratory studies of NEGOTIATION, COGNITIVE PROCESSES,
and ERGONOMICS.
(b) Quasi-experiments – Design parameters follow the above as closely as possible but

Document
Page 481
in naturalistic settings where controls are generally more partial or incomplete (see QUASI-
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN). Examples of this approach are to be found in such areas as JOB
DESIGN, PARTICIPATION, and GROUP DECISION MAKING.
(c) Natural experiments – As above, but the treatment is some naturally occurring event whose
effects are measured. Examples of this design are typically found in areas where interest is mainly
focused on the incidence of a dependent variable, such as ACCIDENTS, PRODUCTIVITY, and
TURNOVER.
(d) SURVEYS – Responses to questions are gathered in a standardized form, often subject to
scaling to allow valid comparison across individuals and groups, and for relationships between
variables to be quantified by statistical analysis (see STATISTICAL METHODS). Surveys have
designs which are either cross-sectional (one-shot) or longitudinal (repeated). In both, causal
relationships must be inferred from correlational or difference-testing statistics, but can be done
more confidently from longitudinal designs. Surveys are very extensively used at both the micro
and macro levels of OB, to gather data from populations of employees, workgroups, or firms. Most
of the research on JOB SATISFACTION, MOTIVATION, PERSONALITY, and LEADERSHIP
relies heavily upon standardized questionnaire scales.
(e) Case method (see CASE STUDY RESEARCH) – Data are gathered from one or more cases,
usually by more than a single method, such as observation, interview, and archives. Where a single
or small number of cases is examined the method is usually termed clinical, idiographic or
ethnographic (see ETHNOGRAPHY). Larger numbers of cases are studied for inductive,
taxonomic, or comparative purposes. Cases may also be longitudinal or cross-sectional in design.
Case method has made key contributions in many areas of OB, including the study of
MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, COMPETITIVENESS,
organizational CRISES, and research into such areas as POWER, POLITICS, and CONFLICT.
(f) Other – Various other approaches can be found including SIMULATIONS, where models are
tested either by observing human performance in simulated environments (see COGNITIVE
ERGONOMICS) or by means of artificially generated inputs (see COMPUTER MODELING).
Data from various kinds of sources can also be subject to NETWORK ANALYSIS, to map
relational properties within defined populations. Archival data are used in many studies, for
example, by event-history analysis, to study how populations change over time, e.g., in
POPULATION ECOLOGY studies of the birth and death of firms. Finally are various secondary
analytical methods, where data from previous studies are recombined inductively. The most
common in current use is meta-analysis (see VALIDITY GENERALIZATION), where the extant
studies on a small number of variables are accumulated by strict statistical criteria to take account
of sample and effect sizes, measurement ERROR, and covariates to estimate the true relationship
among the variables (e.g., the magnitude of the link between ABSENTEEISM and JOB
SATISFACTION; Hackett & Guion, 1985).

Document
Schaubroeck and Kuehn (1992) recently surveyed design strengths and weaknesses in Industrial/
Organizational Psychology research by examining 199 studies published during 1989 and 1990. The
analysis was conducted in the nomothetic tradition, i.e., assessing studies' adherence to scientific
methodology. The criteria applied were
(a) construct validity, the extent to which operations represented the theoretical construct in question;
(b) internal validity, the extent to which causal relationships could be reasonably inferred; and
(c) external validity, the extent to which results could be expected to generalize to different settings.
The study found research into job attitudes and selection/staffing tended to be the most exploratory;
selection/staffing and MOTIVATION studies made most use of occupational (as opposed to student)
samples; selection/staffing and PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL studies tended to be more
multioperational. Overall, motivation and leadership studies appeared to

Document
Page 482
have the most design strengths, i.e., they more often used a strong inference methodology, testing
theories against one another and using results to establish new hypotheses.
The study concluded that a general strength of the field was the large volume of work conducted in the
field. Experimental studies were generally quite sophisticated in terms of measurement and treatment
conditions. At the same time, much research was cross-sectional, with infrequent use of objective
measures and little cross-validation of exploratory findings. Very few studies combined design
strengths such as longitudinal observations and multiple data sources.
Schaubroeck and Kuehn's review focused on journals representing psychological or micro level
approaches (see LEVELS OF ANALYSIS), in which it appears there are fairly strong attempts to
adhere to scientific methodology, whilst indicating considerable room for improvement in meeting this
criterion. It may be wondered whether a similar review of more macro or sociological approaches
would yield a different array of strengths and weaknesses – with greater attention to contextual realism
and methodological triangulation, but less refinement of measurement and more limited scope for
quantifiable generalization. This is plausible, but empirically untested (Gummesson, 1988).
As the field of OB matures we may find two developments occurring. On the one hand, there may be
less polarization between the contrasting extremes represented by different disciplinary PARADIGMS,
and more integrative approaches to organizational issues. On the other hand, we may find more subject-
specific methods emerging from the rapidly increasing sophistication of methodological and analytical
tools, such as electronic event-recording or interactive software designs.
See also Action research; Interactionism; Theory
Bibliography
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London:
Heinemann.
Bryman, A. (1989). Research methods and organization studies. London: Unwin Hyman.
Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (1991). Research methods for managers. London: Paul Chapman.
Glaser, D. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York: Aldine.
Gummesson, E. (1988). Qualitative research in management. Bromley, UK: Chartwell-Bratt.
Hackett, R. D. & Guion, R. M. (1985). A reevaluation of the absenteeism–job satisfaction relationship.

Nachmias, C. & Nachmias, D. (1982). Research methods in the social sciences. London: Arnold.

Document
Schaubroeck, J. & Kuehn, K. (1992). Research design in industrial and organizational psychology. In C.
L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology,
(vol. 7). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
NIGEL NICHOLSON and JOHN SCHAUBROECK
Research Methods
These can be classified into two main types – qualitative and quantitative. Both have been used
extensively in ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR research.
Choice of method is usually justified by the argument that qualitative approaches provides depth and
quantitative ones breadth. The former are said to be useful in concept and THEORY generation, the
latter for testing specific theories and hypothesized relationships between variables. But this distinction
does not fully hold. Many quantitative studies have led to major conceptual and/or theoretical
development and a number of qualitative studies involve the collection of some quantitative data to test
hypotheses.
There are numerous texts on organizational research methods, though some are written for those
researching from within a more general social science perspective and others for those with a
management research perspective. An example of the former is Miller (1991), and of the latter is
Easterby Smith, Thorpe, and Lowe (1991).
A key issue for quantitative researchers is how innovative to be in the use of concepts, variables, and
research questions. INNOVATION in theory, conceptualization, and method, simultaneously, is best
avoided. A major strength of the classic Aston studies (Pugh & Hickson, 1976), for example, was their
innovativeness in generating variables and questionnaire items but developing these as measures of

Document
Page 483
well-established Weberian concepts of bureaucratization (see BUREAUCRACY). Subsequent studies

in the Aston tradition used the same measures and variables but innovated in the way they have been
applied. Though psychologists have several well-established and tested standard questionnaires which
they can use in novel circumstances there are rather few other examples in organizational research of
standard protocols of this kind (see SURVEYS). More are needed and those that there are should be
used more systematically and intensively. Too much methodological innovation vitiates the
RELIABILITY of organizational behavior research and does not help build up a cumulative body of
reliable knowledge in the field.
Qualitative research usually means the case study, the classic methodology text for this being Yin
(1984) (see CASE STUDY RESEARCH). He distinguishes the case study from ETHNOGRAPHY and
participant observation, both the latter implying a much greater degree of involvement by the researcher
in the organization than for normal case study research. There is a tendency for the case study method
to be associated with the use of grounded theory along the lines developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967)
but this is by no means necessary. Case study research usually requires good access to the organization
under investigation, though a number of insightful case studies have relied on interviews with
informants outside the working context or on historical sources.
A further dimension to the research process is the position of the researcher. Choice of method, and the
nature and quality of the results obtained, depend substantially on the seniority of the researcher, and
whether, if junior, they are working under the direction of a more senior colleague, perhaps as part of a
research team. Junior staff are usually more free to use time-intensive research methods. Senior staff
may have less time but more power to command larger research funds and higher-level organizational
access. Choice of methods may also be constrained if one is a member of a research team. Such
practical factors may dictate research methods more than the theoretical posture of the researcher or the
topic under investigation.
What trends might be discerned for the future direction of organizational research methods? As
economists increasingly interest themselves in organizational issues will their tendency to conceptual
simplification for the sake of operational measures shift the field further in the direction of more
quantitative studies? Or will changes in the nature of organizations toward more flexible, small-scale
forms operating in increasingly mobile and fluid LABOR MARKETS shift the field further toward
qualitative studies generating holistic explanations of organizational behavior? Organizational research
is to some extent a political activity and methods reflect the politics. To what extent will, and should,
organizational researchers increasingly adopt methods such as action/intervention research in order to
work in partnership with organizational members to generate results that they judge relevant and
useful? How much funds, and access, will there be in the future for organizational research methods
that reflect a more critical perspective and are for an audience outside the organization, engaged
perhaps in policy formulation?
See also Research design; Evaluation research; Statistical methods

Document
Bibliography
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Lowe, A. (1991). Management research: An introduction. London:
Sage.
Glaser, D. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York: Aldine.
Miller, D. C. (1991). Handbook of research design and social measurement (5th edn). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Pugh, D. S. & Hickson, D. J. (Eds), (1976). Organizational structure in its context: The Aston
programme I. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
ARTHUR FRANCIS
Resistance to Change
Change is basic to life. Whether compelled by circumstances or intentionally planned, it is often

essential to survival. But organizations and individuals vary widely in the way they deal with the
necessity to adapt to new conditions. Such adaptation may take

Document
Page 484
various forms: redesigning jobs; altering organizational structure; adding and/or removing members;
and modifying prevailing norms and relationships that are part of the ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.
Among the major sources of resistance to change are the protection of material interests, fear of the
unknown, and mistrust based upon bad past experience. There also may be an underlying concern about
upsetting comfortable social arrangements represented in GROUP NORMS, STATUS, HIERARCHY,
and REWARD systems. Exemplifying this, Miller and Rice (1967) reported that organizational groups
may defend an outmoded task procedure because of such concerns. Yet, organizations require
adaptative change to overcome their rigidities, including conformism, the rejection of new ideas,
territoriality, favoritism, and other dysfunctional practices.
Introducing change requires a multistep process. A pioneer in developing a GROUP DYNAMICS

approach to creating social change, psychologist Kurt Lewin in the 1940s emphasized a three-step
group process:
(1) introducing an innovation with information aimed to satisfy a need;
(2) overcoming resistance by group discussion and DECISION MAKING; and
(3) establishing a new practice.
Prevailing practices are seen to be in a "quasi-stationary equilibrium," i.e., a steady though

impermanent balance, that must be "unfrozen" before new practices can be introduced through a group
process. Nadler and Tushman (1989) have advanced these points with regard to MOTIVATION for
change, the transition state to be managed during and after, and the political dynamics of the situation
needed for its support. As a general matter, those likely to be affected by a change should be informed
and have a stake in the process shaping it.
The process of overcoming resistance is especially furthered by problem recognition when a need
becomes manifest, as with scarcity in time of war, depression, or other calamity. The sheer availability
of new information also contributes to the possibility of change, particularly with the widespread
presence of instantaneous media. Among other things, information gives awareness of more alternatives
for action. However, these are perceived within the frames provided by the conceptual models held by
organization members, especially leaders. Resistance to change may therefore be based on a limited
conception of organizational functioning, as with strict reliance on a hierarchical mechanical structure
rather than a more adaptable organic one (Burns & Stalker, 1968).
On pragmatic grounds, however, a rational basis may exist for resistance to change. This is evident in
the case of managers who see themselves being displaced by such organizational practices as SELF-
MANAGED TEAMS, DELAYERING, and DOWNSIZING. The understandable concerns of those
affected need to be recognized and addressed by such means as an information-based group process. It
is also essential to see resistance as part of a system of relationships, as Miller and Rice (1967) have
observed.

Document
At the macro level, this system is embedded in the organization's culture, represented in the prevailing
norms, VALUES, and beliefs underpinning the structures, COMMITMENTS, and actions there
(Kilmann, Saxton, & Serpa, 1985). While it may make for comfortable stability, CULTURE also
presents rigidity in the face of needed change, unless an effective LEADERSHIP process can be
instituted. This is one of the major contributions which can be made through techniques of
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (OD), to encourage organization renewal and change. This
process may need to cope with a reluctance to air disagreements, because of an avoidance of emotional
conflict.
Other conceptual models have emphasized such factors as "momentum" (Miller & Friesen, 1980) in
describing an organization's evolution toward a structure that provides coherence in a single interpretive
scheme, an archetype. To change it, rather than simply make incremental changes within it, has been
called "frame-breaking" versus "frame-bending" by Nadler and Tushman (1989). In bringing about
strategic change, such structural elements as these need to be recognized, understood, and dealt with, as
part of overcoming resistance to it (see, e.g., Greenwood & Hinings, 1993).
See also Collective action; Conflict; Employee involvement; Group norms;

Document
Page 485
Obedience; Organizational change; Politics
Bibliography
Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1968). The management of innovation, (2nd edn). London: Tavistock.
Greenwood, R. & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of

archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1052–1081.
Kilmann, R., Saxton, M. & Serpa, R. (Eds), (1985). Gaining control of the corporate culture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, D. & Friesen, P. (1980). Momentum and revolution in organization adaptation. Academy of
Miller, E. J. & Rice, R. K. (1967). Systems of organization. London: Tavistock.
Nadler, D. A. & Tushman, M. (1989). Organizational framebending: Principles for managing

reorientation. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 194–204.
Robertson, P. J., Roberts, D. R. & Porras, J. I. (1993). Dynamics of planned organizational change:
Assessing empirical support for a theoretical model. academy of Management Journal, 36, 619–634.
EDWIN P. HOLLANDER
Resource Based Theory
One approach for describing the strategy formulation process in organizations focuses on matching an
organization's internal strengths and weaknesses with its external opportunities and threats. Several
models have been developed for analyzing an organization's external opportunities and threats (see
FIVE FORCES MODEL). Most of these models build on insights from industrial
ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS (see STRUCTURE–CONDUCT–PERFORMANCE MODEL).
Resource based theory provides an approach for analyzing an organization's internal strengths and
weaknesses.
Resource based theory builds on a variety of research traditions in organization science and economics.
For example, Ricardo's analysis of the economic consequences of land and other fixed factors of
production is very much in the spirit of resource based theory, as is traditional research on the impact of
general managers in organizations, and Selznick's analysis of institutional LEADERSHIP (see
INSTITUTIONAL THEORY). Perhaps the most obvious precursor to resource based theory is
Penrose's work on the limits of firm growth (see ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE).

Document
The concept of resources, in resource based theory, should be understood broadly and includes physical
resources (e.g., land, machines), financial resources (e.g., money), human resources (e.g., individual
experience, individual training), and organizational resources (e.g., teamwork among individuals,
organizational REPUTATIONS, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE (see TRAINING, HUMAN
RESOURCES STRATEGY, ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). Different authors have used different
terms to describe these resources. While distinctions are subtle, resources are often described as the
fundamental attributes of organizations, capabilities as those attributes of organizations enabling them
to take advantage of their resources, and COMPETENCIES are those attributes of organizations
particularly relevant in managing DIVERSIFICATION strategies (see CORE COMPETENCE).
Agreement about these distinctions is still emerging.
Two assumptions underpin resource based theory:
(1) that different organizations, even if they are in the same industry, may have different resources and
capabilities; and
(2) these differences are stable over time.
Thus, in contrast to traditional economic models, the resources and capabilities of different
organizations are thought to reflect an organization's unique history, its unique geographic location(s),
the unique relations among its managers, the unique relations it has with suppliers and customers, its
unique culture, traditions, and so forth.
Resources and capabilities become strategically relevant to the extent that they enable an organization
to respond to external threats and opportunities in ways that organizations without these resources and
capabilities cannot respond. They become sources of sustained competitive advantage to the extent that
they are also costly for other firms to imitate (see COMPETITIVENESS). High cost imitation may
reflect a variety of attributes of a firm's resources and capabilities, including:

Document
Page 486
(1) that these resources and capabilities are only developed over long periods of time (path dependence);
(2) that they may be tacit and taken for granted; and
(3) that they may be socially complex and relatively immune from direct managerial action.
Resource based theory provides a direct conceptual link between an organization's more behavioral and
social attributes and its ability to gain a competitive advantage, since behavioral and social
organizational attributes are often costly to imitate. In this sense, resource based theory provides an
economic rationale for the study of behavioral and social attributes of organizations.
See also Resource dependence; Organization and environment; Population ecology; Strategic
management
Bibliography
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and the theory of business strategy.
Management Science, 42, 1231–1241.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17,
99–120.
Conner, K. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within
industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17,
121–154.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.
JAY B. BARNEY
Resource Dependence
This perspective views organizations as needing to exchange resources in order to survive and looks at
the way in which organizations can cope with the environmental dependencies thereby created.
Using an OPEN SYSTEMS framework, the approach emphasizes that organizations must interact with
their environments (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT). Organizations need to take in
resources such as materials, finance and personnel and transform these into products and services.
These processes necessitate interactions that must be managed effectively. A key job for managers is to
manage the relationships with these externalities as well as overseeing internal organizational processes.

Document
Because the environment provides resources, organizations do not have complete control over the
inputs they need. This is a source of UNCERTAINTY. Some of these resources will be more critical
than others and some will be under the control of more dominant organizations (see DOMINANCE).
These factors affect how dependent the organization is. Dependence is therefore a function of:
(1) the importance of the resource in terms of how much of it is required and how critical it is to the
organization;
(2) how much discretion the provider of the resource has over its use and allocation; and
(3) how far those who control it are in a monopoly situation.
Organizations can take a number of actions to cope with dependence. They can either form
INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS or change the environment (see
Interorganizational relationships are cooperative alliances formed with other organizations to try and
control uncertainty or absorb it. For example, firms can CONTRACT with each other, enter into JOINT
VENTURE agreements, or merge with or acquire other organizations (see STRATEGIC
ALLIANCES). Interlocking directorates are a means of gaining information about the environment and
forging networks within it (see NETWORKING).
Firms can try and change their environments by forming trade associations with other companies.
Political lobbying can be used to secure a favorable competitive environment. Ultimately organizations
also have some choice about the kind of environment in which they want to compete, by making
decisions about the products they produce and the markets they serve (see COMPETITIVENESS).
This view of organizations shares some similarities with the POPULATION ECOLOGY approach.
Both perspectives see the environment as centrally important in influencing ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS. But the resource dependence approach is less determi-

Document
Page 487
nistic, seeing a crucial role for managers. Building on Child's (1972) concept of STRATEGIC CHOICE
(1978), Pfeffer and Salancik acknowledge that managers have some AUTONOMY over what happens.
There is interdependence between the organization and its environment and organizations, especially
larger ones, can influence their environments. Managers can be proactive about the coping mechanisms
they adopt. But internal POWER relationships will affect the choices that are made about how the
organization will manage its dependencies, and this accounts for the variation in organizational forms
and arrangements (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN).
It is also recognized that the environment is not "given" to managers. It is "enacted" (see
ENACTMENT), interpreted and made sense of by individuals. Thus even firms facing similar
environments may respond in different ways because of their individual interpretations.
The resource dependence perspective places great emphasis on understanding the dependencies and
exchange relationships between organizations (see EXCHANGE RELATIONS). In this view, the key
DILEMMA for organizations is how to absorb uncertainty by forming relationships with other
organizations, without losing too much control over their self-determination.
See also Resource based theory; Five forces framework; Stakeholders; Systems theory
Bibliography
Sociology (6), 1–22.
SUSAN MILLER
Resource Partitioning
Restructuring

Document
This is the deliberate modification of formal relationships among organizational components. Three
concepts are fused together in the word restructuring: re meaning to do again, structure referring to the
formal arrangements among organizational components, and ing implying a process. Hence,
restructuring refers to a process of changing already existing relationships among organizational
elements (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). There are two ways to restructure: by changing actual
organizational components or by changing the relationships among components. An organization can
restructure, in other words, by adding, eliminating, splitting, or merging components within a structure;
or it can restructure by strengthening, weakening, reversing, or redefining the relationships among
components.
In its most common form, organizational restructuring usually involves actions such as delayering
(removing hierarchical layers from the organization); redesigning work processes (mapping processes
and removing the nonvalue-added steps or redundancies); and eliminating structural elements
(outsourcing, selling off, or dismissing units, activities, or jobs within the organization). However,
restructuring can involve much more than just the manipulation of organizational components.
Organizations have a wide variety of structural elements that can be reconfigured, such as financial
structures, market structures, technological structures, information structures, and organizational
structures. These various types of structures are reconfigured in different ways. Financial restructuring
can be accomplished, for example, by renegotiating loan agreements, changing the investment portfolio,
selling off unproductive divisions, or outsourcing products or services to an external provider (as
illustrated by several major airlines that restructured their financial debt in the last decade in order to
remain viable and to begin anew in the industry). Market restructuring can be accomplished by
reconfiguring the product portfolio or by moving the competitive market position of an organization so
that it competes in a different market niche (as illustrated, for example, by a major retailer which
changed from competing on the basis of price with lower-end merchandise to competing on the basis of
quality and image with upper-end merchandise) (see COMPETITIVENESS). Technological and
informational restructurings are generally accomplished through the application of new technologies,
including AUTOMATION, computerization, and NETWORKING (see INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY; ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY). Despite the

Document
Page 488
obvious importance of these various types of restructuring, organizational restructuring – the alteration
of arrangements among internal organizational components, including SUBUNITS, hierarchical
relationships, and work processes – is the phenomenon of most interest to students of
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR (see HIERARCHY).
Recently, two terms have been used so often in the popular literature as substitutes for restructuring that
they deserve special mention. One is the concept of DOWNSIZING, and the other is the concept of re-
engineering (see BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING). In other words, restructuring,
downsizing, and re-engineering have been used as synonyms by many writers even though they have
clearly distinctive meanings. Restructuring is used as a substitute for downsizing, for example, in order
to avoid the negative connotations associated with job loss or contracting ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE.
However, when organizations have experienced pressure to reduce redundancy or waste, to eliminate
headcount, or to increase efficiency through downsizing, few actually engage in restructuring. Past
research has shown that downsizing has mainly involved personnel reductions, not the restructuring of
organizational elements. Similarly, re-engineering refers to a zero-based redesign of an organization's
processes, structures, or relationships. Restructuring does not assume that the entire old way of doing
things or of structuring relationships is abandoned and recreated. It assumes remodeling rather than new
construction. Consequently, restructuring is not an appropriate synonym for downsizing or for re-
engineering.
At least two different orientations are prominent in the theory and practice of organizational
restructuring. The two approaches can be arranged on a continuum, anchored on one end by an
assumption that managers have complete control over the process of restructuring, and anchored on the
other end by the assumption that managers have no control over the process of restructuring. The
scholarly and popular literature, thus far, have been dominated by the assumptions represented by the
managerial Control end of the continuum.
On the one hand, for example, restructuring can be assumed to be the prerogative and responsibility of
an organization's management. It is an activity designed to improve the efficiency, PRODUCTIVITY,
or effectiveness of the organization, and so is an important part of the managers' role (see
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS). Restructuring is motivated by maladaptation or
nonalignment with the environment or by competitive opportunities or pressures. For example, Miller
and Friesen (1980) found that organizations are restructured in a limited number of archetypical forms
when faced with competitive pressures, among which they labeled consolidation,
DECENTRALIZATION, professionalization, and entrepreneurial revitalization. Miles and Cameron
(1982) found that the firms in the US tobacco industry restructured in three dominant ways in reaction
to a hostile and turbulent external environment – defending current practices and incremental
restructuring (domain defense), aggressive changes and redesigned forms of organization (domain
offense), and completely new structures and original competitive activities (domain creation). Meyer
(1992) identified four types of restructuring in hyperturbulent environments:
(1) incremental change within the organization;

Document
(2) framebreaking change within the organization;
(3) incremental change in the organization's relationship to its environment; and
(4) transformation and creation of new relationships and structures in the external environment (see
ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT).
Freeman and Cameron (1993) found that organizations facing financial pressures adopted either a
reorientation approach to restructuring or a convergence approach to restructuring. A reorientation
approach involves major, strategic changes in hierarchical arrangements and the nature of the work.
Restructuring entire units and clusters of subunits in an organization characterizes reorientation. A
convergence approach involves minor, tactical changes in work and working relationships.
Restructuring the tasks and job relationships in a firm is typical of a convergence approach. A
reorientation approach to restructuring has been associated with higher levels of effectiveness over time
when organizations face threatening conditions.
The other end of this continuum reflects an assumption that restructuring is outside the

Document
Page 489
purview of management action and is a product of uncontrolled circumstances. Restructuring occurs not
because of planned managerial action but because of evolutionary processes and environmental inertia.
Theoretical perspectives represented by the POPULATION ECOLOGY or natural selection models, or
by the evolutionary life cycles models, exemplify the most common form of unmanaged restructuring.
For example, several theorists who represent the population ecology perspective (e.g., Hannan &
Freeman, 1977) argue that a variety of organizational and environmental constraints inhibit managers'
impact on an organization's structure. The structures, processes, and COMPETENCIES of surviving
organizations are almost entirely determined by the demands of the external environment, according to
this view. Organizational restructuring that does not match the requirements of the environment results
in organizational demise. Hence, if one looks at organizations over time, successful restructuring is a
product of environmental selection or environmental determinism rather than managerial choice. The
environmental dictates what restructuring will occur and that restructuring will usually occur in slow,
evolutionary patterns, although it may also be experienced on rare occasions in revolutionary spurts.
Another variation on this deterministic theme is represented by writers on organizational life cycles.
One representative study, for example, was conducted by Quinn and Cameron (1983), who found that
new organizations restructure in predictable ways over their early life cycles. These stages of
restructuring are similar to the progression of group stage development (see GROUP
DEVELOPMENT). The initial structures of organizations, they found, are generally characterized by
loosely coupled elements and an entrepreneurial orientation (see LOOSE COUPLING). Subsequent
sequential restructurings include a change to teamwork and integration, then a change to hierarchical
structures and a focus on control, and finally a restructuring which emphasizes and is aimed at
optimizing external relationships and competitive market success.
The challenge for future research on restructuring is to reconcile the two ends of the continuum. For
example, Orton (1994) studied the 1976 reorganization of the U.S. intelligence community. By studying
original memos, notices, notes of conversations, and minutes, Orton created a six-stage model of
reorganizing processes. First, organization members confronted limitless frontiers of actions,
statements, influences, and ideas. Second, organization members pulled out of that frontier – through
action, perception, discussion, and discovery – small brackets or boundaries on which they focused
attention. Third, organization members generated mental maps that made sense of the frontiers,
brackets, or boundaries. Fourth, organization members combined their individual-level mental maps to
build an overall, agreed-upon organization-level foundation for a restructuring. Fifth, organization
members decided upon a set of restructuring initiatives which were presented together as a deliberate
organization design. Sixth, the restructuring alternatives were absorbed into and, consequently, changed
the existing structure. Over time, Orton argued, emergent restructuring becomes deliberate restructuring.
In sum, organizational restructuring may involve many aspects of an organization, and it may take
many forms. What is common about restructuring in all its forms, however, is that it is a process in
which already existing elements and their interrelationships are permanently altered. Restructuring is
currently a popular way in which organizations are trying to make themselves more effective.
See also Organizational change; Mergers and acquisitions; Job design

Document
Bibliography
Freeman, S. J. & Cameron, K. S. (1993). Organizational downsizing: A convergence and reorientation

perspective. Organization Science, 4, 10–29.
Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of
Sociology, 82, 929.
Meyer, A. D. (1992). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 515–537.
Miles, R. & Cameron, K. S. (1982). Coffin nails and corporate strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Miller, D. & Friesen, P. (1980). Archetypes of organizational transition. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 25, 268–299.
Orton, J. D. (1994). Reorganizing: An analysis of the 1976 reorganization of the US Intelligence Com-

Document
Page 490
munity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan.
Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness:
Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29, 33–51.
KIM S. CAMERON and J. DOUGLAS ORTON
Retirement
This is typically associated with the phase of life individuals experience at the end of their careers
working for an employer for primary income (see LIFE STAGES). Retirement, however, does not
imply inactivity, but a different type of activity. Many individuals continue to be active in retirement by
parttime or flexible employment, engaging in leisure activities, or volunteer work; these are often
related to attitudes from their working years.
The meaning of retirement has changed drastically in the last 100 years from rarely being experienced
by individuals because they did not live long enough to many workers currently retiring between the
ages of 55 and 67 with acceptable health conditions in advanced industrial countries. Retirement AGE
regulations vary by country and in the United States, the Amendments to the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (1986) removed mandatory retirement for most workers; in Japan, large companies
require workers to retire between the ages of 55 and 60 (Forteza & Prieto, 1994). Although there is
evidence that social security systems and legislation are promoting a later age of retirement for
employees, the average age of retirement is decreasing. In addition, because of the aging of the world
population, many individuals who retire at age 65 will likely spend 15 to 20 years in retirement
(Woodruff-Pak, 1988).
Individuals' transition (see CAREER TRANSITIONS) from work to retirement may require substantial
adaptation because of the previously imposed structure by work on their time and activities. Work is a
central aspect of many individuals' lives; the work ethic has dominated the leisure ethic for most
individuals. Retirement experiences, however, are a continuity of individuals' experiences in their
working phase of life (see NONWORK/WORK).
Two recent approaches to the transition from work to retirement have been discussed including early
retirement as a voluntary organizational WITHDRAWAL behavior similar and related to correlates of
other withdrawal behaviors such as quitting, choosing to be laid off, and being absent from work
(Hanisch & Hulin, 1990) (see ABSENTEEISM; TURNOVER). This classification of early retirement
as a withdrawal behavior was related to organizational attitudes. The difference between individuals'
satisfaction with work and their anticipated satisfaction with retirement predicted early retirement
decisions; income and health were not significant predictors (see JOB SATISFACTION). These
findings have implications for retaining older individuals in the workforce by focusing on employee
attitudes.

Document
Second, Hanisch (1994) examined the relation between work, personal, and health reasons for retiring
and their impact on individuals' attitudes and behaviors in retirement. Individuals who retired for
personal reasons planned more events, participated in more activities, and were more satisfied with their
retirement than either those who retired for work or health reasons. Implications of this research include
encouraging individuals prior to retirement to plan activities and events; this should help in their
adjustment to retirement (Gibson & Brown, 1992).
Retirement is an extension of individuals' working lives. The previous lifestyle or past behaviors of
individuals will be the best predictor of their behaviors in retirement. The smooth transition from work
to retirement is a function of financial resources, health, activities, attitudes, and social networks.
See also Career stages
Bibliography
Forteza, J. A. & Prieto, J. M. (1994). Aging and work behavior. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette & L.
M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 447–483). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press (discusses retirement statistics across countries).
Gibson, J. & Brown, S. D. (1992). Counseling adults for life transitions. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 285–313). New York: Wiley.
Hanisch, K. A. (1994). Reasons people retire and their relations to attitudinal and behavioral corre-

Document
Page 491
lates in retirement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 1–16.
Hanisch, K. A. & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of
retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60–78.
Woodruff-Pak, D. S. (1988). Psychology and aging. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
KATHY A. HANISCH
Rewards
Theories of MOTIVATION seek to explain and predict the direction, intensity, and persistence of
behavior (Kanfer, 1990). In other words, what does a person choose to do, how hard does s/he work at
it, and for how long? These motivational outcomes are typically thought (e.g., VIE THEORY) to be a
function of both the person (e.g., values) and the environment (e.g., perceived rewards and their
perceived liklihood), and whether an aspect of the environment is perceived as a reward depends on the
person's VALUES. Therefore, it is somewhat difficult (perhaps even misleading) to speak in terms of
general taxonomies of rewards because they tell us only what people, on average, find rewarding, and
may not be terribly accurate for understanding what different individuals find rewarding.
Many different literatures have something to say about what people generally find rewarding. Content
theories of motivation such as Maslow's need hierarchy theory (see SELF-ACTUALIZATION) and
Alderfer's existence, relatedness, and growth theory (see ERG THEORY) identify hierarchies of needs
ranging from physiological and safety up through esteem and self-actualization. Herzberg's
MOTIVATION–HYGIENE THEORY focuses on identifying factors that either contribute to
satisfaction or help avoid dissatisfaction.
The literature on JOB SATISFACTION and its measurement has built on such theories to identify a
number of specific reward areas. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) asks
about the work itself (e.g., routine, satisfying), pay, promotion opportunities, SUPERVISION, and
coworkers. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist,
1967) asks about these and other facets of satisfaction. The pay dimension has been further broken
down by Heneman and Schwab (1985) in the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire, which measures
satisfaction with pay level, pay raises, pay structure–administration, and benefits.
A good deal of work has also gone into developing instruments to measure work-related values for use
in predicting occupational choice (see CAREER CHOICE), job satisfaction, and worker satisfactoriness
(i.e., performance). Dawis (1991) summarizes five such scales, including the Minnesota Importance
Questionnaire (MIQ). The MIQ measures the value attached to ability utilization, achievement, activity,
advancement, AUTHORITY, company policies and practices, compensation, coworkers,
CREATIVITY, independence, moral VALUES, recognition, responsibility, security, social service,
social STATUS, supervision – human relations, supervision – technical, variety, and WORKING
CONDITIONS.

Document
Finally, studies of job choice and job preferences suggest at least two factors that influence the rank
ordering of importance people attach to rewards. First, self-reports of reward preference often yield
different results than less direct assessments methods such as policy-capturing (e.g., Zedeck, 1977). For
example, money is typically found to be very important when a policy-capturing methodology is used,
but less important when self-reports are used. One explanation is that self-reports are more subject to
social desirability bias (Schwab, Rynes, & Aldag, 1987) and money tends to be seen as a more
pedestrian, less noble sounding value than are some others (e.g., challenge). Another finding from the
job choice and preference literature is that the measured importance of a reward depends on its
variability (Rynes, Schwab, & Heneman, 1983). Therefore, if companies all have the same pay, but
have different advancement opportunities, pay will not be an important factor in job choice, but
advancement opportunities will matter in such choices. Pay is not unimportant, but its importance in the
decision only comes to light if there is sufficient variance in pay.
Although it is difficult to take these diverse and rich literatures and boil their findings down into a short
list of key rewards, one such list is as follows (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 1994):

Document
Page 492
Pay level – A person's job is typicially the primary source of his or her income.
Challenge and responsibility – For many people, work plays an important role in establishing their self-
concepts.
Job security (see JOB INSECURITY) – Work force reductions in the United States have become
commonplace, making this an increasingly important concern among employees.
Advancement opportunities – The opportunity to advance one's career and move on to new challenges is
attractive to most people.
Geographic location – Dual career and other family issues often mean that choice and flexibility with
respect to work location is important (see NONWORK/WORK).
Benefits – Heath care, retirement income, and so forth, are major factors in ensuring employee health
and income security.
Additional rewards – This preceding list obviously excludes a great many factors that are likely to be
important to significant segments of the population. Some of these were discussed previously.
See also Motivation and performance; Payment systems; Extrinsic/intrinsic motivation;

Performance, individual
Bibliography
Dawis, R. V. (1991). Vocational interests, values, and preferences. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough
(Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (2nd edn, vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA:
Heneman, H. G. III & Schwab, D. P. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and
measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 129–141.
& L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (2nd edn, vol. 1). Palo
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P. M. (1994). Human resource management:
Gaining a competitive advantage. Burr Ridge, IL: Austen Press/Irwin.
Rynes, S. L., Schwab, D. P. & Heneman, H. G. III (1983). The role of pay and market pay variability in
job application decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 353–364.

Document
Schwab, D. P., Rynes, S. L. & Aldag, R. J. (1987). Theories and research on job search and job choice.
In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds), Research in personnel and human resources management, (vol. 5, pp.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W. & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota
satisfaction questionnaire (Bulletin No. 22). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Studies
in Vocational Rehabilitation.
Zedeck, S. (1977). An information processing model and approach to the study of motivation.
BARRY GERHART
Risk-Taking
The terms risk, risk-taking, UNCERTAINTY, and AMBIGUITY have been used in a variety of ways.
In the most common usage, a decision maker must choose between two alternatives (A1 and A2). If A1
is chosen, then one of a set of outcomes will occur (say O1,1 or O1,2). If all the alternatives and
outcomes, and the outcomes' probabilities of occurrence given a specific choice are known, then the
decision is under risk. Alternatively, in many cases the outcomes and/or their probabilities of
occurrence cannot be specified leading to uncertainty or ambiguity. Several literatures have been
centrally concerned with issues of risk-taking.
Decision theorists develop rational procedures for choices under risk often based on expected utility
theory although GAME THEORY analyses have also begun to address some such issues. Decision
theory techniques address decisions under risk, but have less success under uncertainty or ambiguity.
BEHAVIORAL DECISION RESEARCH (or theory), a branch of psychology, considers risk-taking by

individuals largely in experimental situations although often with monetary REWARDS. Behavioral
decision theorists began by exploring how actual decision makers differ from the assumptions of
expected utility. The field has progressed rapidly. Numerous studies demonstrate experimentally
instances where decision makers differ from prescriptive models in either assessment of probabilities or
choices. To summarize the general thrust of this field,

Document
Page 493
people in many instances are extremely poor intuitive statisticians and do not act as utility maximizers.
Economics and finance theorists use risk as the primary explanation for differential returns in capital
markets. A smaller group considers how capital structure influences the risk of bankruptcy. In
explaining market returns, risk generally means the risk to stockholders that they cannot eliminate by
holding a well-diversified portfolio (systematic risk or beta). Although systematic risk remains widely
used in finance, recent research questions of role of beta and has sparked efforts to find alternative
measures and models of risk.
Organizational psychologists studying the RISKY SHIFT phenomenon find that groups make decisions
with different apparent risk preferences than their members. In situations where all members of a group
may find a given alternative overly risky, the group as a whole may choose that alternative.
Finally, STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT researchers consider corporate-level risk and performance

issues defining risk and performance in both capital market and accounting returns terms. Strategic
management research on risk has examined numerous topics including DIVERSIFICATION, mergers,
and performance effects (see MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS). Whereas risk and return appear
positively related in capital market models, both positive and negative associations between risk and
return have been found when risk is measured by income stream uncertainty. These associations appear
to vary over business cycles and across industries.
Overall, these differing approaches have made significant progress but have generated confusion by
using the term risk to mean quite different constructs. MacCrimmon and Wehrung (1986) demonstrate
that differing measures of risk-taking gathered from the same individuals at the same time exhibit
almost no association. Furthermore, both psychological and organizational research indicates risk-
related behaviors are quite sensitive to contextual factors. These findings pose serious problems for the
development of integrated approaches to risk.
See also Decision making; Prisoner's dilemma; Satisficing
Bibliography
Yates, J. F. (1992). Risk-taking behavior. New York: Wiley.
MacCrimmon, K. R. & Wehrung, D. A. (1986). Taking risks: The management of uncertainty. New
York: Free Press.
PHILIP BROMILEY
Risky Shift/Group Polarization

Document
Social psychological research in the 1960s suggested that individual group member decisions in a
potentially risky situation were, on average, less risky than the final decision of the group as a whole.
The risky shift phenomenon attracted much research interest since it suggested that GROUP
DECISION MAKING might produce dangerous decisions at all organizational levels (e.g., within the
nuclear power or defence industries) as a result of unconscious group processes. Subsequent research
has indicated that the shift to risk is, in fact, a shift to extremity. Groups shift away from a neutral point
beyond the average of the decisions initially favored by individuals in the group; in other words, shifts
to caution as well as risk occur. This phenomenon, more accurately called group polarization,
influences attitudes as well as decisions.
When individuals discover the position of others they tend to move along the scale partly because of a
''majority rule" influence – the largest subgroup tends to determine the group decision. Moreover a
process of SOCIAL COMPARISON may take place, whereby information about a socially preferred
way of behaving leads to polarization. When we compare ourselves with those immediately around us
in the organization we tend to locate our position closer to theirs rather than retaining the integrity of
our initial position (Myers & Lamm, 1976).
In organizations the dangers of polarization are most likely when the group has just been formed or
when the group is confronted with an unusual (often a crisis) situation (see CRISES).
See also Minority group influence; Risk taking; Decision making

Document
Page 494
Bibliography
Myers, D. G. & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83,
602–627.
MICHAEL A. WEST
Rituals
An organizational ritual is a rule-governed, structured, and preplanned activity of a symbolic character,

collectively produced and enacted in a social context, face-to-face with an audience (see
SYMBOLISM). It is a dramatic occasion, with beginnings and endings are clearly demarcated.
Participants have well-defined roles to be performed, like parts in a play (see ROLE; ROLE-TAKING).
Participants enact what members in good standing are supposed to think, feel, and do.
Cultural researchers sometimes, but not always, distinguish among rituals, rites, and ceremonies. When
these terms are used interchangeably, or when researchers use different definitions of the same term,
conceptual confusion can be a problem. Trice and Beyer (1984), for example, define a ritual in a
restricted manner, as a relatively rote, clearly specified, set of repetitive behaviors. Unlike most other
researchers, Trice and Beyer reserve the term "rite" for the more complex sets of behaviors defined
above as a ritual; ceremonies then are defined as complex collections of rites that are enacted only once,
at a special occasion. Alternatively, Alvesson and Berg (1992) reserve the term rituals for activities
which reinforce existing POWER relations in a HIERARCHY, seeing rites as less formal activities
serving a broader variety of functions. Such fine distinctions are difficult to maintain. For example,
power can be enhanced in informal collective activities; both rites and rituals can be relatively short,
specified sets of behavior; and some ceremony-like activities are repeated periodically. For the purposes
of this short essay, with apologies, such fine distinctions cannot be usefully maintained.
A wide range of organizational rituals have been studied, usually drawing on anthropological theory
and using ethnographic methods (see ETHNOGRAPHY). Trice and Beyer (1984) offer a typology of
the most commonly studied rituals. Initiation rituals have been examined in a variety of organizations,
including banks, police academies, and military organizations (see SOCIALIZATION). These studies
draw attention to "liminality," a vulnerable state in which an individual's old identity has been stripped
away and a new identity not yet established (e.g., Louis, 1980; Turner, 1969; Van Maanen, 1973) (see
JOINING-UP PROCESS). Enhancement rituals bring recognition to exceptional performers, such as
top sales people and recipients of promotions (e.g., Rosen, 1991) (see MANAGEMENT OF HIGH
POTENTIAL). Degradation rituals celebrate the opposite – the defamation and removal of supposedly
poor performers, particularly those in LEADERSHIP positions (e.g., Gephart, 1978). Renewal rituals
seek to strengthen group functioning, temporarily resolving some problems while drawing attention
away from others – a description that, Trice and Beyer observe, bears a striking resemblance to most
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT interventions. Other kinds of rituals celebrate conflict
reduction, integration, and endings (see CONFLICT RESOLUTION). For example, Harris and Sutton

Document
(1986) describe the content of organizational "wakes," held to recognize the sadness caused when a firm
goes out of business (see ORGANIZATIONAL DECLINE AND DEATH).
Kunda (1992, p. 93) observes that most researchers see ritual "as a crucial link between ideologies that
provide the framework for collective life and the associated forms of individual experience" (see
IDEOLOGY). This approach encompasses several conflicting schools of thought: functionalist, critical,
dramatalurgical. Functionalist interpretations describe rituals in Durkheimian terms, as enhancing group
solidarity (see GROUP COHESIVENESS), serving an integrative function that reinforces the power of
the powerful, intensifying collectivity members' satisfaction, COMMITMENT, and loyalty. For
example, Trice and Beyer (1984) describe rituals serving manifest and latent, instrumental and
expressive functions – all of which are congruent with managerial interests.
In contrast, Kunda notes, critical students of rituals emphasize conflict and power, describing how
rituals help dominant groups achieve and maintain dominance (e.g., Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989).
Some critical studies, for example, have documented the existence of rituals of countercultural
resistance by lower level or

Document
Page 495
competing, managerial-level groups. For example, Young (1991) described rituals that different groups
of assembly line workers use to preserve, strengthen, and differentiate their various, overlapping
collective identities.
Finally, research in a dramaturgical tradition (e.g., Turner, 1969) has attempted to transcend both
functional and critical perspectives by attending to the ways rituals are like dramas, with scripted roles,
hidden meanings, and latent functions. Rosen (1991), for example, describes an annual business
breakfast meeting as a partially successful integration ritual, where varying subgroups (reflecting
functional divisions, the promoted and the unpromoted, insiders and outsiders) react quite differently to
the activities scripted by management, some withdrawing, others actively resisting, and still others
eagerly (apparently) embracing prescribed VALUES and behaviors.
When a ritual is successful, participants are emotionally affected; they embrace the role they have
portrayed. However, as Kunda notes, rituals have transition moments, when participants can self-
consciously and skillfully, or semiconsciously and awkwardly, distance themselves from the good-
member role they have been asked to play. Often such ROLE DISTANCING activities take the form of
humor, irony, or self-deprecating remarks. Thus, by framing a ritual as a link between the collective and
the individual, the possibility of less-than-perfect role embracement emerges. Furthermore, Kunda
illustrates moments within a ritual where a deviant may step out of scripted interaction by challenging a
participant who represents the powers whose authority is being legitimized. Such deviant challenges
can be highly dramatic and, if resolved to the satisfaction of those who are attempting to orchestrate the
ritual, may actually reinforce its desired effect by silencing or punishing dissenting interpretations.
As in other areas of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE research, studies of rituals have focused more
often on the functionalist, managerial, power-reinforcing aspects of rituals, rather than on the deeper,
more complex conflict, power, and dissent issues highlighted in careful enthnographies by scholars as
Kunda, Van Maanen, Rosen, and Alvesson and Berg. Studies of ROLE AMBIGUITIES in ritual
activities are relatively rare, offering a fruitful avenue for future research.
See also Critical theory; Emotions in organizations; Social constructionism; Symbolic

interactionism
Bibliography
Alvesson, M. & Berg, P. O. (1992). Corporate culture and organizational symbolism. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Gephart, R. (1978). Status degradation and organizational succession: An ethnomethodological

approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 553–581.
Harris, S. & Sutton, R. (1986). Functions of parting ceremonies in dying organizations. Administrative

Document

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Louis, M. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
Rosen, M. (1991). Breakfast at Spiro's: Dramaturgy and dominance. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C.
Lundberg & J. Martin (Eds), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 77–89). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trice, H. & Beyer, J. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy
of Management Review, 9, 653–669.
Turner, V. (1969). The ritual progress. Chicago: Aldine.
Van Maanen, J. (1973). Observations on the making of policemen. Human Organization, 32, 407–417.
Van Maanen, J. & Kunda, G. (1989). Real feelings: Emotional expression and organizational culture.
Young, E. (1991). On the naming of the rose: Interests and multiple meanings as elements of
organizational culture. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg & J. Martin (Eds), Reframing
organizational culture (pp. 90–103). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
JOANNE MARTIN
Role
A role is a delineation of the set of recurrent behaviors appropriate to a particular position in a social
system (see SYSTEMS THEORY). The social system may range from an informal group to a formal
organization. Every social system consists of multiple interdependent positions, each defined by a role.
Roles

Document
Page 496
specify many aspects of these relationships, including the AUTHORITY and STATUS relationships
within the system. As with social systems, roles can be informal or formal. Informal roles may evolve
or be negotiated as a social system such as a group develops. In work organizations, formal roles are
often specified by JOB DESCRIPTIONS.
Roles help us to determine what we should do in order to meet others' expectations, as well as what to
expect from others. They are specific to particular positions within particular social systems. Although a
person may belong to many different groups and organizations, the role an individual occupies in one
social system may be completely different from the role that same individual occupies in other social
systems. Furthermore, an individual may occupy more than one role within the same social system.
There are many examples of relatively generic roles that exist in most organizations. The role of boss (i.
e., superior, supervisor, manager, etc.) delineates many recurrent behaviors such as evaluating,
rewarding, correcting, disciplining, and generally overseeing the work of subordinates in an assertive
manner. Likewise, subordinates are expected to behave respectfully and responsively toward their
bosses. A person in the role of mentor is expected to be nurturing, patient, and helpful (see
MENTORING). A secretary's role includes behaving courteously and in a businesslike manner. While
these general roles are fairly universal, many organizational roles delineate much more specific
behaviors. However, the exact content of specific role behaviors depends on the particular organization
in which the roles are located. For example, a manager in the marketing department of a particular
organization may be expected to communicate weekly with a particular production manager, send a
summary report to the vice-president of marketing every other week, oversee and evaluate the work of
six marketing assistant managers, and entertain certain customers of the company once a month. These
specific expectations are unique to the role occupied by the marketing manager in this particular
organization.
Because people occupy multiple roles within their social systems, they frequently experience ROLE
CONFLICT, when the expectations specified by a person's multiple roles are incompatible.
PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS often experience role conflict. For example, a corporate
lawyer may feel pressures to behave in differing ways from her dual roles as member of the legal
profession and employee of the corporation. This latter case is an example of interrole conflict in which
there exist incongruent expectations from members of two different role sets. This is distinct from
intrarole conflict, which occurs when incongruent expectations are present within a single role set.

Document
Role conflict is one of several role-related concepts that facilitate an understanding of the phenomenon
of performing a role. Closely related to role conflict is ROLE AMBIGUITY, which is uncertainty about
what is expected regarding role performance. Role ambiguity is minimized when role differentiation
occurs. Role differentiation refers to the establishment of clear definitions for group members of their
specific duties and responsibilities to the group, and how these duties and responsibilities contribute to
the realization of the group's goals. Ideally, organizations will go beyond simply making sure that each
member have a role and know what it entails. The roles assigned to group members should also
maximize each individual's opportunities to contribute to the objectives of the individual and the social
system.
Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964; see also Katz & Kahn, 1966) constructed a
comprehensive theoretical development of roles. In this conceptualization, each role is surrounded by a
ROLE SET which is the collection of people who are concerned with the performance of the occupant
of the role. Role episodes consist of role sending, role receiving, and role expectations. When the
expectations associated with a particular role are overwhelming to the occupant of the role, ROLE
OVERLOAD occurs. Alternatively, role underload results when there are too few role demands (see
also ROLE OVERLOAD/UNDERLOAD.
Together these role-related concepts from ROLE THEORY. Role theory is closely related to situated
identity theory, which posits that people learn about their role by taking the perspective of others in
their role set (Mead, 1934). Because everyone undertakes this process, a mutual understanding develops
about

Document
Page 497
what each person's role is (see ROLE TAKING). This perspective emphasizes the interpersonal nature
of roles; because roles are defined by the expectations of others, conceptually they are in interpersonal
phenomenon (Gerth & Mills, 1967). This is true even though roles are often studied with the individual
as the unit of analysis.
The concept of role has been very useful to researchers theoretically, but formulating hypotheses about
roles requires a specification of which conditions surrounding the role are to be tested. A role is difficult
to operationalize without narrowing the inquiry to specific types of role conditions. Thus, research on
roles has generally taken the form of looking for correlates of role conditions. Role conditions refer to
the role conflict or role ambiguity associated with the role, role overload and role underload, and the
other specific concepts discussed above. Research in several domains of ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR are relevant to roles, for example, research on PERCEPTION, COMMUNICATIONS, and
expectancies. Even though research on these latter topics is not necessarily couched in terms of roles,
there are clear connections between these phenomena and role theory.
There are several directions in which research on role conditions could usefully progress. Surprisingly,
even after hundreds of studies on various role conditions, there is still debate about the definition of
constructs and how best to measure them (King & King, 1990). It is promising that several researchers
have been working on conceptually and operationally disentangling these role conditions. As
convergence is reached on how to define accurately and measure these constructs, the findings from
previous research on correlates of role conditions can be pooled together to determine the robustness of
these findings (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). As relationships between role conditions and personal and
organizational characteristics are determined to be robust, it will be useful to investigate factors that
moderate and mediate these relationships to further specify the boundary conditions under which these
effects are strongest (see Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, & Cummings (1993) for an example of this type of
research).
Because of the interpersonal nature of roles and role conditions, integrating the study of networks with
the study of roles may increase our understanding of roles within the broader social system. For
example, early theorizing on roles suggested that there are objective role conditions and subjective (or
perceived) role conditions, but little empirical research investigates the match between objective and
subjective role conditions. NETWORK ANALYSIS could shed light on how expectations from other
people in the role set match the perceived expectations of the person occupying the role. Similarly,
network methods could be used to determine how formal organizational roles (defined by JOB
DESCRIPTIONS, for example) match the informal roles that develop in organizations.

Document
Several current organizational trends may dramatically affect the expectations, and thus the role
conditions, of organizational members. For example, how does ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY
affect role conditions in an increasingly diverse workforce? How does TECHNOLOGY, especially
regarding communication, affect how role expectations are sent and received? New roles are beginning
to emerge in many organizations for people who are technologically proficient. An example of a
behavior that is expected from someone in this type of role is to disseminate information about new
technologies to less proficient members of the organization. These emerging roles are especially
important because surprising degrees of status and power may accompany them. Another important
question is how ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING and the increased use of temporary
employees affect the expectations of employees and the patterns of role relationships within
organizations. Decreased loyalty to the organization may result in people attaching more importance to
their roles outside the organization, especially when role conflict occurs. These issues highlight the
importance of furthering our understanding of how roles affect behavior in organizations.
See also Attribution; Managerial behavior; Stress

Document
Page 498
Bibliography
Gerth, H. & Mills, C. (1967). Institutions and persons. In J. G. Manis & B. N. Meltzer (Eds), Symbolic
interaction: A reader in social psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Jackson, S. & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity
and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 8–104.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. & Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
King, L. & King, D. (1990). Role conflict and role ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct
validity. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 48–64.
Mead, G. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pierce, J., Gardner, D., Dunham, R. & Cummings, L. (1993). Moderation by organization based self-
esteem of role condition-employee response relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 271–
288.
JEFFREY T. POLZER
Role Ambiguity
This denotes uncertainty about the expectations, behaviors, and consequences associated with a
particular ROLE. Specifically, a person has a need to know others' expectations of the rights, duties,
and responsibilities of the role, the behaviors that will lead to fulfillment of these expectations, and the
likely consequences of these role behaviors. Role ambiguity results when these three types of
information are nonexistent or inadequately communicated. Organizational factors (e.g., rapidly
changing organizational structures, job FEEDBACK systems) and individual factors (e.g.,
INFORMATION PROCESSING biases) may cause role ambiguity. Consequences of role ambiguity
may include tension, job dissatisfaction, and TURNOVER. It is useful to distinguish objective role
ambiguity from the subjective role ambiguity experienced by the person in the role. A JOB
DESCRIPTION is an example of a formal organizational mechanism that may alleviate role ambiguity.
Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964), were the first to extensively develop these elements
of role ambiguity within an organizational context. Research indicates that role ambiguity is positively
correlated with both ANXIETY and propensity to leave (the role) and negatively correlated with several
factors such as organizational COMMITMENT, WORK INVOLVEMENT, and JOB SATISFACTION
See also Job characteristics; Stress: Uncertainty

Document
Bibliography
JEFFREY T. POLZER
Role Conflict
This is the experience of contradictory, incompatible, or competing role expectations. It occurs when an
individual has two or more salient roles in a situation which include expectations to act in incompatible
ways (inter-role conflict), or when expectations within one role are incompatible with each other (intra-
role conflict). CONFLICT between a role and an individual's values or beliefs is also referred to as role
conflict. Role conflict is often assumed to be an uncomfortable state that individuals are motivated to
change.
Current research focuses on characteristic role conflicts like those between family and work, union
member and family breadwinner, and foreign and native cultures; situations that evoke role conflict; the
resolution of role conflict; and the evolution of roles within an individual's life. Meta-analyses (see
VALIDITY GENERALIZATION) have shown role conflict to be "moderately" (r = 0.30) related to
dissatisfaction with job content and coworkers (see JOB SATISFACTION) and with TURNOVER.
Many studies rely on an eight-item scale, The Role Conflict Scale, developed by Rizzo, House, and
Lirtzman (1970). Studies of its construct VALIDITY have concluded it has adequate validity.
See also Job design; Role; Stress
Bibliography
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J. & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
CATHERINE A. RIORDAN

Document
Page 499
Role Distancing
This is behavior (e.g., explanations, apologies, or joking) undertaken by the occupant of a ROLE with
the intent of communicating to others that the individual's actions should be attributed to the role rather
than to the individual. The person's intention is to create or maintain separateness between herself and
the role. The individual is not denying her occupancy of the role; instead, the individual is denying that
she would act the same way if it were not for the role. The most likely cause of role distancing is the
pressure exerted from another role to act inconsistently from the expectations of the first role (i.e.,
ROLE CONFLICT). Role distancing behaviors suggest that the individual has some resistance to the
role. An example of role distancing is when a teacher explains to students that his disciplinary actions
for the student's inappropriate behaviors are not due to him being a mean person, but instead are due to
his role as a teacher. The concept of role distancing is embedded in the field of sociology and is most
comprehensively developed in Erving Goffman's book Encounters (1961).
See also Attribution; Projection; Fundamental attribution error
Bibliography
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merrill.
JEFFREY T. POLZER
Role Modeling
see TRAINING
Role Over/Underload
Role overload occurs when an individual experiences excessive role demands. Quantitative overload is
when there is too much to do. Qualitative overload is when the individual does not have the experience
or ability to carry out role demands. Having more than one demanding role at the same time, like parent
and professional, or a job position which includes many weighty responsibilities, are two frequently
researched examples. Role underload is the opposite condition in which the individual has very few role
demands, or the demands are very easily accomplished. Underload can also be quantitative or
qualitative.

Document
Both overload and underload are job stressors. They, in conjunction with other job stressors and the
amount of control individuals feel they have over job demands, have been found to be predictive of
STRESS-related illness. Anecdotal accounts of death from overwork ("karoshi") have come from
Japan. The relationship of overload and underload to organizational variables like ABSENTEEISM,
JOB SATISFACTION and ACCIDENTS is inconsistent, probably affected by other moderating
variables. BURNOUT and "rustout" are believed to be potential consequences of overload and
underload, respectively. TIME MANAGEMENT techniques are used to deal with problems of
quantitative overload.
See also Mental health; Role theory; Role
Bibliography
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Role Set
This is the set of people who influence or are concerned with the behavior of the person in a ROLE. A
role set typically consists of the people in organizational roles that are directly associated with the focal
role, such as those that are adjacent in the work-flow structure or the organizational HIERARCHY.
Members of the role set do not have to be in the same organization as the person in the focal role,
however (e.g., customer or salespersons from other organizations can be in the role set).
Role episodes, which include role-sending, role-receiving, role expectations, and role behavior, occur
within the role set. Role expectations are beliefs and attitudes held by members of the role set regarding
what behaviors are appropriate for the person in the role. Role-sending is the COMMUNICATION of
role expectations by members of the role set. Role-receiving refers to the perceptions and cognitions by
the person in the role of the expectations that are sent by members of the role set. Finally, role behavior
refers to the role occupant's recurring actions that are attributable to the role (see Katz & Kahn, 1966).

Document
Page 500
See also Group structure; Systems theory; Boundary spanning
Bibliography
JEFFREY T. POLZER
Role Taking
ROLE taking, or "taking the role of the other," is a process in which an individual develops an
empathetic understanding of other people's roles as the result of observing their behavior. George
Herbert Mead (see SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM), stated role taking is an essential process in
developing our own roles. In this sense, roles develop in relation to other people. It is presumed that for
interactions to be smooth, people must achieve a rough agreement about their relative roles, but the
research evidence is not consistent.
Often situations imply specific roles, which may explain why people familiar with a situation
sometimes can predict other people's behaviors. Individuals too can become identified with the roles
they take consistently (e.g., a leader). Sarbin (1954) and others have suggested some individuals have
an aptitude for "role taking."
Two related concepts are worthy of note. Altercasting refers to one individual's attempt to define or
influence the role another assumes. Role taking is an attempt to understand, not influence. Reflexive
role taking is when an individual reflects on another's role in order to evaluate how his or her own
behavior seems to the other person. Role taking does not include self evaluation.
See also Role theory; Social constructionism; Negotiated order
Bibliography
Sarbin, T. R. (1954). Role theory. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology, (vol. 1, pp. 223–
258). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Role Theory

Document
This term specifies the conceptual relationships among several distinct role conditions (see ROLE for
an extended discussion of these role conditions). Role theory is concerned with the general question of
how an individual's behavior is connected to his or her social environment. One of the earlier
contemporary conceptions of role theory was enumerated by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and
Rosenthal (1964). This theory posits that, in most social situations, and especially within organizations,
the role that a person takes is "the central fact for understanding the behavior of the individual" (Katz &
Kahn, 1966; see ROLE TAKING). The organization is conceptualized as a system of roles, with the
ROLE SET of a particular position in an organization consisting of role episodes, which include role-
sending, role-receiving, role expectations, and role behavior.
The greatest contribution of this theory is probably its detailed conceptual description of how people are
affected by their social situation, particularly the expectations of the social actors to whom they are
connected. Most research related to this theory tests relationships among specific role conditions,
organizational and individual characteristics (e.g., hierarchical structure, individual SELF ESTEEM),
and organizational and personal outcomes (e.g., performance, JOB SATISFACTION).
See also Network analysis; Managerial behavior; Systems theory
Bibliography
JEFFREY T. POLZER
Routinization
This term represents the process of rationalization and standardization of the work of the organization.
Routinization can occur via several different kinds of processes. First, work might be routinized via the
integration of machines as in an assemble line. In this context, it is sometimes called work-flow
INTEGRATION. More recently this has been called Fordism. Second, work might be routinized via
FORMALIZATION, that is the standardization of roles via rules, JOB DESCRIPTION and the like.

Document
Page 501
The concept of routinization was developed by Perrow (1967) as the basis of a four-fold classification
of types of organizations. He called this routine versus nonroutine technology. In his work, he made the
further distinction between whether or not the work was analyzable or not and whether there many or
few exceptions. Routine work, that is work that could be readily rationalized and standardized, exists
when the problems are analyzable and there are few exceptions.
Routinized work flows tend to be highly associated with the centralization of decisions (see
DECENTRALIZATION). Bureaucracies are one example of this kind of organization (see
BUREAUCRACY).
See also Organizational design; Repetitive work; Mechanistic/organic; Functional design;

Strategic types
Bibliography
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological
Review, 32, 194–209.
JERALD HAGE
Rules
see BUREAUCRACY; MANAGEMENT, CLASSICAL THEORY

Document
Page 502
Sabotage
This may be conceptualized as a form of resistance to capital interests. It may be defined as any
deliberate action or inaction directed to lower the quantity or quality of production (Dubois, 1979). It
has as its intent the destruction, disruption, or damage of some aspect of the work environment,
including the setting and machinery of production and/or the good or service produced itself (Taylor &
Walton, 1971). Contrary to popular images of the "mad saboteur," sabotage is often a rational and
highly symbolic act (see RATIONALITY; SYMBOLISM). Usually, it is social in nature, conspiratorial
and restrained. Most often, it occurs underground, obscured from public view and does not signify an
anti-machine mentality (Jermier, 1988).
Dialectical ORGANIZATION THEORY offers a view of workers as engaged in CONFLICT at the

point of production (Edwards & Scullion, 1982). The struggle between workers and owner–managers
over control of the labor process reflects the fundamentally political nature of production in
organizations (see LABOR PROCESS THEORY). Sabotage is central to these struggles and has the
potential to alter POWER dynamics substantially as it challenges the LEGITIMACY of unlimited rights
of capitalists and other elites.
Several typologies of sabotage have been advanced. One study delineates a four-fold classification of
sabotage that includes violent and illegal actions, labor methods (see COLLECTIVE ACTION),
information sabotage (see INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY), and acts directed at profit/production
(Giacalone & Knouse, 1990). It is manifested in varied forms that may include maintaining an absolute
adherence to rules, disabling equipment or machinery, adulterating products, doing personal work on
company time with company supplies, and creating downtime.
Acts of sabotage have been classified as comprising two aims: one being instrumental (see
INSTRUMENTALITY), directed toward shifting the balance of POWER or achieving certain limited
demands; the other intended to serve a demonstrative function as a protest against injustice (see
JUSTICE PROCEDURAL and JUSTICE DISTRIBUTIVE) or as a rejection of organizational
VALUES (Dubois, 1979). Sabotage may result from performing boring, monotonous, tedious, or
hazardous work (see REPETITIVE WORK) and from a diminished sense of control over some aspect
of the work environment, especially control of time, work practices, or output quality. It may also stem
more directly from negative AFFECT or FRUSTRATION (LaNuez & Jermier, 1994).

Document
Commonly held assumptions of sabotage as a form of resistance exclusive to blue-collar workers are
largely inaccurate. Recent literature reflects its prevalence among managers and technical and
professional workers as well (LaNuez & Jermier, 1994) (see PROFESSIONALS IN
ORGANIZATIONS). This is attributable to the transmuted nature of MANAGERIAL WORK (see JOB
DESKILLING), increased monitoring and measurement of employees, and rapid technological changes
such that workplace COMMUNICATION patterns have been radically altered, minimizing human
interaction. These forces heighten the incentive of managerial and technocratic groups to engage in acts
of sabotage as loyalties wane from the interests of owners and other elites, and as social identities
assume an orientation that is more closely aligned with collegial/professional interests, a concern with
the larger public good, or even with working class interests (see IDENTIFICATION).

Document
Page 503
Forms of sabotage adopted by managers and technical employees may differ from that of unskilled
laborers, and may include sabotage by circumvention (e.g., non-cooperation, open-mouth sabotage, data
falsification) or sabotage by direct action, encompassing physical damage to property, data or product/
service (LaNuez & Jermier, 1994). These forms of sabotage are no less pernicious than those adopted
by laborers. They may, in fact, have more wide-ranging implications for the firm given the specialized
knowledge base and understanding of organizational systems among high status employees, and their
easy accessibility to records and data. Perhaps most notable are those forms of sabotage associated with
computer technologies, illustrated by popular press attention to system crashes and computer viruses.
See also Stress; Alienation; Withdrawal, organizational
Bibliography
Dubois, P. (1979). Sabotage in industry. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
Edwards, P. K. & Scullion, H. (1982). The social organization of industrial conflict: Control and
resistance in the workplace. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Giacalone, R. A. & Knouse, S.B. (1990). Justifying wrongful employee behavior: The role of
personality in organizational sabotage. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 55–61.
Jermier, J. M. (1988). Sabotage at work: The rational view. Research in the Sociology of Organizations,
6, 101–134.
LaNuez, D. & Jermier, J. M. (1994). Sabotage by managers and technocrats: Neglected patterns of
resistance at work. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights & W. Nord (Eds), Resistance and power in
organizations. London: Routledge.
Taylor, L. & Walton, P. (1971). Industrial sabotage: Motives and meanings. In S. Cohen (Ed.), Images
of deviance (pp. 219–245). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
THERESA DOMAGALSKI and JOHN M. JERMIER
Safety
The management of safety in organizations involves the development and implementation of measures
for hazard identification, assessment, and CONTROL, and the maintenance, measurement, and
adaptation of control standards and procedures. It embraces the mechanisms for ensuring that
employers and employees remain committed to safety objectives and motivated to ensure they are
maintained (Petersen, 1978; Dawson, Willman, Bamford, & Clinton, 1988). Although the maintenance
of safety might be assumed to be a shared, objective interest, much academic interest has focused on the
sources of failure in safety management and how they may be counteracted.

Document
Several authors have focused on the extent to which certain ''tightly coupled" or "finely tuned" highly
complex technical systems might be intrinsically accident prone (see ACCIDENTS). Changes occurring
to particular elements within complex systems can generate multiple outcomes and interactions whose
end result is system failure (Perrow, 1984; Starbuck & Milliken, 1988) (see SYSTEMS THEORY).
Other writers have focused on managerial willingness to incur costs in the interests of hazard control.
Cost–benefit analysis provides one tool for risk assessment and cost estimation, but there are
differences between businesses and even within sectors in management capability and willingness to
generate effective safety resources. These differences were examined by Dawson et al. (1988) for the
United Kingdom. They argued that small organizations may lack capability through lack of resources or
expertise. In addition, firms characterized by high levels of subcontracting experience problems of both
hazard control and regulation. Third, unionized firms where safety representation is established are
more capable of effective safety management than those where no such representation structure exists.
Pauchant and Mitroff (1992) have argued that managers may systematically misperceive dangers and
risks. Grunberg (1983) suggests there is a direct relationship between productivity and accident rates.
Nichols (1986) has argued for the United Kingdom that cycles of economic activity may influence
safety provision and thus accident rates, through the variable of capacity utilisation. Higher per capita
accident rates may follow from higher levels of utilization during the upturn in the economic cycle. The
effect is argued to be lagged rather than direct.
Another key variable affecting safety provision is ease of detection. This has spawned an interest in the
institutions of safety regulation

Document
Page 504
both in the United States and the United Kingdom and their effectiveness in monitoring safety
management. The bargaining style of OSHA in the United States has been contrasted with the
consensus-seeking style of the HSE in the United Kingdom. The latter organization seeks education
rather than enforcement and is reluctant to prosecute detected safety failures. However, estimates of
regulatory effectiveness are difficult to obtain because of the inadequacy of accident statistics in both
the United States and the United Kingdom, and because it is difficult to assess, for example, from the
number of enforcement activities, what would be the accident rate in the absence of regulation (Bacow,
1981; Dawson et al. 1988). Wilson (1985) has argued that, in both countries, political rather than safety
considerations have become important, so that regulators are pressured by the need for cooperation
from employees into relatively noninterventionist stances on safety management within firms. Dawson
et al. (1988) have argued in the United Kingdom context that deregulation of the LABOR MARKET
and the decline of trade union representation are likely to exert a negative impact on safety provision,
when reduced inspection levels lead to a reduction in detection probabilities.
A further consideration is EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT. Employees' interest in their own safety is

not unproblematic. Viscusi (1979) has shown that, although workers accurately perceive the magnitude
of hazards involved in their jobs, the existence of hazard-compensating wage differentials reduces quit
rates: employees will tolerate unsafe conditions for some time. He found some evidence that unions
were disposed toward wage compensation rather than hazard elimination. In the United Kingdom,
Guest, Peccei, and Thomas (1993) have shown that safety rules may be disregarded by employees
where they are seen to be managerial in origin and controlling in intent. They fall victim to a wider
disaffection which has its origins in reactions to other managerial policies.
As risk assessment techniques and cost–benefit approaches become more sophisticated and widely used
by firms it is likely that future research will focus on their implications for safety rules and procedures.
However, a second broad area of interest is the effects of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE and climate
on employee perceptions of safety rules and the implications of those perceptions for rule observance.
See also Errors; Job design; Loose coupling; Risk-taking; Technology
Bibliography
Bacow, L. (1981). Bargaining for job safety and health. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dawson, S., Willman, P., Bamford, M. & Clinton, A. (1988). Safety at work: The limits of self
regulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Grunberg, L. (1983). The effect of social relations of production on productivity and workers' safety.
International Journal of Health Studies, 13, (4), 621–634.
Guest, D., Peccei, R. & Thomas, A. (1993). The impact of employee involvement on organisational
commitment and "them and us" attitudes. Industrial Relations Journal, 24, (3), 191–201.

Document
Nichols, T. (1986). Industrial injuries in British manufacturing in the 1980's. Sociological Review, 34,
290–306.
Pauchant, T. & Mitroff, I. (1992). Transforming the crisis prone organisation. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.
Peterson, P. (1978). Techniques of safety management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Starbuck, W. H. & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Challenger; Fine tuning the odds until something breaks.
Journal of Management Studies, 25, 320–40.
Viscusi, W. K. (1979). Employment hazards: And investigation of market performance. Cambridge

MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, G. K. (1985). The politics of safety and health. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
PAUL WILLMAN
Satisfaction
see ATTITUDE THEORY; JOB SATISFACTION; MOTIVATOR/HYGIENE THEORY
Satisficing
This refers to a choice situation in which the final decision is one that only minimally satisfies the
necessary requirements. The decision satisfies and suffices rather than optimizes.
Classical theories of DECISION MAKING see the decision maker as an economic individual
("economic man") who rationally diagnoses a problem, draws up a complete range of alternative
solutions, evaluates each against explicit

Document
Page 505
criteria, and is therefore able to make a choice which maximizes outcomes.
BEHAVIORAL DECISION RESEARCH acknowledges that decision makers often operate in complex
environments where there is much UNCERTAINTY (see COMPLEXITY). The issue for decision
cannot be easily defined, there are many alternative solutions, and criteria are unclear and may conflict.
This is especially likely when decisions are made in an organizational setting, and when they are about
strategic issues for which there are few tried and tested problem-solving routines.
So "administrative man" (Simon, 1976) has to simplify, and the limitations of human cognitive
capacities and constraints of time mean that not every aspect of the situation can be examined in full.
The analogy often given is that the decision maker does not search for the sharpest needle in the
haystack, only one sharp enough to sew with. Decision makers therefore operate within a BOUNDED
RATIONALITY and satisficing solutions are the result.
See also Cognitive processes; Group decision making; Persistence; Risk taking
Bibliography
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley (2nd edn, 1993; Oxford:
Blackwell).
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior (4th edn). New York: Free Press.
SUSAN MILLER
Scarcity
A condition of scarcity exists whenever demand for a product or resource is less than the supply of that
product or resource. Of course, scarcity is usually not constant over time. Under conditions of scarcity,
organizations usually begin producing more of the undersupplied product or resource, up to the point
that aggregate supply approximately equals aggregate demand.
At least two exceptions to this dynamic attribute of scarcity exist. First, governments, cartels, or other
external agents can act to artificially restrict supply, thereby creating the condition of scarcity. Second,
the supply of certain resources or products may be fixed by nature. Thus, for example, the total supply
of nonrenewable raw materials is fixed. This suggests that, sooner or later, the demand for these raw
materials may be greater than the supply, and thus a condition of scarcity may develop.
However, even in these settings, scarcity can still vary. In particular, substitute products or resources are
often developed in response to either anticipated or actual conditions of scarcity. Thus, when OPEC,
acting as a cartel, created artificial scarcity in the crude oil market, a variety of substitutes for crude oil,
including conservation, emerged. As the finite supply of certain raw materials drops below demand, it is
often the case that substitute materials are developed.

Document
Overall, the existence of scarcity can be seen as a major driver of economic activity. Scarcity creates the
need for economic exchange, as well as the opportunity for economic profit, as organizations act to
either exploit a condition of scarcity (by selling scarce products or resources for high prices) or reduce a
condition of scarcity (by introducing substitute products or resources).
See also Exchange relations; Resource-based theory; Resource dependence; Organization and
environment
Bibliography
Samuelson, P. (1942). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
JAY B. BARNEY
Scientific Management
This term refers to the theory and practice of management originated by Frederick Winslow Taylor
(1856–1915), an American engineer best known for his development of time and motion study. Taylor
became concerned about the collective controls over output levels exercised by skilled workers and
reinforced by strong social norms (see GROUP NORMS). He attributed management's inability to
tackle these problems to its lack of scientific knowledge of the production process and therefore
proposed to measure the time required for each element of a job in order to establish the "one best way"
of performing that job, and the level of output that was possible. Management would then be able to
reassert its control over

Document
Page 506
production and prescribe work methods and output goals. Taylor also believed that jobs should be
divided up into small units; workers should be motivated with financial incentives linked to
performance (see MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE); they should be allocated a daily work
quota (see GOAL SETTING); they should be subject to close supervision; and factory departments
should be reorganized to permit the most efficient flow of work and materials (Kelly, 1982; Littler,
1982; Rose, 1988).
Underlying Taylor's ideas was a set of assumptions now referred to as THEORY X (see THEORY X
AND Y): workers are alienated from their work, wish to avoid high levels of effort, are motivated
solely or largely by pay, and distrust management. The worker–management relationship is therefore
based on low TRUST, although Taylor believed co-operation was possible given high wages, high
PRODUCTIVITY, and positive attitudes by both parties.
Taylor and his associates measured a wide range of jobs in a range of industries – engineering,
construction, transportation – and often raised labor productivity, although the more spectacular claims
– 100 percent productivity increases for instance – were probably exaggerated. At the same time,
Taylor's practices and his authoritarian way of implementing them produced intense hostility from
unionized workers, and the use of time and motion study became the focus of bitter conflict until well
into the 1960s. TRADE UNIONS objected to the deskilling of work (see JOB DESKILLING), to
increased managerial CONTROL and to the "speed-up" or intensification of effort levels.
Many of Taylor's principles were still popular in post-war American industry, where jobs were designed
to minimize SKILL, costs, and training time, and subject to close SUPERVISION. Henry Ford
combined these ideas with a moving assembly line to establish even tighter control of work levels. Even
today many scientific management principles and practices are still widespread: work measurement,
individual PERFORMANCE-RELATED PAY, performance targets and close supervision. Despite
their progressive reputation many Japanese manufacturing plants display similar features (Berggren, C.,
1993).
Some of his ideas and practices have been questioned. There is a growing trend toward multiskilling of
work since it became clear from the 1950s that assembly-line work was not always efficient and
produced strong dissatisfacton amongst its workers. Moreover, a growing number of companies have
sought to acquire the production knowledge of their workers in a co-operative way, through means such
as QUALITY CIRCLES. Taylor's ideas on financial MOTIVATION and his belief that workers hold
antagonistic attitudes toward management are unfashionable but valid insights that should not be lost
sight of.
See also Human relations movement; Flexibility; Performance, individual; Quality of working
life; Management, classical theory; Alienation
Bibliography
Berggren, C. (1993). Lean production – the end of history? Work, Employment and Society, 7, 163–188.

Document
Kelly, J. E. (1982). Scientific management, job redesign and work performance. London: Academic
Press.
Littler, C. (1982). The development of the labour process in capitalist societies. London: Heinemann.
Rose, M. (1988). Industrial behaviour: Theoretical development since Taylor, (3rd edn).
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
JOHN KELLY
Selection Interviewing
Interviews take a variety of forms and are carried out for a wide range of different purposes. Perhaps the
most common use of the interview is for selection. Because of its ubiquitous use in selection, and
because of the practical consequences of employment interview decisions, it is this type of interview
which has received by far the most attention by researchers and practitioners in the field of
Organizational Behavior.
Due to the fact that interviews differ greatly in length, form, content, and structure, it is not possible to
give a single comprehensive definition of what constitutes a selection interview. However, broadly
speaking, the typical selection interview is characterized by face-to-face contact of limited duration
between two or more people who are strangers. Its purpose is to attract and select from the available
pool of applicants those individuals who will perform the job in question most effectively.

Document
Page 507
The single issue which has attracted the most attention of researchers over almost three-quarters of a
century, and which has resulted in a large number of published studies (Eder & Ferris, 1989; Keenan,
1989), is the degree to which the interview is reliable and valid (see RELIABILITY; VALIDITY). The
question is, can interviewers make consistent judgments about candidates and to what extent do these
judgments predict subsequent job performance? Early reviews (e.g., Mayfield, 1964; Ulrich & Trumbo,
1965), concluded that the interview was seriously lacking in validity, with correlations between
interview scores and subsequent job performance regularly turning out to be very low or zero (see
PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). These reviews had considerable impact on academic researchers
and led many to advocate a much reduced role for the interview in selection. However, it is probably
true to say that this research had a minimal effect on practicing managers who, as far as one can tell,
continued to put their faith in the interview in much the same way as they had always done.
One consequence of recruiters' continued reliance on the traditional interview, despite the research
evidence, was a number of attempts on the part of researchers to devise improved interview techniques.
The most important development here was the advent in the 1980s of structured interview methods such
as the situational interview (Latham & Saari, 1984) and the patterned behavior description interview
(Janz, 1982). There would appear to be four main distinguishing features of structured interviews.
These are:
(1) The interview is preceded by a systematic JOB ANALYSIS, the purpose of which is to identify the
essential behavioral requirements for successful job performance.
(2) All questions asked in the interview are job related and are consistently applied across all interviews.
(3) Scoring guides and rating scales are derived from the job analysis and provided for interviewers.
(4) Ratings of specific abilities are combined to arrive at an overall rating for each candidate.
The Latham and Janz approaches have much in common, insofar as they both take the structured
approach described above. However, they differ markedly in terms of question content. In the
situational interview, applicants are invited to describe how they think they would deal with a
predetermined set of jobrelated hypothetical situations. All applicants are asked the same questions and
it is assumed that their actual behavior would correspond to their intended behavior as described to the
interviewer. The patterned behavior description interview (PBDI), on the other hand, requires
candidates to describe their past job behavior in detail. In this case the questions vary to some extent
from one candidate to another, reflecting each person's unique past experiences. The basic assumption
here is that past behavior predicts future behavior.

Document
Coinciding with the advent of these structured interview techniques was the development of improved
methods of estimating validity in the form of meta analysis (see VALIDITY GENERALIZATION).
Recent meta-analytic studies of the interview have shown much improved validity coefficients,
especially for structured interviews (Wiesner & Cronshaw, 1988; Wright, Lichtenfels, & Pursell, 1989).
These have quoted average validity coefficients similar to or approaching those typically obtained using
cognitive tests, which are generally regarded as amongst the most valid predictors of job performance
(see PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING).
These recent results are very encouraging since they suggest that the selection interview can have
respectable validity. However, many unresolved issues remain in relation to the selection interview. For
example, there is a need for a systematic comparison of the situational and PBDI approaches to
establish which is more effective generally, and under what circumstances each works best. So far these
techniques have only been applied to a narrow range of jobs, and the extent to which they have wide
applicability remains to be seen. There is also the question of the abilities actually being assessed by
these structured approaches (see ABILITY). There is some evidence suggesting that highly structured
interviews may be largely measuring cognitive abilities (Campion, Pursell, & Brown, 1988). Apart from
the fact that perfectly adequate pencil and paper tests of cognitive abilities already exist, does this mean
that the interview cannot be used to assess any of the other qualities that are relevant for job

Document
Page 508
performance such as, for example, interpersonal and motivational factors? This, in turn, begs the
question as to the appropriate content of the interview in terms of the range and type of questions that
can sensibly be asked. Everyday experience suggests that questions about opinions, MOTIVATION,
job knowledge, and preferences, and the like are frequently used in an effort to obtain information about
just such interpersonal and motivational factors. Notwithstanding this everyday observation, it is a fact
that, despite many decades of research endeavor, we know hardly anything about interview content in
terms of the range and type of questions interviewers ask and their relationship to the overall
effectiveness of the interview. This should undoubtedly be on the research agenda for the future. Last,
but by no means least, despite the received wisdom that some managers make much better interviewers
than others, to-date we know little about individual differences in interviewer effectiveness. The
interested reader is referred to Graves (1993) for a detailed discussion of this important issue.
See also Assessment; Selection methods; Research methods; Realistic job previews; Recruitment
Bibliography
Campion, M. A., Pursell, E. D. & Brown, B. K. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the
psychometric properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25–42.
Eder, R. W. & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Graves, L. M. (1993). Sources of individual differences in interviewer effectiveness: A model and

implications for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 349–370.
Janz, J. T. (1982). Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description interviews versus unstructured
interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 577–580.
Keenan, A. (1989). Selection interviewing. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds), International review
of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: Wiley.
Latham, G. P. & Saari, L. M. (1984). Do people do what they say? Further studies on the situational
interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 569–573.
Mayfield, E. C. (1964). The selection interview: A reevaluation of published research. Personnel

Ulrich, L. & Trumbo, D. (1965). The selection interview since 1949. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 100–
116.
Wiesner, W. H. & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview

format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational

Document
Wright, P. M., Lichtenfels, P. A. & Pursell, E. D. (1989). The structured interview: Additional studies
and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 191–199.
TONY KEENAN
Selection Methods
Personnel selection methods are procedures for identifying the most suitable person for a job from a
field of candidates. There is an extensive literature available giving detailed information on the
development, design and usage of personnel selection methods and personnel selection has been one of
the central areas of research and practice for psychologists and human resource professionals for many
years (see PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT). Personnel
selection is based on the view that there are stable INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES between people
which can be measured and are, at least partly, responsible for determining peoples' job performance
and other aspects of work-related behavior.
A traditional procedure for designing personnel selection systems exists and several comprehensive
texts, available in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere give details of this (Schneider & Schmitt,
1986; Herriot, 1989; Smith & Robertson, 1993). The process begins with a JOB ANALYSIS to identify
the essential components of the job. This information is then used to prepare a JOB DESCRIPTION
which, in turn provides a basis for assessing the key qualities that an effective performer in the job will
need. These are usually expressed in the form of a PERSON SPECIFICATION. Selection methods are
then used to assess candidates and evaluate the extent to which they meet the requirements of the job.
For example, if it became clear that to perform well in the job candidates would need good numerical
ability, a

Document
Page 509
psychological test of numerical ability could then be incorporated into the selection procedure (see
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING).
Although this traditional approach is widely used there are variations. One of the major variations
concerns the use to which job analysis information is put and the type of selection method that is used.
Job analysis information may be used to identify the major task elements in the job. These may then be
incorporated into a selection exercise which literally samples the elements of the job and requires
candidates to perform a work sample. In the case of executive positions this could involve working
through the contents of a typical in tray (in basket). This "sampling approach" does not focus so heavily
on identifying the key personal qualities that candidates will need but concentrates on ensuring that the
key elements of the job are embodied in the selection exercise.
The major personnel selection procedures in common usage are outlined below.
Interviews (Panel or Individual)
The most important features of an interview are the extent to which a preplanned structure is followed
and the use of questions that are directly job-related (see SELECTION INTERVIEWING).
References
Usually obtained from previous employers, often in the final stages of the selection process. The
information requested may be specific or general and open-ended.
Psychological Tests
Standardized samples of behavior including tests of cognitive ability and self-report measures of
personality.
BIODATA
Specifications of biographical information about a candidate's life history. Some biodata inventories
may contain many (e.g., 150 plus) questions.
Work Sample Tests
Such tests use samples of the job in question (e.g., the contents of an intray for a managerial post or
specific kinds of typing for a secretarial position). The applicant is given instructions and a specific
amount of time to complete the tasks.
Handwriting Analysis (Graphology)

Document
Inferences are made about a candidates' characteristics by examining specific features of their
handwriting (e.g., slant, letter shapes). Although not widely used in many countries, in some parts of the
world (e.g., France and Israel) handwriting analysis is a common selection procedure.
Assessment Centers
A combination of several of the other techniques. Often used for executive positions.
To be of use selection methods need to show good levels of criterion-related VALIDITY. This may be
assessed quantitatively by computing correlations between scores on the selection method and scores on
criterion measures (such as supervisors' ratings of work performance). A great deal of research work
has concentrated on exploring the criterion-related validity of various personnel selection methods.
Until recently, it was difficult to obtain maximum benefit from this work since many studies were
conducted with small samples and appeared to give conflicting conclusions. One of the major advances
in the 1980s was the development of procedures (meta-analysis) for quantitatively cumulating the
results from many independent validation studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) (see VALIDITY
GENERALIZATION). The statistical procedures of meta-analysis give methods for estimating the
amount of sampling error in a set of studies and hence calculating a more accurate estimate of the likely
upper and lower limits of validity. Meta-analytic investigations of the available studies on most of the
major selection methods have been conducted and psychological testing (general INTELLIGENCE
TESTING and tests of specific cognitive abilities), work sample tests, assessment centres, biodata
questionnaires, PERSONALITY TESTING and structured, job-related, interviews have all been shown
to display useful criterion-related validities (see Muchinsky, 1986; Smith & George, 1992).
Although, as a result of this meta-analytic research, personnel selection specialists have some
confidence in the criterion-related validity of many selection methods, there are still many unresolved
and important practical and research issues. Other types of validity (such as construct validity i.e., what
psychological constructs are measured by a particular method) are relatively under-researched. There is
uncertainty about the constructs measured by many selection methods, including assessment centers and
interviews; this results in corresponding uncertainty about how methods may best be com-

Document
Page 510
bined to form a battery of procedures for any given selection process, without producing unnecessary
overlap or omissions (see RELIABILITY).
As well as displaying good criterion-related validity selection methods need other important properties
including the capacity to discriminate between candidates in a way that is not biased by factors that are
irrelevant to job success (e.g, GENDER or ethnic origin) (see RACE) but may influence assessors'
judgments. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES issues are of crucial importance in personnel selection. Adverse
impact occurs when members of a particular subgroup are rejected by a selection system in
disproportionately high numbers (see BIAS; DISCRIMINATION). Although it may be socially
undesirable, adverse impact alone is not conclusive evidence that a selection method is unfair. The
precise legal definitions of unfairness vary from country to country but most selection specialists would
accept that a method is unfair and (depending on the precise setting and country involved) probably
illegal if errors of prediction are more frequent for members of any specific subgroup, i.e., if differential
validity is shown. This definition provides a basis for an unambiguous assessment of the fairness of
selection methods but it can be adopted only when sufficient data are available.
In general, research into the bias of personnel selection methods has revealed little evidence of
differential validity. This does not mean that unfair discrimination does not take place in practice. There
is good evidence that it does and any method can be corrupted to provide support for unfair decision
making. Using methods with good criterion-related validity helps to safeguard against unfairness.
Unfortunately, the available evidence shows that the usage of methods is not in line with research
evidence concerning their validity (e.g., Smith & Abrahamsen, 1992). Unstructured interviews and
reference checks are widely used whereas methods with much better validity such as work sample tests
and some forms of psychological testing are not used as much.
See also Assessment; Ability
Bibliography
Herriot, P. (1989). Assessment and selection in organizations. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury, CA: Sage.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1986). Personnel selection methods. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds),

International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 1986. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Schneider, B. & Schmitt, N. (1986). Staffing organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman.
Smith, J. M. & Abrahamsen, M. (1992). Patterns of selection in six countries. The Psychologist, 5, 205–
207.
Smith, M. & George, D. (1992). Selection methods. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology, (vol. 7). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Document
Smith, M. & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Systematic personnel selection. London: Macmillan.
IVAN ROBERTSON
Self-Actualization
This is the fifth and highest level need of Maslow's (1943) need hierarchy (see MOTIVATION). It is
the fulfillment of a person's life goals and potential. Maslow defined it as, " . . . the desire to become . . .
everything that one is capable of becoming" (Maslow, 1943, p. 382). According to theory, self-
actualization is a need that motivates people's behavior (see MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE).
A person whose self-actualization need is met, is said to be self-actualized, but few are thought to
achieve this state in their lifetime. Many famous people in the arts and sciences have been presumed to
have achieved self-actualization.
Self-actualization is somewhat akin to the GROWTH NEED STRENGTH component of Hackman and
Oldham's (1976) JOB CHARACTERISTICS theory. Both these concepts share the idea that people
have a need for continual development throughout their life. Growth need strength, however, is a
PERSONALITY characteristic that varies among people.
See also Creativity; Self-regulation; Job satisfaction; Human relations movement
Bibliography

Document
Page 511
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
PAUL E. SPECTOR
Self-Efficacy
This can be defined as the extent to which a person feels capable and effective in accomplishing a
particular task. It is task specific and a person can have different levels of self-efficacy for various tasks.
Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1982) says that self-efficacy is a major motivational factor that
contributes to successful task performance (see MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE). People who
believe that they are good at a task (high self-efficacy) should put forth more effort and persist longer at
a task than individuals who have low self-efficacy.
The concept of self-efficacy is somewhat like the expectancy theory concept of expectancy (see VIE
THEORY). The difference is that expectancy concerns people's beliefs about their ABILITY to
accomplish a task at a given point in time in a specific situation. Self-efficacy concerns a person's belief
about how good they are at a task in general across time and situations.
Research on self-efficacy theory has supported its predictions for task performance in a number of
situations (Locke & Latham, 1990). The theory has useful implications for organizations as it suggests
that employee performance can be improved by enhancing self-efficacy. This can be accomplished by
assigning tasks to employees that maximizes their likelihood of success.
See also Competencies; Self-Esteem; Self-regulation; Persistence; Locus of control; Personality
Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Locke, E. A. & Latham G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
PAUL E. SPECTOR
Self-Esteem

Document
This condition is the attitude that a person has about himself or herself, as a good or bad person and the
extent to which people like themselves. Self-esteem has been considered a PERSONALITY TRAIT, a
stable INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE in the extent to which people hold positive or negative views of
themselves. People who are high in self-esteem have been found to be psychologically better adjusted,
to perform better in school, to handle criticism more appropriately, and to cope better with failure
(Baron & Byrne, 1991).
Tharenou (1979) summarized the research on self-esteem in the work domain. She found that high
esteem was positively associated with JOB SATISFACTION and intention to stay on the job (see
TURNOVER). Low esteem was associated with poor employee health, but it is not clear whether
esteem is the cause of health (see MENTAL HEALTH). Tharenou suggests that both low self-esteem
and poor health may be responses to STRESS on the job. Research has failed to find relations of esteem
with job performance in field settings (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). The more task specific
variable of SELF-EFFICACY seems to have more promise in explaining and predicting task
performance.
See also Personality; Affect; Persistence
Bibliography
Baron, R. A. & Byrne, D. (1991). Social psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tharenou, P. (1979). Employee self-esteem: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
15, 316–346.
PAUL E. SPECTOR
Self-Managed Teams
A self-managed team is:
(a) a real group (i.e., an intact social system with boundaries, interdependence among members, and
differentiated roles (Alderfer, 1977));
(b) that has one or more group tasks to perform for which members are collectively accountable (see
ACCOUNTABILITY AND),
(c) whose members are responsible not only for executing the work but also for monitoring and
managing their own work and inter-

Document
Page 512
personal processes (see SELF-MANAGEMENT).
See also Employee involvement; Delegation; Group decision making; Democracy; Superleadership
Bibliography
Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds),
Improving life at work. Santa Monica, CA: Good-year.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
J. RICHARD HACKMAN
Self-Management
When work is done in an organization, four functions must be fulfilled. One, someone must actually
execute the work – applying personal energy (physical or mental) to accomplish tasks. Two, someone
must monitor and manage the work process – collecting and interpreting data about how the work is
proceeding and initiating corrective action as needed. Three, someone must design the performing unit
and arrange for needed organizational supports for the work – structuring tasks, deciding who will
perform them, establishing core norms of conduct in the work setting, and making sure people have the
resources and supports they need to carry out the work. Four, someone must set direction for the
organizational unit, determining the collective objectives and aspirations that spawn the myriad of
smaller tasks that pervade any organization.
Four types of performing units can be distinguished in terms how AUTHORITY for these four
functions are distributed. (The term performing unit refers to the people who have been assigned
responsibility for accomplishing some specified task. A performing unit can be a single individual, a
team (see SELF-MANAGED TEAM), or an entire organizational unit whose members share
responsibility for a major piece of organizational work.)
Manager-led units: Members have authority only for actually executing the task; managers monitor and
manage performance processes, structure the unit and its context, and set overall directions. This type of
unit has been common in US industry since the "scientific management" ideas of Taylor (1911) took
hold early in the century (see SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT). In this view, managers manage, workers
work, and the two functions are kept distinct.
Self-managing units: Members have responsibility not only for executing the task but also for
monitoring and managing their own performance. This type of unit is often seen in new plants designed
in accord with what has been termed the "COMMITMENT model" of management (Walton, 1985).
Self-managing units are commonplace in managerial and professional work (e.g., a team of research
assistants who share responsibility for collecting a set of data) (see MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR).

Document
Self-designing units: Members have the authority to modify the design of the unit itself or aspects of the
organizational context in which the unit operates (see SUB-UNITS). Managers set the direction for such
units but assign to members full authority to do what needs to be done to get the work accomplished.
Top management task forces often are self-designing units (e.g., a team created to develop a new
program and given free reign in determining how the work will be structured, supported, and carried
out).
Self-governing units: Members have responsibility for all four of the major functions listed above: They
decide what is to be done, structure the unit and its context, manage their own performance, and
actually carry out the work. Examples of self-governing units include certain legislative bodies, some
corporate boards of directors, advisory councils of community service agencies, worker
COOPERATIVES, and sole proprietorships.
Although the four types of units are described above as if they are distinct, that is merely a convenience.
In practice, units often fall on the boundaries of the self-management categories.
See also Self regulation; Superleadership; Employee involvement; Participation; Empowerment
Bibliography
Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. S. Pallack &

Document
Page 513
R. O. Perloff (Eds), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Manz, C. E. & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1989). Superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. Englewood
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.
Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment: Transformation of workforce management

strategies in the United States. In K. B. Clark, R. H. Hayes & C. Lorenz (Eds), The uneasy alliance:
Managing the productivity-technology dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
J. RICHARD HACKMAN
Self-Monitoring
see PERSONALITY; SELF-REGULATION
Self-Regulation
This cybernetic phenomena refers to a dynamic process by which key criteria (AFFECT, job
performance, SELF-EFFICACY) are kept within an acceptable range through behavioral and cognitive
adjustments. Early work emphasized the self-corrective aspects of self-regulatory processes.
Subsequent work emphasized that standards can also change over time, producing a slower acting,
cognitive means to reduce discrepancies (Lord & Hanges, 1987). Self-regulatory processes are
important in social perceptions, social learning theory, motivational processes, STRESS, and MENTAL
HEALTH, and many other phenomena because self-regulatory processes are crucial in explaining the
interaction between an individual and his or her environment (internal or external) (Lord & Levy, 1994).
Essentially, self-regulation involves a negative FEEDBACK processes by which environmentally

produced deviations from standards are opposed and precisely counterbalanced by self-corrective
behaviors (Powers, 1973). For example, deviations from a self-relevant standard such as being a good
employee, might be counteracted by behavior such as being more diligent at work. Research by Carver
and Scheier (1981) demonstrated that people adhered more closely to standards under conditions that
produced self-focus.
Self-regulatory systems involve five dynamically related components: a sensor that register information
from relevant environments; a standard or referent to which information is compared; a comparator
which detects sensed discrepancies from standards; a decision mechanism that selects appropriate
responses such as adjusting behavior or changing standards, and an effector that operates on an external
task environment. Such control systems are usually applied to individual behavior, although Lord and
Hanges (1987) note that control systems can also characterize group processes if different individuals
correspond to the different components of control systems.

Document
Many critical interventions in organizations involve changing components of self-regulatory systems.

For example, GOAL SETTING interventions can be conceptualized as attempts to change the standards
used in motivational control systems. Similarly, frame of reference training involves changing the
standards used to control social perceptions. Interventions oriented toward feedback processes in
organizations pertain to another important components of cybernetic systems.
One area of research on self-regulation, control theory, also emphasized that discrepancy reducing
behaviors occur within a more general hierarchical organization of control loops. In such hierarchies,
the means to reduce higher level discrepancies often involve creating discrepancies at lower levels.
Importantly, such hierarchical organization can explain both discrepancy reduction and the production
of discrepancies, thereby providing a powerful mechanisms for explaining both stability and change in
behavior (Lord & Levy, 1994). Stability occurs because higher level, abstract standards change fairly
slowly, producing consistent patterns in behavior. On the other hand, lower level standards change
continually in response to the demands of environments and the requirements of higher level control
loops.
More recent work also addresses the regulation of thought processes such as retrieval of information
from memory, allocating attentional resources, and sequencing mental operations (Lord & Levy, 1994).
Such work emphasizes the role of very fast, unconscious processes (priming and negative priming) that
control the activation of goals and goal relevant information needed to produce coherent actions. Such
processes are crucial in understanding how current intentions are protected from competing

Document
Page 514
tendencies while actions are executed (Kuhl, 1992). Factors that reduce the capacity of individuals to
protect intentions while behavior is being executed (aging, FATIGUE, stress, or disease) produces more
disorganized and less action oriented systems (see AGE).
See also Motivation; Performance, individual; Motivation and performance
Bibliography
Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to
human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self regulation: Action versus state orientation, self-discrimination, and
some applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 97–129.
Lord, R. G. & Hanges, P. J. (1987). A control systems model of organizational motivation: Theoretical
development and applied implications. Behavioral Science, 32, 161–178.
Powers, W. T. (1973). Feedback: Beyond behaviorism. Science, 179, 351–356.
ROBERT G. LORD
Self-Serving Bias
This denotes the tendency to take credit for successful outcomes and to deny responsibility for failures.
See also Attribution; Bias
Sensitivity Training
This is a method of facilitator-led small group activities intended to foster changes in attitudes and
behaviors necessary to improve participants' interpersonal skills by increasing their awareness of others'
reactions to them (see GROUP DYNAMICS). Small groups of participants (originally, 10 to 12 persons
in ''stranger groups" unknown to one another previously) met without an agenda; their own behaviors
with one another became the "laboratory data" for group discussion under the leader's direction. Seeing
themselves through others' eyes by virtue of direct and open "FEEDBACK" was expected to "unfreeze"
participants' long-held assumptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Through discussion in the group with the
aid of the leader, participants would "change" to more effective, more rewarding interpersonal
behaviors and the new patterns would be reinforced or "refrozen," according to Kurt Lewin's model of
change.

Document
Sensitivity training gave rise to the highly influential "T-group" (for training group) activities in
numerous settings (including teachers and counselors, recovery groups for drug addicts, and self-
improvement groups for the general public), and to the ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
movement which followed (but focused on improving relational skills for WORK GROUP
effectiveness and ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE, rather than INTERPERSONAL SKILLS per se).
Critics charged that sensitivity training and T-groups manipulated participants' basic attitudes and self-
concept, that they might be so powerful as to cause harm or, alternatively, so impotent as to be
ineffective upon participants' return to ordinary settings. Nevertheless, these ideas continue to have
broad impact, especially in the United States.
See also Team building; Training; Group cohesiveness
Bibliography
Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R. & Benne, K. D. (Eds), (1964). T-Group theory & laboratory method:
Innovation in re-education. New York: Wiley.
Golembiewski, R. T. & Blumberg, A. (Eds), (1973). Sensitivity training and the laboratory approach,
(2nd edn). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
MARIANN JELINEK
Seven S Model
McKinsey consultants developed this model to explain how successful companies integrated strategic
analysis and strategy formulation with implementation processes, in order to achieve their success.
Peters and Waterman (1982) popularized the model, arguing that the development of an analytically
brilliant strategy was not sufficient for organizational success. To succeed, the implementation process
was also crucial. It had to be consistent with the strategy, as well as the elements of the implementation
process being internally consistent.
The seven S's of the model are strategy, structure (information, operating, administra-

Document
Page 515
tive, and financial) systems, (LEADERSHIP and management) style, staff (abilities, SKILLS, attitudes,
and MOTIVATION), (organizational and individual) skills and shared VALUES (see
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE). Strategy, structure and systems are sometimes referred to as the
"hard" S's and the others as the "soft" S's, reflecting the perceived differences required in analyzing and
managing the two groups. All the S's are interconnected with each other. Therefore, each of the S's
should be consistent with the strategy and with each other S. Further, change in any one of the S's could
potentially lead to or require a change in other S's.
At the time the model was developed, most of the concentration in the strategy field was in strategic
analysis (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT). The seven S model focused attention on process and
implementation issues, a shift which has been maintained since that time. The seven S model is rarely
seen in its original form because each of the elements has effectively been expanded into whole areas of
strategy implementation. All its elements are separately considered to be very important in the process
of ensuring that the strategy which is formulated is the strategy which is actually implemented.
See also Organizational effectiveness; Five forces framework; Excellence; Organizational design
Bibliography
GRAHAM HUBBARD
Sex Differences
The study of sex differences has a long history and is a topic of enduring interest to social and
organizational scientists, and to almost everyone else from philosophers and novelists to readers of
newspapers and popular magazines. A significant difference between mean scores of men and women
on some variable is generally assumed to constitute a sex difference considered publishable. Traits,
states, attitude, behavior, experience, treatment, and others' beliefs about differences are all quite
different types of sex differences and they are not equally the subject of research (see WOMEN AT
WORK for examples of topics studied by researchers interested in sex differences).
Most of the research on sex differences is a subset of research on INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES and
focuses on differences in traits – assumed to be relatively long-lasting and not easily changed (see
PERSONALITY). For example, which sex is more aggressive or do men and women manage
differently? But at least three other strands can be detected in sex difference research:
(1) Some research focuses on beliefs about the way men and women behave, e.g., Do people believe
that women managers behave differently from male managers or use a different style of leading? (see
MANAGERIAL STYLE)

Document
(2) Research also focuses on sex differences in actual behavior including verbal reports, e.g., Do male
managers behave differently from women managers or hold different work-related VALUES?
(3) Other research focuses on differential treatment of the two sexes, e.g., Are women and men equally
likely to be promoted or are they equally compensated for their work? (see DISCRIMINATION)
Research on sex differences highlights differences in the mean scores of men and women in all of these
areas, focusing on between-sex rather than within-sex variation, typically controlling other variables
through the use of random assignment or through regression models of analysis (see STATISTICAL
METHODS).
The study of sex differences is problematic: because significance levels vary with sample size, many
widely known sex differences are small in magnitude, but are used to justify social and organizational
policy. Only recently have researchers studying sex differences started to report effect sizes. Even when
they do, there is disagreement about interpreting the importance of an effect size of, say, 2 percent or 6
percent. Another common problem is the confounding of types of sex difference, e.g., beliefs about
differences between men and women assumed to reflect real but unmeasured differences, or
confounding sex differences with other variables associated with sex or gender. Because women

Document
Page 516
and men tend to hold different kind of jobs and have different life experiences (see WOMEN AT
WORK, GENDER, WOMEN MANAGERS), it is difficult to infer trait differences between the sexes
from field studies, although this is often done, e.g., a report of differences in WORK INVOLVEMENT
of men and women may be confounded if the women are largely in clerical positions while the men are
mostly engineers or managers.
See also Feminism; Sex roles
Bibliography
Eagly, A. & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 108, (2), 233–256.
Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of woman. New York: Simon & Schuster.
BARBARA A. GUTEK
Sex Roles
Also known as GENDER roles, these refer to shared expectations about appropriate qualities and
behaviors associated with being a man or woman in any given society. The term, gender roles, is
preferred by some scholars, in keeping with the distinction between gender (referring to socially
constructed sex-linked characteristics or behavior) and sex (referring to biologically based sex-linked
characteristics or behavior, such as pregnancy). Sex role is a general ROLE that one occupies along
with other roles such as a work role, parent role, or LEADERSHIP role. Sex roles can change over time
and may vary somewhat from one society to another. Because sex roles are society-wide, they affect
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR in a variety of ways, e.g., in the way men and women behave, the
way they believe they should behave, the way others expect them to behave, the way others treat men
and women. Sex roles can either conflict or enhance the enactment of roles. For example, sex role may
enhance a man's enactment of the managerial role but conflict with a woman's efforts to occupy the role
of manager. More specifically, WOMEN MANAGERS typically face a conflict in trying to meet
expectations associated with being a manager (such as being forceful) and expectations associated with
being a woman (such as being nurturing) (see ROLE CONFLICT).
See also Women at work; Role-taking
Bibliography
Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49–81.
BARBARA A. GUTEK
Sexual Harassment

Document
Sexual harassment is illegal in many countries and its conceptual definition often parallels a legal
definition. It is generally defined as unwelcome verbal or physical sexual overtures that may be made a
condition of employment or otherwise affect one's job or CAREER and/or create a hostile or
intimidating work environment that can affect the one's work or work performance. Sexual harassment
is treatment based on GENDER, constitutes a form of STRESS for victims, is an impediment to
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, and thus is a HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT issue for
organizations. Most of the research conducted thus far focuses on two complementary questions: (1)
How common is it? (2) How do people define it? In general, in several countries where extensive
research has been done, it is estimated that from 25–50 percent of women have been sexually harassed
sometime in their worklife. Women who work in nontraditional jobs are more likely than other women
to be sexually harassed, in part because of the amount of contact they have with men in their work.
While men can be and are harassed by both sexes, the probability that a man will be sexually harassed
is very small relative to a woman's chances.
Although there is much discussion of the "subjective nature" of sexual harassment, recent research
suggests that there is a fair amount of consensus on definition of harassment. Most people agree that
behavior like rape, fondling, and sexual overtures accompanied by job threats are sexual harassment,
but there is disagreement about the less severe behavior and many researchers have examined the
factors which affect the definition of sexual harassment. Notable among these is a consistent difference
between the sexes in the definition of harassment. Although the effect appears to be small, it is widely
discussed as evidence that sexual harassment is subjective and appears to have influenced the adoption
of a "reasonable

Document
Page 517
woman" standard by some courts in the United States.
See also Stereotyping; Women at work
Bibliography
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tinsley, H. E. A. & Stockdale, M. (1993). Special issue on sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 42, (1).
BARBARA A. GUTEK
Shaping
This refers to the differential REINFORCEMENT of all behavior or its results (e.g., a unit of work
resulting from a chain of behaviors) that meet or exceed some temporary criterion that is shifted toward
an ultimate criterion as behavior shifts in the direction of the ultimate criterion. Suppose a typist's
number of ERRORS initially range from 10 to 30 per hundred words typed with a mean of 15 errors per
hundred typed. Praise or some other reinforcer is administered each time work is turned in with fewer
than 15 errors per hundred. Suppose the distribution then shifts so the range is from 5 to 25 and the
mean 10. Finally, only work with 10 or fewer errors per hundred are followed by reinforcement and the
distribution shifts to a range from zero to 15 errors per hundred. The performance distribution now
contains some errorless work which was never the case before the shaping procedure began. Thus
shaping behaviors that share some dimension with a desired behavior that is not currently within a
person's repertoire can be created by successive approximations that shift behavior to the ultimate
criterion.
See also Conditioning; Learning, individual; Management by objectives
Bibliography
Honig, W. K. & Staddon, J. E. R. (1977). Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
THOMAS C. MAWHINNEY
Share/Equity Ownership

Document
share/equity represents the phenomenon of employee ownership. Not to be confused with a cooperative,
share/equity refers primarily to Employee Stock Ownership Plans or ESOPS. Also, Employee Stock
Ownership Trusts (ESOTS) are variations of this ownership structure. Not to be confused with stock
purchase plans which, ironically, accomplish the same purpose, ESOPS have a specific legislative
history in the United States (Blasi, 1988).
See also Democracy; Participation; Payment systems; Gainsharing; Employee involvement;

Profit-sharing
Bibliography
Blasi, J. (1988). Employee ownership: Revolution or ripoff? Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
BRIAN GRAHAM-MOORE
Shiftwork
see HOURS OF WORK; WORKING CONDITIONS
Simulation, Computer
A computer simulation takes a complex set of assumptions, simulates a set of organizational processes,
and represents the outcomes of these processes. Five elements comprise a computer simulation:
(1) researcher-specified assumptions;
(2) parameters, i.e., the fixed values or control variables;
(3) inputs, or independent variables;
(4) algorithms, or process decision rules that convert input values into outputs; and
(5) outputs, or dependent variables (Whicker & Sigelman, 1991, p. 7).
The purpose of a computer simulation is to simplify and clarify ideas about a system, e.g., an
organization, and to see how premises based on these ideas may lead to outcomes, both intended and
unintended. By manipulating simulation parameters, including whether the system in question is
modeled as stochastic or deterministic, the researcher attempts to control for a variety of factors that
may impact the processes under study. Computer simulations are particularly appropriate when the
system under study is complex, when the researcher wants

Document
Page 518
to test the sensitivity of outcomes to different assumptions, and when performance assessment lends
itself to quantitative measurement. Computer simulations have been used in organizational research to
study models of organizations as experiential learning systems, adaptation to complex environments,
organizational search behavior, longitudinal decision processes, and the impact of structure and
TURNOVER on organizational outcomes.
See also Research design; Research methods; Information processing; Cognitive processes;
Human-computer interaction
Bibliography
Whicker, M. L. & Sigelman, L. (1991). Computer simulation applications: An introduction. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.
STEPHEN J. MEZIAS
Skill
This is proficiency on a specific task. The definition includes an evaluation of the level of proficiency (e.
g., highly skilled) and the task to be accomplished (e.g., drive a car). Skills are acquired through
learning and experience (see COMPETENCIES). Perceptual and motor skill requires voluntary
coordinated movement to execute a task. Cognitive and social skill requires interpreting and controlling
COMMUNICATIONS and then responding. In the workplace, basic skills include reading, writing,
arithmetic, mathematics, listening, and speaking. Thinking skills include creative thinking, DECISION
MAKING, problem solving, and reasoning (see CREATIVITY). INTERPERSONAL SKILLS at work
include communicating, solving interpersonal problems, meeting people, maintaining relationships,
directing others, upholding NORMS, and handling pressure.
Skill builds from an ability (talent) foundation of basic COMPETENCY and extends performance
proficiency to specific activities. Basic ABILITY is a prerequisite for skill; skill cannot develop in the
absence of basic ability (Welford, 1976). Skills are learned through education, training, and experience.
They develop through practice and performance FEEDBACK. Measurement of skill is specific to the
task under consideration and content valid tests provide accurate assessments. Examples of such
evaluations are ASSESSMENT CENTER exercises, typing tests, and vehicle driving tests. Skill tests,
supported by content validity evidence, are used widely for CAREER counseling, job referral,
apprentice TRAINING, and personnel SELECTION (see SELECTION METHOD).
See also Individual differences; Assessment; Performance, individual; Aptitude
Bibliography
Welford, A. T. (1976). Skilled performance: Perceptual and motor skills. Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman.

Document
JOYCE C. HOGAN
Slack Resources
These include any resources owned or controlled by a firm in excess of what is required to engage in
current organizational activities (see RESOURCE BASED THEORY). Slack resources can be tangible
(i.e., product inventory in excess of current market demand, raw material supplies in excess of current
production demand) or intangible (i.e., unused debt capacity, management talent in excess of current
operations).
Slack resources can accumulate in an organization for any of a variety of reasons. First, slack resources
may reflect an organization's very high level of success. Thus, for example, an organization's success in
the market may enable it to have very large cash reserves that are greater than what is required to
support current operations. Second, slack resources can reflect management's efforts to buffer an
organization from uncertain environmental events (see RESOURCE DEPENDENCE). For example, in
this uncertain setting, stock piles of raw materials may enable an organization to continue production
while organizations without these stock piles may not be able to continue. Third, slack resources may
accumulate in an organization when managers overestimate the resources needed to succeed in their
activities, are overcautious in pursuing new business opportunities, or unwilling to distribute slack
resources to an organization's owners in the form of dividends or other payments. Indeed, some
research suggests that excess slack resources may encourage unfriendly takeover efforts (see
MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS).

Document
Page 519
See also Organizational effectiveness; Scarcity; Strategic management; Innovation
Bibliography
Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review,

6, 29–39.
Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
JAY B. BARNEY
Small Businesses
Until recently small businesses have been relatively neglected in studies of ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR. Yet it remains the case that the overwhelming majority of business enterprises are small
and that together they account for a substantial share of output and employment within all the
industrialized and developing economies.
Quantitative definitions of what constitutes a small firm vary between economic sectors. "Small" within
capital intensive manufacturing (e.g., up to 200 employees) may be considered large in more labor
intensive service sectors. However, small firms are typically seen as those which:
(1) have a relatively small market share;
(2) are independent; and
(3) are directly managed by their owners (see GOVERNANCE AND OWNERSHIP).
The widespread increase in levels of small business activity from the early 1980s onward may be linked
to broader patterns of economic and social change. Increasing levels of unemployment, corporate
DOWNSIZING through outsourcing, and the resurgence of free market political ideologies – "the
enterprise culture" – are the context within which self-employment and small firms have attracted more
attention.
Studies of those who start small businesses (see ENTREPRENEURSHIP) suggest a variety of motives
including:
(1) the need to simply make a living (traditionally important for marginalized social groups – ethnic
minorities and migrants, for example – who may be disadvantaged in the labor market);

Document
(2) the desire for independence and AUTONOMY; and
(3) the drive to apply SKILLS and talents which may be under-utilized in employment – an important
motive for increasing numbers of women (see WOMEN AT WORK).
Most small businesses remain very small or else are liquidated; only a small minority grow. Evidence
suggests many owner-FOUNDERS do not seek growth – their material ambitions may be modest and
they value the informality of a small team. Those who do attempt growth are often reluctant to delegate
control or to develop more formalized organizational structures and systems (see FAMILY FIRMS).
Long after the emergence of a managerial HIERARCHY then, many small firms retain both informal
yet highly centralized – often very personal – control systems.
See also Cooperatives; Organizational design; Organizational size; Stakeholders
Bibliography
Scase, R. & Goffee, R. (1987). The Real world of the Small Business Owner. London: Routledge.
ROB GOFFEE
Social Comparison
This theory, developed by Leon Festinger in 1954, comprises a set of hypotheses, corollaries, and
derivations concerned with why, with whom, and to what effect people compare themselves with other
people. Festinger (1954b) assumed a motive to know that one's opinions are correct and to know what
one is and is not capable of doing. This leads to "derivations" about the conditions under which social
comparison processes arise and about their nature. For example: A process of social comparison arises
when a person cannot directly evaluate his or her opinions or abilities by objective nonsocial evidence.
When that occurs, individuals use other persons as points of comparison, preferably others who are
similar to themselves. One ceases comparison with another person when that person becomes very
divergent from one's self.

Document
Page 520
There have been many recent developments, for example, a focus on the process of downward
comparison, that is, comparison with a person who is less well-off, rather than the upward comparison
(comparison with a person who is better-off). Festinger (1954a) believed that under certain conditions
one would compare oneself with persons of slightly better ability.
The theory has a long history and has resulted in a significant body of research (a fine recent summary
can be found in Suls and Wills (1991). Although many aspects of the theory have been questioned (e.g.,
there may be other motives for social comparison)–we may be more interested in establishing that our
opinions are correct and that our abilities are exceptional than in learning the truth about them – social
comparison theory remains a classic formulation of social comparison processes.
Temporal Comparison Theory, Albert (1977), derived from social comparison theory, was a set of
propositions about when, with whom, and for what reasons one would compare one's self at one point
in time with one's self at another point in time. The theory argues, for example, that such comparisons
are particularly likely during periods of rapid change as a way to maintain a coherent sense of personal
identity. For example, exiting an organization (which is usually viewed as a large and significant
change) may evoke memories of the time when the individual first joined the organization. Much less
empirical research has been devoted to temporal comparison theory than social comparison theory. (For
references to relevant work, see Suls and Wills (1991)).
Processes of social and temporal comparison, that is, comparisons with other persons in the light of
one's own past and projected future are highly relevant to judgments of perceived equity and fairness
(see EQUITY THEORY; JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE). For example, the pain of inequity may be
tempered by the fact that all parties are experiencing rapid improvement.
See also Attribution; Social facilitation; Role; Cognitive dissonance
Bibliography
Albert, S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory. Psychological Review, 84, (6), 485–503.
Festinger, L. (1954a). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Festinger, L. (1954b). Motivation leading to social behavior. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium
on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Suls, J. & Wills, T. A. (Eds), (1991). Social comparison: Comtemporary theory and research. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
STUART ALBERT
Social Constructionism (SC)

Document
This perspective argues that apparently concrete realities such as our own qualities and the
characteristics of our contexts, including other people, are created through discourse and are less
"concrete," that is more mutable and arbitrary, than actors assume. What is understood as real is not
concrete but relational, constructed through processes in which a linguistic statement or "text" is related
to preexisting referents. Reality is experienced as concrete because the referents are implicit, taken for
granted, their role in meaning making going unrecognized. Through language, understood as a public,
communal, social performance, actors construct meanings and reconstruct particular meanings in their
social practices. This means that SC is interested in "texts," both written and spoken, as a means to
explore the referents by which actors make some particular meaning rather than another. A person's
referents produce and are produced by their own career of constructing their self understandings and
understandings of their contexts, including other people and their relations with them. A person's
referents are neither their own, nor entirely idiosyncratic, as they embrace wider local and national
cultural narratives (see CULTURE, NATIONAL). So, for example, the recent western narrative of
individualism may provide the wider relational context within which particular "organizational''
narratives such as success and LEADERSHIP make sense, these meanings being reflected and (re)
constructed in the social relational processes of participants. When compared with related approaches,
explicit SC contributions have most often been in the form of social critiques. Of potential relevance to
OB are

Document
Page 521
existing critiques which examine common constructions, for example, of GENDER, EMOTION, and
motives, showing how they are socially constructed and socially warrented, created and sustained by
social institutions and processes. The central concerns of OB also may be examined to identify existing
and alternative referents and so open-up the possibility to change current practices. For example,
critiques of management and leadership reveal the implicit referents in relation to which their meaning
is constructed: the implicit references which make meaningful, for example, talk of "subordinates," and
the assumption that "subordinates" need "motivating'' and "leading" (e.g., Dachler, 1991). Critiques of
"organization" expose the implicit references which make meaningful the common emphasis on
formalized (static) structures and obscure ongoing processes of construction (Hosking & Morley, 1991).
Recent interests in women and in EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES could benefit from attention to the many
implicit referents in relation to which the meaning of "male" and "female" are constructed. A final
example is that of personnel ASSESSMENT. The meaning and practice of this activity will radically be
changed when traits are recognized as social constructions, and furthermore, as constructions whose
meaning and significance varies with the wider context of referents implicit in the culture of the
employing organization (see ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE). Finally, apart from critique, SC offers
a relatively novel perspective of organisations: not separate from persons, but as an ongoing production
of persons in relation (e.g., Hosking & Morley, 1991; Weick, 1979); at this point SC shades into
NEGOTIATED ORDER, SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM, and interpretive sociology.
See also Critical theory; Metaphor; Postmodernism, symbolism
Bibliography
Dachler, H. P. (1991). Management and leadership as relational phenomena. In M. von. Cranach, W.

Doise & G. Mugny (Eds), Social representations and the social bases of knowledge. Bern: Haupt.
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American

Psychologist, 40, (3), 266–275.
Harre, R. (1992). What is real in psychology. Theory and Psychology, 2, (2), 153–158.
Hosking, D. M. & Morley, I. E. (1991). A social psychology of organising. London: Harvester Wheat-
sheaf.
Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organising. London: Addison-Wesley.
DIAN MARIE HOSKING
Social Desirability
see RECRUITMENT; HONESTY TESTING; RESEARCH DESIGN
Social Facilitation

Document
This denotes how the presence of others can significantly enhance performance. Working with others
doing the same task, for example, on a production line performing a simple procedure, generally
produces better performance than working alone. Interpersonal competition has been ruled out as an
explanation for this effect; rather, the "mere presence of others" seems to be responsible. The presence
of others has also been shown to inhibit performance, as in the case of public speaking, through a
process called social inhibition.
Three principal explanations have been offered for these effects. Zajonc (1965) argued that the presence
of others increases arousal in all higher mammals which may facilitate greater effort and therefore
greater effectiveness in task performance. The second explanation proposes that the presence of others
is cognitively distracting on complex tasks and leads to performance decrement. A third suggests that
evaluation apprehension may interfere with task performance.
These explanations have been integrated with the notion of task COMPLEXITY to suggest that social
facilitation occurs consistently with simple or routine tasks. Where tasks are more complex and
cognitively demanding, such as responding to difficult questions, the presence of others, as a result of
evaluation apprehension and distraction leads to social inhibition and performance decrement.
See also Performance, individual; Group dynamics; Cognitive dissonance; Social comparison

Document
Page 522
Bibliography
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.
MICHAEL A. WEST
Social Identity Theory
see ETHNICITY; INTERGROUP RELATIONS; MANIFEST AND LATENT FUNCTIONS;

PREJUDICE
Social Learning Theory
see INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
Social Loafing
This occurs when members of a group context do not make as much effort as they would had they
performed alone. Although there are a number of benefits to group-based work activities, these also
incur costs. For instance, social psychological work has demonstrated that individuals who think that
they are working along with others may reduce their efforts and hence, their performance, independent
of any potential loss attributable to distraction or lack of coordination during actual group performance.
Such a lowered performance is referred to as social loafing and it was first identified by Latane,
Williams, and Harkins (1979).
Individuals may "loaf" because they assume that the actions of others will ensure the attainment of the
collective good, freeing individuals to redirect their efforts toward additional personal gains and
personal outcomes. This tendency of people to rely on the efforts of others is related to the so-called
"freerider" problem in economics, in which an individual enjoys a collective good (e.g., national
defense) while foregoing a personal contribution. Although much of the research concerning social
loafing has been conducted using university students in laboratory experiments, recent applications to
organizational settings demonstrate that the phenomenon also occurs in work settings.
Perhaps the most immediate application of this phenomenon concerns the establishment of WORK
GROUPS or SELF-MANAGED TEAMS. In North America and Europe, a number of writers on
management have called for the establishment of AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS as a means of
humanizing the workplace. The phenomenon of social loafing, however, suggests that such advocacy
needs to be tempered by a more complex understanding of social processes.

Document
An important, and related, question concerns social loafing and its universality across international
borders (see CULTURE; VALUES). Do people from various cultures exhibit this Western tendency to
"loaf" in a group context? Several international and intercultural studies of social loafing have been
conducted. For example, Gabrenya, Latane, and Wang (1985) reported loafing in one study of
Taiwanese school children although the same researchers found a facilitation effect of group-based
performance in two other research studies (see SOCIAL FACILITATION). Matsui, Kakugama, and
Onglatco (1987) looked at the impact of individual and group responsibility for work performance and
argued that the superiority of group-based over individual-based performance in their results may have
been related to the collectivistic cultural values of their subjects Japanese students). Earley (1989)
directly tested the idea that social loafing would be moderated by individualistic–collectivistic beliefs
using samples of Chinese, and American managers. His results found loafing effects in the
individualistic (e.g., primarily the American managers) but not the collectivistic (e.g., primarily the
Chinese managers) samples. It was concluded that people from collective cultures will "loaf" if they are
working with strangers, or people not in their ingroup, but they will not if they are working with
ingroup members. People from individualistic cultures appear to ''loaf" when in the presence of others if
they are not held accountable for their individual contributions.
See also Intercultural process; Group dynamics; Group norms; Social comparison
Bibliography
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States with the
People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565–581.
Gabrenya, W. K. Jr., Latane, B. & Wang, Y. (1985). Social loafing on an optimizing task: Cross-cultural

Document
Page 523
differences among Chinese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 223–242.
Latane, B., Williams, K. D. & Harkins, S. G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and
consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.
Metsui, T., Kakugama, T. & Onglatco, M. L. (1987). Effects of goals and feedback on performance in
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 407–415.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological
Review, 96, 506–520.
Socialization
This is a process of ROLE TAKING frequently referred to as "learning the ropes." It has been applied
in several different OB contexts, such as career entry, the JOINING-UP PROCESS, entering WORK
GROUPS, and the entry/re-entry of EXPATRIATES. As discussed here, however, socialization will
refer to new organization members, i.e., organizational socialization.
While almost all scholars agree that socialization is "learning the ropes," there is less agreement as to
what this actually means. Van Maanen and Schein (1979, pp. 226–227) say that it involves three
elements:
(1) learning new knowledge important for both one's own job performance and for general functioning
in the organization;
(2) acquiring a strategic base, which is a set of decision rules for solving problems/making decisions;
and
(3) learning the organization's mission, purpose, or mandate.
These three areas of learning are acknowledged to be closely related to each other. Other students of
socialization go even further to include changes in newcomer attitudes and VALUES (see ATTITUDE
THEORY). These are different from the acquisition of knowledge, a strategic base, or organizational
mission. When attitudes and values are changed, the newcomer as a person is also changed, and a
deeper attachment to the organization is achieved.

Document
Organizational socialization is a process not a specific event, in contrast to job interviews or

PSYCHOLOGICAI TESTING, for example. This is probably the main reason why experts have had
difficulty specifying both the content and process of socialization. One popular view is that
socialization is directly associated with boundary transitions, such as crossing from outside to inside,
moving functionally within the organization, and moving up in the HIERARCHY (Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979, pp. 217–226) (see CAREER TRANSITIONS). According to this view, socialization
efforts by members of the organization peak just prior to an individual's movement across one of these
boundaries.
Organizational socialization refers to the changes in newcomers, rather than changes in the organization
itself – a process sometimes referred to as "personalization." As such socialization is a specific example
of general psychological processes as attitude change, COMPLIANCE, CONFORMITY, INFLUENCE,
RECIPROCITY, and the development of both loyalty and COMMITMENT (see IDENTIFICATION).
Clarifying the PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT and MENTORING are components of socialization.
Because socialization is primarily accomplished via social learning, the newcomer's peers, coworkers,
and boss all provide elements of that which is learned, as well as different types of conformity pressure.
For example, one's boss is a source of AUTHORITY, as well as both REWARD and PUNISHMENT.
Peers can influence newcomers by being desirable as friends, as well as through their informal ability to
reward and punish (see Hackman, 1992, for a review of group influences on individuals (see GROUP
DEVELOPMENT).
Most of the efforts at a THEORY of socialization has been paid to developing "stage models," which
purport to describe the typical experiences of newcomers as they make the transition to "insider" status
(see Wanous, 1992, pp. 200–214, for a review and comparison among these models). Most of the
models that have been suggested have some or all of these stages:
(1) confronting and accepting organizational reality (which also includes ANTICIPATORY
SOCIALIZATION;
(2) achieving role clarity;
(3) locating oneself in the organizational context; and
(4) detecting signposts of successful socialization.
In contrast, relatively little attention has been paid to the actual psychological processes of

Document
Page 524
both the newcomer and the socializing agents. One noteworthy exception is the articulation of how
newcomers can be "seduced" by an organization (Lewicki, 1981), although this is just one facet of
socialization in general. The central tenet of organizational seduction is the assumption that newcomers
are motivated by reciprocity, so that their loyalty results from the various rewards that are provided by
the organization.
Rather than specifying the exact psychology of socialization, some have taken instead to describing the
"tactics" that can be used on newcomers. These tactics have been divided into six dimensions:
(1) collective versus individual;
(2) formal versus informal;
(3) sequential versus random;
(4) fixed versus variable;
(5) serial versus disjunctive; and
(6) investiture versus divestiture (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979, pp. 230–254).
Early research on the effects of these six tactics indicates that newcomers are more likely to conform to
the organization when their socializing experiences are like the first half of each pair (i.e., collective,
formal, sequential, etc.), rather than the latter half of the pair (i.e., individual, informal, random, etc.).
Research on socialization has been plagued by a number of problems. As a result, what is actually
known from empirical research is much less than one might suppose from reading all of the writings on
socialization. The most difficult problem facing the researcher is designing and executing a study that
will lead to valid conclusions (see VALIDITY). Because organizational socialization unfolds over a
period of time with many possible socializing agents and a variety of specific foci, it is virtually
impossible for any single study to address more than just one facet of this process. It is frequently the
case that researchers will rely on cross-sectional data, rather than using a longitudinal design (see
RESEARCH DESIGN). This leads to problems of data interpretation, because cross-sectional designs
do not include those individuals who left the organization – a group of important "socialization failures."
The two most common research designs, individual case study and survey research, both have
important flaws that make their conclusions somewhat suspect. (see CASE STUDY RESEARCH;
RESEARCH METHODS; SURVEYS). Those who conduct a case study in a particular organization
often generate interesting, "rich" accounts of a newcomer's experiences. However, the extent to which
these accounts apply to other contexts is questionable. On the other hand, those who survey newcomers
across a broad range of organizations only have the perceptions of the newcomers as data; they have no
data from the socializing agents in each of the organizations that could be compared to what is reported
by the newcomers themselves.

Document
One review concluded that research has not yet supported the popular idea that socialization can be
represented as a set of common stages. This is important because stage models are at the heart of most
writing on socialization. Furthermore, the same review found that one of the most frequently cited
research results about socialization has never been replicated, i.e., that newcomers should be given as
much job challenge as possible (Wanous & Colella, 1989). The belief that job challenge is an effective
socialization tactic is based on one sample of AT&T employees (all men) hired in the early 1960s.
Future research and thinking about socialization should proceed in two directions. First, the role of
COGNITIVE PROCESSES should be given more attention. Although Louis (1980) called attention to
this some time ago, little or no research has been produced. Second, Schneider (1987) has suggested
that socialization has been dominated by a search for situational influences, rather than
PERSONALITY TRAITS. He has called for a more balanced view, i.e., INTERACTIONISM.
See also Learning organization; Career stages; Training
Bibliography
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.

Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology, (vol. 3, pp. 199–267). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Lewicki, R. J. (1981). Organizational seduction: Building commitment to organizations. Organizational

Dynamics, Autumn, 5–21.

Document
Page 525
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. Staw
(Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, (vol. 1, pp. 209–266). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wanous, J. P. & Colella, A. (1989). Organizational entry research: Current status and future directions.
In G. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds), Research in personnel and human resources management, (vol. 7, pp.
JOHN P. WANOUS
Sociotechnical Theory
The theory is concerned with the analysis and design of work organizations and proposes the need for
the joint optimisation and parallel design of its social and technical subsystems. The theory rejects the
dominant, longstanding Tayloristic (see SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT) view of JOB DESIGN and the
prevailing practice of TECHNOLOGY-led change.
The origins of the work were at the Tavistock Institute in London during the 1950s and 1960s. Trist and
Bamforth's (1951) study of coal mining methods is seminal. They compared the impact of a new
mechanized method of mining with the group-based method it replaced. The old system incorporated a
number of features such as small group working, SUPERVISION internal to the group, a sense of
responsible AUTONOMY, a complete work cycle, multiskilling and self-selection. The new system,
based on MASS PRODUCTION principles, involved a radical change in work organization that
effectively destroyed the previous social structure and led to a catalogue of individual, organizational,
and performance problems (see QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE).
Sociotechnical Theory is best known for its general proposition (as above), for its underlying design
principles as articulated by Cherns (1976, 1987), for the innovation of AUTONOMOUS WORK
GROUPS, and for its criteria on job design. It has been applied in a wide range of research and
development studies.
Cherns (1976, updated in 1987) articulated the meaning of sociotechnical design theory in the form of a
set of principles. He argued that:
(1) design processes should be compatible with desired design outcomes (i.e., they should be highly
participative);

Document
(2) methods of working should be minimally specified;
(3) variances in work processes should be handled at source;
(4) ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES should not be drawn to impede the sharing of information,
learning, and knowledge;
(5) information should support those who need to take action;
(6) those who need resources should have access to, and authority over, them;
(7) ROLES should be multifunctional and multi-skilled;
(8) other systems supporting the focal group should be congruent in their design (e.g., planning,
PAYMENT SYSTEMS and CAREER systems);
(9) transitional arrangements between an existing and a new system should be planned and designed in
their own right;
(10) redesign should be continuous, with regular review and evaluation.
One of the key innovative practices to emerge from the sociotechnical approach has been the
autonomous work group. The essential feature of such groups is that they are self-managing (see SELF-
MANAGED TEAMS), although their autonomy is constrained by the need to meet agreed targets and
standards of performance and by prevailing SAFETY and disciplinary requirements. To support such
working practices the role of SUPERVISION and management becomes that of managing the
boundaries and supporting the group in achieving its goals.
So far as the individual working within a sociotechnical system is concerned, Emery (1964) identified
six desirable characteristics for job design. These are that:
a job should be reasonably demanding (in terms other than sheer endurance);
there should be opportunities to learn and continue learning;
there should be an area of decision making the individual can call his or her own;

Document
Page 526
there should be a degree of social support and recognition;
it should be possible to relate what one does and what one produces to wider life; and
the work should have some desirable future.
These criteria are very similar to those emerging from the empirical tradition in the United States
(Hackman & Lawler, 1971).
The current status of sociotechnical thinking is mixed. It is widely taught; its central proposition is
accepted, at least by social scientists; the principles are widely cited, and indeed some of them have
wide currency, for example that variances should be handled at source; and the job design criteria
remain relevant in the 1990s. But nevertheless a number of trenchant criticisms exist (Mumford, 1987;
Pasmore, Francis & Haldeman, 1982).
The major criticisms of the theory are that, in practice, most of those attempting sociotechnical
initiatives have identified the same (one best way) solutions to problems of work organization, stressing
need for employee PARTICIPATION and autonomous work groups. Furthermore, almost all the
intervention work in this area has taken the technology as given, redesigning the social systems around
an existing technology. The design principles themselves are largely social in content; there is little to
guide the design of the technical subsystem. Indeed it is possible to redesign the social system alone and
satisfy Cherns' principles. There is also little support, for example, in the form of methods or tools, for
those people who wish to engage in sociotechnical design. Whilst there are some exceptions to this (e.
g., Mumford, 1986), these criticisms hold for the new technologies. There is a danger that
sociotechnical theory is ignored by the vast majority of innovations occurring in ADVANCED
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY and office AUTOMATION. There is also a criticism that the
theory is too managerial and entails too unitaristic a view of work organization and
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE (i.e., based on an assumption of shared objectives and interests).
Finally, the theory has proved disappointing in its long-term practical impact. The application of these
ideas over several decades has proved to be limited, especially when compared with fashionable ideas
such as TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT and JUST-IN-TIME. Many of these criticisms can be
interpreted as problems of application; and yet they reflect underlying theoretical weaknesses, most
especially concerning the lack of attention to technical issues.

Document
Sociotechnical theory is at something of a crossroads. Under the banner of human-centered technology,

other social scientists and engineers are working hard to influence the design of new technologies with
similar goals but within a different intellectual tradition (Rosenbrock, 1989). Under the rubric of
BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING, the engineering community is addressing the need for
redesigning wider organizational systems when undertaking technical change, although this remains
technology-led in emphasis. It is not clear what will be the future role and contribution of sociotechnical
theory. To remain salient and become influential much work needs to be done addressing the issues
identified above, for example by developing new principles and new methods of change that are much
more technically sophisticated and can be applied to the new INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES.
However, it is not evident that work is underway that will achieve this; furthermore, some believe that
there are many powerful social forces that militate against the widespread adoption of such ideas
(Clegg, 1993).
See also Systems theory; Human-computer interaction; Ergonomics; Software ergonomics;

Productivity; Performance, individual
Bibliography
Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29, 783–792.
Cherns, A. (1987). Principles of sociotechnical design revisited. Human Relations, 40, 153–162.
Clegg, C. W. (1993). Social systems that marginalize the psychological and organizational aspects of
information technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 12, 261–266.
Emery, F. (1964). Report on the Hunsfoss Project. London: Tavistock Documents Series.
Hackman, J. R. & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied
Mumford, E. (1986). Using computers for business success. Manchester, UK: Manchester Business
School.

Document
Page 527
Mumford, E. (1987). Sociotechnical systems design: Evolving theory and practice. In G. Bjerknes, P.
Ehn & M. Kyng (Eds), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge, (pp. 59–76). Aldershot,
UK: Avebury.
Pasmore, W., Francis, C. & Haldeman, J. (1982). Sociotechnical systems: A North American reflection
on empirical studies of the seventies. Human Relations, 35, 1179–1204.
Rosenbrock, H. H. (1989). Designing human-centred technology: A cross-disciplinary project in

computer-aided manufacture. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Trist, E. L. & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall
method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 14, 3–38.
CHRIS W. CLEGG
Software Ergonomics
This field of study develops criteria-based standards and methods for the design and evaluation of
software to enhance effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of use. Its current trends are presented in
two conference series (Interact, CHI), and in a number of journals (e.g., Human–Computer Interaction,
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Behavior, and Information Technology). Under
the heading of CSCW (Computer Supported Collaborative Work) the framework was widened to
collaborative work.
Human–computer interaction modes include command entry, as in programming languages, menu

selection, and direct manipulation (see Shneiderman, 1992). In general, menu systems are easier to
learn and to use than are command languages. In direct manipulation the person handles representations
of objects rather than working on an abstract representation. An example is the desk top metaphor used
in the Apple systems. The metaphoric character of these systems has several advantages (see
Shneiderman, 1992). However, there is no one best interaction mode for every application and for every
user. For example, command languages give more control to experienced users and in abstract
application areas.
Functionality (how well is task performance supported) and usability (ease of using the software) are
illustrated in Figure 1. Both functionality and usability should be incorporated into the organization by
providing work places with few stressors, good developmental opportunities (i.e., the chance to develop
one's COMPETENCIES and opportunities for social interactions (Frese, Ulich, & Dzida, 1987) (see
JOB DESIGN, QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE). In cases of doubt, functionality is more important
because people are task driven.

Document
Figure 1
Relationship between organizational
contingencies and software ergonomic critera
To help software designers to develop usable and functional software, guidelines, and style guides
provide detailed rules and recommendations for concrete design decisions such as screen layout (e.g.,
Smith & Mosier 1986, compare also Apple's Human Interface Guidelines or IBM's Common User
Access).
The International Standardization Organization developed criteria for the design of the human–
computer interface (ISO 9241, Part 10) with regard to suitability for the task (system support of the
task), self-descriptiveness (a comprehensible system through FEEDBACK and explanation),
controllability (users ability to direct the interaction), conformity with user expectations (system
corresponds with user expectations, knowledge etc.), ERROR tolerance (little error handling is
necessary), suitability for individualization (system modification to individual needs and SKILLS is
possible), and suitability for learning (system support for learning) (see ERRORS).
In contrast to the rational orientation of the criteria approach, the prototyping approach (Budde, Kautz,
Kuhlenkamp, & Züllighoven,

Document
Page 528
1992) is empirical: An iterative design involving future system users in repeated tests of prototypes
should be used to improve software. Users' task solving behaviors are studied to identify and remedy
software ergonomic problems.
To use prototyping the software must be evaluated. The following methods have been developed:
questionnaires, observation of users solving benchmark tasks (sometimes combined with thinking aloud
or logfile protocols), error analyses, and a combination of methods to evaluate ISO standards (Reiterer
& Oppermann, 1993).
Ill-designed user interfaces lead to inefficient use, low acceptance, high error rates, and STRESS. The
European Community demands, by law, that software conforms to new ergonomic standards.
Moreover, software design is related to work design issue (work processes prescribed by the software
frequently lead to a problems of meeting the design criteria for humane work).
See also Performance, individual; Self-regulation; Information processing; Information

technology
Bibliography
Budde, R., Kautz, K., Kuhlenkamp, K. & Zullighoven, H. (1992). Prototyping: An approach to
evolutionary system development. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Frese, M., Ulich, E. & Dzida, W. (Eds), (1987). Psychological issues of human–computer interaction in
the workplace. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Reiterer, H. & Oppermann, R. (1993). Evaluation of user interfaces: Evadis II. A comprehensive
evaluation approach. Behaviour and Information Technology, 12, (3), 137–148.
Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human computer
interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Smith, S. L. & Mosier, J. N. (1986). Guidelines for designing user interface software. Bedford, MA:
Mitre.
MICHAEL FRESE and TORSTEN HEINBOKEL
Span of Control

Document
This is defined as the number of persons reporting directly to an individual supervisor, who is
responsible for their direction. A "wide" span of control is a large number of persons who would be less
closely supervised than the smaller number of direct reports in a "narrow" span of control, with whom
the supervisor could interact more closely. CLASSICAL MANAGEMENT THEORY, emphasizing
structure in a HIERARCHY of AUTHORITY, advised that the span of control be limited (one
authority, Graicunas (1937), suggested a limit of six direct reports) to insure adequate oversight. Span
of control is a central feature of the hierarchical SUPERVISION deemed essential to maintain good
organizational order and insure that tasks are properly performed. This assumption made more sense in
the context of mass manufacturing operations with numerous identical or highly similar tasks that might
be grouped together under a single supervisor.
The spans of control of supervisors at any level were structured to include all organization members the
next level down; each supervisor fell in turn within the span of control of a single superior. All
organization members would thus be ultimately linked beneath the command of the most senior officer
of the organization (see LINKING PIN). Such inclusive, rigid hierarchies assume clear distinctions
between levels and between tasks, as well as static organizational needs – assumptions that have
become increasingly questionable.
While hierarchy and direct supervision remain important, especially in more traditionally organized
firms, contemporary trends in management have increasingly tended toward much broader spans of
control, with far less direct supervision. Indeed, the term span of control is less used as emphasis has
shifted away from direct supervision. In place of direct supervision of functionally similar workers who
know only a small segment of the overall task, employees are now often organized into cross-functional
teams responsible for substantial fractions of activity (design of a new product, for instance). Such
teams often manage themselves (see MANAGEMENT, CLASSICAL THEORY; and SELF-
MANAGED TEAMS).
See also Managerial behavior; Organizational design; Communications; Group size; Group
structure

Document
Page 529
Bibliography
Urwick, L. F. (1974). V. A. Graicunas and the span of control. Academy of Management Journal, 17,
June 349–354.
MARIANN JELINEK
Speciation
see POPULATION ECOLOGY; ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Stakeholders
A stakeholder is "any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of [an
organization's] objectives" (Freeman, 1984, p. 24), i.e., those who have or could have a stake or interest
in the organization's activities.
The stakeholder concept originates in ROLE THEORY, which posits a complex interdependent
network of relationships for every person, marked by differing interests and expectations for each role
relationship (see ROLE SET). Similarly, stakeholders constitute a complex relational environment for
organizations (see ORGANIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT).
An organization's core stakeholders – those with ongoing, intensely interdependent relationships –

depend to some extent on the nature of the organization and its activities. Most organizations have the
following types of core stakeholders:
(a) owners of assets;
(b) employees who conduct the organization's affairs;
(c) customers who receive the goods or services the organization produces;
(d) suppliers who provide the input materials for the organization's activities; and
(e) government that guarantees an organization's rights and privileges, enforces its responsibilities, and
regulates its behaviors through political processes (see GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS).
Organizations have many other stakeholders, including local communities, competitors, media,
financial analysts and markets, financial institutions, voluntary organizations, environmental and
consumer protection groups, religious organizations, military groups, political parties or factions, and
even the natural environment. Depending on the context, any of these stakeholders can be very
important to an organization. Furthermore, an organization's stakeholder-set changes over time, as stake-
holders enter and exit the environment, and as stakeholder interests and interdependencies change
(Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997).

Document
International business organizations experience a much more complex stakeholder environment than do
single-country organizations (see INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT).
An international company will have a different stakeholder set in every country in which it operates.
Furthermore, some stakeholders will themselves be international, not tied to a particular country.
Understanding stakeholder relationships gives managers a more realistic view of the organization's
environment. An organization's social performance is evaluated with respect to stakeholder
expectations; organizational governance occurs in the context of stakeholder interests. Stakeholder
analysis and management begins with identifying the stakeholders in an organization's environment.
Next, relationships between the organization and each stakeholder are examined, assessing the nature of
each stakeholder's interest in the organization, and determining other characteristics of the relationship
(e.g., the direction, strength, and immediacy of effect; types of POWER held; single- or multiple-issue
orientation; shared values or problems). Then, relationships among stakeholders are mapped. Finally,
organizational strategies for managing stakeholder relationships are developed and implemented
(Wood, 1994).
Current research in stakeholder management concerns questions such as the relationship between
stakeholders' interests and POWER BASES; processes by which stakeholder expectations are
established, communicated, understood, and acted upon; the value bases of differing stakeholder
expectations (Donaldson & Preston, 1995); cross-cultural differences in organizational stakeholder
environments; collaboration as a means of resolving stakeholder conflicts; and the relevance of the
stakeholder concept for theories of agency (see AGENCY THEORY), transaction costs (see
TRANSACTION COST THEORY), moral behavior, RESOURCE DEPENDENCE, institutional
isomorphism, and behavioral or economic explanations of

Document
Page 530
organizational behavior. Eventually stakeholder research may result in a new, more comprehensive
theory of the firm (Clarkson, 1995).
See also Corporate social performance; Ethics/values; Governance; Organizational citizenship
Bibliography
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social
performance. Academy of Management Review, 20:1 (January): 92–117.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence,
and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20:1 (January): 65–91.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Ballinger (now New
York: Harper Collins).
Mitchell, R., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience. Academy of Management Review (October).
Wood, D. J. (1994). Business and society (2nd edn). New York: Harper Collins.
DONNA J. WOOD
Statistical Methods
The defining feature of techniques known as statistical methods is that they are designed to sort out
what appears as chance in individual units (be they persons, groups, firms, industries, or otherwise) into
collective regularities and frequencies. There are two branches into which statistical methods are
classified, having developed some what separately: descriptive and inferential.
The term statistics dates from the early eighteenth century, being "that which statists do." Mostly,
statists engaged in describing their states. Accordingly, methods within this original domain now fall
under the heading of descriptive statistics, whose range extends beyond states to all manner of
populations, whether concrete (e.g., blue-collar employees) or abstract (e.g., all possible realizations of
a stochastic founding process). Such methods seek to organize large amounts of raw data on individual
units into more readily assimilated, population-level summary measures. Descriptive statistical methods
are used in organizational research to help researches get a grasp of what goes on in a population –
establishing the existence of phenomena for study. These methods have been used to answer such
questions as what are typical levels of TURNOVER, how widely dispersed are values of JOB
SATISFACTION, how values of ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE are distributed, and what are the
characteristics of Japanese management.

Document
Inferential statistics, the second branch, did not begin to develop until the turn of the nineteenth century.
Inferential statistical methods use probability theory to draw conclusions about a population from a
sample, or subset, of the individuals comprising the population. We first formulate an hypothesis about
the descriptive properties of or relationships between variables characterizing the individuals in the
population, then we observe data from a sample. We are uncertain about the hypothesis, but we do
know that the data have occurred. Hence, if obtaining the sample data actually observed is a high
probability event under some hypothesis, we are inclined to accept that hypothesis; else, we are inclined
to favor some alternative.
Many statistical methods are well established in organizational research. The choice of method is
determined by the nature of the variables (continuous, discrete) and the hypothesized relationships
(cross-sectional, time-series, etc.). Analysis of variance, regression and contingency tables are the most
widely used for "static" studies, where the relationship under study is between variables measured
concurrently (at the same time). Uses of such methods range from studying the effects of
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES on MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE to testing predictions of
CONTINGENCY THEORY about the fit between ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN variables such as
FORMALIZATION, and such key dimensions of the environment as UNCERTAINTY. Where social
dynamics are of interest, event history analysis has become a popular to study discrete dependent
variables, as in CAREER TRANSITION or organizational birth and death. Time series regression is
typically used for longitudinal studies where the dependent variables is continuous, as in
ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS. Limitations of the data or OPERATIONALIZATIONS (e.g.,
level of measurement available) can also influence the choice of technique. Multivariate methods, such
as factor or cluster

Document
Page 531
analyses, have been used to infer the existence of unobservable constructs, especially in studies of
PERSONALITY or STRATEGIC GROUPS. Choice of a statistical method that is not suited to the
characteristics of a study can lead to BIAS.
Despite the mathematical foundation on which inferential statistics is built, which gives the appearance
of objectivity, there are four approaches to formalizing the process of inference which have and
continue to be the subject of some debate: Fisherian significance testing, Neyman–Pearson hypothesis
testing, Bayesian analysis, and a hybrid of the Fisherian and Neyman–Pearson approaches. The hybrid,
in which a researcher sets a level of significance against which the probability of the data occurring
under a single hypothesis is compared and on the basis of which a clear decision to accept or reject the
hypothesis as truth is made, has been dominant in organizational research. The reason is
straightforward: it simplifies the process of evaluating research, making editorial decisions, and
defining researcher's careers.
However, this "objectification of subjectivity" also has some negative consequences. Some hypotheses
die premature deaths – even though there may be no well-explicated alternative, while others are born
without paying due respect to a stream of prior research to the contrary (see ERROR). Neyman and
Pearson railed against the first sin, while Bayesians promise salvation from the latter. As for Fisher, he
maintained that a hypothesis could never be shown plausible – only implausible – and that the
demonstration of a natural phenomenon requires "that we know how to conduct an experiment that will
rarely fail to give us a statistically significant result." Attention needs to be paid not only to the choice
of statistical methods for particular studies, but also to the way we use the results of these methods in
accumulating knowledge across studies.
See also International management; Organizational decline and death; Research methods,
simulation; Research design; Quasi-experimental design; Reliability; Validity
Bibliography
Fisher, R. A. (1990). Statistical methods; Experimental design and scientific inference. Oxford, UK:
Gigerenzer, G. et al. (1989). The empire of chance; How probability changed science and everyday life.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oakes, M. W. (1986). Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioral sciences. New
York: Wiley.
KENNETH W. KOPUT
Status

Document
This is a concept with descriptive and evaluative connotations. Descriptively, status is the position of a
social entity in a social system based on a set of relevant dimensions (see SYSTEMS THEORY). For
instance, a person may be the president of an organization. Associated with statuses are ROLES.
Evaluatively, status refers to a ranking of a social entity in terms of the values of a social system. These
judgments often are formed without conscious deliberation. For instance, the president of an
organization is deemed important in both the organization and society. Status evaluations help
determine HIERARCHY and maintain the LEGITIMACY of AUTHORITY. Together, descriptive and
evaluative status enhance the predictability of social interaction.
The general term status can be separated into three types (Mitchell, 1982). Social status is the standing
of a person in general society. Occupational prestige is the importance of an occupation to society.
Organizational status is the position one holds in an organizational setting.
For descriptive and analytic purposes, status dimensions can be partitioned. One partition is based on
the amount of control the social actor has over them. Ascriptive dimensions are those which the social
actor cannot control; for individuals, these include AGE and RACE. Achieved dimensions are those a
social actor partially can control, such as educational attainment or job performance. A useful
application of this division occurs in employment law; DISCRIMINATION by a number of ascriptive
dimensions is prohibited in some countries.
Evaluations of status require either global judgments or the evaluation of each of the descriptive
dimensions of status. In the former

Document
Page 532
case, status can be determined by asking organizational members to state the status of others. This
reputational measure is similar to that used for prestige (see Wegener, 1992) and risks confounding the
two. Alternatively, a dimensionalized approach requires the weighing of dimensions from the
perspective of either organizational members (a realist strategy) or researchers (a nominalist strategy).
Theoretically, evaluative status is multidimensional, not equivalent with a single status dimension such
as prestige or economic position. For instance, a young engineer may have higher status than an older,
more highly paid accountant.
In task groups, the formation of status hierarchies and its effects have been examined in depth,
especially in laboratory studies. A well-established theory in this area involves a social psychological
process which Webster and Foschi (1988) called status generalization. Group members form cognitive
performance expectations based on status characteristics, including those called diffuse status
characteristics which exist outside setting the group setting, such as GENDER and AGE. The
performance expectations then lead to differences in behaviors, such as deference, LEADERSHIP, and
effort. The status characteristics on which performance expectations are formed may be irrelevant to
actual task performance, however. Thus, status in WORK GROUPS may be dysfunctional to task
performance.
Recently, researchers examining organizational status tended to focus on specific dimensions in their
studies. Ibarra (1993, p. 474) acknowledged that she was using status dimensions such as experience
and education as indicators of POWER in an examination of INNOVATION involvement. Messé, Kerr,
and Sattler (1992) focused on formal authority in a study of supervisory privileges.
See also Group structure; Occupations; Professionals in organizations
Bibliography
Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical
and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471–501.
Messé, L. A., Kerr, N. L. & Sattler, D. N. (1992). But some animals are more equal than others: The
supervisor as a privileged status in group contexts. In S. Worchel, W. Wood & J. A. Simpson (Eds),
Group process and productivity, (pp. 203–223). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). People in organizations (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Webster, M. Jr. & Foschi, M. (1988). Status generalization: New theory and research. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Wegener, B. (1992). Concepts and measurement of prestige. In J. Blake & J. Hagan (Eds), Annual
review of sociology, (vol. 18, pp. 253–280.)
DAVID L. DEEPHOUSE

Document
Status Incongruence
This state occurs in two ways. First, a person may be ranked high on some evaluative STATUS
dimensions but low on others. A quintessential example is the person with a doctoral degree driving a
taxicab; this person has high educational attainment but low occupational prestige. A second type of
status incongruence occurs when a person's status characteristics appear inappropriate for the person's
position or ROLE. For instance, a marketing person may be put in charge of a production.
Status incongruence can affect the particular person and the person's coworkers. In the first case, status
incongruence may engender cognitive dissonance. This, in turn, may influence JOB SATISFACTION
and performance (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). In the second case, the person's coworkers
may question the fairness of the person's status. EQUITY THEORY suggests that coworkers may alter
their behavior and attitudes in this situation.
See also Self-esteem; Role theory; Cognitive dissonance
Bibliography
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). People in organizations (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
DAVID L. DEEPHOUSE
Stereotyping
This is the process of categorizing an individual as a member of a particular social group (e.g., females
or Hispanics) and assuming that the characteristics attributed to the group apply to the individual. Thus,
stereotyping can be viewed as an error of

Document
Page 533
overgeneralization. For example, stereotyping a person as a black female manager implies that the
manager will exhibit the set of characteristics that the observer attributes to black female managers as a
group. Thus, a stereotype is an oversimplified picture of a social group which is generalized to
perceptions of specific individuals. Stereotypes often develop for a social groupings relating to
GENDER, geographic location, socioeconomic STATUS, ETHNICITY, AGE, organizational level, and
nature and type of work.
Stereotyping may be viewed as a subcategory of PERCEPTION and ATTRIBUTION. Because of the

enormous amount of information people must process in complex social and organizational situations,
people have a high need to process information quickly and efficiently. Stereotypes can be viewed as
cognitive shortcuts or schemata which enable individuals to make judgments about individuals and their
characteristics quickly. Stereotyping often results in perceptual and attributional errors (see
FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR) because the complete set of characteristics of a complex
individual cannot be accurately inferred from the characteristics of a social group. Nevertheless,
stereotyping may also be viewed positively in that it increases efficiency in making judgments and
decisions about others. Although the impact of stereotyping on individuals may be negative, the impact
can also be positive. Thus, because of the positive stereotype an employee holds about union officials, a
union steward may be able to work more effectively with an employee to resolve her grievances.
Stereotypes have been found to be relatively stable and persistent over time. Once a stereotype
develops, it appears that selective attention and perception operate such that data which confirms the
stereotype become more salient. On the other hand, data which contradict the stereotype tend to be
viewed as atypical and disregarded. Thus it appears that a disproportionate amount of disconfirming
evidence is needed to change well established stereotypes.
The organizational literature has documented that stereotypes often result in negative impacts on the
selection, placement, and HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT practices relating to minorities
(Falkenberg, 1990). The literature on gender DISCRIMINATION suggests that discrimination is most
acute when the perceiver lacks information. Thus, if a manager is asked to make a decision about an
individual and only has information relating to the employee's social class, BIAS is likely to occur
because the decision maker will tend to rely on the information derived from the stereotype. On the
other hand, when more complete information regarding the specific characteristics of an individual is
available, in addition to social categorization information, bias is less evident (Gardner & Martinko,
1988). Thus, more specific information regarding the characteristics of individuals appears to be an
important strategy for reducing the negative impact of stereotypes.
See also Decision making; Conflict; Race; Group norms; Communication; Cognitive processes
Bibliography
Arvey, R. & Campion, J. (1984). Person perception in the employment interview. In M. Cook (Ed.),
Issues in person perception. London: Methuen.

Document
Bierhoff, H. W. (1989). Person perception and attribution. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Falkenberg, L. (1990). Improving the accuracy of stereotypes in the workplace. Journal of

Gardner, W. L. & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of

Management, 14, (2), 321–338.
Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Luthans, F. (1992). Organizational behavior, (6th edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
MARK J. MARTINKO
Strain
see MENTAL HEALTH; STRESS
Strategic Alliances
Managers and scholars, such as Ken-ici Ohmae (1989), continue to demonstrate interest in the
increasingly complex array of collaborations observable in the global economy of the mid-1990s. These
CONTRACT based governance forms have been described by researchers as strategic alliances,
partnerships, coalitions, research consortia, and various forms of network organizations (see

Document
Page 534
JOINT VENTURES). The term ''strategic alliance," however, is generally used in the popular press and
seems on its way to becoming the dominant construct in the discussion of these kinds of collaborative
agreements among firms.
These new forms seem so pervasive that they are likely to become a permanent part of the business
scene. Lodge and Walton (1989) assert that if US firms (and, arguably, other nations' firms) are to stay
at home, yet compete in a global environment they will have to alter the way they think about
relationships with other organizations from those that are "adversarial, arm's length, short term,
contractual, and rigid . . . towards ones which are more cooperative, intimate, long-term, consensual,
and flexible" (p. 9).
Beyond the rich description provided by numerous cases studies, there are a number of theoretical bases
for predicting when an organization should pursue a strategic alliance. For example, working within
TRANSACTIONS COST THEORY or AGENCY THEORY, much scholarly attention has focused on
comparing alternative transaction governance structures (e.g., markets, hierarchies, and mixed modes)
by institutional economists, organizational sociologists, and management and organizational theorists
(see, e.g., Barney & Ouchi, 1986) (see GOVERNANCE AND OWNERSHIP) (1986). In a related vein,
an extensive stream of research, principally by organizational sociologists, has examined the
environmental conditions and contingent factors that can be employed to explain the formation and
structure of the cooperative INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS that are the essence of a
strategic alliance. The newly emerging RESOURCE BASED THEORY view of the firm provides yet
another lens through which strategic alliances are being studied.
Why do strategic alliances form? Powell (1990) offers researchers and managers the following potential
motivations. The firms that frequently employ strategic alliances are pursuing a diverse set of business
objectives requiring COOPERATION because they involve reciprocal dependencies. These business
objectives include: access to technologies that are state-of-the-art or beyond the capacity of a single
firm to develop; access to markets the firm cannot enter by itself; benefits which economies of scale can
provide in value chain activities such as joint research, production, or marketing; the acquisition of
complementary assets such as know-how located outside the boundaries of the firm; the spreading of
risk in activities beyond the scope or the capabilities of one business firm; or achieving SYNERGY by
combining the strengths and overcoming the weaknesses of the firms making up a strategic alliance
designed to be something more than a traditional supplier relationship or technology licensing
arrangement. Strategic alliances also appear to be employed by managers hollowing out the corporation
by contracting out. These re-engineering or DOWNSIZING actions also are being used by
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES and their managers engaged in the PRIVATIZATION of public services.
Rigorous empirical investigations of the performance of strategic alliances have only recently begun.
Results are mixed. Factors that appear to be associated with more successful alliances include
environments in which the ability to rely on TRUST is present, common norms, embedding alliances in
a single national CULTURE, and a history of successful transacting between the parties in the past.

Document
See also Mergers and acquisitions; Strategic management; Collateral organization; Resource
dependence
Bibliography
Barney, J. B. & Ouchi, W. G. (1986). Organizational economics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borys, B. & Jemison, D. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in
organizational combinations. Academy of Management Review, 14, 234–249.
Contractor, F. & Lorange, P. (Eds), (1988). Cooperative strategies in international business. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
James, B. G. (1985). Alliance, the new strategic focus. Long Range Planning, 18, 76–81.
Kanter, R. (1988). The new alliances: How strategic partnerships are reshaping American business. In
H. L. Sawyer (Ed.), Business in the contemporary world (pp. 59–83). Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Lodge, G. & Walton, R. (1989). The new American corporation and its new relationships. California
Management Review, 29, (3), 9–23.

Document
Page 535
Mowery, D. (Ed.), (1988). International collaborative ventures in U.S. manufacturing. Cambridge,

MA: Ballinger.
Ohmae, K. (1989). The global logic of strategic alliances. Harvard Business Review (March-April) 143–
154.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In L. L.

Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 12, pp. 295–336).
Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations.
PETER SMITH RING
Strategic Choice
see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Strategic Contingencies Theory
see RESOURCE DEPENDENCE; UNCERTAINTY
Strategic Groups
see POPULATION ECOLOGY; STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Strategic Management
Although scholars differ on how to define strategic management, most definitions include the major
objectives, policies, and programmatic activities of the organization and how they come to be
determined. Some authors assume that such factors necessarily reflect conscious and deliberate
managerial choices while others argue that the pattern of these items constitutes the firm's strategy-in-
operation whether or not its managers have consciously thought through such a strategy.
Most strategic management researchers implicitly assume that strategic management constitutes an
applied science. Research which does not in any way suggest it might lead to prescriptions for corporate
actions is generally seen as belonging more in a base discipline such as organizational sociology or
economics rather than strategic management. Reflecting this applied concern, a high percentage of
strategy research attempts to relate corporate characteristics to performance, although a large variety of
performance measures have been employed (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS).

Document
Andrews (1980) argued that corporate performance depends not simply on achieving high performance
on a set of independent corporate characteristics (e.g., good marketing, good production, good R&D),
but rather on the interaction of a variety of characteristics both internal and external (i.e., good
marketing, R&D, and production can only be defined in the context of a strategy for competing in a
given market). Strategic management assumes that the interaction of business environment, the way in
which the organization attempts to compete in that environment, and internal management determines
performance. (The SEVEN S'S MODEL is a practitioner tool to address such interrelations.)
Research on strategy often divides into work on content of strategy or process of strategy. Strategy
content generally addresses what markets the corporation will compete in and how it will compete in
those markets. Strategy process examines the processes and mechanisms which result in choices to
compete in certain ways in certain markets, and the way the organization attempts to implement such
choices. Both process and content work address issues of business-level strategy (how a firm competes
in a given industry or market) and corporate-level strategy (how the firm competes in whatever set of
markets it is in and how it chooses to be in those markets). The present overview emphasizes process
issues. Although any subdivision of the field is inherently arbitrary, this discussion of strategy process
will consider: the Harvard approach; formal planning systems; strategy types; contingency studies;
DECISION-MAKING; TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS and strategic human relations management;
cognitive approaches; and emergent and incremental approaches.
Harvard Approach
Following Andrews (1980) and other faculty at the Harvard Business School, this approach emphasizes
the need to manage the complex interactions among the differing parts of the corporation. Harvard
approach researchers tend to take a top management perspective where the objective is to advise top
management, ascribing much corporate action to strategic decisions of top management. Given the
approach's concern for COMPLEXITY, most research in this tradition

Document
Page 536
relies on multiple case studies in which the researcher examines several instances of a given
phenomenon, describes these in rich detail, and then generates explanations of the behaviors observed
and prescriptions for action (see e.g., Bower's (1970) study of capital investment decision processes).
Most of the other approaches to strategic management research adopt social science approaches that
emphasize numerical data whether from surveys or historical sources, or emphasize qualitative data in
studies of highly specific processes.
Formal Planning
Early research on strategic management focussed heavily on formal long-range planning (indeed the
field was often called long-range planning), often with prescriptive intent. Much of the empirical work
in the area tried to show that firms which plan perform better than those which do not. The emphasis on
formal planning declined when mixed results on planning and performance persisted. Furthermore,
researchers recognized that most major strategic choices did not occur in the planning system, because
the system's schedule does not necessarily correspond to the development of major strategic issues. The
study of planning systems as part of the strategic management process and information network of the
corporation makes sense, but such systems cannot hold the central place in strategic management once
given them.
Strategic Types
This perspective emphasized the development of typologies of strategies and then related them to
corporate management processes. Porter argued that firms following one of his generic strategies (low
cost, differentiation, segment or niche) should adopt consistent organizational procedures (see FIVE
FORCES MODEL). For example, low-cost firms need to avoid costly staffing policies, though such
policies might form the basis of a differentiation strategy. Miles and Snow (1978) categorized firms as
prospectors, analyzers, defenders, and reactors and subsequent research associated organizational
characteristics with these strategic types. These two typologies have been widely used, along with
measures of industry growth/decline and stability to identify contingencies within which other strategy
processes occur.
Contingency Studies
A very large and diverse set of studies consider contingencies framing relations among strategy,
corporate structure, and human relations management systems. Miller (1986) and his colleagues, in a
series of studies on small business managers in Quebec, found strong relations among business strategy,
structure and performance. Gupta and Govindarajan (1984) identified links among business unit
strategies, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness. Although these complex results
cannot be summarized simply, the literature strongly supports the position that particular patterns of
market and internal policies lead to higher performance (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS).
Decision Making

Document
This approach examines how the characteristics of managerial decision processes influence corporate
performance (see Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992, for a review). Current research suggests effective
decision processes vary depending on the firm's industry environment (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT). Fredrickson (1989) has defined decision processes in terms of comprehensiveness,
which is associated with high performance in a stable industry but low performance in an unstable one.
Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1992) used an exploratory approach to examine decision processes in small
firms in "high velocity" environments. They found that effective firms had balanced power among the
top management teams, used quick numerical analysis on many options, made decisions by consensus
but with a decision by the top manager if consensus did not occur, and made decisions more quickly
than low-performance teams.
Top Management
A large variety of studies have examined the influence of CEOS and top management teams on
corporate performance. Their focus has included stock market reactions to CEO turnover, determinants
of CEO and top management team turnover, and the influence of top management team characteristics
on corporate performance. These studies demonstrate significant influences of top management team
composition and changes in composition on performance.

Document
Page 537
Cognitive Approaches
A rapidly growing area has examined managerial beliefs as explanations for corporate behavior. For
example, in some industries managers define the firms in their industry in ways that differ significantly
from how an outsider might define the industry. Other studies show positive associations with
performance of characteristics of managers' beliefs about their industry and what determines their firm's
performance and their willingness to change their beliefs (see COGNITION IN ORGANIZATIONS).
Emergent and Incremental Strategies
Most strategy research assumes planned actions and choices influence outcomes but another set of
studies emphasize strategic management as a far less direct process. Mintzberg and his associates have
examined change processes and argue that strategic changes occur infrequently in most organizations
and that many strategic changes emerge spontaneously from the operation of the organization rather
than as a preconceived change in direction. Quinn argues that major changes often involve such high
levels of UNCERTAINTY that detailed programmatic planning of such change is futile. Rather, he
prescribes a course of channeling and directing organizational processes and activities around a general
area of concern so as to move incrementally (hence the name, logical incrementalism).
Strategy Content
A significant portion of early strategy content research derived from close ties to applied strategy
consulting. Widely used tools for analyzing a corporation's portfolio of businesses include the Boston
Consulting Group Matrix (which categorized businesses within a corporation on their relative market
share and growth rate), and the GE Matrix (which used a wider variety of measures to evaluate
desirability of a market and the business' competitive strength. These derived from research within
corporations or from consultants, but some subsequent academic studies have attempted to validate
them. In recent years, the area has become increasingly associated with research rooted in economics
research on industrial organization.
Research on the content of business strategy has relied heavily but by no means exclusively on related
work in Industrial economics (also known as industrial ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS).
Industrial economics attempts to explain profitability differentials across industries largely within the
STRUCTURE–CONDUCT–PERFORMANCE paradigm. This paradigm argues that the structure of
the industry (defined in terms of things like the number of firms in the industry and BARRIERS TO
ENTRY into the industry) influences how firms will compete and consequently determines the
profitability of firms in the industry. Such content work has emphasized the study of strategic groups
(portions of an industry that appear to compete most directly with one another) and generic strategies
such as cost leadership strategy (being the low-cost producer/seller), product differentiation strategy
(producing a product customers perceive as different from others available), and niche or focus strategy
(emphasizing a small market where either cost or differentiation advantages can be gained).

Document
At the corporate level, strategy content research has examined DIVERSIFICATION (the mix of
businesses in which a corporation competes), VERTICAL INTEGRATION (the mix of stages of the
production process incorporated in a given company), and MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS (one
mechanism by which diversification or vertical integration can be implemented). Although much of the
research in these areas draws heavily on economics, other researchers approach these same topics with
explicitly behavioral theories and interests.
In recent years, an important connection between strategy process and content has been re-established.
Early Harvard work on strategy emphasized the need to align internal management and market-oriented
strategy. Although some work continued to emphasize this alignment, much strategy content research,
based on the industried economics approach, tended to ignore complex differences in corporations. It
was often assumed knowledge and know-how were readily available, with differences among firms
being limited and of limited kind (e.g., differences in a conventional production function). Yet these
homogeneity assumptions make it hard to explain why firms within industries differ as greatly as they
do in profitability.
Writings under the label of CORE COMPETENCE and RESOURCE BASED THEORY

Document
Page 538
have, in recent years, re-emphasized the connection between the content of strategy and corporate
capabilities. Although the concept of "resources" may also include some nonorganizational items, the
idea that the organization's abilities constitute a major explanation for corporate performance underlie
both core competence and resource-based approaches. Since organizational abilities can be very hard to
purchase or imitate, these approaches are quite consistent with heterogeneity in performance within
industries.
To summarize, strategic management takes a corporate standpoint in generally addressing questions

associated with selection and implementation of the major goals, policies, and activities (including
products, markets, etc.) leading to high corporate performance. It generally assumes that coherence
among various policies and activities determines performance.
See also Competitiveness; Reputation
Bibliography
Andrews, K. R. (1980). The concept of corporate strategy, (2nd edn). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the resource allocation process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School.
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal,
13, 17–37.
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high velocity
environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737–770.
Fredrickson, J. W. & Iaquinto, A. L. (1989). Inertia and creeping rationality in strategic decision
processes. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 516–542.
Gupta, A. & Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business
unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 25–42.
Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management
Journal, 7, 233–249.
PHILIP BROMILEY
Strategic Types

Document
Defenders, Prospectors, Analyzers, and Reactors are four types of strategies defined by Miles and Snow
(1978) in a model which matches organizational strategy, structure, and process. This typology is based
on the idea that organizations discover and develop relatively enduring patterns of strategic behavior
which actively coalign the organization and the environment (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT).
Defenders are organizations which have narrow product-market domains and do not tend to search
outside of their domains for new opportunities. A defender strategy is to offer a relatively stable set of
products or services to existing, well-defined, stable markets, concentrating on doing the best job
possible in its area of expertise. Growth is normally slow and incremental. The emphasis is on tight
internal controls, operating efficiencies, and a cost orientation.
Prospectors are organizations which are constantly seeking new product and market opportunities. The
key elements in a prospector strategy include being enterpreneurial (see ENTREPRENEURSHIP) in
attitude, developing and maintaining the capacity to monitor a wide range of environmental signals,
obtaining and remaining on the leading edge of technological developments in the industry, and being
flexible in internal structures and processes, so that necessary changes to meet new opportunities can be
made quickly and easily (see FLEXIBILITY). Prospectors and defenders are at opposite extremes.
Whereas defenders are internally oriented on efficiency and controls, prospectors are externally oriented
on new developments and market needs.
Analyzers represent a balanced compromise strategy somewhere between the extremes of defenders and
prospectors. An analyzer strategy will be to have a balance of products and markets, some of which are
stable and provide relatively certain returns, which can be used to allow the development of other
products and markets, which are new and/or changing. An analyzer is likely to follow prospectors into
new products and markets, rather than lead. Analyzers will have a dual focus. That part of the
organization which resembles the defender strategy will be more efficiency- and control-oriented, while
that part which is more

Document
Page 539
concerned with new developments will be more externally oriented. Since the products and markets
may be closely related, this duality of orientation will be difficult to manage. Miles and Snow suggest
that a matrix structure is most appropriate (see MATRIX ORGANIZATION).
By contrast with the first three strategies, reactors are organizations which lack a consistent strategy,
simply reacting to isolated events as they unfold. This may occur because the organizational strategy is
not clearly articulated, because the structure is inappropriate for the strategy, or because the strategy has
not kept up with changing external conditions. Miles and Snow see the reactor strategy as an unstable
strategy, since it is not internally or externally consistent. It is also a residual strategy type, for those
organisations which do not fit into one of the three other more stable strategies.
This typology has supported a steady stream of research, because it incorporates a managerial
attitudinal orientation within the classification of alternative business strategies. However, this is also
the great difficulty for using this typology, because assessing these attitudes is difficult in practice.
See also Mechanistic/organic; Strategic management; Structure-conduct-performance model
Bibliography
Miles, R. & Snow, C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
GRAHAM HUBBARD
Strategy
see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Stratification
Seldom studied, stratification is another structural property. Stratification is defied as the distribution of
rewards such as income and fringe benefits and/or prestige (sometimes called STATUS) across either
jobs or pay levels in an organization. The most typical measure is the ratio between the amount
remuneration of the top executives or administrators and the workers. There is an enormous variation in
the degree of stratification not only between countries as evidenced in executive benefits but also within
countries across kinds of organizations.
See also Organizational design; Differentiation
Bibliography
JERALD HAGE

Document
Stress
There are at least three uses of the word "stress" in OB. It is used as a cause (my job is inherently
stressful); as a consequence (I feel stressed when I'm at work); as a process (this is happening when I
am are under stress). In its broadest sense "stress" has come to refer to a field of study which
encompasses all the above meanings, and in OB to be concerned with organizational or occupational
stress, though this has also come to include stress arising from UNEMPLOYMENT.
In keeping with this broad usage, the word is probably most usefully applied to stress as a process
because the major organizational and personal consequences of stress occur over time. The process
approach fits most closely with the definition of stress provided by Selye (1951). Selye was one of the
founders of stress research and his medical training led him to an interest in the physiological, and
disease consequences of exposure to physical and emotional stresses. Selye concluded that when faced
with demands our psycho-physiological systems respond with a nonspecific, uniform response which he
labeled the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS). The main components of this response are that
digestion slows to release blood for muscles, breathing increases for extra oxygen supply to muscles,
heart rate accelerates, blood pressure rises, perspiration increases to cool the body, muscles tense for
action. All of these effects are under the influence of the hormonal system with cortisol, adrenaline, and
nonadrenaline being the main biochemical agents (see MENTAL HEALTH).
According to Selye these nonspecific responses vary in intensity over time but if stress continues they
produce the following pattern:

Document
Page 540
Alarm (in preparation for flight or fight); Resistance (sustained psycho-physiological mobilization at a
lower level of intensity); Exhaustion (resulting from depletion of the body's stores of vitamins, sugars,
proteins, and immune defenses). It is clear that this process can encompass all three uses of the word
stress.
Cox and Ferguson (1991) claim that different approaches to stress have focused on different parts of the
process corresponding to the main uses identified above. The causal approach is described by them as
the "engineering" approach. Stress here defines the cause which produces the reaction strain. Many
writers use the word strain to describe the psycho-physiological response to stress and it can include
two of the uses described above (the current state of feeling strain and the more enduring state which
occurs in Selye's Resistance phase). Following the medical literature these two states of strain can be
acute or chronic. This is also true of the exposure to stress and the terms acute stress and chronic stress
make the same distinction.
The engineering or stimulus oriented approach has led to a search for the causes of occupational stress
and a well-known classification is:
• Factors intrinsic to the job (tasks, WORKING CONDITIONS, shift work, dangers, etc.).
• ROLE factors (ROLE OVER/UNDERLOAD, ROLE AMBIGUITY, CONFLICT, etc.).
• Relationships at work (support from boss, colleagues, subordinates, etc.).
• CAREER (success, failure, JOB SECURITY, REWARDS, etc.).
• ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN and climate (control versus DISCRETION, openness, HIERARCHY,

etc.) (see ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE).
• Home-work interface (effects of travel, work-family conflicts, women's roles) (see NONWORK/
WORK).
Recent studies of many of these variables and their relationship to measures of psychological and
physiological strain can be found in Quick, Murphy, and Hurrell (1992). Any one of these variables has
relatively small correlations (0.1–0.3) with measures of strain, though in combination they may account
for 25 percent of the variance.
Cox and Ferguson describe a second theor etical stress focus as the medico-physiological or response
approach. This approach has led to techniques for measuring both physiological and psychological
reactions to stressful stimuli/situations. Many of these are self-report questionnaires and include
symptoms from categories such as the following:
• AFFECT (ANXIETY, worry, panic, depressed mood).
• Cognition (failures, errors, inability to think logically, forgetting) (see ERRORS).

Document
• Behavior (ABSENTEEISM; aggression; SABOTAGE; ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE).
• Symptoms (sleep loss, headaches, vomiting, sweating, impotence).
It is perhaps worth noting about the above four categories of strain that only the person themselves has
priveleged access to information/experience about them all. The outsider (manager or supervisor) only
has access to observable behavior (unless the person confides in them). Since the mere presence of
many of these symptoms does not necessarily indicate the presence of stress and strain (e.g., heavy
smoking and drinking are ways of life for many people), the manager needs to be sensitive to changes
in behavior as much as anything else. Not surprisingly, there are moderate correlations amongst the
different symptom groups (e.g., psychological strain correlates about 0.45 with measures of physical ill
health).
These studies have their difficulties and the association between self-report measures of strain and
physiological evidence of strain is by no means compelling. The difficulties of conclusive research in
organizations are described in Fried (1988).
Although the use of physiological markers of strain provide more objectives indices, a more
fundamental question is how chronic stress might link to disease. Stress is hypothesized to be linked to
hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), skin and other disorders though causal proof is
surprisingly difficult to demonstrate. The link to CHD in particular has been associated with TYPE A
Behaviour Pattern (TABP).
The third approach to modeling stress, and the most effective according to Cox and

Document
Page 541
Ferguson, is the transactional approach. It is a processual approach as it assumes that a person is

strained only if he/she appraises a situation to be a threat (Primary Appraisal), and resources, capacities,
knowledge, etc., are unable to cope with the threat successfully (Secondary Appraisal). This model has
been much influenced by the work of Folkman and Lazarus (1986). This model brings the person much
more into the process so INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES become important determinants of whether
situations are stressful or not, though the outcome is always a function of the interaction of the person
and the environment. Person-Environment fit models of stress have many similarities to the Folkman
and Lazarus approach (see PERSON-JOB FIT).
Individual differences are important here because they can influence all stages of the process. At the
primary appraisal stage the neurotic PERSONALITY is more likely to see threat than the person high in
HARDINESS. At the secondary appraisal stage, more intelligent, problem-solving, self-confident
people are less likely to see their resources as unable to cope, even if there is threat (see SELF-
EFFICACY). This concern with coping capacities has led to another active area of stress research: the
measurement of coping or coping styles. Lazarus and his coworkers have been at the center of this
development. Several authors have produced measures of coping, with similar dimensions. The three
major ones are: Problem Focused coping (getting information, looking for solutions, trying out
solutions, etc.); Emotion Focused coping (denial, wishful thinking, pretending it will go away);
Appraisal Focused coping (redefining the situation, comparing self with others). Problem-focused styles
seem more effective in work settings.
Programmes to help people improve their coping have grown in the last 30 years. Many of them are
outside the work context, but organizations have also developed stress management programmes for
their employees (see COUNSELING IN ORGANIZATIONS). As well as providing information and
advice about coping strategies, programmes also include advice about diet, physical fitness, alcohol and
substance abuse, health practices, counseling techniques including self-help groups, and techniques
such as relaxation and meditation. Charlesworth and Nathan (1988) provide an excellent guide to stress
management and Theorell (1993) has provided an evaluative review of stress management programmes
in the workplace.
The literature also contains research on improving/changing the workplace to reduce stress through job
redesign, ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING, and CULTURE management. Karasek's (1979)
highly influential paper on the causes of work stress demonstrated that the most stressful jobs were
those combining high demands (workload, difficult tasks) with low discretion or AUTONOMY. Low
discretion is often associated with low levels of PARTICIPATION in decision making and this
condition has been shown to be associated with higher levels of strain. An associated literature has
grown up around the concept of social support and its role in helping to protect people from the effects
of stress (Payne & Jones, 1987). Leaders and managers are, therefore, potential sources of stress, as
well as sources of support, and responsibility for people has itself been shown to be a principal
managerial stressor.

Document
Although the popular literature emphasizes the stress of the modern executive, Karasek's model implies
that their level of strain is buffered by their high levels of discretion. The epidemiological literature on
work stress supports this analysis. Fletcher (1988) has shown that elevated levels of strain and poor
health are more prevalent in lower level jobs. He also shows that at any one time about 15 percent of the
workforce report levels of strain high enough to affect their attendance at work and their performance at
work if they do attend. Whilst it is difficult to calculate the costs of stress at work, it has been estimated
that stress may account for half of absenteeism, and that the total stress bill might be as much as 6
percent of sales in a company with an average absenteeism rate of 4 percent Practically, theoretically,
and methodologically stress continues to present a major challenge.
See also Job design; Quality of working life; Repetitive work; Role theory; Emotions in
organizations

Document
Page 542
Bibliography
Charlesworth, E. A. & Nathan, R. G. (1988). Stress management: A comprehensive guide to your well-
being. Guernsey, Channel Islands: Guernsey Press.
Cox, T. & Ferguson, E. (1991). Individual differences, stress and coping. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne
(Eds), Personality and stress: Individual differences in the stress process. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Fletcher, B. C. (1988). The epidemiology of occupational stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds),
Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. (1986). Stress process and depressive symptomology. Journal of Abnormal
Fried, Y. (1988). The future of physiological assessments in work situations. In C. L. Cooper & R.
Payne (Eds), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
Payne, R. L. & Jones, J. G. (1987). Measurement and methodological issues in social support. In S.
Kasl & C. L. Cooper (Eds), Stress and health. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Quick, J., Murphy, L. & Hurrell, J. (Eds), (1992). Work and well-being Assessments and interventions
for occupational mental health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Selye, H. (1951). The general adaptation syndrome and the gastrointestinal diseases of adaptation.
American Journal of Proctology, 2, 167.
Theorell, T. (1993). Medical and physiological aspects of job interventions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organisational psychology, (Vol. 8, pp. 173–
192). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
ROY L. PAYNE
Structuration

Document
This term was coined by Giddens (1984) to refer to the dynamic articulation between structure and
action (which Gidden's called "agency"). Traditionally, sociologists and organizational theorists have
treated structure as an exogenous constraint on action. In turn, they have viewed action as independent
of structure and, in many instances, as a phenomenon that exists at "lower" LEVEL OF ANALYSIS. In
organization studies, the implicit gulf between structure and action is reflected in the distinction
between micro- and macro-organizational behavior. Giddens argued that action and structure are
inextricably linked, that action both ''constitutes and is constituted by" structure. From this perspective
human action always instantiates structures. Actions may replicate, but they may also alter existing
structural patterns. The relationship between action and structure is therefore a process that can best be
understood when studied over time. The importance of structuration for organization studies is that is
provides a theoretical and empirical base for bridging the longstanding gulf between studies of
organizational structure and studies of everyday action within organizations (see ORGANIZATION
DESIGN). Gidden's notion of structuration bears similarities to Strauss's (1978) concept of a
"NEGOTIATED ORDER," the rules, roles, rights and obligations that individuals and other types of
actors establish as they interact with each other over time.
See also Enactment; Interactionism; Organization and environment; Social constuctionism;

Theory
Bibliography
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
STEPHEN R. BARLEY
Structure–Conduct–Performance Model
The structure-conduct-performance model (SCP) is one of several approaches to understanding the

determinants of organizational performance in industrial organization economics. This perspective is
based primarily on the work of R. Mason and J. Bain, and takes the industry as the primary unit of
analysis (see FIVE FORCES MODEL; RESOURCE BASED THEORY). Structure, in the SCP model,
means industry structure, and is measured by industry concentration, BARRIERS TO ENTRY, the level
of product differentiation in an industry, and other industry characteristics (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT). Conduct, in the SCP model, means organizational conduct, and includes an
organization's strategies, policies, and tactics (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT).

Document
Page 543
Performance, in the SCP model, means industry performance, measured by average firm profitability in
an industry (see ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS).
Three versions of SCP logic have developed over the years. In strong-form SCP, industry structure is
assumed to determine totally both organizational conduct and average industry performance. Indeed,
strong-form SCP logic suggests that analysts can safely ignore organizational conduct, since it is
determined by industry structure (see STRATEGIC CHOICE).
A second, more popular, form of this model is weak-form SCP. Here industry structure is assumed to
determine a range of possible activities an organization might engage in. Thus, in this version,
organization conduct is not totally determined by industry structure, and remains an important
component in explaining industry performance.
A third form of SCP logic is strategic SCP. The original objective of both strong- and weak-form SCP
was to specify industry attributes preventing perfect competition dynamics in an industry from
emerging, so that GOVERNMENT AGENCIES could remove these impediments. In strategic SCP
these objectives are reversed, and SCP logic is used to describe those industries within which perfect
competition is not likely to develop, and thus where firms may earn greater than competitive levels of
performance (see COMPETITIVENESS). Two of the major proponents of strategic SCP have been R.
Caves and M. Porter.
See also Organizational design; Reputation; Resource dependence
Bibliography
Barney, J. B. (1986). Types of competition and the theory of strategy: Toward an integrative
framework. Academy of Management Review, 11, 791–800.
Conner, K. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within
industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17,
121–154.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. (1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of

JAY B. BARNEY
Substance Abuse
see ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Document
Substitutes for Leadership
These are the characteristics of tasks, organizational design, or interpersonal arrangements which
reduce or obviate the need for leadership to be enacted by an individual.
See also Bureaucracy; Leadership
Subunits
A subunit is defined as a supervisor and all subordinates who report to that supervisor. Subunits form an
intermediate LEVEL OF ANALYSIS, falling between individuals and the total organization, and are
the building blocks of more complex organizations. The configuring of subunits into larger entities is
referred to as ORGANIZATION DESIGN. According to various principles of design subunits can be
combined to form functional, geographic, product, or MATRIX ORGANIZATIONS.
Some authors consider subunits as more or less permanent and enduring features of organization that
should be distinguished from temporary teams and group structures. Others consider any WORK
GROUP to be a subunit, including managerial level teams. Subunits play a vital role in the functioning
of any organization because they are the level at which the day-to-day work of the organization is
carried out.
One of the largest programs of research on subunits has been carried out by Van de Ven and colleagues
(Van de Ven & Ferry 1980), who developed measures for subunit context, structure, and performance
and conducted successful tests of CONTINGENCY THEORY at the subunit level. Other researchers
have investigated subunits in terms of: their own performance and design as distinguishable entities;
how they fit into the larger configuration of the organization; and, as relationships among subunits. The
relative ease and precision with which data can be collected at the subunit level has resulted in a
tendency for researchers to confirm a theory at

Document
Page 544
this level of analysis and then generalize their findings to the total organizational level. The context of
subunits is sufficiently different than the context of organizations and such generalizations may not be
supportable.
See also Differentiation; Formal organization
Bibliography
Van de Ven, A. H. & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: Wiley–
Interscience.
ROBERT DRAZIN
Succession Planning
This is the systematic attempt to identify possible future holders of particular positions ahead of time. It
is a device used, mainly by large organizations, to assist in identifying suitable internal candidates for
job vacancies and to encourage the proactive development of employees. Formal succession planning
has normally been restricted to senior management posts. The successors considered for such posts are
usually already well established in their management CAREERS or regarded as having high potential
(see MANAGEMENT OF HIGH POTENTIAL; MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT).
By no means all organizations use formal succession planning to address the issue of succession to
managerial jobs. Small organizations may develop their own staff to future management positions, but
are likely to accomplish this task in a more informal way. Many large organizations still take a short
term view of managerial resourcing and are willing to take a gamble on the external LABOR MARKET
if they are short of management talent.
Succession planning has been most highly developed in large companies with strong corporate cultures
(see ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE), especially those with an international dimension (e.g., oil
companies, major electronics companies, international banks, etc.). Such companies see succession
planning as one way in which they can develop a pool of highly experienced managers, whom they
would see as a "corporate resource." Large public sector organizations have also practiced formal
succession planning. The approach to succession planning needs to be consistent with the wider
managerial resourcing strategy of the organization (see HUMAN RESOURCE STRATEGY; HUMAN
RESOURCE PLANNING).

Document
Succession plans themselves record the names of one or more possible successors for each of the
positions included in the process. They may also contain summary information on positions, job
holders, and successors. Successors of three different kinds may be identified. Emergency successors
are people who can "stand-in" for a job holder on a temporary basis if sudden and unforeseen
circumstances arise. They may be identified for both senior management and other key positions, and
often this is done locally by the manager concerned. Most corporate effort goes on the other two types
of successors – short- and longer-term successors.
Short-term successors are individuals who would be suitable candidates to consider for the position if it
became vacant in the near future. The benefit in identifying a number of short-term successors lies in
ensuring a wide candidate search which is not always possible when there is a hurry to fill a vacant
position. It may also forewarn the organization of particular positions where there is no pool of
candidates available. Organizations practising succession planning do not necessarily expect to fill
every senior vacancy with one of its listed successors. Some use other parallel processes (including
internal advertisement) to generate other candidates who then compete alongside the planned successors
(see RECRUITMENT). So succession planning also has to fit in with the appointment processes of the
organization.
Longer-term successors are individuals who would be able to fill the position in time (perhaps 2–5
years ahead), but for whom it would not be the next job. One or two other jobs are likely to intervene. It
is these longer-term successors who are classified as high potential staff or on a fast-track development
programme. Succession planning is often the process by which job moves are planned and engineered
for high potential individuals. Such developmental job movement is often aimed at giving cross-
functional, cross-country, or cross-divisional experience (see CAREER TRANSITIONS; CAREER
DEVELOPMENT).

Document
Page 545
Succession planning processes range from the very simple to the elaborate. The simplest form of
succession planning involves individual managers looking at possible successors for the positions for
which they are responsible and agreeing these plans with the HR function and/or their own managers.
This process has the disadvantage of not identifying successors in other departments or units because
they are not known to the manager concerned. In more elaborate processes, groups of senior managers
meet together, with the HR function acting in a support role. Such succession planning committees or
management development forums look at senior posts right across the organization and agree possible
short- and longer-term successors for each position. They often also agree individual career plans for
the longer-term successors to broaden their experience.
Effective succession planning requires consistent and up-to-date information to be available to

managers to help in identifying successors, to record the plans themselves and to monitor the delivery
of developmental activities. The laborious process of keeping succession plans by hand on organization
chart diagrams has been replaced by computer systems. These maintain summary information on posts
and people, as well as the lists of successors and possible job options. Such databases become very
useful for a wide variety of applications.
This type of formal corporate succession planning is now being adapted as a result of several pressures.
The more devolved business structures of the 1990s are pushing succession planning for all but the very
top jobs out to operating divisions or down to unit level (see DECENTRALIZATION). This can lead to
a multilevel model for succession planning with ownership of the process lying at different levels in the
organization for different levels of management. The process for identifying longer-term candidates is
also coming under scrutiny as the self-fulfilling nature of many fast track schemes has been criticized.
The tendency for senior management to "clone" a new generation in their own image also raises
important equal opportunity issues. Such concerns are placing more emphasis on the quality of
ASSESSMENT data looked at in choosing successors, and on entry to and exit from the high potential
pool.
The need for a flexible pool of successors is also increased as career patterns become more variable,
and managers do not spend their whole career with one company. Succession planning is also under
pressure to become less secretive in response to employee expectations about access to information and
personal CAREER CHOICE. Employee career preferences may form part of the input to succession
planning, and discussion of possible types of job move may also take place with the employee.
However, there is a tension between a general willingness to be more open, and a natural reserve about
seeming to "promise" an individual their next job.
See also Job analysis; Person specification; Career plateauing
Bibliography
Friedman, S. D. (1986). Succession systems in large corporations: Characteristics and correlates of

performance. Human Resource Management, 25, (2), 191–213.

Document
Gratton, L. & Syrett, M. (1990). Heirs apparent: Succession strategies for the future. Personnel
Management, January, 34–38.
Hirsh, W. (1991). Succession planning: Current practice and future issues. International Journal of
Career Management, 3, (2), 17–28.
Mayo, A. (1991). Managing careers: Strategies for organizations. London: Institute of Personnel
Management.
Peterson, R. B. (1985). Latest trends in succession planning. Personnel, August 47–54.
Sarch, Y. (1993). Nothing succeeds like succession planning. Human Resources, Spring, 90–94.
WENDY HIRSH
SuperLeadership
This is a contemporary form of participatory or empowering LEADERSHIP originated by Manz and

Sims. SuperLeadership is defined as "leading others to lead themselves," providing a special focus on
the role and behavior of the follower. The object of the SuperLeader is to cultivate and develop
independent selfleadership capabilities of followers.
More recently, Manz and Sims (1991) articulated a typology of historical leadership archetypes from
which the theory of SuperLeadership is drawn:

Document
Page 546
(1) the Strong man who depends on direction, instruction, command, and reprimand;
(2) the Transactor who depends on contingent reward and reprimand;
(3) the Visionary Hero, a type of transformational or charismatic leader who depends on vision,
inspiration, and challenge to the status quo; and
(4) the SuperLeader, who encourages selfleadership from the follower. (see also LEADERSHIP
CHARISMATIC; TRANSFORMATIONAL/TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP).
SuperLeadership theory is inspired by previous theories of participative leadership, but is much more
specific about the independent role of the follower, and what the leader must do to develop followers to
be capable selfleaders. Subordinate independence, initiative, self-responsibility, and selfcontrol are
encouraged by behaviors such as self GOAL SETTING, initiative, positive thought patterns, and team-
work. While SuperLeadership is intended to be a pragmatic applied mode of leadership, it is rooted in
psychological theory, including REINFORCEMENT theory, social cognition, behavioral SELF-
MANAGEMENT, SELF-REGULATION theory, social learning theory, and cognitive BEHAVIOR
MODIFICATION.
To understand SuperLeadership, one must first comprehend selfleadership, which is both a philosophy
and a systematic set of behavioral and cognitive strategies for leading one's self to higher performance
and effectiveness (Manz & Sims, 1990, 1991). Self-leadership actions, such as self-set goals, rehearsal,
self-observation and evaluation, and self-administered REWARDS, can powerfully enhance personal
performance if applied in a systematic manner. Self-leadership also consists of building natural rewards
into one's own tasks, so that the performance of the task itself becomes a source of performance
MOTIVATION (see MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE). Cognitive self-leadership strategies
such as constructive thought patterns, opportunity thinking, mental imagery, and cognitive self-talk can
also enhance performance.
SuperLeadership is a challenge to the traditional fundamental assumptions about leadership practices

and AUTHORITY relationships. While transformational leadership seems to be appropriate to the top
of the organizational HIERARCHY, SuperLeadership is a type of empowering leadership that is
appropriate at all levels of the organization, including the so-called first-line supervisor (see
SUPERVISION). In it's most sophisticated form, SuperLeadership is expressed through the
implementation of SELF-MANAGED TEAMS (Manz & Sims, 1987, 1993), which completely change
the role and nature of the leader. In fact, under this system, the traditional directing and controlling
supervisor disappears, replaced by leadership roles typically called coordinator, facilitator, coach, and
(elected) team leader.
Finally, the essence of SuperLeadership was captured in a poem by the ancient Taoist philosopher, Lao-
tzu, as follows:-

Document
A leader is best
When people barely know he exists,
Not so good when people obey and acclaim him.
Worse when they despise him.
But of a good leader, who talks little,
When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
They will say:
We did it ourselves.
See also Influence; Group decision making; Empowerment; Employee involvement;

Participation; Self-management
Bibliography
Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of
self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–28.
Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1991). SuperLeadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership.
Organizational Dynamics. Spring 18–35.
Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building
high-performing companies. New York: Wiley.
HENRY P. SIMS, JR.
Supervision
This term refers to LEADERSHIP at a particular level in an organizational hierarchy: the "first-line" or
lowest level of management/leadership. A supervisor typically leads employees who actually do the
work. Over the years, viewpoints of supervision, or more specifically, supervisory behavior, have
changed

Document
Page 547
dramatically. As first conceived, the supervisor was one charged with directing and controlling the
behavior of subordinates. Today, this concept of supervision has virtually become obsolete, now
replaced by hierarchical ROLES designed to empower lower-level employees through facilitation and
coaching (Manz & Sims, 1987).
One cannot discuss theories of "supervision" without an inextricable linkage to leadership. In fact, most
of the early leadership research used supervisors as subjects. In the broadest sense, the role of
supervisors is to influence the behavior and performance of subordinate employees, and this
INFLUENCE process is a form of leadership. Most of the earliest theories of supervisory behavior were
simplistic, usually characterizing supervisors as "authoritarian" versus "democratic," or "concern for
task" versus ''concern for people" (see MANAGERIAL STYLE).
Early attempts to measure leadership emphasized the supervisory behaviors of "consideration" and
"initiating structure" (see LEADERSHIP STYLE). Consideration describes the extent to which a
supervisor shows concern for members of the work group. This dimension relates to friendship trust,
interpersonal warmth, and relationships. In contrast, initiating structure describes the extent to which a
supervisor initiates and organizes task activity toward followers, and defines the way work is to be
done. For many years, through the 1960s and into the early 1980s, the dimensions of consideration and
initiating structure virtually defined the study of supervision.
While initiating structure and consideration received the most attention, Stogdill (1959) also proposed
the following supervisory behaviors: (1) REPRESENTATION; (2) reconciliation; (3) tolerance of
UNCERTAINTY; (4) persuasiveness; (5), tolerance of freedom; (6) role retention; (7) production
emphasis; (8) predictive accuracy; (9) integration; and (10) influence with supervisors. Also, an
empirically grounded study of first-line supervision from Dowell and Wexley (1978) analyzed the
structure of 89 work activities. They found the following seven dimensions of supervisory activities: (1)
working with subordinates; (2) organizing the work of subordinates; (3) work planning and scheduling;
(4) maintaining efficient and high-quality production; (5) maintaining safe/clean work areas; (6)
maintaining equipment and machinery; and (7) compiling records and reports.
A careful examination of this earlier view of supervision reveals that the generic emphasis was mainly
on the traditional role of the supervisors as director and controller; that is, one who uses direction,
instruction, command, goals, and occasionally reprimand to influence worker behavior and performance
(see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL).

Document
Later study defined the supervisor as one who administers REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS. (see
Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985; Sims, 1980). Many studies have shown that leaders who use rewards
contingent upon subordinate performance can positively influence performance. Also, several studies
have probed the supervisory use of punishment. These results have been mixed, sometimes producing
negative correlations with performance, but other times producing no correlation or positive correlation
with subordinate performance. Supervisory punishment almost always relates negatively to subordinate
satisfaction (see JOB SATISFACTION). Another area of research related to GOAL SETTING,
although this work is not often directly linked with leadership (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Recent leadership theory has drifted away from supervisors as target subjects, but deserves mention.
Prominent theories include transformational leadership (Bass, 1988), charismatic leadership (House,
1977), and SUPERLEADERSHIP (Manz & Sims, 1990) (see LEADERSHIP, CHARISMATIC;
TRANSFORMATIONAL/TRANSACTIONAL THEORY). These views of leadership also articulated
a distinction between "the manager" versus "the leader." While attracting substantial attention to the
issue of leadership, these theoretical perspectives seem more fitting to leadership at the top (see CEOs),
but less appropriate to first line supervision.
Today, the role of the supervisor is changing at a most dramatic rate. In its most sophisticated form, this
new role is expressed through self-managed teams (Manz & Sims, 1987, 1993), which completely
change the role and nature of the supervisor. In fact, under this system, the old concept of "supervision"
disappears, replaced by leadership roles typically called coordinator, facilitator, coach, and (elected)

Document
Page 548
team leader. Despite new roles, supervisors have always been subjects of high STRESS as "persons in
the middle." With the implementation of TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, delayering and
DOWNSIZING, and global emphasis on PRODUCTIVITY, the stress level of supervisors is higher
than ever.
In summary, in today's organization, the original concept of supervision (direction and control) seems to
be obsolete. Indeed, the behaviors of those who occupy the role of "supervisor" have changed
dramatically over the past 25 years, so that now coaching and facilitation skills are the most valued
supervisory SKILLS (see also INTERPERSONAL SKILLS).
See also Self-management; SuperLeadership; Job design; Organizational design; Managerial

behavior
Bibliography
Bass, B. M. (1988). The inspirational process of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 7–5,
21–31.
Dowell, B. E. & Wexley, K. N. (1978). Development of a work behavior taxonomy for first-line
supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 563–572.
Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of
self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–28.
Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building
high-performing companies. New York: Wiley.
Podsakoff, P. A. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Leader reward and punishment behavior: A

methodological and substantive review. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in
organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sims, H. P. Jr. (1980). Further thoughts on punishment in organizations. Academy of Management

Review, 5, 133–138.
Stogdill, R. M. (1959). Individual behavior and group achievement. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Document
HENRY P. SIMS JR.
Surveys
A survey is a method used to gather self-reported descriptive information about the attitudes, behaviors,
or other characteristics of some population. The information can be obtained by administering a
questionnaire (via paper-and-pencil, computer, personal, or telephone interviews, etc.) to an entire
population or some defined subset of that population called a sample (see STATISTICAL METHODS).
More formally, surveys "consist of relatively systematic, standardized approaches to the collection of
information . . . through the questioning of systematically identified samples of individuals" (Rossi,
Wright, & Anderson, 1983, p. 1).
Although surveys of voting preferences or social attitudes may receive most of the media attention,
surveys have long been used in organizational settings including private and public businesses,
universities, and medical centers. Surveys are popular in organizations because they can provide
accurate information about major organizational issues. One reason for their widespread use stems from
their adaptability. Because of this feature, organizational surveys can be utilized for diverse purposes
such as assessing employee needs and attitudes toward the workplace; measuring employee morale,
MOTIVATION, JOB SATISFACTION, and intentions to remain with or leave an organization (see
TURNOVER); and determining consumers' opinions and preferences about the goods and services they
receive. Surveys can also establish baselines, benchmarks, or norms at the time of an organizational
intervention (see ACTION RESEARCH). These standards can be used in future evaluations to
determine the effectiveness of new programs and policies.
In addition to providing organizations with useful information, surveys can be a powerful motivational
device. Surveys allow employees to feel that they are a part of the decision process – their views are
important to management (see SURVEYS, FEEDBACK). This sense of EMPOWERMENT may
enhance employee motivation, organizational COMMUNICATION, and PRODUCTIVITY (see
EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT).

Document
Page 549
Given the widespread role of organizational surveys, it is surprising that few treatments have
simultaneously addressed both methodological concerns and practical applications – the science and the
practice – of organizational surveys. To address this deficit, Rosenfeld, Edwards, and Thomas (1993)
recently edited a book encompassing topics such as question writing; measurement ERRORS; sensitive
questions; consortium surveys; exit surveys; and surveys about pregnancy, parenthood, SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE, and EQUAL OPPORTUNITY climate.
Although conducting a well-written, well-administered organizational survey can be costly,

challenging, and a labor-intensive enterprise, the survey process is also very rewarding. Managers have
the satisfaction of seeing a need for information turn into survey items. The items return as data, which
when are analyzed and interpreted, and provide an empirical basis for answering organizationally
important questions. For respondents, organizational surveys provide a vehicle that allows employees to
communicate their concerns and questions to management.
While the benefits of surveys are many, they also entail dangers and difficulties. These include raising
unfulfilled expectations, inadequate follow-up communications, and suggesting unattainable outcomes.
Surveys are not a panacea for all organizational ills; expectations of what a survey can do may need to
be tempered with the realities of what it cannot accomplish. These potential pitfalls often can be
avoided through careful design and administration and an awareness of the organization's culture and
interpersonal politics.
See also Research design; Research methods; Statistical analysis
Bibliography
Bradburn, N. & Sudman, S. (1988). Polls and surveys: Understanding what they tell us. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenfeld, P., Edwards, J. E. & Thomas, M. D. (Eds), (1993). Improving organizational surveys: New
directions, methods, and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D. & Anderson, A. B. (1983). Sample surveys: History, current practice, and
future prospects. In P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright & A. B. Anderson (Eds), Handbook of survey research
(pp. 1–20). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
PAUL ROSENFELD, JACK E. EDWARDS and MARIE D. THOMAS
Surveys, Feedback

Document
Organizations use SURVEYS to gather information on the attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics of
employees. Once this information has been gathered and analyzed, the process of informing
STAKEHOLDERS (e.g., top management, respondents) of the findings begins. Preliminary to this step
is the determination of who will receive the survey FEEDBACK and the methods that will be used to
provide it. Survey feedback will work best when it is tailored to the audience having a need or desire to
know. Typical methods for feeding back information include briefings to top management, small group
or organization-wide presentations, short written synopses for distribution in organizational mail, and
technical reports containing in-depth information.
Studies indicate that survey feedback is highly valued by employees. Thus, one positive outcome
resulting from survey feedback may be improved two-way COMMUNICATION between management
and workers. Through feedback, surveys can become a way to generate employee COMMITMENT,
enthusiasm, and involvement in ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE initiatives that often follow the
survey effort (see EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT).
Survey feedback has long been an integral component of ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT (OD)
method and practice. In a typical OD survey, employees and researchers collaborate in the design,
administration, and follow-on actions as part of an overall organizational change strategy.
See also Consultancy intervention models; Action research; Learning organization
Bibliography
Edwards, J. E. & Thomas, M. D. (1993). The organizational survey process: General steps and practical
considerations. In P. Rosenfeld, J. E. Edwards & M. D. Thomas (Eds), Improving organizational
surveys: New directions, methods,

Document
Page 550
and applications (pp. 3–28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
PAUL ROSENFELD, MARIE D. THOMAS and JACK E. EDWARDS
Symbiosis
see COMMUNITY ECOLOGY; STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Symbolic Interactionism
This is a broad perspective which views "interaction" as a social process involving two or more persons
communicating on the basis of language – and therefore symbols – hence "symbolic
interactionism" (SI). Symbolic interactions constitute the locus for the social construction of both
person and social organization or ''social order" (see SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM). The latter has
received most attention in the literatures of OB. From an SI perspective, "organization" is found in the
social processes in which participants merge lines of action with reference to one another, drawing upon
and creating conventional understandings and practices; organization is viewed as an ongoing practical
accomplishment. Manning (1982) applied this approach to police work, describing conventional
"practices" in which, for example, the officer constructed an order of speaking and controlled the
movements of participants in some incident. Such practices were shown to be linked with taken-for-
granteds, such as "formal rules . . . are not to be trusted," and conventional understandings, for example,
concerning what constituted good policework. The core themes of SI are differently developed and
emphasized in variants such as "dramaturgy," "ethnomethodology" and NEGOTIATED ORDER. In
OB, SI is becoming more evident with increasing recognition of the importance of social processes and
meanings.
See also Interactionism; Self-regulation; Symbolism; Ethnography
Bibliography
Manning, P. K. (1982). Organizational work: Structuration of environments. The British Journal of

Sociology, 33, (1), 118–134.
DIAN MARIE HOSKING
Symbolism

Document
Refers to the manipulation of meaning through the use of symbols. It involves the linking of a sign to a
content or referent by some ordering principle. This is a process of coding/decoding which is a mental
and therefore cultural activity. Symbols work to organize experience. In semiotic terms, they are signs
that stand for something else. A symbol such as a corporate logo or a political slogan may stand for a
particular company or ideological stance. They may also invoke notions of IDENTIFICATION, fealty
and honor or alienation, disgust, and fear. They often carry denotative and connotative meanings.
Denotative meanings refer to the direct, instrumental uses of a symbol – the flag as standing for a given
country. Connotative meanings refer to the expressive, more general, and broader uses of a symbol –
the flag as standing for law and order. To study symbolism is to learn how the meanings on which
people base actions are created, communicated, contested, and sometimes changed.
There are at least four interelated domains to be explored if the workings of a given symbol are to be
understood. First, symbols are cultural objects whose form, appearance, logic, and type can be
categorized (although category systems differ and some differ spectacularly). Second, symbols are
produced and used by specific people and groups for certain purposes and thus the intentions of symbol
creators and users must be understood. Third, symbols are always displayed within particular social
contexts and these contexts severely shape (and limit) the possible meanings a symbol may assume.
Finally, symbols typically mean different things to different groups of people so the receptive
competences and expectations of those who come into contact with given symbols must be examined.
Since each domain plays off the others, the interpretation of symbols – even simple ones – can be quite
complex.
Take, for example, the Big Mac as a symbol of interest. Consider the audience first. To some
McDonald's patrons, the Big Mac is the quintessential American meal, a popular and desirable
hamburger served up in a timely and tasty fashion. To others, the Big Mac is food without nourishment,
a travesty of a meal served up in a most sterile and unappetizing way. But social context is of
considerable

Document
Page 551
importance also. A Big Mac in Tel Aviv is simply not the same cultural object as a Big Mac in Boston.
Nor is the history of the Big Mac itself irrelevant to symbolism for this more or less edible symbol has
been around for some time and comes packed with consumer myths, production rules, social standing,
snappy advertising, and associated symbols all cross-referenced to an uncountable number of life's little
pleasures – "you deserve a break today." Some of this is by design, some accidental and some
circumstantial and fleeting. Symbolism is about how context helps shape meaning; how symbols are
created, packaged and, in a variety of ways, understood; how connotative meanings grow from
denotative ones and vice versa; and, most critically, how various audiences receive and decode symbols
and then act on the basis of the meaning the symbols hold for them.
Symbolism is of great importance when cultural perspectives are used to describe and explain
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. The interpretation of symbols is at the heart of any cultural
analysis whether the culture being represented is a small and relatively autonomous workgroup within
an organization or a huge multinational firm operating in diverse social, linguistic, and political
contexts around the world. Symbolism is also central to studies of virtually all forms of organizational
COMMUNICATION since communication itself rests on a socially constructed coding framework that
is shared by at least some if not all organizational members. From this perspective, symbolism reaches
into all aspects of organizational behavior because it is the process by which all organizational
activities, ceremonies, objects, products, stories, services, roles, goals, strategies, and so on are made
sensible and hence logical and perhaps desirable to given audiences both inside and outside recognized
ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES. LEADERSHIP can therefore be seen as symbolic action as can
other organizational influence attempts such as selection, SOCIALIZATION, and reward practices.
Broadly conceived, symbolism is an elementary or fundamental process that makes organizational
behavior both possible and meaningful.
See also Culture; Metaphor; Organizational culture; Rituals; Symbolic interactionism
Bibliography
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Feldman, M. S. & March, J. G. (1981). Information in in organizations as symbol and signal.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books.
Griswold, W. (1992). Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
Press.
Manning, P. K. (1992). Organizational communication. New York: de Gruyter.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research
in organizational behavior, (vol. 3, pp. 1–52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Document
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategems. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–
86.
JOHN VAN MAANEN
Synectics
see CREATIVITY
Synergy
All organizations are made up of subsystems or components such as strategy, structure, CULTURE,
reward systems, staffing, and LEADERSHIP. Synergy occurs when these components work together to
create high performance. A more precise way to think of synergy is as an interaction effect, where
certain combinations of effects yield significantly higher performance than would be expected from
main effects alone.
See also Group dynamics; Excellence; Strategic management; Organizational effectiveness
ROBERT DRAZIN
Systems Dynamics
see COMPUTER MODELING; LEARNING ORGANIZATION; SYSTEMS THEORY
Systems Theory
This denotes broad metatheory for describing the structure and behavior of complex wholes called
systems. Drawn from diverse work in the physical, biological, and social sciences, systems theory seeks
to discover laws and principals which apply to all levels of systems from single cells to societies.
ORGAN-

Document
Page 552
IZATIONAL BEHAVIOR scholars use this cross-level perspective to describe the general properties of
organizational systems, such as groups and organizations. These characteristics have a profound impact
on how we view modern organizations.
One key feature has to do with the notion of system itself and how it forms an organized whole. A
system is composed of parts and relationships among them. The system provides the framework or
organizing principal for structuring the parts and relationships into an organized whole capable of
behaving in a way that is greater than merely the sum of the behaviors of its parts.
In organizational systems, this draws attention to identifying the constituent members or SUBUNITS of
the system and examining relationships among them. Equally important, it forces us to go beyond
members and relations to assess the organizing principal through which they are arranged into a
coherent whole. GROUP DYNAMICS scholars, for example, have spent considerable time addressing
issues of group membership and member interaction. They have discovered different ways of
organizing members and relations for performing tasks that members could not achieve working alone,
such as SELF-MANAGED TEAMS and QUALITY CIRCLES. Similarly, organization theorists have
expended effort identifying the different components of organizations and examining relations among
them. They have found different ways to organize the components and relationships for competitive
advantage (see COMPETITIVENESS), such as the M-form organization, the BUREAUCRACY, and
the MATRIX ORGANIZATION.
A second important feature of systems has to do with whether they are relatively closed or open to their
environment. Closed systems do not interact with the environment, and consequently their behavior
depends largely on the internal dynamics of their parts. OPEN SYSTEMS, on the other hand, exchange
with the environment, and thus their behavior is influenced by external forces (see ORGANIZATION
AND ENVIRONMENT).
Early conceptions of organizational systems tended to employ a closed-system perspective. Attention

was directed mainly at the internal dynamics of groups and organizations, for example, and at how their
behaviors could be controlled internally. This led to knowledge of a variety of internal control
mechanisms, such as HIERARCHY, rules/procedures, and FUNCTIONAL DESIGN. In the late 1960s,
OB scholars began to broaden their focus to external forces affecting organizational systems. This open
systems view was fueled by growing applications of it to the social sciences, and by realization that the
behavior of organizational systems could not be adequately explained without examining environmental
relationships and their effects on the system. It has led to considerable research and theory about
organizational environments, their dynamics and effects, and how organizational systems interact with
them. Moreover, open systems theory has provided a number of powerful concepts for understanding
how organizations maintain themselves while adapting to external forces.
A third characteristic of systems has to do with their viability. In order to survive and prosper, open
systems need to perform at least four critical functions:

Document
(1) transformation of inputs of energy and information to produce useful outputs;
(2) transaction with the environment to gain needed inputs and to dispose of outputs;
(3) REGULATION of system behavior to achieve stable performance; and
(4) adaptation to changing conditions.
Because these different functions often place conflicting demands and tension on the system, system
viability depends on maintaining a dynamic balance among them.
In organizational systems, considerable research is devoted to identifying and explaining how these four
functions operate and contribute to ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS and survival. This has led
to knowledge about how organizations and groups produce products and services through acquiring,
operating, and developing different technologies (see TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER);
how they protect their technologies from external disruptions while acquiring raw materials and
marketing finished products; how they regulate themselves for stable performance while initiating and
implementing innovation and change (see INNOVATION; ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE;
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT). This research

Document
Page 553
defines a key role of management in organizational systems as sustaining a dynamic balance among
these functions; one that allows the organization or group sufficient stability to operate rationally (see
RATIONALITY) yet requisite FLEXIBILITY to adapt to changing conditions (see ORGANIZATION
THEORY; POPULATION ECOLOGY).
A fourth key feature of systems that has influenced our conceptions of organizational systems has to do
with their multilevel nature. Systems exist at different levels. The levels display a hierarchical ordering,
with each higher level of system being composed of systems at lower levels. For example, societies are
composed of organizations; organizations are composed of groups; groups are composed of individuals;
and so on. Because systems are embedded in other systems, it is necessary to look both upward and
downward when describing a system and explaining its behavior. Higher-level systems provide
constraints and opportunities for how a system organizes its parts, and the nature of those parts affects
the system's organizing possibilities.
This multilevel perspective has led OB scholars to identify different levels of organizational systems,
and to focus on understanding them and how they interact with each other. Considerable attention is
directed at specifying appropriate LEVELS OF ANALYSIS, both for conceptualizing about
organizational systems and for aggregating and disaggregating data that apply to different levels. As
researchers have developed more extensive theories and more powerful analytical methods, they have
made finer distinctions among levels of organizational systems, particularly above the organization
level. Today scholars focus on at least six levels of organizational systems:
(1) individual member (see INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES);
(2) group (see WORK GROUPS);
(3) organization (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN);
(4) population of organizations and/or alliance among organizations (see INTERORGANIZATIONAL

RELATIONS; JOINT VENTURES);
(5) community of populations and/or community of alliances (see COMMUNITY ECOLOGY); and
(6) nation (see CULTURE, NATIONAL; CULTURE, CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH).
See also Theory; Collateral organization; Organizational boundaries
Bibliography
Buckley, W. (1968). Modern systems research for the behavioral scientist. Chicago: Aldine.
Cummings, T. (1980). Systems theory for organization development. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Document
Sutherland, J. (1973). A general systems philosophy for the social and behavioral sciences. New York:
Braziller.
THOMAS G. CUMMINGS

Document
Page 554
Taboos
Organizational or societal ROLE expectations delineate what people are expected to think, feel, and do.
When these expectations are broken, and cause reactions of disgust and strong disapproval, a taboo has
been broken.
Taboos, in a sense, are a kind of norm, RITUAL, and/or role expectation that specifies thoughts,
feelings, and actions that are forbidden (see GROUP NORMS). Goffman (1967) showed that even in
situations that appear to be trivial or inconsequential, role violations can cause severe disapproval.
Organizational studies which focus on taboos are relatively rare. Most such studies focus on the
breaking of behavioral norms in working contexts, as when the frame of a quiet discussion is broken by
an overt expression of anger or when a company used to consensual management encounters an
autocratic executive prone to making decisions on his or her own. Other studies have focused on
sexuality as an organizational taboo (e.g., Hearn, Sheppard, Tancred-Sheriff, & Burrell, 1989). In this
regard, postmodern theory (see POSTMODERNISM) and deconstruction have proved useful in
showing how even bland and mundane, apparently taboo-respecting language can break organizational
sexual taboos in subtle and unexpected ways that work to the disadvantage of women (see WOMEN
AT WORK). What is forbidden has a lure that is difficult to evade.
See also Culture; Gender; Group decision making; Emotions in organizations; Organizational
culture; Punishment
Bibliography
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Hearn, J., Sheppard, D., Trancred-Sheriff, P. & Burrell, G. (1989). The sexuality of organization.
London: Sage.
JOANNE MARTIN
Tacit Knowledge
see PRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Task Analysis
see JOB ANALYSIS; ACTION THEORY

Document
Task and Maintenance Behavior
The distinction is widely used to differentiate behaviors in small groups and organizations which focus
on getting the work done, from those which concentrate on building and sustaining the team or
organization. Task behaviors include: initiating activity, seeking and giving information and opinions,
elaborating, summarizing, testing for feasibility, evaluating, and diagnosis. Maintenance behaviors
include: encouraging, gatekeeping, standard setting, expressing feelings, consensus-testing,
harmonizing, and reducing tensions (Benne & Sheats, 1948). An integration of adequate frequencies of
task and maintenance behavior are required if the team or organization is to become and remain
effective. With shared LEADERSHIP, all members need to see themselves displaying both kinds of
behavior when both are needed by the team or organization. Where responsibility and AUTHORITY
for leadership is lodged in an appointee or electee, he or she must exhibit both kinds of behavior, as
needed by those being led. The two-fold classification is replicated in many theories of organization
behavior. Misumi's Performance (P) & Maintenance (M) is illustrative (Misumi & Peterson, 1985).

Document
Page 555
See also Group dynamics; Team building; Group roles; Managerial grid; Group decision making
Bibliography
Benne, K. D. & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–
49.
Misumi, J. & Peterson, M. F. (1985). The performance–maintenance (PM) theory of leadership. Review
of a Japanese research program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 198–223.
BERNARD M. BASS
TAT (Thematic Apperception Test)
see ACHIEVEMENT, NEED FOR; AFFILIATION, NEED FOR; POWER, NEED FOR
Taylorism
see MANAGEMENT, CLASSICAL THEORY; SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
Team Building
In the general field of ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT (OD), the title given to the grandfather
process of intervening in organizations to improve PRODUCTIVITY and morale has been called team
building. It was probably the first innovation historically in the OD movement, advancing the basic
premise, that before any group of people can begin to improve their performance, group members must
be able to work together effectively and collaboratively. Team building, then, is a planned, systematic
process designed to improve the collaborative efforts of people who must work together to achieve
goals.
Team building methods grew out of an earlier invention called the Training Group (or T group) (see
SENSITIVITY TRAINING). This learning process, developed in the late 1940s and 1950s, featured an
unstructured group, usually for a collection of strangers, for the purpose of allowing interaction to occur
without predetermined directions. Out of this interaction participants were trained to observe the
dynamics and structure of a group emerge (see GROUP STRUCTURE), and to gain insights into their
own and other members' interaction style. Emphasis was also placed on giving personal FEEDBACK to
all group members, and as the T group movement developed this latter emphasis began to predominate,
subordinating GROUP DYNAMICS analysis to the detriment of team building activities.

Document
Participants in early T groups were captivated by the impact the group had on the members in terms of
increased TRUST, openness, and cohesiveness (see GROUP COHESIVENESS). In an attempt to
transfer these same conditions back to their organizational settings, T group trainers we asked to come
and conduct the T group for working staff. These early practitioners used the T group methodology at
first but soon found that the method, appropriate for a focus on how a group forms and giving feedback
with stranger groups, was less suited to groups of employees with specific assignments, common work
goals, and longstanding knowledge of each other. The T group methodology had to be altered to take
into account the conditions found in WORK GROUPS of common goals, specific assignments,
deadlines, allocation of important rewards such as salary and advancements, and often high task
interdependence within an organization context where there was a given structure and on-going culture.
In his early analysis of organizations, Likert (1961) clearly pointed out that despite most organization
charts showing individuals reporting to other individuals, the true nature of organization structure is a
set of interlocking groups or teams variously called departments, divisions, sections, councils, or
committees (see ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN). Managers are not only reponsible for individual
performance, but must be able to coordinate the efforts of these several individuals where cooperation
and interdependence of effort is necessary. The modified T group approach, now called Team Building,
became the new tool for building collaboration into a work unit.
The goals of almost all team building efforts were to help group members develop a sense of trust
among themselves, open up channels of COMMUNICATION so all relevant issues could be discussed,
make sure everyone understood the goals and the interlocking of assignments, make decisions with the
real commitment of all members, prevent the leader from dominating the group, openly examine and
resolve conflicts, carry out assignments and regularly review and critique work activities to improve
processes.

Document
Page 556
While it was recognized early on that groups differed along a series of important dimensions: size,
composition, length of life, nature of the task, degree of interconnectedness of individual tasks or
assignments, sophistication of members in group performance, time frames and deadlines, management
patterns, and organization culture, there has been a tendency to consider all groups (or teams) as being
similar and team building methods were commonly applied to all types of groups (see GROUP
CULTURE). Practitioners began to consider that different actions needed to be taken if one was
working with a new team, a team rife with CONFLICT, an apathetic team, a team dominated by a boss,
or split into cliques. An expanded set of actions and skills were developed to meet these various
conditions and a repertoire of team building models emerged.
In recent years, the most dramatic difference in team building methods has been between decision
teams and work teams. A decision team such as a management executive committee or a university
academic department, or a collection of doctors or lawyers in a clinic or firm, must function as a team
primarily to make decisions. These team members do not have to coordinate their daily tasks to
accomplish a goal. They do have to made decisions which people can accept and implement with real
commitment. In contrast, a work team (a hospital operating unit, a police SWAT team, a NASA space
crew and some production units, must coordinate their efforts constantly every day (see MUTUAL
ADJUSTMENT). This has lead to a new set of methodologies around building the autonomous or
semiautonomous work team (see AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS). It is apparent that work teams
must also make a range of decisions, so effective decision making is a central activity.
Dyer (1994) found that many companies said they believed in team building but few (only 22 percent)
actually engaged in any on-going team building.
When asked why team building programs were not being used, the companies listed the following:
(1) Managers did not know how to do team building.
(2) They did not understand the payoff or rewards for spending the time.
(3) They thought it would take too much time.
(4) Team building efforts were not really rewarded in the company.
(5) People felt their teams were all right – they did not need team building.
(6) People felt it was not supported by their superiors.
The simple designs for team building ask team members to come and be prepared to talk about the
following kinds of matters:
(1) What keeps our work group from being an effective team?
(2) What changes would help us become a better team?

Document
(3) What are we currently doing that helps us work together as a team?
All group members share their responses to the above questions, a list of issues is developed specifiying
changes needed and change actions are agreed on and taken.
Another common design (Role Clarification Model) asks each person in the work group to describe his/
her work or job assignment, obtain clarification from others and then agreements from every other
person about what is needed from them in order for the person in question to get the job accomplished.
This is especially useful when work roles are not clear.
A fundamental principle of team building is that it is a process, not an event. Too many companies have
a one-time team building event and then wonder why the organization's teams do not improve.
See also Group decision making; Group development
Bibliography
Dyer, W. (1994). Team building: Issues and alternatives. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, K. (1993). Leading self-directed work teams. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zenger, J. H., Musselwhite, E. & Hurson, K. (1994). Leading teams. Homewood, IL: Business One
Irwin.
WILLIAM G. DYER

Document
Page 557
Team Roles
see GROUP ROLES; TASK AND MAINTENANCE BEHAVIOR
Technology
Although technology is a central construct in organizational research, it is defined and employed in

different ways by different scholars, a fact which has caused considerable confusion. Most
fundamentally, technology is a human activity undertaken by those whose efforts produce material
objects (unlike activities such as religion or sports). Derived from the Greek word techne, meaning art
or skill, technology is a collection of techniques, ways of fabricating things with a useful purpose in
mind.
Typically, technology involves the making and using of artifacts. Yet tools or objects are not
technology themselves – they embody technology, which is the knowhow that underlies making and
using them. The body of knowledge and SKILLS required to produce useful artifacts is the technology,
and it may reside in people, things, or processes. In essence, technology mediates between man and the
objective world.
Technology is a central construct in organizational research because an organization's technology is the

means through which work gets accomplished. Technology provides an organization's means of
transforming raw materials (human, symbolic, or material) into desirable goods and services. As a
result, the technology that an organization adopts, and the technology adopted by other organizations
with which it interacts, can hardly be divorced from its strategy, structure, CULTURE, or characteristic
pattern of social relations (see CONTINGENCY THEORY).
Until quite recently, economists defined technology simply, in terms of production possibility frontiers.
A curve could be drawn showing the trade-off inherent in the production of any two goods – for any set
of inputs, such an "isoquant" showed all the different combinations of the two goods that could be
affected. Technological progress consisted of moving this curve outward, so that with the same inputs,
more of either or both outputs could be produced.
Organizational research has adopted a more complex view of technology. Because technology is a
human activity and a body of knowledge, it is not treated as a force purely external to the firm;
technology both shapes and is shaped by human VALUES. Orlikowski (1992) summarizes the
prevailing view that technology is an external force impacting the organization, but these effects are
moderated by human actors and the organizational contexts within which they act. Technology is to
some extent autonomous of the firm, but its meaning is socially constructed (see SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTIONISM).

Document
Several fine distinctions appear in the organizational literature, although they are not applied
consistently. Technology is treated as distinct from science in that technology is oriented toward
producing useful artifacts, while science is oriented toward producing new THEORY and empirical
tests of theory. However, the line between the two is not sharp.
Commonly, at least three different types of technology are distinguished. Product technology is the
know-how embedded in an artifact, the blueprint of an object. PROCESS TECHNOLOGY is the know-
how embedded in the sequence of tasks that creates artifacts. Clearly the distinction depends on the
firm's position in a value chain; to a machine tool maker, the skill embodied in a tool is product
technology, but to the firm employing the tool to make things, the same skill is process technology. The
third form is administrative technology, which is the set of skills underlying the process of coordinating
economic production and exchange of goods (see PRODUCTIVITY).
Occasionally, organizational research focuses on industries termed "high technology." There is no

formal definition that distinguishes high-technology settings from any other type of setting. Generally,
however, high technology industries employ highly advanced or specialized systems or devices, and the
degree of technical UNCERTAINTY surrounding these elements is typically very high.
Technology and Organizational Environments
To some extent, the set of technologies available to an organization is external and autonomous, and
thus is a critical part of the organizational environment (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT). For example, an organization wishing to produce and sell a wrench has a

Document
Page 558
variety of cutting, forming, and assembly technologies available to it, and their technical characteristics
are to a great extent independent of the organization's interpretation of them. In the OPEN SYSTEMS
models which prevail in organization theory, the organization must adapt to its environment; hence, it
must adapt to the pattern of technology adoption it observes and to changes in technology over time.
Technological change appears to behave like an evolutionary system in PUNCTUATED

EQUILIBRIUM. This is to say that technological development is typically characterized by long eras of
incremental change, occasionally interrupted by breakthrough technologies (see INNOVATION). Such
discontinuous advances typically inaugurate an era of ferment and flux, in which the new technology
displaces the old while various versions of the new technology compete for marketplace acceptance.
Eventually, a standard, or "dominant design," typically emerges in response to organizational avoidance
of uncertainty. The emergence of a standard creates conditions under which incremental change,
focused on improving one general design, can resume. Technological standards have assumed
increasing importance in recent times, as the increased interconnection of products into systems,
particularly systems interconnected by digital INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, creates pressure for
products to be compatible with one another and able to communicate.
Almost all technologies are brought to economic use by organizations. As a result, technical
communities form, and institutional factors often govern the trajectory of a technology's development
(see COMMUNITY ECOLOGY; INSTITUTIONAL THEORY; POPULATION ECOLOGY).
Technologies seldom achieve widespread use due to technical superiority alone. The evolution of a
technology is not driven by sheer engineering performance; the development of an institutionalized
social framework around a technology plays a critical role. It is more accurate to say that technologies
and organizations coevolve than it is to say that technology is solely an autonomous environmental
force.
Additionally, technologies both help to shape and are shaped by cultural forces. The same technologies
may have different social consequences in different countries, depending on institutional relationships
and national sets of values. Although some scholars contend that technology imposes its own value
system on humans, the weight of the evidence suggests that all technologies undergo different
interpretations in different settings, and thus are socially constructed within a cultural context (Bijker,
Hughes, & Pinch, 1987).
Technology and Organizational Strategy

Document
Since technology is central to the organizational environment, scholars examining the strategies firms
use to adapt to their environments (see STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT). frequently examine the impact
of technology, particularly technological change, upon strategic choices and outcomes (see
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE). The effects of INNOVATION ADOPTION is the most widely
studied topic in this area. Because much know-how is tacit, firms often find it difficult to adjust to
technological change, especially when it is rapid and unpredictable (see PRACTICAL
INTELLIGENCE). Thus technology can be a powerful force in reshaping and overturning industry
structure. The foundation of most research in this vein is the economist Josef Schumpeter's vision of
"creative destruction" – the replacement of a set of dominant firms by another group of rivals
employing a radically new technology – as the fundamental engine of capitalist progress.
As technical systems grow more complex and interconnected – due largely to innovations in
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY and information technology that embed intelligence in
different products which must communicate – technological systems and networks assume increasing
importance. As a consequence, more technological development is taking place through
interorganizational ventures than appears to have been the case in the past (see JOINT VENTURES).
Competitive success via technology may depend more and more on the firm's ability to build alliances
and partnership networks, not simply on the firm's individual technological prowess, and consequently,
the study of technology-based alliances is one of the most vibrant areas in modern strategy research (see

Document
Page 559
Technology and Organizational Structure
The way in which a firm gets work done is a fundamental determinant of ORGANIZATIONAL
DESIGN structure. Firms devising technically complex and advanced products typically require a
combination of a flexible structure with close coordination to manage the COMPLEXITY (see
FLEXIBILITY).
Firms also tend to develop a higher ratio of supervisors to other employees as the range and technical
difficulty of their tasks increases (see SPAN OF CONTROL).
The nature of a firm's process technology may also influence its organizational structure. The more a
firm relies on mass production to achieve high PRODUCTIVITY, the more mechanistic it tends to be.
The more it relies on flexible, low-volume batch production, the more organic it tends to be (see
MECHANISTIC/ORGANIC). However, ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY may be
changing these historical relationships. Computer-integrated manufacture may make possible
customized, batch production that is as economical as is mass production (see AUTOMATION). A
good deal of scholarly research is aimed at discerning the effect of advanced manufacturing technology
on the organizational structures of the future, so far without conclusive results.
The idea that firms face a "technological imperative" in organization design is much less popular now
than it was in the past. Research in the 1960s tended to suggest that there was one best way to organize,
given a firm's technology, and that high performance resulted from the achievement of good fit between
the organization's technology and its structure (see CONTINGENCY THEORY). The weight of
empirical evidence suggests that different structures may be used to implement the same technology
successfully; technology still influences organization design, but it does not appear to determine in and
of itself the relationship between structure and performance.
SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY dates back to the early 1950s, and continues to produce useful insights.
The fundamental idea is that interrelationships between technological subsystems and social subsystems
determine the overall effectiveness of organizational arrangements. For example, in a classic study of
new coal-mining technology, Trist and Bamforth demonstrated that a new, mechanized production
technology disrupted the equilibrium of traditional work methods without substituting a new, viable
social structure. A social system in which a team of six workers developed strong norms and
coordinated routines collapsed when new, automated methods broke up the teams and substituted a
specialized, hierarchical, 50-person unit as the basic production organization.

Document
The influence of technology on organizational structure generally appears to be far from deterministic.
Different organizations may respond differently to the implementation of very similar technologies
because of their distinctive histories and patterns of social relations. This is not to say that technology
has no orderly, regular influence on organizational structure. Rather, it is to say that organizations have
considerable latitude in constructing the meaning of new technologies they adopt, and the structural
responses they generate depend in large part on the way in which different interpretations structure
behavior (Orlikowski, 1992).
Technology and the Nature of Work
Technology has played a very large part in organizational research on the sociology of work and
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. The key idea underlying much of this research is that technology is not
simply a neutral instrument by which knowledge is put to useful purposes. Rather, a firm's choice of
technology may well influence the relationship between workers and their work, and between workers
and the organizations to which they belong.
One aspect of Karl Marx's materialism is the assertion that the organization of the means of production
determines the other features of a society. In the Marxist tradition, Blauner (1964) describes a specific
relationship between dominant production technology, organizational structure, worker attitudes, and
worker consciousness. In Blauner's view, the relationship between the worker and his or her job tasks is
one of ALIENATION under modern production technology because technology is an instrument of
domination, wielded by managers who possess POWER. Other studies suggest that relations between
workers and their companies

Document
Page 560
is also significantly affected by the type of production technology employed.
One way in which managers achieve control over people and things is by substituting technical
RATIONALITY for human interpretation (Berting, 1993). Thus the contemporary dominance of
technology is connected to the rise of universal instrumental rationality as a value. Managing for
technical efficiency appears to be rational, and society generally demands from organizations the
appearance of rationality. In some industries and societies, pressure to display dispassionate,
instrumental rationality had led to the formation of a ''technocratic" class of managers, whose control
and authority stem from their mastery of a distinctive body of technical knowhow (see
PROFESSIONALS IN ORGANIZATIONS). However, technology choices may well hinge on the
manager's desire to maintain dominance and avoid dependence on worker idiosyncrasies, not on purely
technical considerations (Noble, 1984).
More recent developments in the relationship between technology and WORKING CONDITIONS
include a greater emphasis on designing work systems to achieve more satisfactory ERGONOMICS,
and design systems that can achieve high quality, through vehicles such as CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT and QUALITY CIRCLES (see TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT). In these
efforts, technology is intimately linked with HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, particularly in
the area of JOB DESIGN. The area of HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION has also received
considerable attention. Underlying these outgrowths is the realization – perhaps spurred by insights
from Japanese management – that technology, as a knowledge-based human activity, is increasingly
becoming embodied in workers who possess flexible knowledge and skills.
See also Knowledge workers; Organization theory; Technology transfer
Bibliography
Adler, P. S. (1989). Technology strategy: A guide to the literatures. In R. S. Rosenbloom & R. A.

Burgelman (Eds), Research on technological innovation, management and policy (pp. 25–151).
Berting, J. (1993). Organization studies and the ideology of technological determinism. In S.

Lindenberg & H. Schreuder (Eds), Interdisciplinary perspectives on organization studies (pp. 183–
194). Oxford UK: Pergamon Press.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The social construction of technological systems:
New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
McGinn, R. E. (1978). What is technology? In P. T. Durbin (Ed.), Research in philosophy and

technology (pp. 179–197). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Document
Noble, D. (1984). Forces of production: A social history of industrial automation. New York: Knopf.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1989). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in

organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.
Trist, E. L. & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall
method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.
Usher, A. P. (1954). A history of mechanical inventions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
PHILIP ANDERSON
Technology Transfer
This refers to the process whereby TECHNOLOGY (embodying knowledge, ideas, devices, artefacts,
and software) which has been invented, developed, or used in one organizational setting, is transferred
so that it is developed and used in another, where hitherto it was probably unknown and certainly
unused. The concept covers a wide range of activities.
The originating base for the technology may be within a university, independent, or industrial research
organization, profit or nonprofit making, process, manufacturing, or service organization. The transfer
process may be entirely within the originating organization, for example, the marketing and production
of a new product developed by an in-house R&D group. It may involve crossing ORGANIZATIONAL
BOUNDARIES, for example, the development of an IT system for handling patient records in a
hospital on the basis of a client services system in the leisure industry, or the development of a new
procedure for testing color fastness in garment manufacture as a result of sponsored university-based
research. It may also involve crossing national as well as organizational

Document
Page 561
boundaries, for example, with the development of a "low tech" water treatment process by a European
company and its provision through the World Bank to a region in India.
Successful Technology Transfer is a significant contributor to economic performance at three levels: for
organizations, industrial sectors, and national economies. Companies may secure significant
competitive advantage if they have the capacity to manage technology transfer (see
COMPETITIVENESS). For example, it may allow them to increase profitability or market share by
cutting down the time it takes to get a new product from conceptual design to the market place. Lessons
learnt about increasing efficiency or quality in one set of operations may be translated to others, and
their capacity to attract and retain appropriately skilled staff may be increased. At sectoral and national
levels, benefits are accrued from sets of competing organizations being successful in securing effective
product or process developments. Governments and international agencies (see GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES) play important parts in determining policy on technology transfer between nations, and
thereby influencing global economic development.
Whilst products can be defined in terms of volume, cost, and quality, and the process of making
products (whether in manufacturing or service) in engineering terms of mass, flows, density, or
information systems, it is important to remember that products and processes also embody knowledge.
Concepts, theories and SKILLS, may be formally and openly documented or held "tacitly" in the minds
and senses of inventors or users (see PRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE). Technology transfer can involve
unlocking tacit knowledge, codifying it and thereby facilitating its transfer to other settings. Tacit
knowledge is evidenced in all sorts of technologies, from the traditional crafts like weaving, to heavy
industry, like foundry operations, to highly advanced software applications. The developers and users of
these products and processes build up a knowledge of how they can "sense" – through touch, smell, or
intellectual insight – progress and performance. It is often these aspects of tacit knowledge which are
most difficult to transfer from one location and CULTURE to another, and which account for some
failure in Technology Transfer.
The bulk of relevant empirical work is concerned with studies which examine organizational and
individual factors which facilitate or inhibit effective technology transfer within single large, complex
organizations. This work can provide a base for looking beyond single company studies in order to
understand what is involved in seeking to transfer technology across organizational as well as
departmental and professional boundaries (see ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES). Early work in
the 1960s and 1970s tended to view Technology Transfer as a linear process from idea generation,
through development, into production. Subsequent work drew attention to the importance of
FEEDBACK between participants and stages and today the iterative, nonlinear, complexities of
Technology Transfer are regarded as crucially important.

Document
There are common themes between the literature on technology transfer and that concerned with
COMMUNICATION, innovation, and diffusion (see INNOVATION ADOPTION; INNOVATION
DIFFUSION). There are structural barriers deriving from functional and hierarchical boundaries which
may be reinforced by methods of resource allocation and REWARD structures. For example, if
development and production departments are treated as self-contained organizations with tight budgets
and a resource allocation process which does not encourage people to seek to improve their
performance through utilizing the fruits of others' endeavors, little effective technology transfer will
take place. Structural barriers interact with cultural barriers, particularly, the assumptive worlds of
participants, which derive from their particular (and often professionally or vocationally specific)
TRAINING and experience.
Attempts to remove such barriers require structural INNOVATION and cultural change (see
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE). Structurally, one can encourage secondments between departments,
multidepartmental task forces, flatter organizations, project focused teams, and the requirement that
research projects have to secure "sponsorship" from a party who is sufficiently interested in the subject
to contribute toward its finance (see INTEGRATION). To secure these changes clear messages have to
be given through appraisal, promotion, and reward, which show, for example, that cross

Document
Page 562
disciplinary team working is positively regarded. Furthermore, to facilitate a willingness to learn from
and with others, the strategic vision of the organization needs to reflect a commitment to
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT. This is the sort of approach which is advanced to secure effective
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING.
Allen's work was particularly important in identifying the barriers to communication between R&D and
other departments. He stressed the importance of encouraging informal linking networks and has
investigated the effects of STATUS, HIERARCHY, and physical distance in inhibiting communication
(see NETWORKING). Receptivity to new ideas was found to decrease as the life cycle of any project
progressed, with a tendency to avoid critical information in the later stages in an effort to reduce
UNCERTAINTY and increase predictability.
In moving away from a linear view of Technology Transfer in which significant barriers have to be
"overcome" to secure the "delivery" of the technology to its end user, there is now more emphasis on
joint problem solving between all those involved in development, adaptation, and use. It is now
recognized that organizations or departments do not generally have a "wish list'' of technological
developments which they hope to be able to resource. Instead they have an awareness of problems, for
example, falling market share, global competition, or poor morale. They want solutions to their
problems. In order for Technology Transfer to be "effective" there needs to be a willingness to engage
with others in working out problem definitions and solutions and in learning lessons. Success in
technology transfer is now therefore seen as less associated with clear views on what technology "can
do" and more focused on the benefits which may accrue and how they will be achieved. This places
emphasis on activities such as scanning for new ideas and joint working on problem definition as well
as solutions. There also needs to be a willingness to invest in new ventures and a culture which is
supportive of failure as well as success.
In addition to work on managing Technology Transfer by and within organizations, there is also
literature on the role of government and sectoral organizations in facilitating Technology Transfer (see
GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS). Different mechanisms are used. They include the provision of
databases and networks to increase access to information about available technologies, the
establishment of quasi governmental agencies to seek out potentially useful innovations and through
licensing, to make them more widely available, the development of Science Parks to provide
infrastructure and "incubation" for emergent companies based on new technologies, and lastly, the
encouragement of Technology Transfer Companies within the scientific community to help researchers
put forward their ideas and protect their commercial ownership whilst facilitating wide dissemination.
See also Information technology; Learning organization; Sociotechnical theory; Strategic alliances
Bibliography
Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Document
Coombs, R., Saviotti, P. & Walsh, V. (Eds), (1992). Technological change & company strategies.
London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ettlie, J. E. & Reza, E. M. (1992). Organizational integration and process innovation. Academy of
Management Journal, 35, (4), 795–827.
Frosch, R. A. (1984). R&D choices & technology transfer. Research Management, May–June, 11–14.
Gupta, A. K. & Wileman, D. (1990). Improving R&D/marketing relations from the R&D perspective.
R&D Management, 20, no. 4. 277.
Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic
alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83–103.
Massey, D., Quintas, P. & Wield, D. (1992). High tech fantasies – Science parks in society, science &
space. London: Routledge.
Rothwell, R. & Zegweld, W. (1985). Reindustrialisation & technology. London: Longman.
Seaton, R. A. F. & Cordey-Hayes, M. (1993). The development and application of interactive models of
industrial technology transfer. Technovation, 13, no. 1, 45–53.
Souder, W. E. & Padmanabhan (1989). Transferring new technologies from R&D to manufacturing.
Research Technology Management, 32, 38–43.

Document
Page 563
Williams, R. & Gibson, D. V. (1990). Technology transfer: A communications perspective. London:

Sage.
SANDRA DAWSON
Teleology
see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Theft
see EMPLOYEE THEFT
Theory
Theory, which is about suppositions that are general, idealized, and abstract, can easily be
misunderstood in a field like ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR where pragmatists, practitioners, and
positivists worry about practice, profits, and precision. To forestall such misunderstanding, this entry
discusses theory in general, what it is, how people approximate it, and the consequences of these
approximations.
Definition of Theory
If theory is equated with knowledge claims preserved in statements involving concepts, then its nature
and importance are captured as well by Kant as anyone: "Perception without conception is blind;
conception without perception is empty." For comparison, here are two descriptions that are more
prosaic but less elliptical.
(1) Theory is "an ordered set of assertions about a generic behavior or structure assumed to hold
throughout a significantly broad range of specific instances" (Sutherland, 1975, p. 9).
(2) Theory is "a collection of assertions, both verbal and symbolic, that identifies what variables are
important for what reasons, specifies how they are interrelated and why, and identifies the conditions
under which they should be related or not related" (Campbell, 1990, p. 65).
What is common among these descriptions is the idea that theories refer to "specific instances," which
provides the perceptions that keep conceptions from becoming empty, and the idea that these references
are abstract, general simplifications, which provides labels for perceptions and keeps them from
becoming blind. But not all theories are equally successful at removing emptiness and blindness. The
reason is that they vary in the degree to which their assertions facilitate sensemaking, move beyond
common sense, and approximate the properties of a fully developed theory. Variation in these three
dimensions affects the extent to which the theory is able to explain, predict, and delight. We review
these dimensions briefly to create a more nuanced understanding of theory.

Document
Theory and Sensemaking
If sensemaking is defined as "the reciprocal interaction of information seeking, meaning ascription, and
action" (Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993, p. 240), then the affinity between it and theorizing is apparent.
Dubin (1976) says as much in his statement that "a theory tries to make sense out of the observable
world by ordering the relationships among elements that constitute the theorist's focus of attention in
the real world" (p. 26). To think more clearly about theory is to take this correspondence seriously.
Blumer (1969) took it seriously in his extended gloss of Kant's aphorism about perception and
conception. Blumer argued that conception comes into play when an activity, driven by perception,
becomes blocked or frustrated. "A concept always arises as an individual experience, to bridge a gap or
insufficiency in perception" (p. 160). This bridging, in the form of a new orientation that reshapes
perception and guides action, unfolds similarly in the mind of the theorist and the lay person. Concepts
give blocked experience an "understandable character" (p. 156) by referring to something whose
existence is presumed, isolated through abstraction, labeled, and shared, even though its character is not
fully understood. Perhaps most important, the conception is instrumental. It releases and allows
completion of activity, whether that activity be Pasteur solving the problem of anthrax (p. 163), or
practitioners solving problems of DOWNSIZING or identity.
To make sense by means of conception is to invent, to bring things into existence. Theorists do this by
means of sentences that make knowledge claims. That is less innocent than it sounds. The tipoff is the
word "claims." Van Maanen (1993) captures the issues: "Theorizing is a social practice that represents
the construction of reality via the only method at our disposal – language. . . . Theorists produce

Document
Page 564
discourse whose purpose is to persuade readers that they've got it right, have something to say" (pp. 6,
8). Theories do not mirror reality. Instead, they create a sense of what is real and unreal, which means
they are rhetorical rather than foundational (Mailloux, 1990, p. 133).
Theorists have no choice but to use sentences if they want to communicate knowledge for purposes of
evaluation. Furthermore, only sentences can be evaluated as true or false. There is no such thing as a
"true" or "false" experience. Therefore, what is said becomes what we know, which means that how we
formulate what we say, determines how systematic and shared the things will be that we claim to know.
Thus, ways of writing theory influence what can be done with it.
Theory and Discovery
Perception remains relatively blind unless theories tell us something we do not already know. To do
this, theorists often deliberately move away from collective social wisdom so that they can gain access
to knowledge with a low a priori probability of ever being known. Common knowledge is suspended
temporarily when people invoke possible worlds such as those created in SIMULATIONS, laboratories,
formal models, and thought experiments involving imagination (Weick, 1990). Possible worlds are
tools of rhetoric that create a unique sense of what is real and unreal. Nevertheless, their content can be
given an empirical interpretation at any time, which means their departures from common knowledge
are transient and instrumental. Theorists and practitioners sometimes forget this.
Theory and Its Approximations
Theory in organizational behavior is a dimension rather than an all-or-none activity and it ranges from
"guess" to "explanatory system." Merton (1967) suggests possible points along this dimension, all of
which represent distinct interim struggles, but none of which represent a final product. To ''compare"
theories for their usefulness is often a misleading exercise since what is actually being compared are
approximations that have developed different parts of a theory.
Theory work is sometimes approximated by general orientations to materials. Broad frameworks

specify types of variables that people should take into account, but determinate relationships between
specific variables are not set forth. References in the organizational behavior literature to "lenses,"
"images," "perspectives," and "frameworks" typically signal work of this kind. Scott's (1987, p. 29)
three organizational perspectives – rational, natural, and OPEN SYSTEMS – are advanced general
orientations since they also embody elaborated concepts and empirical GENERALIZATIONS.
As we saw earlier, much theory work is language work or, as Merton calls it, analysis of concepts (p.
143). As the label suggests, conceptual analysis consists of specification and clarification of key
concepts. But, a list of concepts and definitions is not a theory. "It is only when such concepts are
interrelated in the form of a scheme that a theory begins to emerge" (p. 143). Perrow's (1984)
development of the idea of a "normal accident" exemplifies conceptual analysis. And his elaboration of
this idea in terms of coupling and complexity represents steps toward interrelating variables associated
with the concept.

Document
Post-factum interpretation often passes as theory work in organizational behavior because so much of
the database is case histories (see CASE STUDY RESEARCH). These interpretations have a spurious
adequacy because they are often ad hoc hypotheses, selected because they fit observations, with no
systematic exploration of alternative interpretations that are also consistent with the data and no tests of
the ad hoc fit with new observations. Weick's (1990) analysis of the Tenerife air disaster as stress-
induced regression illustrates this tactic, and in doing so is just that, an illustration rather than a test of
claims about stress.
Finally, empirical generalization, the raw material for theory, may be misidentified as theory itself.
However, since the generalization is "an isolated proposition summarizing observed uniformities of
relationships between two or more variables" (Merton, 1967, p. 149), it lacks the crucial property of an
interrelated set of propositions. The idea that power flows toward those who reduce significant
uncertainties (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977) represents an empirical generalization in search of related
propositions.

Document
Page 565
By way of conclusion, readers should understand that approximations are the bulk of theory in
organizational behavior. Approximations can still supply "substantive ideas about what things mean,
how things work, or what the serious problems are" (Campbell, 1990, p. 67). Those approximations that
do so, persuasively, in uncommon ways, that are susceptible to further elaboration, hold the future of
the field.
See also Critical theory; Process theory; Paradigm; Systems theory
Bibliography
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.

Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd edn, vol.
1, pp. 40–73). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 17–39). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Mailloux, S. (1990). Interpretation. In F. Lentricchia & T. McLaughlin (Eds), Critical terms for literary
study (pp. 121–134). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Merton, R. K. (1967). On theoretical sociology. New York: Free Press.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents. New York: Basic Books.
Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power – and how they hold on to it: A strategic-
contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5, 3–21.
Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations (2nd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sutherland, J. W. (1975). Systems: Analysis, administration, and architecture. New York: Van
Nostrand.
Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M. & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sense making and organizational
performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 239–270.
Van Maanen, J. (1993). Theory as style: The uses, abuses and pleasures of organizational theory. Talk
presented at Academy of Management. August 10, 1993.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review,

14, 516–531.

Document
Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: Analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of
KARL E. WEICK
Theory X & Y
According to McGregor (1960), traditional management believed implicitly in Theory X, which

postulates that employees are inherently lazy, indifferent to the needs of the organization, and
uninterested in doing a good job. Employees should not be expected to do any more than absolutely
necessary. As a consequence, management has to direct, motivate, and control the workforces, as if they
were immature children. Control systems are essential, and assignments must be specific. Close
monitoring and correction of performance by supervisors is essential. Thinking should be left to
superiors. Discipline and fear of PUNISHMENT should be used to maintain standards of performance.
Employees should be motivated primarily by "carrots" for good performance and "sticks" for poor
performance. Opposite to belief in Theory X is Theory Y, which postulates that employees essentially
want to do a good job. They have ego needs as well as needs for material benefits. They respond
positively to being treated like adults and given responsibilities commensurate with their capabilities.
Their involvement, loyalty, and COMMITMENT to the organization are important motivators of their
performance. Wherever possible, they should be able to participate in decisions affecting their
performance (see PARTICIPATION).
The two theories are predicated on distinctive assumptions about human behavior. Theory X assumes
workers must be persuaded, rewarded, punished, controlled, and directed if the coordination of effort is
to be achieved. In fact, no work at all will get done unless there is active intervention by management.
This is because employees are naturally lazy and will work as little as possible. They lack ambition,
dislike accepting responsibility, and prefer to be led. They are only concerned with their own needs and
not with the goals of their organization. They resist change (see RESISTANCE TO CHANGE). They
are not good decision makers. As much as possible, all decisions within the organization should be
routinized so that under

Document
Page 566
all circumstances, the individual will require a minimum of thought without alternatives. Indeed, they
must be told in detail what to do or they will not be able to do their job. They must be prodded with
external incentives and close surveillance. While management is responsible for organizing the
elements of productive enterprise – money, materials, equipment, people – in the interest of economic
ends, employees develop passivity and resistance to organizational needs as a result of their experience
in organizations (see RESISTANCE TO CHANGE).
Theory Y says that workers have the potential for development, the capacity for assuming
responsibility, and the readiness to work for organizational goals. Management makes it possible for
workers to recognize and develop these traits. Therefore, management is responsible for arranging
organizational processes and conditions so that employees can achieve their own goals by directing
their efforts toward organizational objectives. Management creates opportunities, releases potential,
removes obstacles, encourages growth and provides guidance. Belief in Theory Y promotes
decentralization, delegation, job enlargement, empowerment, participation, and self-management.
See also Values; Employee involvement, Human relations movement; Self actualization; Theory
Z; Scientific management; Managerial behavior; Managerial style
Bibliography
McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
BERNARD M. BASS
Theory Z
Ouchi (1981) introduced the idea of Theory Z, to represent the beliefs underlying Japanese
management, in contrast to THEORY X & THEORY Y. The management of Theory Z firms is
characterized by long-term employment and intensive SOCIALIZATION of their workforce.
Objectives and VALUES emphasize cooperation and teamwork. There is slow promotion from within
the firm and jobs are rotated. Employees are expected to be generalists rather than specialists.
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL systems are complex. Emphasis is on WORK GROUPS rather than
individuals, open COMMUNICATION, consultative DECISION MAKING, and a relations-oriented
concern for employees. In comparison to Theory X organizations, Theory Z organizations are more
decentralized and have fewer levels of management. Subordinates exercise more upward influence in
dealing with their bosses in the Type Z than in the Type X organizations.
See also Organizational culture; Group, cohesiveness; Group dynamics; International

management
Bibliography

Document
Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
BERNARD M. BASS
Third Country National
see EXPATRIATES
Time and Motion
see JOB ANALYSIS; OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT; SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
Time Management
The method of time management is predominantly aimed at making more effective use of time, mainly
at the individual level within organizations, forming part of TRAINING for example, in the
management of change and managerial development and effectiveness (see MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT). It is also usual for time management to be implemented within a package,
alongside an assortment of other STRESS management techniques (i.e., relaxation, assertiveness
training, and lifestyle audits). In defining time management it is necessary to examine the problems it
attempts to resolve, its methods and techniques, and its limitations.
At the individual level, poor time management has been found to be a source of negative health
outcomes (e.g., reduced MENTAL HEALTH), and so it is mainly used in the area of stress
management with an emphasis on SELF-MANAGEMENT. From an organizational and managerial
perspective, one of the main problems to be acknowledged in managing time is that time is a finite
resource like other

Document
Page 567
organizational resources such as money and equipment, except that we cannot manufacture more time
when we need it.
Time management should focus upon both work and nonwork activities (see NONWORK/WORK) and
involve identifying the key areas in one's life, recognizing time wasters, and developing and identifying
priorities. The most popular techniques used in time management TRAINING are identifying time
wasters, prioritization, GOAL SETTING and PLANNING, "Eating the Elephant" (i.e., How do you eat
an elephant? – one bite at a time!), effective meetings, and the use of schedules and diaries.
There are, however, a number of limitations to the approach to time management which are less to do
with the methods employed and more to do with the conceptual framework within which it is founded.
A major criticism of time management is that it often entails even more work, when what is required is
for more time to be liberated for alternative stress management techniques such as the pursuit of leisure
activities, often neglected under conditions of excessive work load and stress (see ROLE OVER/
UNDERLOAD).
A more crucial drawback to current approaches and practice of time management is the disregard of
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES (e.g., the PERSONALITY and behavioral style of the individual),
which may underlie way they manage time (e.g., see TYPE A). To illustrate, individuals high on Type
A behavior have a tendency to take on ever more work, coupled with an inability to delegate to others.
For time management to be effective, individuals need to have the right MOTIVATION and frame of
mind as well as the right techniques.
See also Performance, individual; Role; Self-regulation
Bibliography
Bliss, E. C. (1985). Getting things done: The ABC's of time management. New York: Futura.
Ferner, J. D. (1980). Successful time management. New York: Wiley.
Fontana, D. (1993). Managing time. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
Januz, L. R. (1981). Time management for executives. New York: Scribner.
CHERYL J. TRAVERS
Top Management Teams

Document
The term "top management team" (TMT) has been adopted by organization and strategy theorists to
refer to the relatively small group of most influential executives at the apex of an organization – usually
the general manager (see CEOS) and his or her direct reports. The term does not necessarily imply a
formalized management-by-committee arrangement, but rather simply the constellation of, say, the top
three to ten executives. As such, many top management "teams" may have few genuine team properties
(interaction, shared purpose, collaboration) and might more accurately be referred to merely as top
management groups.
A scholarly interest in top management teams emerged in the early 1980s and has been pervasive ever
since. Realizing that top management typically is a shared activity, researchers have moved beyond an
examination of singular leaders, to a wider focus on the top LEADERSHIP group.
The underlying assumption is that the collective dispositions and interactions of top managers affect the
choices they make. The limited empirical evidence as to whether the characteristics of the top executive
or of the entire top team are better predictors of organizational outcomes clearly supports the conclusion
that the top team has greater effect. For example, the VALUES of top teams have been found to be
more strongly related to INNOVATION strategies than are the values of chief executives alone.
Similarly, major strategic change is more likely to occur following major changes in the composition of
the TMT than when only the CEO changes (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE).
The vast majority of research on TMTs has focused primarily on the composition of teams as predictors
of organizational outcomes. Unfortunately, other team characteristics have not received as much
attention, probably because they are more difficult for researchers to observe and measure. A complete
portrayal of a TMT would include not only composition, but also team structure (e.g., GROUP SIZE
and roles), incentives (e.g., financial and succession prospects) (see SUCCESSION PLANNING),
processes (e.g., COMMUNICATION flows and sociopolitical dynamics) (see GROUP DYNAMICS),
as

Document
Page 568
well as the characteristics and behaviors of the group leader.
Complementing the larger body of work on the effects of TMTs, some research has examined the
determinants of TMT characteristics. In this vein, both external factors (such as industry age, growth
rate, and munificence) and organizational characteristics (including strategic profile, size, and financial
resources) have been found to explain in part the characteristics of TMTs. One of the major limitations
of many studies on TMTs is that the direction of causality has been imputed but not verified. It is most
plausible to believe that firms select and promote executives who fit certain critical contingencies and,
in turn, those executives make choices in line with their particular predispositions and
COMPETENCIES. Over time, a reinforcing spiral probably occurs; hence establishing definitive
causality will be difficult.
Available research does allow us to conclude that the biases, blind spots, experiences, and interactions
of top executives greatly affect what happens to companies. Thus, CEOs or general managers who wish
to improve the performance and fitness of their organizations are well advised to focus attention on the
characteristics and qualities of their top teams.
See also Culture, group; Team building; Group decision making; Organizational effectiveness
Bibliography
Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the
team label. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, (vol. 16).
Hambrick, D. C. & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top
managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 195–206.
Jackson, S. E. (1991). Consequences of group processing for the interpersonal dynamics of strategic
issue processing. In P. Shrivastava, A. Hugg & J. Dutton (Eds), Advances in strategic management,
(vol. 8, pp. 345–382). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1991). The wisdom of teams. Boston: Harvard Business School.
DONALD C. HAMBRICK
Total Quality Management
Total quality management, (TQM) is a management philosophy and business strategy intended to
embed quality improvement practices deeply into the fabric of the organization. It is also a social
movement that has become partly institutionalized in many countries.

Document
No single authority speaks for the entire movement. Rather, TQM is a collection of related ideas from
different sources. One source is American quality consultants, especially Juran (1988), Deming (1986),
and Crosby (1984). Despite similarities, each authority differs from the others in important respects.
Second, the Japanese have made vital contributions to TQM (Ishikawa, 1985; Young, 1992). Third,
some have attempted to integrate management theory and research and TQM (Dean & Bowen, 1994;
Sashkin & Kiser, 1993).
Major themes in TQM include the following. First, the entire organization becomes focused on quality,
defined as satisfying customer requirements. Conventional wisdom holds that quality or customer
satisfaction is only one outcome, subject to trade-offs with other outcomes. TQM proponents argue that
quality is paramount because improving it improves PRODUCTIVITY, decreases costs, and increases
speed to market. Quality experts typically estimate that the "cost of quality," including inspection,
defects, scrap, rework, warranty cost, and so on, is usually 10 to 25 percent of product cost. Decreasing
this cost is a major objective of TQM. Some trade-offs between organizational outcomes do exist,
however, and these are not well specified in TQM thinking.
TQM efforts also attempt to create a CULTURE of CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT in which

improving quality and meeting customer needs better is part of the responsibility of every employee.
This requires LEADERSHIP by top management. The overwhelming majority of quality problems are
viewed as system problems, not worker MOTIVATION problem (see SYSTEMS THEORY). A TQM
culture requires new VALUES, perspectives, and tools, and these are unlikely to be developed without
the active

Document
Page 569
involvement of senior management. PLANNING to integrate a quality focus in all operations receives a
heavy emphasis. Thus, TQM has a "top-down" flavor.
Teamwork receives considerable stress. QUALITY CIRCLES and JOB DESIGN may enhance
teamwork within work units (see TEAM BUILDING). Cross-functional cooperation helps address
system problems. Strong collaborative relationships with a relatively small number of quality-oriented
vendors are encouraged.
A major contribution of the quality movement is the development of specific tools for quality analysis
and GROUP DECISION-MAKING. These include BENCHMARKING statistical process control,
measurement of the "cost of quality," process analysis, Pareto charts, fish bone cause-and-effect
diagrams, control charts, and other tools.
A critical part of Japanese management, especially in manufacturing firms using MASS

PRODUCTION technologies, is JUST-IN-TIME. JIT requires many organizational changes to be
successful (see INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT).
Finally, certain human resource practices are characteristic of TQM efforts. Jobs are designed so that
employees are responsible inspecting their own work and correcting their own ERRORS. However,
work simplification and standardization mean that employees do not necessarily gain self-management
responsibility in TQM systems (see JOB DESKILLING). Employees typically receive considerable
quality information. Monetary REWARD systems are de-emphasized in TQM theory in favor of
recognition systems.
TQM has become widely accepted. For example, over three-fourths of US Fortune 1000 companies
cover at least some employees with a TQM effort (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992). On average,
they cover 41 percent of their employees, and about one in six companies covers 100 percent of its
employees under TQM. More than 75 percent make at least some use of such practices as cost of
quality monitoring, work simplification, self-inspection, and just-in-time inventory systems. It appears
that Japanese companies make even deeper use of these practices.
Formal standards and prizes recognize firms with exemplary quality practices in many countries. The
Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers annually awards the Deming Prize to firms passing rigorous
examinations. The US Department of Commerce sponsors the annual Malcolm Baldridge National
Quality Award. Over 60 countries, including all members of the European Union and the United States,
have adopted ISO 9000 standards to certify that companies are using standardized procedures to insure
high quality. Finally, many large manufacturers operate demanding vendor certification programs.
Practice has led research in TQM (Dean & Bowen, 1994). TQM does not fit conveniently into existing
research domains, and has been neglected by academics. Many research questions cannot be answered
satisfactorily at this point. These include the degree of TQM effectiveness and the determinants of
success, diffusion, and institutionalization.

Document
Most of the evidence of TQM effectiveness is anecdotal. Many positive stories are dramatic, telling of
drastic reductions in quality problems, millions of dollars of costs eliminated, markets and profits
regained, and so on. For example, Xerox was failing but regained lost market share from Japanese
competitors through TQM. However, many anecdotes and nonacademic studies point to a high failure
rate. Studies by consulting firms such as Arthur D. Little and Rath & Strong indicate that more than half
the firms adopting TQM are disappointed with the results (Port, 1992).
What organizational factors account for the degree to which TQM practices yield benefits? Despite
claims of universal benefits, it is doubtful that all quality practices will benefit all organizations (Dean
& Bowen, 1994). For example, a study by Ernst & Young and the American Quality Foundation found
that the effects of specific quality practices depended on the maturity of the TQM effort (Port, 1992).
A related issue concerns the degree to which familiar human resource practices are compatible with
TQM philosophies and practices. Some established practices, such as employee selection testing, are
advantageous but ignored in the quality literature. In other cases, there may be serious conflicts. Lawler
(1994) points out that familiar employee involvement prac-

Document
Page 570
tices aimed at self-management and the use of rewards for group and organizational performance may
be incompatible with TQM philosophies and principles.
TQM practices appear to offer a promising arena for the study of INSTITUTIONAL THEORY, since
an explicit goal of TQM proponents is to create a permanent shift toward a quality philosophy in
contemporary organizations. Institutions taking part in these efforts include consulting firms and
organizations granting quality certifications and awards. This would be an interesting time to study such
institutions because some observers are criticizing them as excessively bureaucratic and too costly.
These complaints have been fueled by the well-publicized struggles of some winners of the Baldridge
Award (one went bankrupt) and Deming Prize (the first American winner dismantled its quality
bureaucracy after winning the prize).
See also Business process reengineering; Operations management; Competitiveness;

Organizational effectiveness; Employee involvement
Bibliography
Crosby, P. B. (1984). Quality without tears: The art of hassle-free management. New York: New
American Library.
Dean, J. W. & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and
practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19, (3), 392–418.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is total quality control? The Japanese way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on planning for quality. New York: Free Press.
Lawler, E. E. III (1994). Total quality management and employee involvement: Are they compatible?
Academy of Management Executive, 8, (1), 68–76.
Lawler, E. E. III Mohrman, S. A. & Ledford, G. E. Jr. (1992). Employee involvement and total quality
Port, O. (1992). Quality. Business Week, November 30, 66–72.
Sashkin, M. & Kiser, K. J. (1993). Putting total quality management to work. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Young, S. M. (1992). A framework for successful adoption and performance of Japanese manufacturing
practices in the United States. Academy of Management Review, 17, (4) 677–700.

Document
Tournament Promotion
Tournament mobility is a model to describe the promotion system in organizations (Rosenbaum, 1984,
1989). In this model, promotions operate like sports tournaments in which new employees compete in a
sequence of implicit competitions. Winners compete among themselves for further advancements, and
losers of early competitions are eliminated from the tournament for top positions. While competitions
are usually invisible, the model predicts certain career mobility patterns: early winners, though not
assured of advancements, are in an advantaged position compared to others who lost early competitions,
even if the late starters seem to catch up.
Tournaments arise because promotion committees use past successes as easily interpreted signals of
potential, which is otherwise hard to judge. Tournaments assume that the losers at any stage are less
able than the winners.
Rosenbaum showed that the career moves of a corporation's entry cohort over a 13-year span fit
tournament hypotheses. Employees getting an early promotion were significantly more likely to get
another promotion in the next 4 years than employees who were not initially promoted. Among those at
the same level after 7 years, those who got there first advanced further than those arriving later. Early
jobs affect later jobs, even after controlling for intervening jobs and personal attributes.
These findings are supported by Veiga's (1983) study of managers in three organizations, Sheridan,
Slocum, Buda, and Thompson (1990) confirmed tournament hypotheses, showing that early
experiences (traineeships or high-power departments) had lasting effects on career advancements.
While Forbes (1987) distinguished among three kinds of tournament (single elimination; round robin;
horse race), his study also finds significant effects of early jobs (technical entry jobs, number of moves)
on later jobs, even after controlling for intervening positions.

Document
Page 571
One implication, older employees in a job are considered as competition losers, so AGE reduces
promotion chances, even after controlling for company experience and other attributes. This age effect
is so durable that it increases during economic contraction (although promotions decrease), and it is
unaffected by a strong affirmative action program (which failed to help older women or to hurt older
males, while strongly affecting younger employees; Rosenbaum, 1984, Chap. 6). Age effects have been
shown by other studies, and their social and psychological impact has been suggested (Lawrence, 1988).
The tournament model has practical implications. Firms using the tournament model will limit late
bloomers' advancement and may overlook talent. Employees who get off to a bad start or who have
competing commitments to child-care will be penalized, with lasting effects. "Mommy track" programs
to reduce job demands in early careers of mothers will create long-term disadvantages unless
tournament assumptions are explicitly relinquished (see DISCRIMINATION; WOMEN AT WORK).
The tournament model also describes the structure of psychological incentives in a career system, with
implications for mid-career motivation crises. By viewing CAREER systems as a whole, the model
suggests precautions to avoid inadvertently restricting the development of talent and MOTIVATION.
See also Career transitions; Career plateauing; Human resources planning; Succession planning
Bibliography
Forbes, J. B. (1987). Early intraorganizational mobility: Patterns and influences. Academy of

Lawrence, B. S. (1988). New wrinkles in the theory of age: Demography, norms, and performance
rating. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 309–337.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1984). Career mobility in a corporate hierarchy. New York: Academic Press
(1989). Organization career systems and employee misperceptions. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S.
Lawrence (Eds), Handbook of career theory (pp 329–354). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Sheridan, J. E., Slocum, J. W., Buda, R. & Thompson, R. C. (1990). Effects of corporate sponsorship
and departmental power on career tournaments. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 578–602.
Veiga, J. F. (1983). Mobility influences during managerial career stages. Academy of Management
Journal, 26, 64–85.
JAMES E. ROSENBAUM
Trade Unions

Document
Although trade unions' behavior may, in some important respects, vary according to the society in
which they organize (Martin, 1989) the classical definition provided by Sidney and Beatrice Webb
(1907) of a trade union as " . . . a continuous association of wage earners for the purpose of maintaining
or improving the conditions of their working lives" is still a useful starting point for the analysis of
unions in market economies. It can be improved by substituting the term employees for wage earners,
so as to include salaried staff, and by adding a reference to COLLECTIVE BARGAINING as the main
means of achieving their purpose. Hence, trade unions seek to create, and exploit, the greater power
which collective employee strength offers, compared to that of the individual employee, in order to
exercise INFLUENCE over work-related decisions which would otherwise be made unilaterally by
employers and managers. Thus, unions are concerned with the political process of decision-making as
well as the economic outcomes (see POLITICS).
Studies of trade unions, as complex organizations, tend to focus on their objectives and means, external
structure and growth/decline, and government (internal organization) and democracy (see
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN).
Union Objectives and Means
Unions may be categorized (following Hoxie, summarized in Dabscheck & Niland, 1981) in terms of
the following ideal types, i.e., Revolutionary, Reformist or Uplift, and Business unions. Revolutionary
unions have generally been associated historically with class conscious movements and, in some cases,
have acted as the industrial arm of the Communist Party. Their ultimate objective has been to overthrow
the existing social and political system. Reformist or Uplift unions may also be organized on a class
basis, or they may organize occupationally or industrially specific groups of workers. They do not seek
to overthrow the existing system, but strive, long-term, to reform it from within, while bargaining for
immediate gains. Business unions

Document
Page 572
are essentially sectional organizations representing a particular group, or groups, of workers. They want
"more" for their members and bargain for it collectively without seeking to change radically society's
social or political system. In practice many unions tend to combine elements of reformist and business
unionism.
The means unions use to achieve their objectives, and the adversarial or co-operative stance adopted vis-
à-vis management, may differ according to the contexts in which they organize. Nevertheless, collective
bargaining is the method most commonly used to influence PAY and conditions of employment (see
WORKING CONDITIONS). Unions may also seek to exercise a degree of unilateral control over some
aspects of work allocation and organization. At higher levels of management DECISION MAKING
union representatives, e.g., shop stewards, may also try to influence, and be consulted on, policy
questions, such as capital investment. In addition, unions will petition governments to protect their legal
right to organize and negotiate. This pressure group activity may be performed by federations of unions.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFLCIO) in the United
States and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in the United Kingdom perform this and other functions.
Reformist unions may also affiliate to a political party of a socialist or social democratic nature, for
example, the Labour Party in Britain, for wider social purposes. Unions, or their federation, may also
provide members with training, insurance, legal and financial services.
Union External Structure, Growth, and Decline, in Membership
Union structure is conventionally defined as the coverage of a union's membership i.e., the union's job
territory or jurisdiction. Traditionally, it has been categorized as craft, industrial, or general. Industrial
unionism, e.g., in Germany (and company unionism, e.g., in Japan), results in employers dealing with a
single union and may be preferred by management. In the United States and Britain union structure is
more complex, and subject to change, largely because of union mergers (see Chaison, 1996; McCarthy,
1985). (See MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS).
Union membership in many parts of Europe and the United States declined throughout the 1980s and
early 1990s, following growth in some countries in the 1970s, (see OECD, 1991, Chap. 4). Controversy
continues concerning the causes of these changes. Theories divide broadly into those that explain it in
terms of factors external to the unions, e.g., decline is rooted in the hostile economic (including level,
location, and composition of employment), political (legislation) and social environment, and the
growth of HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. Other researchers stress internal factors, i.e., the
role of unions themselves in attracting, recruiting and retaining members (Mason & Bain, 1993). It is
likely that different combinations of external and internal factors operate at different points in the
growth and decline cycles.
Union Government and Democracy

Document
Union government is composed of the decision-making processes and internal structures of unions.
Michel's (1962) aphorism "who says organizations says oligarchy" has been taken by some authorities
to apply to trade unions. In contrast, other researchers, while accepting that unions have the potential for
oligarchy, because of the internal differences between the full-time officials (bureaucrats), activists (e.
g., shop stewards), and ordinary members, argue that unions are more or less democratic, according to
one or more of the following five criteria: the level of participation in decision-making and competition
for office; checks and balances on the official's powers; the existence and role of factions and parties;
bargaining between members and leaders; and the degree to which decisions are decentralized (Undy &
Martin, 1984).
Unions, in terms of the above organizational characteristics, are also dynamic. Research shows that they
respond to changes in their environment and that the national leadership has important choices to make
concerning the most effective form of union government and union structure (see ORGANIZATION
AND ENVIRONMENT). Further, they have scope to shape the means which unions employ to achieve
their objectives. The choices made by union leaders may be seen as shaped by the unions' political,
democratic and administrative rationalities (see Undy et al, 1996). However, over the past decade, a
hostile environment, in the United States and the United Kingdom, has made it difficult for unions to
sustain a significant role and, indeed, a

Document
Page 573
substantial presence, in some companies and industries. In particular, their collectivist values have been
undermined by the rise of INDIVIDUALISM and human resource management. In contrast, in
countries where unions are integrated into managerial decision-making and their role is supported by
legislation or corporatist bargaining arrangements – as in Germany and Sweden – it would appear that
they have maintained a higher level of both membership and influence (Turner, 1991). Whether or not
such international differences will survive the globalization of business and management remains to be
seen.
Bibliography
Chaison, G. N. (1996). Union Mergers in Hard Times. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
Dabscheck, B. & Niland, J. (1981). Industrial relations in Australia (Chap. 4). Sydney, Australia: Allen
& Unwin.
Martin, R. M. (1989). Trade unionism: Purposes and forms. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mason, B. & Bain, P. (1993). The determinants of trade union membership in Britain: A survey of the
literature. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 46, no. 2, 332–351.
McCarthy, W. E. J. (Ed.), (1985). Trade Unions. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Michels, R. (1962). Political Parties. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
OECD (1991). Trends in Trade Union Membership. OECD Employment Outlook, 97–134.
OECD Democracy at Work. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
Undy, R. & Martin, R. (1984). Ballots & trade union democracy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Undy, R., Fosh, P., Morris, H., Smith, P. & Martin, R. (1996). Managing the Unions. Oxford, UK:
Clarendon Press.
Webb, S. & Webb, B. (1920 edition). History of Trade Unionism. London: Longmans.
ROGER UNDY
Trainability Testing
see TRAINING
Training

Document
When learning events are planned in a systematic fashion and are related to events in the work
environment, they are called training programs. From this point of view, the training process is defined
as the systematic acquisition of SKILLS, rules, concepts, or attitudes that result in improved
performance in the work environment (Goldstein, 1993) (see PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL). Thus,
training programs can be planned to result in a more considerate supervisor or a more consistent
technician. In some cases, such as on-the-job training, the instructional environment is almost identical
to the actual job environment. In other instances, such as a classroom lecture on electronics theory for
technicians, the learning environment is removed from the job situation. However, in either situation,
effective training stems from a systematically designed learning atmosphere based upon a careful
ASSESSMENT of job requirements and the capabilities of the trainees.
Training represents a positive hope for persons first entering the world of work or those individuals
changing their work environment (see JOINING UP PROCESS). When training is designed well, it
gives individuals opportunities to enter the job market with needed skills, to perform in new functions,
and to be promoted into new situations (see SELECTION METHODS). Therefore, it should not be a
surprise that labor unions (see TRADE UNIONS) often include training opportunities as parts of a
CONTRACT during bargaining negotiations or that large companies have designed multimillion dollar
facilities to annually train thousands of craftspersons in new technological innovations. Saari, Johnson,
McLaughlin, and Zimmerle (1988) reported about the most frequent reasons for sending managers to
training programs. Their data were based upon a comprehensive survey of over 600 US companies with
each having more than 1000 employees. The primary reasons for sending managers to
MANAGEMENT EDUCATION and training programs were to broaden the individual, and to provide
knowledge and skills such as job specific and state of the art knowledge. As far as the use of the
different types of training settings, they reported that 90 percent, of the over 600 companies responding,
reported using external short course programs, 75 percent report using company specific programs, 31
percent university residential programs, and 25 percent executive MBA programs. Also, there is an
indication that the larger the company in terms of number of employees, the more likely they were to
use formal management training and education programs. Considering the extensive amount of training
that is being offered, it should not be surprising to learn that many different disciplines contribute to
research and

Document
Page 574
z0592-01.gif
Figure 1
An instructional system
Source: Adapted from I. L. Goldstein (1993) Training in Organizations
development. This includes disciplines from adult education, industrial and organizational psychology,
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, instructional technology, and ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR.
A model is presented here (see Figure 1) to provide a context for understanding the interactions
between training system components as well as training research issues. Following the presentation of
the training systems model, material on work force issues which are particularly relevant to training
concerns will be presented. The model presented in Figure 1 emphasizes careful needs assessment,
precisely controlled learning experiences designed to achieve instructional objectives, and use of
performance criteria and evaluation information.
Needs Assessment

Document
Needs assessment consists of a series of analyses which assess the organization, the job, and the persons
performing the job in order to provide input for the design and evaluation of training systems. There are
a number of different steps in the needs assessment process. Organizational analysis involves a macro
level analysis of the role of training which includes an examination of the system-wide components of
the organization that affect a training program's design and development. This phase includes an
examination of the organizational goals and ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE for training. For
example, in this stage, it is determined whether training is the appropriate strategy to use in resolving
the human resources issues facing the organization. In addition, it is determined whether there are

Document
Page 575
organizational system constraints that will make it difficult for training to be successfully transferred
onto the job. An example of such a constraint could be supervisors who do not support the objectives of
the training systems being employed. Recent research by Rouillier and Goldstein (1993) have identified
many of the organizational facilitators and inhibitors which help determine whether what is learned in
training will actually be eventually used by trainees when they arrive on the job. Based upon the
assessment obtained as a result of the organizational analysis, decisions are then made as to whether the
organization should or is ready to provide training.
As presented in Figure 1, another phase of the needs assessment is the determination of which tasks are
required on the job and which knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) are necessary to learn to perform
those tasks (see ABILITY; INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES). In this phase, the researcher determines
which KSAs are critical in the sense that they make a difference in the performance of the important
task components of the job. This is a complex process which involves the collection of data identifying
tasks and KSAs as well as determining the answers to questions such as which KSAs should be learned
in training as compared to which should be learned on the job.
Another component of the needs assessment is person analysis which involves specifying the trainees'
capabilities. This involves determining the target population for the training program which can include
persons already in the organization or individuals who are not yet part of the organization. By
determining the capabilities of these target populations on the required KSAs for the job, it becomes
possible to focus the training program on critical KSAs which are not in the repertoire of the target
population.
From the information obtained in the needs assessment, a blueprint emerges that describes the
objectives to be achieved upon completion of the training program. This provides input for the design of
the training program as well as for the measures of success (criteria) that will be used to judge the
program's adequacy. Thus, objectives communicate the goals of the program to both the learner and the
training designer.
Training Environment

Document
Once the tasks, KSAs, and objectives have been specified, the next step is designing the environment to
achieve the objectives. Training is a delicate process that requires a supportive learning environment.
The training process must be designed to facilitate the learning of the KSAs required to perform the
tasks that the trainee needs for successful job performance. The analysis of job tasks and required KSAs
and the design of a matching training environment requires very careful analyses (see JOB
ANALYSIS). As Gagné (1984) describes it, this is a process in choosing the most powerful learning
environment for what the trainee needs to acquire. Thus, providing FEEDBACK to the learner
concerning their performance is very helpful in some situations but the choice of the type of feedback
(and even whether feedback will always be helpful) depends on what needs to be learned (see
KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS). Similar choices need to be made about the entire training situation. For
example, most golfers would agree that instructing them to correct a flaw in their golf swing by reading
a text description is not nearly as useful as video tapes which allow the instructor to point to the exact
flaws in their swing. Similarly, simulators have been found to be very effective in teaching pilots to fly
airplanes. Some of the advances in modern technology have resulted in a vast array of very complex
training simulation systems (see COMPUTER SIMULATION). For example, the Federal Aviation
Agency in the United States decided that flight simulators had become so sophisticated that business jet
pilots could use the simulator to meet many of their training requirements, thereby not always requiring
actual flying time in the plane.
Another interesting technological INNOVATION is the development of interactive videodiscs. As

described by Pursell and Russell (1990), the hardware components of videodisc systems consist of
computers, videodisc players, monitors, and connecting equipment (see INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY). These instruments present information in many different forms including motion
pictures, stills, text, and graphics along with sound tracks. The most sophisticated of these systems is
called interactive videodisc and it permits the student and

Document
Page 576
system to interact providing a large number of individualized learning experiences. Several companies
are now employing this technology to provide employees with workstations that have the capability to
respond to changes in manufacturing processes. The system is often used to provide what is called
''JUST-IN-TIME" TRAINING as manufacturing systems driven by computer technology shift from one
operation to another. Indeed, simulations built around work situations have been found to be very
effective in teaching many skills including helping managers to develop COMMUNICATION skills
(see INTERPERSONAL SKILLS). These later simulations include techniques known as behavioral
role modeling (see ROLE TAKING). A good example of their effective use is presented by Latham and
Saari (1979) who demonstrated the value of the approach in training managers in a extremely well-
controlled study. But again, that does not mean that the use of behavioral role modeling or an
interactive videodisc will always be the most effective training system to teach learners for all
situations. A critical point is that the fanciest gadget does not make for a training system unless it is
designed properly on the basis of a proper needs assessment and it is evaluated to make sure that it
performs its functions. There are literally dozens (perhaps hundreds) of different types of training
methods. Goldstein (1993) presents detailed information about a variety of training approaches ranging
from classroom instruction to complex simulators.
Cognitive and instructional theorists have progressed to a stage of development where information is
emerging concerning the choice of training environments. Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) have
summarized recent advances concerning our understanding of important LEARNING variables that
contribute to the enhancement of the training process. For example, they note that learners do best when
given the opportunity to actively produce the capability; that FEEDBACK should be accurate, credible,
timely, and constructive; and that the instructional process should enhance trainee SELF-EFFICACY
and expectations that training will be successful and lead to valued outcomes. Obviously, it is also the
case that training systems that can be designed to utilize these variables are more likely to produce
better learning. Excellent discussion of this work on learning and instructional theory can be found in
Campbell (1988), Baldwin and Ford (1988), and Howell and Cooke (1989).
Training Evaluation
The number of different types of objectives that organizations hope training programs can achieve vary
widely but could, for example, include: producing quality goods in a shorter time period; reducing
ACCIDENTS with a corresponding decrease in insurance premiums; implementing a management
system which is more service oriented toward its customers; and increasing a health oriented approach
to life styles as a way of reducing time away from work due to illness and STRESS. The potential
number of goals is unlimited. While training is not a panacea for all the ills of society, well-conceived
training programs have achieved beneficial results. There certainly appears to be an increasing number
of thoughtfully developed programs. However, it would be unrealistic to pretend that all programs are
either based upon appropriate needs assessment, or that these programs are even examined to determine
the degree to which they achieve their objectives. Unfortunately, many organizations do not collect the
information to determine the utility of their own instructional programs. Thus, their techniques remain
unevaluated, except for the high esteem with which they may be regarded by training personnel. For

Document
example, a survey by Ralphs and Stephan (1986) of the Fortune 500 firms provides information about
evaluation methods which indicates that most evaluations (86 percent) consist of trainee reactions
which are written up at the end of the course. While positive reactions are important, there is evidence
which indicates that positive feelings do not necessarily mean that the appropriate level of learning has
occurred. Relatively few efforts are made to collect information concerning performance changes by
means of follow-up on the job, which is when both the trainee and the organization could find out
whether the programs are achieving the desired results, and when the evaluation could provide clues to
the modifications necessary to enable the program to work. This is very short-sighted because
evaluations can provide information which can lead to meaningful revisions that can result in

Document
Page 577
programs meeting important organizational goals.
The evaluation process centers around two procedures – establishing measures of success (criteria) and
using RESEARCH DESIGNS to determine what changes have occurred during the training and transfer
process. Criteria must be established for both the evaluation of trainees at the conclusion of the training
program and the evaluation of on-the-job performance. One classification for this purpose suggests that
several different measures are necessary, including reactions of participants, learning of participants in
the training program, behavior changes on the job, and final utility of the total program (Kirkpatrick,
1959, 1960).
In addition to criterion development, the evaluation phase must also focus on the necessary design to
assess the training program. There are a number of different designs which can be used to evaluate
training programs and to some extent the choice of a design depends on the questions you want to
answer. Some examples of questions (from Goldstein, 1993) are as follows:
1 Do you wish to determine whether the trainees learn during training?
2 Do you wish to determine whether what has been learned in training transfers as enhanced
performance in the work organization?
3 Do you wish to determine whether the performance for a new group of trainees in your organization is
consistent with the performance of the original training group?
4 Do you wish to determine whether a training program evaluated as being effective in another
organization can be used successfully in your organization (see PERFORMANCE INDIVIDUAL).
An answer to these different questions helps to determine the components of your evaluation model (see
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN). For example, the answers to these questions help determine
when you should collect information and how you can use control groups as a way of accounting for
extraneous effects. A number of writers have written material to help in the effective design of
evaluation programs (e.g., Cook, Campbell, & Peracchio, 1990; Goldstein, 1993).
Training and Selection Systems

Document
Training interventions are just one component within a larger set of interacting organizational and
societal systems (see HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING). Thus, the need for training systems often is
determined by other factors such as, when new technology will be introduced, or when groups of
persons will retire thus requiring others to be trained to take their place (see RETIREMENT). However,
it is clear that there is a continuing interaction between training and selection systems both at the entry
level and promotion level (see SELECTION METHODS). Both training and selection systems stem
from a JOB ANALYSIS or needs assessment which helps an organization determine both the basis for
selection and also what needs to be trained at what point in time. Often, the organization needs to
decide whether they wish to select (or even find) persons with particular capabilities or whether training
needs to be provided. Of course, usually both selection and training are required to ensure the most
capable work force. But, the level of training, and at what capability level training needs to begin, is
determined by the types of individuals who have been selected. This point is also discussed above in the
section on person analysis in the needs assessment section.
The interactions between training and selection system often go even further and sometimes, the
differences between the uses of selection and training systems are hard to distinguish. For example,
ASSESSMENT CENTERS are a standardized set of simulated activities often used as a way of testing
and selecting managers. It is also the case that these simulated activities can be designed to provide
information to the candidates about which skills need to be developed further in order for them to
qualify as future managers. Further, it is possible to design these exercises so the candidate has the
opportunity to practice (or be trained) in performing assessment center simulations requiring these
various skills and abilities. Sometimes the assessment has to be designed in a slightly different way so
that helpful feedback can be given to the candidate. However, much of the simulations and procedures
used are very similar. In this later case, it

Document
Page 578
is clear that the same instrument can essentially serve both selection and training purposes.
Another example of the overlap between training and selection devices is known as trainability testing.
Investigators interested in predicting performance suggest that a person who can demonstrate
proficiency in learning to perform on a small job sample will also learn better in the actual training
program and perform better on the job. Thus, the measure has been named a trainability test. This is not
an entire training program but rather a sample of tasks that call forth some of the knowledge, skills, and
abilities needed on the job. Note that in order to have a good trainability test, it necessarily requires a
careful needs assessment to determine the tasks and knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job.
As one might guess, this emphasis on good needs assessment as the basis of the measure often leads to
successful efforts. Research by Robertson and Downs (1989) over a 20-year period of time reports on a
considerable number of trainability tests that successfully predict later performance for jobs such as
carpentry, bricklaying, dentistry, and sewing.
The Training Scene Tomorrow
As noted above, training is a big business with both organizations and employees having high
expectations about what can be accomplished. Many conditions make it likely that expectations
concerning what training needs to accomplish in the future will be even greater (Goldstein & Gilliam,
1990). Some of the reasons for this are described next.
Advances in Technology
Already, a significant portion of our lives is spent in educational and training programs. Prognosticators
would predict that instructional technology is likely to have an even greater impact. There are a number
of reasons for such a prediction including the startling effects resulting from developments in
TECHNOLOGY. There is a clear trend toward more highly automated systems. Klein and Hall (1988)
point to technological developments such as programmable AUTOMATION which includes the use of
robots that are reprogrammable, multifunctional machines that will manipulate materials, and various
forms of COMPUTER-AIDED-DESIGN and computer assisted manufacturing (see ADVANCED
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY). It is clear that many countries are investing in technology in
the hope that automation will result in increased PRODUCTIVITY and product quality and as a result
will permit them to gain a competitive edge in global market competition. Paradoxically, the increases
in technology and machine responsibility increase the demands on the human being. As noted by
Howell and Cooke (1989), instead of simple procedural and predictive tasks, the demands of operating
extremely sophisticated computer systems requires the human operator to become responsible for
inferences, diagnoses, judgments, and decision making, often under severe time pressure (see HUMAN-
COMPUTER INTERACTION). All of these types of developments in automation and computer
technology place even greater demands on training systems to produce a highly sophisticated work
force. The training needs that are likely to affect the future of organizations are clearly stated by a
description of the expectations of executives at a Mazda car manufacturing plant. "They want
employees to be able to work in teams, to rotate through various jobs, to understand how their tasks fit

Document
into the entire process, to spot problems in production, to trouble shoot, articulate the problems to
others, suggest improvements and write detail charts and memos that serve as a road map in the
assembly of the car" (Vobejda, 1987, p. A14). The effects of failing to provide adequate training was
sadly demonstrated in the nuclear power plant ACCIDENT at Three Mile Island. A major finding of
that investigation was that key maintenance personnel did not have adequate training for their jobs.
Interestingly, as discussed in the section above on the training environment, advances in technology
have led to increasingly sophisticated training systems. It is also clear that these advanced systems will
only work to the degree that the individual is capable of mastering the technology needed to operate the
learning system. Thus, an additional feature to designing the learning program on the basis of a
thorough needs assessment is also making sure that the workers are capable of operating the system. In
a sense, an environment is being created where some of the advanced training

Document
Page 579
systems will take training for a person to learn to operate it. This all becomes another reason for making
sure that all training is evaluated to ensure that it functions as well as possible.
Organizations and Global Markets
A future look at jobs and organizations makes increasingly fluid world market arrangements appear
even more likely than is already obvious. Many novel strategies are being explored. For example, Klein
& Hall (1988) note that some firms are exploring pilot projects involving data entry in countries outside
the home of the host organization because the advantages of low wages and surplus workers outweigh
the disadvantages of long-distance electronic data transmission. Most consumers now realize that it is
not unusual for a manufacturer to produce a product (e.g., an automobile) which is manufactured in a
number of different countries. Sometimes, these involve arrangements between liaison teams directing
the overall efforts between different employees in different organizations in different countries all
contributing to the production of a single final product (see JOINT VENTURE). In these situations,
managers will be expected to understand and manage the processes for achieving quality as well as
managing team efforts across individuals who have different values and come from different
CULTURES (see EXPATRIATES; INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT). In
discussing the enormous training implications, Ronen notes that the manager given an assignment in a
foreign country must possess the "patience of a diplomat, the zeal of a missionary, and the linguistic
skill of a UN interpreter" (1989, p. 418). Ronen is correct, but the issue is likely to become just as
complicated for managers working in their own countries because the workplace will need to
incorporate individuals who come from environments with very diverse cultures and values (see
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT). That issue becomes more obvious in discussing workplace
demographics.
Changing Demographics
Projections clearly indicate that the work force is changing and thus will impact HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT in a way never experienced before. In some countries in Europe, such as Sweden, the
small number of workers available have made it difficult to even employ selection systems because
everyone is needed in the market place. In other countries such as the United States, data (Cascio &
Zammuto, 1987) clearly indicate that the rate of increase in the population available for the work force
will decrease significantly in the upcoming decades and new entrants or those primarily between the
ages of 16 and 24 will decrease substantially. In addition, demographics indicate that a large number of
individuals who will be available for entry into the work force will be educated youth lacking basic
literacy skills. The impact of this problem is made more dramatic by the corresponding developments in
advanced technology which increase the need for technical skills to enter the job market. In addition,
significant numbers of the under-educated youth are members of racial minority groups that society has
not completely integrated into the work force (see RACE). While many members of these groups have
successfully entered professional and technical careers, it is also true that many of the hard core
unemployed are racial minorities.

Document
In addition to the problem of under-educated youth, there are other serious demographic issues. There
are a number of different groups including women, racial minorities, and older persons who have faced
problems of substantial UNEMPLOYMENT as well as job DISCRIMINATION related to promotional
opportunities. With this focus, the question of training programs and their fairness to these groups has
become a serious legal issue in some countries such as the United States (see PREJUDICE;
CONFLICT). Training techniques that have not been validated and that are discriminatory in
promotional and job opportunities are being struck down by the courts in the United States (see
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES). Settlements often result in millions of dollars in back pay to current
employees as well as requiring training to enable the employees to qualify for better jobs.
The design and implementation of these programs require a special sensitivity to the needs of the
applicant population and the job requirements. For example, an analysis by Sterns and Doverspike
suggests that training programs for older trainees can be more successful by following certain principles
(see AGE). Their review indicates that older workers

Document
Page 580
are often highly motivated to learn but sometimes fear failure in competition with younger workers
especially where high technology needs to be utilized in performing the job. They suggest that training
should be organized so that materials are organized to ensure complete mastery of previous components
before moving ahead and where possible training should build on elements that are familiar to trainees
from past learning. In addition, systems should be organized to minimize memory requirements and to
avoid paced or time pressured situation. Finally, the materials should be as job relevant as possible,
provide positive feedback and encourage the self-confidence of the trainee. Of course, it is possible to
point out that many of these principles are important for any type of training program but they appear to
be particularly pertinent to ensure the success of the older worker. In these situations, an additional
training issue is the degree to which the organization is itself willing to make a commitment rather than
assuming all of the change necessary must come from the trainee. Organizations which are likely to be
successful in integrating persons from diverse groups will need to provide MENTORING and training
for individuals already in their organization as well as the entry level trainee.
It almost seems unnecessary to suggest that the training implications of all of the issues discussed above
are enormous, especially for training managers who will be working with a very culturally and racially
diverse workforce. Managers will need to provide on the job training to integrate unskilled youth into
the work force, while also at the same time working with job incumbents and other managers who may
not have previously been a traditional part of the work force. Supervisors will need to perform these
activities at a time when jobs have become increasingly complex, and national and international
competition more intense. All of this will make training in areas such as INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
even more important in the future workplace. A related impact for training is that there is an increasing
emphasis on quality for both service oriented jobs and manufacturing oriented jobs. This has important
training implications in that more employees will need to be trained in quality techniques and processes.
However, for the manager, the training implications for being able to manage such emphases are
dramatic. Managers will be expected to understand and manage the processes for achieving quality as
well as learning to manage team efforts which are likely to be emphasized as a way of achieving
success. Clearly, training can be a positive force for both the individual and organization. To meet those
expectations, it should be clear that the training agenda for the next decade will provide quite a
challenge.
See also Learning organization; Organizational learning; Management education
Bibliography
Baldwin, T. T. & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research.
Campbell, J. P. (1988). Training design for performance improvement. In J. P. Campbell & R. J.

Campbell (Eds), Productivity in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Document
Cascio, W. F. & Zammuto, R. F. (1987). Societal trends and staffing policies. Denver: University of
Colorado Press.
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. & Peracchio, L. (1990). Quasi-experimentation. In M. D. Dunnette & L.

M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Gagné, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human performance.
Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development and evaluation (3rd
edn). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Goldstein, I. L. & Gilliam, P. (1990). Training system issues in the year 2000. American Psychologist,
45, 134–143.
Howell, W. C. & Cooke, N. J. (1989). Training the human information processor: A review of cognitive
models. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training in development and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959–1960). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American
Society of Training Directors, 13, 3–9, 21–26; 14, 13–18, 28–32.
Klein, K. J. & Hall, R. J. (1988). Innovations in human resource management: Strategies for the future.
In J. Hage (ed.) Journal of Organizational Behavioral Management, 1, (1) 53–77.
Latham, G. P. & Saari, L. M. (1979). The application of social learning theory to training supervisors

Document
Page 581
through behavioral modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 239–246.
Pursell, E. D. & Russell, J. S. (1990). Employee development. In K. N. Wexley (Ed.), Developing

human resources. Washington, DC: BNA Books.
Ralphs, L. T. & Stephan, E. (1986). HRD in the Fortune 500. Training and Development Journal, 40,
69–76.
Robertson, I. T. & Downs, S. (1989). Work sample test of trainability: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Ronen, S. (1989). Training the international assignee. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and
development in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rouillier, J. Z. & Goldstein, I. L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer climate and
positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 377–390.
Saari, L. M., Johnson, T. R., McLaughlin, S. D. & Zimmerle, D. M. (1988). A survey of management
training and education practices in U.S. companies. Personnel Psychology, 41, 731–743.
Tannenbaum, S. I. & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review
of Psychology, 43, 399–441.
Vobejda, B. (1987). The new cutting edge in factories. Washington Post April 14, A14.
IRWIN L. GOLDSTEIN
Training Needs Evaluation
see TRAINING
Traits
see PERSONALITY; PERSONALITY TESTING
Transaction Cost Economics

Document
This has become one of the most influential (and somewhat controversial) theoretical perspectives in
organizational and strategy research (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1975, 1985) (see STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT). Transaction cost economics (TCE) and AGENCY THEORY represent the two
major economics-based theories of organizational governance and contracting, and like agency theory,
TCE has a broad reach, seeking to explain phenomena across levels of organizational analysis, such as
employer–employee relations, the choice of functional versus divisional organization forms, and the
boundaries of the firm. It is in the arena of firm boundaries, however, that TCE has had its greatest
influence, such as in discussions of topics such as VERTICAL INTEGRATION (see
ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES).
Williamson's pathbreaking 1975 book on "Markets and Hierarchies" discusses the organization of
economic activity as a decision between markets or hierarchy. He explains vertical integration as the
efficient solution to a transaction cost minimization problem, where the costs of market exchange
compare unfavorably with the costs of controlling production hierarchically through ownership.
Transaction costs are those costs of negotiating, monitoring, and enforcing contractual exchange
relationships (see EXCHANGE RELATIONS). Thus, TCE is a perspective that examines the efficiency
of alternative mechanisms for minimizing the risk of being exploited by one's exchange partner.
Transaction costs may be significant, given Williamson's (1975, pp. 9–10) root assumptions regarding
two human factors (BOUNDED RATIONALITY and opportunism) and two environmental factors
(UNCERTAINTY and small numbers).
It is the intensity of the small numbers (of exchange partners) problem that substantively defines the
intensity of a transaction cost problem (the other three factors are actually assumptional conditions that
do not vary in Williamson's framework). This can be seen in Williamson's (1975, p. 104) discussion of
vertical integration, where he observes that it is "favored in situations where small numbers bargaining
would otherwise obtain." It may appear that this emphasis on small numbers has been replaced in
Williamson (1985, p. 56) by an emphasis on asset specificity, which refers to the investments an
exchange partner makes that are highly specialized and can be redeployed only by sacrificing
productive value (Williamson calls this the "big locomotive to which transaction cost economics owes
much of its predictive content"). Asset specificity, however, is central only to the extent that it creates
what Williamson (1985, p. 12) refers to as the ''Fundamental Transformation – whereby a large-
numbers condition . . . is transformed into a small-numbers condition during contract execution . . .". In
other words, the structural dimension of small numbers (i.e., limited exchange partner alternatives) is
therefore still of critical impor-

Document
Page 582
tance to Williamson's (1985) transaction cost analysis.
Much of the recent controversy surrounding TCE relates to the inordinate weight placed on transaction
cost economizing as underlying organizations' decisions regarding firm boundaries (as typified by
Williamson's (1985, p. 17) claim that the "economic institutions of capitalism have the main purpose
and effect of economizing on transaction costs"). Zajac and Olsen (1993), for example, are critical of
TCE explanations of formal INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS, such as JOINT VENTURES,
and argue instead that the recent proliferation of such interorganizational relations is typically more a
function of anticipated value gains, rather than anticipated losses due to opportunism. In addition, Zajac
and Olsen (1993) suggest that Williamson's (1985, p. 61) notion of a "fundamental transformation" is in
fact a process that is never fully specified in the structural perspective of transaction cost analysis.
Rather than dwelling on the problems of one-time structural changes (large numbers to small numbers
condition) in interorganizational strategies, Zajac and Olsen (1993) stress how many interorganizational
processes can result in a transformation that leads to greater expected net benefits for both parties,
rather than a transformation that leads to greater expected losses for one party due to an increased risk
of costly exploitation (as would be predicted in a TCE framework).
See also Organizational economics; Diversification; Organizational effectiveness;

Competitiveness; Trust
Bibliography
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386–405.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York:
Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational

contracting. New York: Free Press.
Zajac, E. J. & Olsen C. (1993). From transaction costs to transaction value analysis: Implications for the
study of interorganizational strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 131–145.
EDWARD J. ZAJAC
Transformational/Transactional Theory

Document
Before 1980, social and organizational behavior research on LEADERSHIP focused on observable,
short-term, leader – follower relations – relations on the micro level. Leadership on the macro level
(heads of organizations) and meta levels (leaders of society) was generally ignored. Autocratic versus
democratic leadership, task versus relations, orientation, direction versus participation, and initiation
versus consideration remained the paradigms of consequence for research and education (see
MANAGERIAL STYLE). In all these paradigms, leadership was conceived as an exchange process. A
transaction occurs in which followers' needs are met if their performance is as contracted with their
leader. Transactional leadership depends on the leader's POWER to reinforce subordinates for their
successful completion of the CONTRACT. But a higher order of change in followers is also possible.
The transformational leader motivates followers to work for transcendental goals for the good of the
group, the organization, the community of society as a whole, for achievement and SELF-
ACTUALIZATION, and for higher level needs of the collectivity rather than immediate personal self-
interests.
Traditional transactional paradigms and exchange theories of leadership failed to account for the effects
on leader–follower relations of vision, SYMBOLISM, and imaging. The transactional leader adapts to
the ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE; the transformational leader changes it. As conceived by Burns
(1978), transformational leaders motivate followers to do more than they originally expected to do as
they strive for higher-order outcomes (see GROWTH NEED STRENGTH).
In one study, 70 South African senior executives were asked if any had experienced a transformational
leader in their career, everyone was able to describe such a leader. Their leaders motivated them to
extend themselves, to develop, and become more innovative. The executives were motivated to emulate
their transformational leader. They were led to higher levels of COMMITMENT to the organization as
a consequence of belief in the leader and in themselves. They exerted extra effort for their leader (Bass,
1985).
The executives' statements and those from the literature on charisma and managerial

Document
Page 583
leadership, after refinement and validation studies, formed the basis of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ). This measures four interrelated factors (the 4 I's):
Idealized Influence – leaders become a source of admiration often functioning as role models for their
followers. They enhance follower pride, loyalty, and confidence and align followers through
identification with the leaders around a common purpose or vision.
Inspirational Motivation – leaders articulate in simple ways an appealing vision and provide meaning
and a sense of purpose in what needs to be done.
Intellectual Stimulation – leaders stimulate their followers to view the world from new perspectives;
that is, to question old assumptions, values, and beliefs, and move toward new perspectives.
Individualized Consideration – leaders diagnose and elevate the needs of each of their followers. They
promote the development of their followers, emphasize equity, and treat each follower as an individual.
Transactional leadership, which involves a reinforcing exchange of reward or punishment by the leader
for follower compliance, yields the factors of:
Contingent Reward (CR) – leader clarifies what needs to be done and exchanges psychological and
material rewards for services rendered.
Active Management-by-Exception (MBE-A) – leader arranges to monitor follower performance and

takes corrective action when deviations from standards occur.
Passive Management-by-Exception (MBE-P) – leader only intervenes when standards are not met.
Laissez-Faire Leadership (LF) – leader avoids intervening or accepting responsibility for follower
actions.
Factor analysis orders the eight factors from lowest to highest in activity (4I's, CR, MBE-A, MBE-P,
LF) (Avolio & Bass, 1990). The eight factors can also be ordered on a second dimension –
effectiveness. The 4I's are most effective; then, in order are contingent reward, active management-by-
exception, passive management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership.
A leader has a pattern of frequencies of behavior which is optimally effective, when the 4I's for the
leader are highest in frequency and laissez-faire leadership lowest in frequency. An inactive and
ineffective leader's highest frequencies are for laissez-faire leadership and passively managing-by-
exception, and the lowest frequencies are for the 4I's (Avolio & Bass, 1990).

Document
Furthermore, there is a hierarchy of relations among the full range of leadership styles and outcomes in
effectiveness, effort, and satisfaction. Transformational leaders are more effective than those leaders
practicing contingent reward; contingent reward is somewhat more effective than active management-
by-exception which in turn is more effective than passive management-by-exception. Laissez-faire
leadership is least effective. Research also supports the conclusion that there is a one-way augmentation
effect. Transformational leadership adds to transactional leadership in predicting outcomes, but not vice
versa. Transformational augments transactional leadership but it does not replace it.
Studies already completed in at least a dozen countries, suggest that whatever the country, when people
think about leadership, their prototypes and ideals are transformational. In training efforts in the United
States, Canada, Sweden, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe, in an exercise conducted with over 800
participants in the Full Range of Leadership Training Program (Avolio & Bass, 1990), participants are
asked to describe the ideal of a leader they have experienced. Invariably, most of the traits which
emerge are transformational, not transactional.
See also Superleadership; Leadership, charismatic; Leadership contingencies
Bibliography
Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (1990). The full range of leadership, Manual. Binghamton, NY: Center for
Leadership Studies.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
BERNARD M. BASS

Document
Page 584
Transitions
see CAREER TRANSITIONS
Trust
When trust is used in the organizational literature, two significantly different definitions are usually
found. The first defines trust between parties to a transaction or exchange as an expression of
confidence or predictability in their expectations that they will not be harmed, or put at risk, by the
actions of the other party (Zucker, 1986). In the second definition, the confidence of the parties rests in
the other's goodwill (Ring & Van de Ven, 1992). Dealing with the concept of trust now appears to be
essential in efforts to define the nature of relationships among individuals and between organizations.
There is substantial evidence to support the inclusion of trust as a critical factor in the design and
management of business organizations. Indeed, the philosopher Sissela Bok views trust as something
that needs protection "just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. When [trust is]
damaged, the community as a whole suffers; . . . when . . . destroyed, societies falter and collapse." The
evidence of the importance of trust in economic (as well as social) exchange comes from economists,
lawyers, sociologists, psychologists, ethicists, management, and organization scholars. In general, trust
is a situational feature: reliance on trust, or trustworthy behavior by economic actors, is only necessary
under conditions involving interdependence, UNCERTAINTY (where the actors on one economic actor
hinge on choices made by others) and consequentiality, i.e., if an economic actor relies on trust, and it is
not reciprocated, she will suffer substantial harm (see RECIPROCITY). In short, where one acts on
faith alone, trust is not necessary. The same appears to be the case in situations involving perfect
information. Thus, the conditions under which trust seems most likely to be a factor in organizational
behaviors where alternative choices involve "exit, betrayal, defection," and "bad outcomes would make
you regret your actions."
In the first definition above, trust is frequently equated with risk, or the predictability that future
outcomes will be successful. TRANSACTION COST THEORY and AGENCY THEORY discuss how
this risk-view of trust can be secured through a variety of impersonal institutional means, such as
guarantees, insurance mechanisms, hostages, laws, and organizational HIERARCHY. These exogenous
safeguards are needed because, standing alone, trust is not a sufficient condition for the effective social
control of business behavior. The prevailing view of economic theory is that economic actors are self-
interested and will pursue their interests opportunistically (with guile) if conditions under which
exchange is to take place are right: frequent transactions, uncertainty, transaction specific assets, and
small numbers of parties. This definition focuses, however, on outcomes and is principally relevant to
analysis of the ex post contract stages of a business relationship.

Document
In the second definition, connoting goodwill, trust is viewed as necessary for stable social relationships,
and functions to reduce complexity in social worlds. It is a "lubricant" facilitating exchange on a
continuing basis (Barber, 1983). Research flowing from the sociological literature provides
organizational scholars with insights into the role that institutions play in creating trust, or dealing with
its absence. The results of this research suggest that when trust is low, other control mechanisms are
employed (Shapiro, 1987). Typically, legalistic remedies (e.g., accrediting organizations, insurance,
bonds, guarantees, etc.) are used either to compensate for the lack of trust in exchange restore trust, or
to create conditions under which trust might be restored. However, the results of research investigating
the effectiveness of these kinds of mechanisms also suggest that they can lead to higher levels of
mistrust.
Effective or not, these remedies are costly and one consequence of the absence of trust in economic
relationships is higher cost. When trust is present within organizations, or in relationships between
economic actors, the cost of transacting appears to be lower. Fewer controls are needed to measure and
monitor performance. Forecasts of future events are more realistic, as are budget projections.
COOPERATION improves along the value chain, PRODUCTIVITY improves, and profitability is
enhanced, all other things remaining equal.
When economic actors perceive that those with whom they are dealing are trustworthy, they tend to
reciprocate that trust. The effectiveness of COMMUNICATION between

Document
Page 585
economic actors is frequently a factor in determining the level of trust that exists between them.
Another factor associated with the existence of, or reliance on, trust between economic actors is
cooperation. The results of research exploring associations between trust and cooperation suggest that
preexisting cooperation may be required if trust is to develop; other findings suggest that cooperation is
an outcome of preexisting trust between economic actors (Gambetta, 1988).
Trust appears to flow from a variety of sources. When economic actors share important VALUES and
norms trust seems more likely (see GROUP NORMS). Trust may also result from, or be supported by,
institutional sources such as law (Luhmann, 1979). Finally, the processes that economic actors employ
in their dealings can be a source of trust (Ring & Van de Ven, 1992).
Results of research suggest that trust evolves slowly, from on-going social or economic exchanges
between parties. Two possible explanations for the emergence of trust can be found in the
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR literature. The first is based on the norms of EQUITY which define
the degree to which one party judges that another party will fulfill its commitments and that the
relationship is equitable (see EQUITY THEORY). The concept of equity is developed in exchange
theory (see EXCHANGE RELATIONS), which argues that participants in a relationship desire:
(1) reciprocity, by which one is morally obligated to give something in return for something received;
(2) fair rates of exchange between utilitarian costs and benefits; and
(3) distributive justice, through which all parties receive benefits that are proportional to their
investments (see JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE).
Alternatively, the emergence of trust can be based on more direct utilitarian reasoning. First, there are
many nonlegal sanctions which make it expedient for individuals and organizations to fulfill
commitments. Repeated personal interactions across firms encourages some minimum level of courtesy
and consideration, and the prospect of ostracism among peers attenuate individual opportunism. At the
organizational level, the prospect of repeat business discourages attempts to seek a narrow, short-term
advantage.
Trust is also an individual attribute. Here the focus of the research is on individual characteristics
associated with being perceived as trust-worthy. Among those characteristics employed most frequently
in survey instruments are items measuring the COMPETENCIES of the individual (technical SKILLS,
levels of knowledge); the ability to keep confidences; fairness; integrity (honesty, moral character);
loyalty; sincerity; openness; reliability; empathy; patience; stamina; self-assurance; and ingenuity
(Sitkin & Roth, 1993).

Document
Individuals evidencing high levels of trust seem less likely to lie, cheat, or steal. It also appears that they
are more inclined to give others a second chance and to generally respect the rights of others. In so
doing, they do not appear to be any more gullible than individuals who are classified as low trusters.
Low trusters in situations involving economic exchange can be characterized as having a short-term
focus, seek monetarized returns, and require a great deal of specificity in defining the terms of
exchange. When "problems" arise, low trusters will attribute them to the bad faith of their partners, or to
negligence. They will seek to resolve these "problems" by resort to coerced bargaining. Low trusters
tend to play a "zero-sum" game (see GAME THEORY; PRISONERS' DILEMMA). High trusters, on
the other hand, engage in economic exchange that is interwoven with social exchange. Their
perspectives are longer term in nature, they accept ''problems" are part of economic life, and they seek
integrative solutions: those involving so-called "win–win" outcomes. These kinds of relational trust
behaviors tend to spiral upward if reciprocated; downward if not (Husted, 1989).
See also Interorganizational relations; Industrial relations; Negotiation; Conflict; Business ethics;
Altruism
Bibliography
Anderson, E. & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads.
Marketing Science, 8, 310–323.
Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96, 231–260.

Document
Page 586
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick: NJ: Rutgers University.
Bhide, A. & Stevenson, H. (1992). Trust, uncertainty, and profits. Journal of Socio-Economics, 21, 91–
208.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions
of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643–663.
Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations. London: Faber & Faber.
Gambetta, D. (Ed.), (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. London: Basil Black-
well.
Husted, B. W. (1989). Trust in business relations: Directions for empirical research. Business and
Professional Ethics Journal, 8, 23–40.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. New York: Wiley.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of
market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing
Research, 29, 314–328.
Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations.
Strategies Management Journal, 3, 483–498.
Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of interpersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 623–
658.
Sitkin, S. & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/
distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367–392.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1984–1990. In B.

M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, (vol. 8, pp. 53–122).
PETER SMITH RING
Turnaround Management

Document
This is the active process of managing a company through a period of crisis sufficiently serious to
threaten the company's survival as a participant in its major industry (see CRISES). It involves an
amalgam of managerial SKILLS, systems, procedures, value systems, individual character traits, and
actions taken to achieve a recovery. Turnaround is not the same as RESTRUCTURING – the
rearrangement of company businesses, assets, and liabilities. Turnaround management is more
operational where actual improvements in products, operations, marketing, and overhead functions
result in a stronger competitive position for the company (see COMPETITIVENESS).
Crisis situations frequently go unrecognized by company managers who fail to detect the need for the
decisive action required for the firm's survival. Quite often, gradual drift takes place until the threatened
firm deteriorates beyond the point where reasonable action can save it. The resulting catastrophe takes a
cruel toll on employees, creditors, suppliers, stockholders, customers, and members of the local
community. These problems are avoidable.
The signs of decline, or warning signals, frequently occur in the form of liquidity problems, collection
problems, profit problems, quality problems, the attrition of high-caliber people, low morale, high rates
of ABSENTEEISM, low PRODUCTIVITY, organizational problems, and ethical problems. However,
it is not always true that managerial incompetencies are rampant throughout troubled organizations.
Economic and market conditions also stress corporate resources and cause revenues, cash-flows, and
declining profits. These misfortunes affect capable as well as incapable firms, and it cannot be assumed
that because a company is in trouble it has no competent managers and no distinctive competencies (see
CORE COMPETENCE).
Successful turnaround management usually involves three principal strategies; improving the firm's
effectiveness as a low-cost operator, improving the firm's effectiveness as a provider of increasingly
differentiated products and capable, and experienced LEADERSHIP well distributed throughout the
organization.
The tactical dimensions of turnaround management fit within the framework of the strategies employed.
Low-cost operation involves the design of products for low-cost delivery, high rates of efficiency, and
the containment of overhead costs to below industry levels. Product differentiation involves
distinguishing product or service features, high reliability and performance, exceptional product quality,
and continuity with the markets being served. Turnaround leadership involves experience in the
industry being served, technical experience and a major propensity to focus on operational issues such
as manufacturing, product development, and sales. Successful turn-

Document
Page 587
around agents tend to have longer-term associations with their companies, enjoy generally favorable
personal reputations, and employ a sense of fair play in dealing with employees, creditors, suppliers,
and customers.
Well-executed turnarounds quite often take several years, rather than months, because of the time it
takes to develop new products, achieve low-cost status, and mobilize the involvement of the entire
organization. Turnarounds are only part managerial, they are also technical involving breakthrough new
processes and landmark product designs.
In the troubled company, well-trained, dedicated, competent people are interspersed with people of
limited training and dedication. Turnaround management requires the ability to nurture, encourage, and
reinforce what is good as well as root out what is unsatisfactory. The turnaround practitioner is well
advised to proceed cautiously. Many potentially successful turnarounds have been ruined by newly
appointed top managers operating with the assumption that everything needed changing when
everything did not. Turnaround managers must be quick, but not cavalier, and must appreciate the
limitations of the information supplied – which is often misleading and occasionally quite false.
Recovery should be a lasting event – covering at least several years and resulting in a measurably better
situation for the company in terms of profits, market position, technical contribution, and general
contribution to the economy. This is only possible by people throughout the organization learning to do
things in new, less costly, ways (see ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING). Turnarounds involve a great
many variables – some managerial, some technical. Some lend themselves to quantitative analysis while
others are more organic. The entire process is holistic. Every variable impacts every other variable.
Companies that ultimately succeed in turnarounds are quite often more severely affected initially.
Successful companies experience more pronounced downturns and respond more quickly. Unsuccessful
companies often tolerate conditions lethal to their survival long before actions are taken.
The research on turnaround management includes some findings useful for practitioners.
• Large dominant firms fail as well as smaller producers. Size appears not to be a factor in turnaround
success (see ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE).
• During the early years of crisis, successful turnarounds often experience steeper business declines and
deeper loss rates than unsuccessful firms. Improved performance may not appear for 2 or 3 years.
• Successful companies are noticeably more efficient in operations than the unsuccessful firms.
Operational efficiency can account for 70 percent of the profitability difference.
• Successful companies stay with their cost-reduction programs longer and make deeper cuts, bringing
costs down to the level of revenue. Unsuccessful companies often attempt to increase revenue to cover
existing costs, either by selling into new markets or by making acquisitions (see MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS).

Document
• Management often plays an exemplary role in the cost reduction programs of successful firms by
accepting less pay.
• Successful companies handle money conservatively on an ongoing basis by spending less money on
overhead expenses, corporate image and pointless expansion.
• Successful companies make small, constant, incremental improvements to produce differentiated

products and occasionally deliver major new product breakthroughs. Unsuccessful firms often fail to
improve existing products even when product shortcomings are widely perceived.
• Unsuccessful companies often make significant and abrupt changes in the positioning of their products
in the market, a practice avoided by successful firms.
• Successful firms more accurately gauge their ability to implement fully their strategic plans.
Unsuccessful firms often have strategic plans that are inconsistent with their resources.
Both successful and unsuccessful turnarounds have both high points and low points. No turnaround
goes perfectly in all respects and firms do not fail in all respects. But sharp contrasts do exist in the
strategies selected, the procedures used, in managerial emphasis, and in the strengths and styles of the
management (see

Document
Page 588
MANAGERIAL STYLE). Turnaround management is being practiced widely in many countries, and
was the principal methodology employed in the resurgence of such companies as Chrysler, Pentair, and
Ford.
See also Commitment; Innovation; Organization effectiveness; Trust; Organization development;

Organizational change
Bibliography
Argenti, J. (1976). Corporate collapse: Causes and symptoms. New York: Wiley.
Goodman, S. (1982). How to manage a turnaround. New York: Free Press.
Hall, W. K. (1983). Survival strategies in a hostile environment. In Survival strategies for American
industry. New York: Wiley.
Hambrick, D. C. & D'Aveni, R. A. (1988). Large corporate failures as downward spirals. Administrative
Lorange, P. & Nelson, R. T. (1987). How to recognize – and avoid – organizational decline. Sloan
Management Review, 28, Spring, 41–48.
Miller, D. (1977). Common syndromes of business failure. Business Horizons, 20, December, 43–53.
Nueno, P. (1992). Reflotando la emprese: Corporate turnaround. Madrid: Ediciones Deusto S.A.
O'Neill, H. M. (1986). Turnaround and recovery: What strategy do you need. Long Range Planning, 19,
(1), 80–88.
Schendel, D. & Patton, G. R. (1976). Corporate stagnation and turnaround. Journal of Economics and
Business, 28, no. 3, 236–241.
Slatter, S. (1984). Corporate recovery: Successful turnaround strategies and their implementation.
London: Penguin.
Zimmerman, F. M. (1986). Turnaround – A painful learning process. Long Range Planning, 19, (4),
104–114.
Zimmerman, F. M. (1991). The turnaround experience: Real world lessons in corporate revitalization.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
FREDERICK M. ZIMMERMAN
Turnover

Document
This is defined as voluntary cessation of membership in an organization, and is one of several forms of
organizational withdrawal (see WITHDRAWAL ORGANIZATIONAL) such as ABSENTEEISM and
tardiness (Mitra, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1992). Understanding why employees leave is important because
that information can be used to reduce turnover.
Ease and Desirability of Movement
Turnover decisions are a function of two factors, ease of movement, how easy it is to find another job,
and desirability of movement, whether employees experience enough dissatisfaction to want a different
job (March & Simon, 1958).
Economists focus primarily on LABOR MARKET determinants of the ease of movement. Firm
turnover (quit) rates are best predicted by general economic activity. When the economy is healthy or
unemployment is low and jobs plentiful, turnover rates will increase. When economic activity and job
growth are slow, turnover rates will generally decline. Economists have also found that most but not all
who leave do so for better paying jobs.
Desirability of movement is typically measured by asking workers to report their level of JOB
SATISFACTION, which has a small, negative relationship with turnover. Raising levels of job
satisfaction, however, can substantially decrease turnover. For example, Hulin (1968) found that pay
and promotional opportunities were negatively related to turnover for clerical employees. These
findings were translated into specific steps for reducing turnover (i.e., regular salary reviews, consistent
pay policies across departments, and job transfers for those wanting advancement). Results one year
later indicated sizable increases in satisfaction with pay and promotions and a decrease in turnover to 18
percent from 30 percent.
Research also shows that ease of movement and desirability of movement can jointly affect workers'
turnover decisions. When jobs are scarce, many dissatisfied employees who want to leave cannot leave,
thus yielding smaller correlations between job satisfaction and turnover (Carsten & Spector, 1987).
When jobs are plentiful, however, many dissatisfied employees will leave, and the relationship between
satisfaction and turnover increases.
Psychological Process of Leaving
The psychological process of leaving involves a simple, five-factor causal model that begins with job
satisfaction. Dissatisfied employees start to have thoughts about quitting, then decide to search for other
jobs, and then formalize specific intentions to quit their jobs (Mobley, 1982;

Document
Page 589
Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). However, strong intentions to quit do not always result in turnover.
When alternative jobs (i.e., UNEMPLOYMENT levels) are scarce, dissatisfied employees, as well as
employees with clear intentions to quit, find other, acceptable jobs harder to locate. REALISTIC JOB
PREVIEWS and JOB ENRICHMENT can also modestly reduce employee turnover by improving job
satisfaction (McEvoy & Cascio, 1985).
Investment Model of Turnover
Another approach to understanding turnover is the investment model, suggesting that turnover increases
when employee COMMITMENT decreases (Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). Commitment decreases when
job REWARDS worsen (e.g., pay, satisfying work, supervision), when job costs increase (e.g., high
work load, inadequate resources), when investment decreases (e.g., tenure, organization-specific
SKILLS, nontransferable retirement plans, friends at work), and when attractive, alternative jobs are
available.
Rusbult and Farrell's model (1983, p. 437) suggests several ways to reduce turnover:
(a) increase pay relative to competing firms (rewards);
(b) provide workers with realistic job previews, redesign jobs, and eliminate aversive elements of work
(costs);
(c) promote employee – firm linkages through home loan assistance, employ spouses (investments); and
(d) offer unique advantages such as job sharing that are not available elsewhere (alternatives).
Interaction between Workers and Working Environment
Yet another approach to understanding turnover is to examine the interaction between workers and their
environments. In general, workers who fit better into their work environments should be less likely to
quit (e.g., Schneider's attraction–selection–attrition model, Taylor & Giannantonio, 1993).
For example, demographic models (see ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY) predict that

executives who differ significantly from their peers in terms of AGE, education, or experience, etc., are
more likely to quit. Employee fit with ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES also affects turnover.
Military cadets are more likely to complete their education if they are assertive, and motivated to
influence others and perform routine duties. Thus, in contrast to the psychological process and
investment models, the interaction/fit models propose turnover reduction at the point of hire (see
PERSON-JOB FIT; CAREER CHOICE). That is, firms can reduce turnover by hiring workers who are
similar to existing workers and who have values consistent with the organizational culture.
Consequences of Turnover

Document
All of the previous approaches assume that employee turnover is inherently bad, expensive, and should
be reduced whenever possible. Yet, some kinds and levels of turnover, for example, when poor
performers leave, are beneficial for companies. Dalton, Krackhardt, and Porter (1981) believe that the
traditional stay/quit definition overstates the negative consequences of employee turnover and ignores
its positive consequences. They defined two kinds of turnover, dysfunctional turnover, where someone
valued by the organization leaves, and functional turnover, where a person not valued leaves.
In their study, Dalton et al. (1981) determined that turnover was functional if the supervisor would not
rehire the person who quit, or if that person was a poor performer, or if it would be easy (inexpensive)
to replace them. Consistent with their prediction, they found that the rate of voluntary turnover (32
percent) overstated the negative consequences of turnover. In comparison, on two of these measures
(quality and replaceability), the rate of dysfunctional turnover was only 18.4 percent for the quality
measure and only 8.8 percent for the replaceability measure. The marginal cost implication for
employers is to target turnover reduction strategies to prevent only the loss of good performers.
In summary, the causes of voluntary turnover are numerous and reside in the individual, the
organization, and the interaction between them (see INTERACTIONISM). Narrative and quantitative
(meta-analytic) (see VALIDITY GENERALIZATION) reviews of the literature suggest that
organizational efforts to reduce turnover can be

Document
Page 590
directed at multiple levels and sources. Psychological process models of turnover provide a diagnostic
tool for assessing probable causes of turnover. From a staffing perspective, screening based on skill,
attitude, APTITUDE, PERSONALITY, interests, expectations, education can reduce turnover
likelihood. Similarly, TRAINING and orientation programs that invest in aligning employee attitudes
and skills with job and organizational demands can further lessen turnover propensity. Firms may also
seek a better fit between a redesigned (restructured) organization and their employees (see
RESTRUCTURING). Such organizations become flatter, more flexible, and more responsive by using
staffing, training, and CAREER management strategies to enhance retention. Finally, appraisal and
reward systems can be designed to measure and reward organizational, division, team, and individual
level contributions to organizational PRODUCTIVITY and effectiveness. Performance based reward
systems (those that put a greater proportion of pay at risk) thus become tools to attract, motivate, and
retain valued employees (see PAYMENT SYSTEMS; PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY).
See also Career transitions; Job design; Performance, individual; Motivation and performance;
Organizational effectiveness
Bibliography
Carsten, J. M. & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and turnover: A meta-analytic
test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 374–381.
Dalton, D. R., Krackhardt, D. M. & Porter, L. W. (1981). Functional turnover: An empirical

assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 716–721.
Hulin, C. L. (1968). Effects of changes in job satisfaction levels on employee turnover. Journal of
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
McEvoy, G. M. & Cascio, W. F. (1985). Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis.
Mitra, A., Jenkins, D., Jr. & Gupta, N. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between
absence and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 879–889.
Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee organization linkages. San Francisco:
Academic Press.
Rusbelt, C. E. & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact of job
satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and
investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429–38.

Document
Taylor, M. S. & Giannantonio, C. M. (1993). Forming, adapting, and terminating the employment
relationship: A review of the literature from individual, organizational, & interactionist perspectives.
Journal of Management, 19, 461–515.
STUART A. YOUNGBLOOD and CHARLES R. WILLIAMS
Two-Factor Theory
see MOTIVATOR/HYGIENE THEORY
Type A
The Type A/B distinction has come to be viewed as a typology which distinguishes individual
susceptibility to STRESS and stress outcomes. Research has suggested that INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES can affect the way people respond to adverse pressure and the Type-A behavior pattern
(TABP), identified by Friedman and Rosenman, is the most researched stress related behavioral style.
In a number of studies, individuals manifesting particular behavioral traits were found to be
significantly more at risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Hence these behaviors collectively are
referred to as the "coronary-prone behavior pattern Type A" as distinct from Type B (i.e., the opposite
of these characteristic behaviors and at low risk to CHD). The concept is now more commonly used to
indicate PERSONALITY types, which persist over time and make individuals more or less vulnerable
to stress. Though many of these early studies examined men, more recent work by these researchers has
found a link between TABP and CHD in both men and women. Research has also revealed that extreme
Type A's report more stress symptoms, higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol, and triglyceride
levels, are more likely to smoke, and take less exercise – all criteria in the etiology and onset of CHD.

Document
Page 591
Individuals exhibiting TABP are those who, in contrast to their Type B counterparts, work long, hard
hours under constant deadline pressures and conditions for overload; often take work home at night or
on weekends, and are unable to relax; constantly compete with themselves, setting high standards of
PRODUCTIVITY that they seem driven to maintain; tend to become frustrated by the work situation
(see FRUSTRATION), to be irritated with the work efforts of others, feel misunderstood by superiors,
seek more work and nonwork challenges and prefer more difficult problems. They may be so involved
in their work that they tend to neglect other aspects of their life and at work they tend to like to function
by themselves rather than with others (see NONWORK/WORK). They lose their tempers more
frequently, and are more likely to lash out at others for slight provocations, and have consistently been
shown to obtain significantly higher scores on life events stress inventories. Type B's, on the other
hand, tend to exhibit the opposite of these characteristics.
Though there has been a general consensus in the importance of TABP in the development of CHD,
attempts to uncover its exact meaning and measurement have been fraught with difficulties. In the early
studies, individuals were designated as being Type A or Type B on the basis of clinical judgments of
doctors and psychologists, or by peer ratings and by interview. Due to the need for large-scale research,
self-report measurement scales have been designed (e.g., Bortner scale, 1969; Jenkins Activity Survey
(JAS), Jenkins et al. 1967). More recent investigations of TABP have attempted to unravel and
understand the more specific components of the phenomenon and its relationship to stress (e.g., hostile
behavior, or doing too many things at once), as opposed to the global concept of overall Type A (see
Edwards and others). More appropriate management of particular stress related behavioral responses
may result, as more specific problems are targeted (e.g., with TIME MANAGEMENT, relaxation,
DELEGATION, and improved social support).
Those displaying TABP have been found to be more prominent amongst those of higher socioeconomic
status and education, who tend to occupy more demanding jobs, i.e., with more responsibility, larger
supervisory SPAN OF CONTROL, higher workload (see ROLE OVER/UNDERLOAD), and involving
more difficult tasks (see Payne, 1988). One of the major difficulties in interpreting the findings
regarding TABP is whether these individuals are more exposed to stress, more likely to perceive stress,
or are more likely to select stressful environments in which to work.
See also Mental health; Perception; Role; Hardiness; Alcohol and substance abuse; Counseling in
organizations; Burnout
Bibliography
Bortner, R. W. (1969). A short rating scale as a potential measure of pattern A behaviour. Journal of
Chronic Diseases, 22, 87–91.
Edward, J. R. (1991). The Measurement of Type A Behavior Pattern: Assessment of Criterion-oriented

Validity, Content Validity, and Construct Validity. In Cooper, C. L. and Payne, R. (Eds), Personality
and Stress: Individual Differences in the Stress Process. (1991), pp. 151–181.

Document
Friedman, M. & Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type A behaviour and your heart. New York: Knopf.
Jenkins, C. D., Rosenman, R. H. & Friedman, M. (1967). The development of an objective

psychological test for the determination of the coronary-prone patterns in employed men. Journal of
Chronic Disease, 20, 371–379.
Payne, R. (1988). Individual differences in the study of occupational stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne
(Eds), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
CHERYL J. TRAVERS

Document
Page 592
Uncertainty
This is a key concept in relation to a number of organizational areas. From an OPEN SYSTEM
perspective, the environment is a key source of uncertainty since all organizations need to interact with,
and are in some measure dependent on, their environments (see ORGANIZATION AND
ENVIRONMENT). The more turbulent and complex the environment, the more difficult it is for
organizations to control and predict events.
Thompson (1967) has suggested that the technical core of an organization (the transformational or
production process) needs to be "buffered" from uncertainty. "BOUNDARY-SPANNING" departments
can perform this function, helping to shield the heart of the organization from damaging shocks and
providing a measure of stability and continuity. In recent years, the trend has been for some companies
to adopt JUST-IN-TIME techniques and flexible working practices as alternative ways of coping with
the uncertainty of the competitive environment.
CONTINGENCY THEORY suggests a number of ways in which the organization can cope with
environmental uncertainty, particularly by altering its structural arrangements. To be successful, firms
need to adapt to uncertainty by adopting appropriate mechanisms of DIFFERENTIATION and
INTEGRATION.
TECHNOLOGY also plays a part in influencing how uncertainty can be managed. The more
uncertainty there is in the nature of the work (task uncertainty), the better INFORMATION-
PROCESSING must be.
Control over uncertainty can be a source of POWER. Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schneck & Pennings
(1971) put forward their "strategic contingencies theory," suggesting that coping with uncertainty is an
important way of securing power for SUBUNITS in the organization, especially if the uncertainty
affects a critical and central part of the organization's functioning.
Uncertainty is a key problem in DECISION MAKING as assumptions have to be made about the
future, which is inherently uncertain. This is one reason why BOUNDED RATIONALITY often
prevails. "Uncertainty absorption" is also a factor. This is where information loses its uncertainty as it is
passed through the organization – gradually appearing to be more precise and reliable than it actually is.
"Uncertainty avoidance" is one of the concepts used by Hofstede (1980) in his examination of national
cultures (see INTERCULTURAL PROCESS; CULTURE, NATIONAL). It is used to denote the degree
to which different cultures cope with novelty, either accepting the attendant uncertainty or seeking to
reduce it.

Document
The concept of uncertainty has a long history in the study of organizations as well as a number of
particular meanings in specialist areas. Given that most organizations and individuals are faced with
uncertainty, the pressure to understand its nature and origins, and the need to develop coping
mechanisms is still of great current interest.
See also Resource dependence; Organizational effectiveness; Resource based theory; Mechanistic/
organic
Bibliography
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck R. E. & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic
contingencies theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, (2), 216–229.

Document
Page 593
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.
SUSAN MILLER
Unemployment
During the 1930s social scientists concluded, largely from qualitative research, that unemployment was
associated with: hopelessness regarding the future; low SELF-ESTEEM; low self-confidence; social
isolation; ANXIETY; depression; and impaired physical health. Unemployment, it was concluded,
affected not only men but also women on both social and financial grounds, exacerbated family
problems and put at risk the MENTAL HEALTH of children in families with unemployed parents.
Contemporary research, dominated by quantitative methods, has consistently shown that the
unemployed have poorer mental health than otherwise comparable employed people. Group mean
scores on well-validated measures of anxiety, depression, dissatisfaction with one's present life,
experienced strain, negative self-esteem, hopelessness regarding the future, and other negative states
have been repeatedly demonstrated to be higher in groups of unemployed people than in matched
samples of employed people. Unemployed people are also disproportionately likely to report social
isolation and relatively low levels of daily activity. The physical, as well as mental, health of
unemployed people has also been shown to be generally poorer.
Recent longitudinal studies have demonstrated that experience of particular labor market transitions
(gaining or losing employment, leaving school, entry to government training schemes, etc.) causes,
rather than results from, changes in mental health (see CAREER TRANSITIONS). For example, the
average psychological well-being of school leavers who become unemployed diverges negatively from
those who become satisfactorily employed, and people moving from unemployment to satisfactory
employment exhibit improvements in average mental health compared with continuously unemployed
groups. These findings have been replicated across studies, research groups, countries, and time periods.
Most of these studies deal with the average mental health of large groups of people. Within groups there
are wide variations in mental health consequences. Some people are affected very badly, some hardly at
all and the psychological health of a very small minority actually improves when they become
unemployed. One cannot infer from the fact that an individual has been made unemployed that the
particular individual's mental health will actually suffer, though the risk of their mental health
deterioration has substantially increased.

Document
Specific factors have been identified as likely to determine the psychological distress of unemployment.
Pre-unemployment jobs vary in the extent to which they promote psychological health (see STRESS;
JOB SATISFACTION). People also vary widely in their employment-related and other VALUES.
Unemployed people who are particularly committed to paid employment – the vast majority according
to research – are harder hit by unemployment (see JOB INVOLVEMENT). People also vary in the
social support they receive from others and in their capacity to cope with stressors (see HARDINESS).
An unemployed person's AGE is relevant, with the middle aged more affected than younger or older
unemployed (see LIFE STAGES). Availability of adequate economic resources are also important, with
people who are under more financial strain tending to be more psychologically affected by
unemployment. Length of unemployment is also a factor. Mean levels of psychological distress
generally increase steeply with unemployment then level out or even decline slightly – though still on
average registering significantly more distress than comparison employed groups.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is little persuasive evidence that the experience of
unemployment follows a series of distinct stages or phases.
The psychological consequences of unemployment also extend beyond actual job losers to partners and
other members of their families. Classic studies of whole villages suggest that the corrosive impact of
unemployment eats into the whole community. Empirical research is increasingly converging on the
similarity in the psychological consequences of unemploy-

Document
Page 594
ment, JOB INSECURITY, and unsatisfactory employment.
What is responsible for the psychological consequences of unemployment?
Employment is a social relationship in which work, mental or physical activity for a purpose beyond the
pleasure of the activity in itself (see NONWORK/WORK), determined by one agent is carried out in
exchange for payment by another agent within the context of a PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT of
rights and obligations, in a relationship constituted and regulated by powerful social forces.
People who are made redundant (see REDUNDANCY), therefore, might be expected to experience
psychological repercussions of both the loss of the social relationship and the loss of the work they
performed within that relationship, as research bears out (see MANIFEST AND LATENT
FUNCTIONS).
However, it is also necessary to consider what is structurally common to both unemployment and
employment. Work, in the sense of the definition offered above, takes place both inside and outside the
employment relationships. Unemployed people should not, therefore, be assumed to be without work.
Indeed, within the unemployment relationship, specific work is often required as a condition of
receiving income from the State, quite apart from the self-initiated unemployment-related work
performed by most unemployed people and the domestic and other work carried out by both employed
and unemployed people.
Psychological consequences of unemployment relate to implications of particular forms of the social

relationships described above, of the work done within them, and of transitions between them in a
complex interaction of individual, social, organizational, and social institutional forces over time. More
specifically, negative psychological consequences of unemployment might be expected to occur
because unemployed people are party to labor market relationships within which they are required to
perform unsatisfactory tasks, such as futile job search, exposing them to potential psychological
stressors, such as repeated rejection and experienced humiliation, in poor working conditions for
subsistence-level pay within grossly unequal, institutionally constituted, and regulated psychological
contracts, within which they have severely limited collective and individual rights, all within a culture
replete with powerful social norms regarding the unacceptability of the unemployed role. Research
bears this out as a contributory factor (see AGENCY RESTRICTION).
See also Affect; Labor markets; Quality of working life
Bibliography
Eisenberg, P. & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1938). The psychological effects of unemployment. Psychological

Bulletin, 35, 356–390.
Fryer, D. (1990). The mental health costs of unemployment: Towards a social psychology of poverty.
British Journal of Clinical and Social Psychiatry, 7, (4), 164–176.

Document
Fryer, D. (Guest Ed.) (1992). Marienthal and beyond: 20th century research on unemployment and
mental health. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, (4), 257–358.
Fryer, D. & Ullah, P. (1987). Unemployed people: Social and psychological perspectives. Milton
Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Zeisel, H. (1972). Marienthal: The sociography of an unemployed
community. London: Tavistock.
Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment and mental health. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Winefield, A. H., Tiggemann, M., Winefield, H. R. & Goldney, R. D. (1993). Growing up with
unemployment: A longitudinal study of its psychological impact. London: Routledge.
DAVID FRYER
Unions
see TRADE UNIONS
Upward Communication
COMMUNICATION upward conveys important information regarding work and personnel-related

problems, FEEDBACK, suggestions for work and quality improvements, and subordinate attitudes (see
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT). It also enables subordinates to INFLUENCE their task
effectiveness, WORKING CONDITIONS, and CAREER advancement. Evidence suggests that most
organizations have difficulty encouraging upward communication. Superiors and subordinates typically
demonstrate significant information gaps, and the gaps grow larger as messages are filtered and
distorted by intervening hierarchical levels (see INFORMATION PRO-

Document
Page 595
CESSING). Several factors increase the likelihood of distortion or miscommunication. There is a

general tendency for communicators to exaggerate information favorable to themselves and to minimize
or not pass on unfavorable information. This is stronger if the superior has influence over subordinate
promotion or REWARDS, if the subordinate does not TRUST the superior, if the subordinate knows the
superior withholds information, and if the subordinate has mobility aspirations. Whether subordinates
communicate upward is strongly dependent on their perceptions of superior openness. Openness is
signaled by the superior's willingness to listen, exhibited trust in the subordinate, willingness to
approach the subordinate, warmth, and question asking. Introduction of INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES such as electronic mail generally also result in increases in upward communication.
See also Employee involvement; Participation; Decision making
Bibliography
Jablin, F. M., Putnam, L. L., Roberts, K. H. & Porter, L. W. (1987). Handbook of organizational
communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Utility
see GAME THEORY; EXCHANGE RELATIONS; ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS; PROSPECT

THEORY

Document
Page 596
Valence
see VIE THEORY
Validity
In the context of organizational research, validity is defined as the appropriateness of the inferences
drawn from an observation, test score(s), a study, or a set of studies.
Issues of validity relate to measures, to RESEARCH DESIGNS or to data. The validity of a measure
has been further interpreted in terms of its content, relationship to external variables (criteria) or to the
constructs it is designed to get at. (A construct is a concept that has been created or adopted for a
scientific purpose.) Thus ''Content" validity is the degree to which responses required by the items of a
test or measure are representative of the behaviors or knowledge to be exhibited in the domain of
interest. A job knowledge test would be content valid if it fairly assessed the knowledge needed for a
job. A measure would have "criterion-related" validity if scores received by individuals (groups or
organizations) covary with scores on some external standard (criterion). A cognitive ABILITY test
might have criterion-related validity of its scores correlated with a measure of job performance. A
measure would have "construct" validity to the extent that an underlying explanatory concept (e.g.,
honesty) can account for the scores obtained (i.e., truly honest individuals receive high scores and
dishonest individuals receive low scores). Construct validity can be established through careful
operational definitions (see OPERATIONALIZATION) and through the statistical analysis of
accumulated empirical evidence regarding the pattern of scores yielded by the measure vis-à-vis scores
from other, well-known or trusted measures.
The validity of research designs refers to the extent that the plan for a study and the methods employed
allow for accurate inferences or conclusions from the data (see CASE METHOD; QUASI-
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; RESEARCH METHODS). Usually, this means that the plan deals with
(rules out) plausible, rival explanations for the results. If research is designed satisfactorily, one can
speak of "internal" validity, the capacity to infer causal relationships, and "external validity," the
capacity to generalize (see GENERALIZATION) to other studies or cases. Common threats to the
validity of a research design include small or inappropriate samples of subjects (e.g., number of
employees or business units), unstandardized research conditions, inappropriate methods, or the failure
to recognize the impact of unmeasured factors. Assessing the validity of a research design is usually
done through a critical analysis by a competent researcher who is also a subject matter expert.

Document
The validity of data is related to both the validity of measures and designs. Thus, we cannot make
correct inferences (descriptions or predictions), from data that are derived from poor measures or weak
designs. In particular, if scores are derived from unreliable measures (see RELIABILITY) with
questionable construct validity, obtained from a set of people who are unrepresentative of those who we
are really interested in, and/or were gathered in atypical situations, there is little basis on which to claim
that we have valid data. Assessing of the validity of data is both a statistical and logical/analytical
process.
See also Selection methods; Assessment; Psychological testing

Document
Page 597
Bibliography
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. & Peracchio, L. (1990). Quasi experimentation. In M. D. Dunnette & L.
M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology (pp. 491–576). Palo Alto, CA:
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P. & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences.
San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Landy, F. J. & Schmitt, N. (1993). The concept of validity. In N. Schmitt and W. C. Borman (Eds)
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 275–309). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Runkel, P. J. & McGrath, J. E. (1972). Research on human behavior. A systematic guide for method.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

RICHARD KLIMOSKI
Validity Generalization
This is an approach to summarizing what is known about a key characteristic (usually predictive
validity) of a test or test type (see STATISTICAL METHODS). It is one of a class of meta-analytic
techniques which treats the validation study as the unit of analysis. It is based on the assumption that the
results from any one study might be misleading, given the potential impact of one or more factors in a
piece of research which are known to artificially raise or lower computed correlations.
After a frequency distribution of the results (e.g., VALIDITY coefficients) found in published and
unpublished studies is developed, various statistical procedures are applied. Thus the steps in a validity
GENERALIZATION study are as follows:
(1) Identify a set of studies from the research domain of interest. Investigators usually attempt to be as
complete as possible in this step.
(2) Code key information from each study in a way that would allow one to compute an estimate of
effect size.
(3) Record any additional information that could plausibly be a factor in affecting the results (e.g.,
whether it was a study in one type of industry or another, one type of employee, etc).
(4) Correct the frequency distribution and/or individual effect size estimates for sources of artifactual
variance. Such sources have traditionally included such things as lack of predictor (test) RELIABILITY
and size of the sample respondents in the study.

Document
(5) If necessary or desired regress the corrected effect sizes upon those study characteristics coded in
order to help to explain the effect sizes (e.g., one might find higher validity for the test in one type of
industry).
The end product of the procedure becomes a quantitative index ("a corrected or estimated 'true'
correlation") rather that a traditional narrative summary of findings (e.g., "significant correlations were
found for the test in most of the studies"). Using this approach permits one to reach a conclusion
regarding, for example, whether a particular (employment) test established as useful in one setting
(company) would be appropriate to use in another (called transportability). Validity generalization
analyses are also helpful in resolving ambiguities that exist if one were only to attend to the results of
individual studies. An instance of this relates to the usefulness of what are called integrity tests. The
authors of a meta-analysis (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993) based on 665 (often contradictory)
individual validity studies were suprised to find that, collectively, integrity tests do predict a broad
range of organizationally disruptive behaviors (including rule breaking incidents and EMPLOYEE
THEFT). Hence they would appear to be useful in employee selection (see SELECTION METHODS).
One caveat: despite the apparent statistical control of the subjectivity typically found in a narrative
summary, numerous judgment calls are involved in conducting a validity generalization study (e.g., just
which studies should be included or excluded in the analysis?).
See also Assessment; Psychological testing; Research design; Research methods
Bibliography
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C. & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test
validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of

Document
Page 598
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity
generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529–540.
Wanous, J. P., Sullivan, S. E. & Malinak, J. (1989). The role of judgement calls in meta-analysis.
RICHARD KLIMOSKI
Values
These are a set of core beliefs held by individuals concerning how they should or ought to behave over
broad ranges of situations. These values are generalized beliefs about modes of conduct (Rokeach,
1972) that form a primary component of the self-schema, the "ought" self (as compared to the "actual"
or "desired" self). Because beliefs about the self tend to be the most deeply held and influential of
cognitions, values are stable and central, and are pervasive in their influence on other cognitions,
PERCEPTION, and behavior.
This conceptualization differs from the interpretation of values as preferences for objects, which in turn
affect responses to those objects (Locke, 1976; (see ATTITUDE THEORY). Values, as generalized,
core beliefs, provide the standard that individuals use to determine whether an object has value or is to
be preferred. Values as defined here act as a primary organizing structure for much of the rest of our
belief system, including cognitions commonly perceived to be "facts," rather than simply acting as
evaluative responses.
Values also act as motivational elements (see MOTIVATION) in that they indicate which behaviors are
more desirable to perform than others from an ideal perspective, all other things (such as
INSTRUMENTALITY) being equal. Acting on values may fulfill innate needs, however, there is no
necessary correspondence between the two.
People typically will endorse value-oriented statements; therefore, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES in

values lie not so much in the specific values that individuals hold, but in their order of importance. Thus
values are hierarchical in nature. Because of this systemic quality, and because of their high social
desirability, values are difficult to measure adequately outside of a forced choice or ranking format
(Ravlin & Meglino, 1987).
Values are acquired from societal institutions (family, economic, and political systems) and their
cultural context. They are initially learned in isolation, in an absolute fashion. As an individual matures,
he/she integrates them into a hierarchical system, also based in part on PERSONALITY factors
(Rokeach, 1973). A relatively small number of value dimensions seems to generalize across
NATIONAL CULTURES (Hofstede, 1980); thus the role of values is pivotal in understanding cultural
differences in ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR.

Document
Because values are learned early in life, and occupy a central position in cognitive structure, they are
difficult to change during adulthood (see COGNITIVE PROCESSES). Such a change requires a change
in the self-schema and the network of beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions that the individual acquires
over a lifetime (see LIFE STAGES). Pitting two conflicting values against one another may produce
change. It is also possible that having violated a value once, individuals find it progressively easier to
violate that value until it has lost its level of priority. Finally, repeated functional failure of value-related
behavior may produce change. These latter propositions seem more likely to explain long-term, cross-
situational change in the values of adults (see SELF-REGULATION).
Organizational SOCIALIZATION is one avenue by which values are conveyed to adults. Myths,
stories, repetition, and formal socialization processes are often cited as sources of work values.
Organizational leaders may set the values of the organization and propagate them among employees. To
be acquired, however, a value must serve some sort of function for the individual, or be presented as the
only possible interpretation of the situation. Values may also eventually lose their priority if
organizational reward systems facilitate their frequent violation (see REWARDS; PAYMENT
SYSTEMS). Employees bring values to the organization with them, so under some circumstances, their
values may influence those of the organization rather than the reverse.
Values act as a perceptual screening device to influence what we see in our environment, and as a
channel to influence behavioral decisions (England, 1967) (see BEHAVIORAL DECISION
RESEARCH). Goals may mediate the relationship between values and behavior, and potential

Document
Page 599
moderators, such as personal discretion and the labeling of a behavior as value-relevant, may act to
determine when values will be predictive of behavior. Specific values play important roles in
influencing certain behaviors. In the context of ethics, a dominant honesty value produces more ethical
decisions (see BUSINESS ETHICS). ALTRUISM facilitates personal adjustment because it
predisposes individuals to respond to information from their environments, and to adapt to it (Simon,
1993). These relationships between specific values and behavior typically are expected to be small at
any one point in time, but stronger over time, as with other individual differences.
In some instances, individuals use value statements (espoused values) to provide some justification for
behavior that has already occurred (see LEGITIMACY). However, empirical evidence shows that these
justification effects are not the only process underlying values-behavior relationships.
Shared value systems (value congruence) also have been shown to have important effects. The sharing
of values within an organization may positively influence internal processes (integration; Schein, 1985)
such that common cognitive processing leads to less CONFLICT, less UNCERTAINTY, shared goals,
and more predictability, interpersonal TRUST, and satisfaction (see JOB SATISFACTION). This view
is consistent with the Attraction–Selection–Attrition (ASA) framework of Schneider (1987), which
holds that organizations tend to attract and retain people with similar views, and thus become more
homogeneous over time (see ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE).
Alternative views of ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE and value sharing within organizations include
differentiation perspectives, which focus on the differences in beliefs that exist between groups within
organizations, and fragmentation perspectives, which note that shared beliefs are temporary because of
a multiplicity of societal beliefs and the innate ambiguity of complex systems (Martin, 1992) (see
SYSTEMS THEORY). Each of these views is probably descriptive of part of the organization's value
system at any given time. These differing perspectives have important implications for how and what
research is conducted. Thus far, value congruence has been explored at multiple levels (individual–
organization, supervisor–subordinate, between coworkers) in studies which primarily reflect either
integration or differentiation perspectives.
Although evidence shows that value congruence does result in more positive attitudes, the relationship
between the sharing of values and performance is unclear. The integration perspective tends to suggest
that the existence of value congruence will lead to higher performance. Other points of view, in
particular, the GROUP DECISION MAKING and ASA literatures, suggest that too much homogeneity
of belief systems should hinder performance in nonroutine, changing situations. Recent research
suggests that while routine task performance may be facilitated by value congruence, performance on
nonroutine tasks is not. Clearly, many issues regarding this relationship are left unresolved.
See also VIE theory; Corporate social responsibility; Rituals; Motivation and performance
Bibliography

Document
England, G. W. (1967). Organizational goals and expected behavior of American managers. Academy
of Management Journal, 10, 107–117.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and consequences of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ravlin, E. C. & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of
alternative work values measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 666–673.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
Simon, H. (1993). Altruism and economics. American Economic Review, 83, 156–161.
ELIZABETH C. RAVLIN

Document
Page 600
Vertical Integration
The production of an organization's products or services generally involves several discreet stages. To
the extent that one or more of these stages provides supplies, subassemblies, or other inputs to other
stages, they are said to form a vertical production chain. The number of different stages of production
within which an organization directly operates determines that organization's level of vertical
integration.
An organization's level of vertical integration is not constant. When an organization includes more early
stages in the vertical production chain by, for example, purchasing its former suppliers, it is said to be
engaging in backward vertical integration. When late stages are incorporated into the vertical
production chain by, for example, developing its own distribution network, the organization is said to
be engaging in forward vertical integration.
Several theories have been proposed to explain the extent of an organization's vertical integration. The
three most often applied models are:
(1) RESOURCE DEPENDENCE theory (see RESOURCE BASED THEORY);
(2) TRANSACTION COST THEORY (see M-FORM ORGANIZATION); and
(3) AGENCY THEORY.
See also Integration; Strategic management; Collateral organization
Bibliography
Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W. H. (1976). The theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs
and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.
Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.
JAY B. BARNEY
Viability
see COMPETITIVENESS; POPULATION ECOLOGY
Vicious Cycles

Document
These cycles (or circles) in organizations are circular chains of activities that induce undesired trends.
They are best understood in cybernetic terms, where the basic distinction is between positive and
negative FEEDBACK. Vicious cycles evolve:
(1) when stability is the goal but change results (undesired positive feedback: spiral); or
(2) when change is the goal but stability results (undesired negative feedback or stasis).
Spirals ultimately cause collapse, stasis causes stagnation. Spirals – spectacular as they are – capture the
imagination (see ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE; ORGANIZATIONAL DECLINE AND DEATH),
but stagnating vicious cycles, in their silent, unobtrusive way, may occur more frequently, because they
are difficult to detect. Every vicious cycle is based on the (partial) ignorance of the participants, since
they ought to act differently, were they aware of the true consequences of their actions. Persistent
ignorance of vicious cycles is often based on psychological bias (e.g., attribution errors) or pathological
conditions (see ORGANIZATIONAL NEUROSIS; ATTRIBUTION).
Implicitly, vicious cycles are already present in Machiavelli's analysis of POLITICS and Weber's
analysis of organization. Robert K. Merton made them famous in his study of the vicious circle of
BUREAUCRACY ("rigidity," as a side-effect of bureaucratic formality causes partial bureaucratic
failure; in turn, psychological mechanisms induces more rigidity). Other important contributions are
due to Chris Argyris (whose analysis of organizations failing to learn exposes many stagnating cycles
(see DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING) and Manfred Kets de Vries.
See also Learning organization; Systems theory; Open systems
Bibliography
Masuch, M. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 14–33.
MICHAEL MASUCH
VIE Theory
This theory (also known as expectancy theory) is a cognitive process model of MOTIVATION. The
theory explains

Document
Page 601
three components of rational behavioral choice and predicts behavior without making assumptions
about the general types of outcomes individuals seek. Because the theory assumes behavior results from
rational decisions, the primary use of the theory is in predicting or explaining the behaviors individuals
employ to attain valued outcomes (see RATIONALITY).
There are three components contained within VIE theory: valence, INSTRUMENTALITY, and
expectancy. Valence is the perceived value of an outcome. Valence is personally determined, thus
several individuals may perceive different valences for the same outcome. Occupational choice is
partially based on differences between outcomes for occupations and the preferences of individuals for
these outcomes (see CAREER CHOICE). Valence takes on positive (attractive) or negative (repellant)
values depending on the outcome and the individual.
Instrumentality is the perceived likelihood one outcome will lead to another (e.g., performance →
reward). Instrumentality perceptions vary between-1 and + 1. Negative values predict certain
subsequent outcomes will be avoided if this first-level outcome occurs, while positive values predict
other outcomes will likely follow. Instrumentality is very important in the design of PAYMENT
SYSTEMS. To enhance motivation, employers tie pay changes to performance measures of which the
individual is aware (see PERFORMANCE RELATED PAY). Piece rate pay plans, merit pay plans,
gain-and profit-sharing plans are all examples in which the employer defines and communicates a
linkage between performance outcome and pay outcomes (see GAINSHARING).
Expectancy is the perceived likelihood that a behavior (e.g., effort) will lead to an instrumental outcome
(e.g., performance). Expectancy is assumed to take values between 0 and 1. Expectancies close to zero
indicate the behavior is perceived to be unlikely to lead to a specific outcome, while expectancies close
to one assume the behavior will almost certainly lead to the outcome. In employment, selection and
TRAINING to increase employee ABILITY are likely to increase expectancies of attaining
organizationally relevant outcomes.
In deciding among alternative behaviors, the theory assumes individuals first consider the valence of
relevant second-level outcomes, then the likelihoods that these outcomes will follow from other first-
level outcomes (instrumentalities), and finally the likelihood that first-level outcomes will follow from
specific behaviors. The chosen behavior is expected to be the one yielding the highest expected value to
the individual.

Document
Example: In an employment setting an individual perceives the following outcome valences: pay
increase, +1, friendly coworkers, +2, longer hours, -1. Instrumentalities of performance rating levels of
excellent (E), average (A), and poor (P) for attaining the three outcomes, respectively, are: pay, E=0.8,
A=0.3, P=0.5; friendly coworkers, E=0.6, A=0.8, P=0.3; and longer hours, E=0.8, A=0.5, P=0.1. The
valence of receiving an E performance rating is 0.8 × 1 + 0.6 × 2, + 0.8 × (-1) = 1.2; an A,
0.3 × 1 + 0.8 × 2 + 0.5 × -1 = 1.4; a P, 0.05 × 1 + 0.3 × 2 + 0.1 ×-1 = 0.55. Expectancies of high (H),
moderate (M), and low (L) effort for attaining E, A, and P ratings are: H, 0.7(E), 0.2(A), 0.1(P); M, 0.1
(E), 0.7(A), 0.2(P); L, 0.1(E), 0.5(A), 0.4(P). The force to perform (or motivation) level for H is
0.7 × 1.2 (the valence of an E rating) + 0.2 × 1.4 (valence of an A rating) + 0.1 × 0.55 (valence of a P
rating) = 1.175; for M, 0.1 × 1.2 + 0.7 × 1.4 + 0.2 × 0.55 = 1.21; and for L effort, 0.1 × 1.2 +
0.5 × 1.4 + 0.4 × 0.55 = 1.04. The individual would be expected to choose moderate effort.
Because different individuals attach different valences to second-level outcomes and have varied
perceptions of instrumentalities and expectancies, expectancy theory makes predictions of individual
behaviors, not decisions of groups of people.
The predictions made by expectancy theory are supported in studies where the measures have been
faithful to the model. At this point the theory is relatively mature. Motivation researchers are currently
involved with exploring the effects of GOAL-SETTING and various INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
on behavior, in addition to rational DECISION-MAKING in specific situations. Expectancy theory is
widely adopted by HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT practitioners in designing work and
reward systems and continues to be a mainstream theory of motivation for organizational behavior
researchers.

Document
Page 602
See also Motivation and performance; Performance, individual; Reinforcement
Bibliography
& L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (vol. 2, pp. 75–170).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kennedy, C. W., Fossum, J. A. & White, B. J. (1983). An empirical comparison of within-subjects and
between-subjects expectancy theory predictions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
32, 124–143.
Lawler, E. E., III (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
JOHN A. FOSSUM
Virtual Organization
see COMMUNICATIONS; INFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; POLITICS
Vocational Guidance
This term covers a range of systems, interventions and activities aimed at helping people make and
implement CAREER related decisions. It deals with people's preferences for areas of work, their
preparation for and entry into OCCUPATIONS, changes in occupation or development within an
occupation, and the associated use of nonwork time for leisure activities that may draw on similar
interests, SKILLS or ABILITIES. The term has its roots in the notion of a religious vocation or task in
life to which one is "called." Despite the much broader emphasis in the current use of the term, a major
aim of vocational guidance remains helping people find meaningful work outlets for their interests.
Increasingly, however, descriptors such as career planning, CAREER DEVELOPMENT planning, and
career counseling are being used in place of vocational guidance (Lea & Leibowitz, 1992; Arthur, Hall,
& Lawrence, 1989).

Document
Historically, the emphasis of vocational guidance was on late adolescence with assistance being given
in acquiring self-knowledge, knowledge about opportunities, and, in Parson's terms, "true reasoning on
the relation between these two sets of facts" (Crites, 1969). To assist this process vocational guidance
typically involved administering psychological tests covering domains such as interests, abilities, and
PERSONALITY and relating the results to job requirements. The "trait-and-factor" approach, as it was
known, foreshadowed much of what is currently referred to as person-environment fit (Edwards, 1991)
in organizational psychology (see PERSON-JOB FIT). Increasingly vocational guidance is undertaken
within a developmental perspective with help being extended to the full spectrum of the life-span, from
early career awareness programs in primary schools to organizational career development and
retirement planning later in life (Lea & Leibowitz, 1992) (see AGE).
The traditional approaches to vocational guidance in educational institutions and in organizations was
one of an expert giving advice, or of managers making decisions about the best career moves for their
staff. More recently, vocational guidance or career development systems aim to equip people with the
knowledge and skills to make and implement their own decisions throughout life (Hesketh & Bochner,
1993). In an organizational context this involves offering employees career development programs to
help clarify skills, interests, COMPETENCIES and VALUES, through PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING,
ASSESSMENT CENTERS or as part of a traditional PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL and staff
development system. The programs also include information about the variety of opportunities within
the organization for TRAINING, JOB ROTATIONS, promotions, or other skill development activities.
Finally, programs include a component on personal GOAL SETTING and DECISION MAKING,
aimed at giving employees the skills to manage and implement their own career plans (see SELF-
REGULATION). In light of the changes to the nature of many work contracts, a current trend in
organizations is to integrate training and career or vocational guidance systems and to help employees
identify the sequence of training and job moves needed to take advantage of different career
opportunities (Hesketh & Bochner, 1993) (see CAREER TRANSITIONS). These programs raise the
issue of compatibility or conflict between individual and organizational career goals.

Document
Page 603
See also Career choice; Individual differences; Personality testing; Realistic job previews; Career
anchors; Anticipatory socialization; Counseling in organizations
Bibliography
Crites, J. O. (1969). Vocational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review and methodological
critique. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational
psychology 1991. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hesketh, B. & Bochner, S. (1993). Technological changes in a multi-cultural context: Implications for
training and career planning. In M. D. Dunnette, L. Hough & H. Triandis (Eds), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology, (vol. IV). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Lea, D. & Leibowitz, Z. (1992). Adult career development: Concepts issues and practices. Alexandria,
USA: The National Career Development Association.
BERYL HESKETH

Document
Page 604
Withdrawal, Organizational
This is a construct denoting various behaviors employees engage in to remove themselves from their
job or avoid their work. Two behavioral families of organizational withdrawal have been empirically
identified. Work Withdrawal includes behaviors employees engage in to avoid their work tasks while
retaining organizational membership; it is composed of, for example, tardiness, ABSENTEEISM,
taking long breaks, and missing meetings. Job Withdrawal comprises behaviors employees engage in to
remove themselves from their job with a specific organization; TURNOVER, retiring early (see
RETIREMENT), and choosing to be laid off are examples of its behaviors. These behavioral families
have been empirically related to organizational attitudes. Studying aggregates of behaviors (i.e.,
behavioral families) is theoretically, psychometrically, and practically appropriate because employees
engage in multiple, patterned behaviors as responses to multiple antecedents (e.g., JOB
SATISFACTION; STRESS). Behaviors in a behavioral family may serve similar functions for
individuals; the selection of a specific or multiple behaviors may vary based on organizational
constraints, personal convictions, REINFORCEMENT histories, and social pressures. Although
organizational withdrawal is a relatively new construct and departs from the past research focus on
specific behaviors, assessing multiple outcomes from behavioral families may provide greater
generalizability of findings than has been possible by studying individual behaviors (see
GENERALIZATION). However, for some individuals, behaviors may be context or cause specific and
insufficiently correlated to justify the application of the withdrawal construct.
See also Motivation and performance; Performance, individual
Bibliography
Hanisch, K. A. (In Press) Behavioral families and multiple causes: Matching the complexity of
responses to the complexity of antecedents. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
KATHY A. HANISCH
Women at Work

Document
Most women have always worked, of course, but traditionally, fewer women than men have engaged in
paid work. In 1890, for example, women made up only 17 percent of the US labor force; by 1980,
women were 44 percent of the US labor force. In 1985, 54.5 percent of the US women 16 years of age
an older and 64.7 percent of the women between the ages of 25 and 64 were employed (Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1988, Table No. 627). In the Scandinavian countries, typically 75 percent
or more of adult women are in the labor force. The same was true in many countries of the former
Soviet Union, but the current situation is unstable, changing rapidly, and UNEMPLOYMENT among
women is high in many of these countries. During the 1970s and 1980s in particular, women increased
their share of the labor force in almost every country of the world (United Nations, 1991). Furthermore,
in all areas of the world today, women in the prime child-bearing years (25–44) are more likely to be
employed than women either younger or older in age (United Nations, 1991, Table 6.8).
The topic of "women at work" as a coherent subfield is less than 20 years old (e.g., Nieva & Gutek,
1981), and it tends to be interdisciplinary, involving researchers from many fields, e.g., management,
psychology, sociology, econ-

Document
Page 605
omics, anthropology. While the field is not bereft of theory, so far, much of the research has been
descriptive, a necessary step because the topic is fraught with misperceptions and misinformation. In all
of the research, GENDER figures prominently, and women and their experiences are either overtly or
covertly compared with men: Jobs are "sex-segregated" and in the job choice literature, women choose
and work in either "male-dominated" or "female-dominated jobs." "SEX DIFFERENCES'' is a common
theme in the research and encompasses both differences between men and women and differences in
treatment of men and women.
Women tend to work in "women's jobs," jobs defined in a particular time and place as appropriate for
women. Although there are some consistencies across countries, cultures, and organizations (e.g., jobs
involving children tend to be labeled women's jobs), there are also many examples of one job being a
"man's job" in one country, culture, or organization, and a "woman's job" in another (e.g., medicine,
sales, clerical work).
Women's work is characterized by horizontal and vertical segregation. Horizontal segregation means
that women tend to have different occupations and career choices than men and they tend to work with
other women. In 1970 in the United States about 55 percent of women worked in the 20 most female-
dominated occupations (Jacobs, 1989, Table 2.4). Sex-segregation is measured by several statistics (see
Jacobs, 1989), notably the index of segregation (also known as the index of dissimilarity, D) which tells
the percentage of one sex who would have to change jobs so that they would be distributed across jobs
the same as the other sex. In the United States, sex-segregation has declined from about 76 in 1910 to
62 in 1981 (Jacobs, 1989), and it has done so, not because more men are working in jobs traditionally
held by women (they are not), but because women have moved into traditionally male jobs, especially
professional and managerial jobs such as law, medicine, management, and the professorate. During the
1970s, in the United States a number of jobs that were male-dominated prior to the 1970s became sex-
integrated or female-dominated between 1970 and 1980, including bartending, residential real estate,
baking, accounting, editing, public relations, and pharmacy (Reskin & Roos, 1990). Reskin and Roos
(1990) concluded that women made inroads into these male-dominated fields because either the jobs
were rapidly growing so that not enough men were available to fill them and/or these jobs tended to
have fewer attractions to men (e.g., declining pay, fewer fringe benefits, fewer opportunities for
AUTONOMY or entrepreneurial activity) who shifted their career attention to more attractive
alternatives. Jacobs (1989) concluded that for every 11 women who enter a nontraditional job, 10 leave,
yielding a net decrease in sex-segregation of jobs, but not as much change as might be expected given
women's interest in the jobs. An extensive literature on women's career aspirations, CAREER
CHOICES, and CAREER DEVELOPMENT document the processes by which work maintains a sex-
segregated character and the experiences of individual women (see, e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987;
Gutek & Larwood, 1987).

Document
Vertical segregation means that men and women are located at different places in the hierarchy in their
work. Women tend to be located in lower level positions in their occupations and in their organizations
whereas men are found in jobs throughout the hierarchy. Women are said to face a "glass ceiling" in
that they are rarely found above certain hierarchical levels. Like horizontal segregation, vertical
segregation is also decreasing, although women have made little headway at the top (see WOMEN
MANAGERS).
It is worth noting that the research tends to focus disproportionately on women in nontraditional jobs (i.
e., management and the male-dominated professions) and women at higher organizational ranks
(managers and executives). Likewise, the research focuses disproportionately on white women and
middle and upper class women. These features are characteristic of ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
as a whole, not just women at work.
In general, the research on women at work fits into one of three categories: sex-differences, problem-
focused, and changes initiated to alleviate problems (e.g., Firth-Cozens & West, 1991).
One type of research focuses on differences and similarities between the sexes. Among the topics
covered, and some of the researchers

Document
Page 606
exploring each topic, are the following: differences in masculinity and femininity and their implications
(Powell); differences or similarities in LEADERSHIP or MANAGERIAL STYLE or LEADERSHIP
STYLE (Eagly; Dobbins); sex differences in CAREER CHOICES and career interests (Betz; Astin);
and differences and similarities in achieving (Tangri; Lipman-Blumen). Early research focused on traits
or characteristics believed to be associated with women more than men such as fear of success
(Horner). A few areas are notable for the lack of expected sex differences. For example, while there is
an active debate about whether men and women exhibit different leadership styles, the extant research
suggests that men and women in leadership positions exhibit few differences (Eagly; Dobbins). And
despite the fact that women's and men's job experiences tend to differ, they tend to report similar levels
of JOB SATISFACTION, and in recent years, job COMMITMENT.
A large body of research on women at work focuses on problems faced by women. These topics include
the following, listed with some researchers and theorists in each field: biases in selection, placement,
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL, and promotion (Nieva & Gutek; Swim et al.); SEXUAL
HARASSMENT (Fitzgerald; Gutek; Powell; Pryor; Terpstra & Baker); obstacles to achievement,
advancement, and attainment of positions of leadership (Larwood; Morrison); lack of MENTORING
(Ragins; Fagenson); sex DISCRIMINATION (Heilman; Crosby; Larwood); the pay gap (England;
Olson; Konrad; Langton); stereotyping (Fiske); lack of job mobility (Brett); conflict between work and
family responsibilities (Pleck; Brett; Burke; Davidson; Cooper); reproductive hazards at work; conflict
between work role and gender role (Nieva & Gutek) (see "SEX ROLES"). Other researchers have noted
the problems faced by tokens (women who are numerically rare) (Kanter; Laws), the "double whammy"
of being minority and female in nontraditional jobs (Nkomo), and the problems faced by women when
there are few women in top management positions in the organization (Ely).
A third type of research focuses on the success or failure of attempts to alleviate problems faced by
working women (see e.g., Sekaran, 1992), including the impacts of laws and other programs aimed at
providing EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, addressing affirmative action, establishing the comparable worth
of jobs, and eliminating sexual harassment. But laws are not the only approach to alleviating problems
faced by working women. In general, the type of solution sought depends on the way the problem is
defined. Nieva and Gutek (1981; see also Gutek, 1993) listed four models of problem definition and
some problem-solving strategies that follow from them. They are: the individual deficit model, i.e., the
problem is defined as problem people; the structural model, i.e., organizational structures and policies
hamper women (see Kanter, 1977); the sex-role model, i.e., social roles and ROLE expectations and
role stereotypes hamper women; and the intergroup model wherein men and women are viewed as
opposing groups fighting over a limited amount of desirable jobs, POWER, and INFLUENCE. They
conclude that the most commonly proposed solutions fit the individual-deficit model. Women are given
training and opportunities to overcome their "deficits" through courses and self-help materials targeted
at them. Examples include dressing for success, assertiveness training, how to write a business plan or
obtain venture capital. Increasingly, men too are targets of training aimed at sensitizing them to issues
like sexual harassment and sex discrimination.
See also Stereotyping; Management of diversity

Document
Bibliography
Betz, N. & Fitzgerald, L. (1987). The career psychology of women. New York: Academic Press.
Firth-Cozens, J. & West, M. (Eds), (1991). Women at work; Psychological and organizational
perspectives. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Gutek, B. A. (1993). Changing the status of women in management. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 43, (4), 301–311.
Gutek, B. A. & Larwood, L. (Eds), (1987). Women's career development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jacobs, J. (1989). Revolving doors; Sex segregation and women's careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Nieva, V. F. & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. New York:
Praeger.

Document
Page 607
Reskin, B. & Roos, P. A. (1990). Job queues, gender queues. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Sekaran, U. (Ed.), (1992). Womanpower. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Statistical Abstract of the United States. (1988). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
United Nations. (1991). The world's women: Trends and statistics, 1970–1990. Social Statistics and
Indicators, Series K, No. 8. New York: The United Nations.
BARBARA A. GUTEK
Women Managers
Today women hold a larger share of managerial positions than ever and the subfield of women in
management, though only about 20 years old (see Larwood & Wood, 1977), has grown as well (see
Powell, 1993; Fagenson, 1993). Women have made the greatest inroads into management in those
countries in which an academic degree (MBA, bachelor's degree in commerce) is used as criterion for
obtaining the position of manager. The United States, where about 12 percent of all employees hold the
position of manager, leads in moving women into management. In 1900, women were 4.4 percent of all
US managers; in 1950, 13.6 percent; in 1980, 26.1 percent, and by 1992, women constituted 42 percent
of all US managers (Fagenson, 1993). About 34.5 percent of Canadian managers are women, compared
to 20 percent in (the former West) Germany, 23 percent in the United Kingdom, 15 percent in Israel, 9
percent in France and Ireland, and 7.5 percent in Japan (Antal & Izraeli in Fagenson, 1993). In countries
that do not rely much on formal educational programs to prepare people for management, the
percentage of women is lower.
Although the numbers of women managers have increased, women are virtually unrepresented in the
highest ranking DECISION MAKING positions in business and government in almost every country in
the world. Women occupy less than 5 percent of high ranking positions in the United States and only
one woman heads a Fortune 500 corporation. A study of the 1000 most valuable publicly held
companies in the United States in 1989 showed only two women among CEOS (up from one in 1988).
The $3.3 trillion in annual sales of these companies underscores the minuscule influence of women in
big business in the United States. Over the past 10 years, the number of women at the senior
management level of the United States' top corporations has increased by less than 2 percent. Currently,
there is a lively debate over whether the gender gap between the lower and higher ranks of management
is a temporary or more-or-less permanent phenomenon. Some scholars believe that insufficient time has
passed for women to move into the top ranks whereas others disagree (see Gutek, 1993; Northcraft &
Gutek in Fagenson, 1993); both sides are able to marshall some evidence for their position.

Document
Another lively debate in the field addresses the issue of MANAGERIAL STYLE: do women have a
unique management style or a style that differs from that typically used by men? Although those who
argue that they do rely on people's experiences and "common sense" observations (Rosener, 1990), the
bulk of the research evidence suggests that men and women who are in management do not differ in
management style (Powell, 1993; see also meta-analysis (see VALIDITY GENERALIZATION) on
leadership style by Eagly and Johnson, 1990). There is more intra- than between-sex variation in
management style.
Management represents a "nontraditional" job choice for women and has traditionally been viewed as
more appropriate for men than women (see WOMEN AT WORK). A series of studies by V. Schein and
colleagues (Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989) showed that in the mid-1970s both sexes associated
the traits of successful managers with stereotypically male traits but they were independent of
stereotypes of female traits (see STEREOTYPING). Recent research by Schein suggests that this
finding is generalizable to many different countries, although by the late 1980s in the United States,
women but not men, were somewhat more likely to associate the traits of successful managers with
traits associated with both men and women (see PERSONALITY).
See also Equal opportunities; Gender; Discrimination; Women at work; Management

development; Management of diversity

Document
Page 608
Bibliography
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J. & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotype
and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662–669.
Fagenson, E. A. (ed.) (1993). Women in management: Trends, issues, and challenges in managerial
diversity, (vol. 4 in the Women and Work series). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gutek, B. A. (1993). Changing the status of women in management. In E. Greenglass & J. Marshall
(Editors of a special issue: Women in management) Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43,
(4) 301–311.
Larwood, L. & Wood, M. (1977). Women in management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Powell, G. (1993). Women in management, (2nd edn). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, (6) 119–125.
BARBARA A. GUTEK
Work Adjustment
The term "adjustment" is used in a variety of ways to connote employees' adaptation to jobs, typically
following career entry, mobility, job redesign, or other changes of employment experience. The concept
of adjustment is widely used in the STRESS literature, and in connection with SOCIALIZATION
processes. The term "work adjustment" is especially associated with the work of Lofquist, Dawis, and
colleagues who have used it to connote the fit between measurable characteristics of OCCUPATIONS
and individuals, especially at career entry. Their studies, in similar fashion to the work of Holland, have
confirmed that low work adjustment is a predictor of TURNOVER and other CAREER
TRANSITIONS.
See also Career choice; Job satisfaction; Joining-up process; Person-job fit; Vocational guidance
Bibliography
Dawis, R. V. & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prantice-
Hall.
NIGEL NICHOLSON
Work and Nonwork

Document
see NONWORK/WORK
Work Flow
This refers to the sequence of tasks through which work is performed as inputs are transformed into
outputs.
Work flow is an important concept in organizational research because the sequencing of tasks is one
key source of interdependence among people and among organizational units. For example, if unit A is
strictly "upstream" of unit B in a work flow, B may depend on A much more heavily than A depends on
B.
Thompson (1967) set forth an extremely well-known distinction between three types of work flows:
pooled interdependence, where units do not interact directly but their joint output is threatened if any
unit fails; sequential interdependence, where the sequence of tasks is linear, and uniform; and reciprocal
interdependence, in which the sequence of tasks "downstream" depends on feedback from operations
performed earlier, instead of being predetermined. Each tends to be associated with a different type of
TECHNOLOGY, different way of coordinating work, and means of compensating for
UNCERTAINTY.
Work flow has assumed great importance recently with the rise of BUSINESS PROCESS
REENGINEERING, which strives to simplify work flows by taking advantage of INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY to eliminate unnecessary steps and combine steps to produce the smoothest, shortest
work flow path possible.
See also Organizational design; Productivity; Operations management
Bibliography
Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution.
New York: Harper Business.
Hickson, D. J, Pugh, D. S. & Pheysey, D. (1969). Operations technology and organizational structure:
An empirical appraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 378–397.

Document
Page 609
Reimann, B. (1980). Organization structure and technology in manufacturing: Systems versus work
flow level perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 61–77.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
PHILIP ANDERSON
Work Groups
These are both formal and informal collectives of individuals within organizations. Formal groups are
those designated as work groups by the organization and whose members usually have shared task
objectives. Informal groups are those not defined by the organization as functional units, but which
nevertheless have an impact upon organizational behavior. Examples include friendship and pressure
groups.
From early in the study of organizational behavior it became clear that work groups influenced
individual behavior in a variety of ways. The Hawthorne studies established how group influences can
have a major impact on work group behavior (see HUMAN RELATIONS MOVEMENT;
HAWTHORNE EFFECT). They have effects on group member well-being, attitudes, and individual
performance through SOCIALIZATION, social support, MINORITY GROUP INFLUENCE, and
CONFORMITY processes.
The concept of the work team is becoming increasingly important in organizations. Sundstrom, De
Meuse, and Futrell (1990), have distinguished four main types: advice/involvement teams such as
committees, review panels, boards, QUALITY CIRCLES, EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT groups, and
advisory councils; production/service groups such as assembly teams, manufacturing crews; project/
development groups such as research groups, planning teams, specialist functional teams, development
teams, and task forces; and finally action/negotiation groups such as entertainment groups, expeditions,
negotiating teams, surgery teams, and cockpit crews.
In some organizations, groups as a whole may be hired, fired, trained, rewarded, and promoted. This
trend has developed as organizations have grown and become increasingly complex, demanding that
shared experiences and complementary SKILLS are constantly utilized in DECISION-MAKING
processes. Another reason for the dominance of the work team is the belief that the combined efforts of
individuals may be better than the aggregate of individual contributions, i.e., the principle of synergy.

Document
In recent years, the influence of work groups on individual behavior has come to be considered as less
important than their activity as collectively performing units (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Studies of work
groups have focused particularly on their effectiveness and have revealed important deficiencies in
GROUP DECISION MAKING, such as GROUPTHINK, RISKY SHIFT, group polarization, and
SOCIAL LOAFING – collectively called "process losses." A distinction has also been made between
groups performing disjunctive, conjunctive, and additive tasks. On disjunctive tasks performance
depends on the best individual (e.g., in a research team); on conjunctive tasks, such as an assembly line,
performance is a function of the weakest individual; finally, on additive tasks (e.g., a group shoveling
snow) all member activities added together determine performance.
A good deal of effort is now directed toward understanding the factors which promote group
effectiveness, including organizational context, group composition, GROUP STRUCTURE, decision-
making processes, and group resources. This suggests that ideally:
1 Groups should have intrinsically interesting tasks to perform.
2 Each individual's role should be essential and unique.
3 Each individual should be subject to evaluation and receive clear performance FEEDBACK.
4 The group as a whole should have clear objectives, be subject to evaluation, and receive performance
feedback.
5 The group should frequently reflect upon and appropriately modify their task objectives, strategies,
and processes.
In relation to social functioning, a positive social climate, constructive conflict resolution strategies,
support for individual development, and social support for dealing with STRESS, all contribute
significantly to group member well-being. However, GROUP COHESIVENESS appears to contribute
little directly to task performance.

Document
Page 610
See also Group dynamics; Group culture; Division of labor; Organizational design
Bibliography
Brown, R. (1988). Group processes: Dynamics with and between groups. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Goodman, P. S. & Associates (1990). Designing effective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guzzo, R. A. & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M.
D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (vol. 3 pp.
269–313). Palo Alto, CA: Consultant Psychologists Press.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P. & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness.
West, M. A. (1994). Effective Teamwork. Leicester, UK: BPS Books.
MICHAEL A WEST
Work Involvement
This concept refers to the degree to which work is important in the psychological make-up of the
individual. It refers to an orientation toward work activities in general, rather than toward a particular
organization (see COMMITMENT). Two dimensions of work involvement have been identified. First,
it has been described as the extent to which work plays a central role in a person's life (Kanungo, 1981).
Alternatively, involvement has been defined as the degree to which a person's feelings of SELF-
ESTEEM are derived from his or her performance at work. How these two dimensions are related is
currently an unresolved issue.
Work involvement has been found to be related to important aspects of individual attitudes and
behavior. For example, it has been shown to be associated with JOB SATISFACTION and
ABSENTEEISM. The origin of a person's level of work involvement is unclear at present. Some have
argued that it is a personal characteristic which is little affected by the work environment (see
PERSONALITY). Others have suggested that it is primarily a reaction to psychological stimulation (or
lack of it) in the job. Research to date suggests that both factors contribute to an individual's level of
work involvement.
See also Job design; Job characteristics; Motivation
Bibliography
Kanungo, R. N. (1981). Work alienation and involvement: Problems and prospects. International
Review of Applied Psychology, 30, 1–15.

Document
TONY KEENAN
Working Conditions
The study of the effects of working conditions is an area of both ERGONOMICS and the health and
SAFETY professions. The way in which conditions can affect the physical and psychological well-
being of workers has been a long-standing concern. Similarly, the relationship between conditions and
work efficiency, in terms of PRODUCTIVITY and ERRORS, has been researched for some time. It is
also clear that attitudes and JOB SATISFACTION can be influenced by conditions in the work context.
The term working conditions can be taken to include; the ambient environment in the workplace (e.g.,
temperature, noise), the physical design of the workplace and the working positions and postures that
have to be adopted (e.g., seating, keyboard positions), and the pattern of work/rest cycles required (e.g.,
shift systems, rest breaks).
A number of aspects of the ambient environment have been studied. The harmful effects of substances
present in raw materials, in the work environment, or in products, has been the subject of toxicology
research. These studies have led to the strict imposition of controls and the need for the protection of
workers. The once benign office environment has also come under scrutiny following concern over sick-
building syndrome (apparently resulting from recycled air in sealed office buildings) and the seemingly
unfounded fears over radiation emissions from computer terminals. Noise in the workplace has strict
legal limits in most developed countries in order to minimize hearing damage. The thermal environment
has also been studied, one example would be the extreme conditions where protective clothing, to heat
or to cool individuals, may be needed. The contrast between preferred and acceptable levels of room
temperature is another example, here energy conservation is a key factor. Lighting

Document
Page 611
conditions for different tasks have also been studied in some detail, with international standards being
set. The problems of lighting and computer use is an example of recent work, with one finding being
the advantages of replacing direct lighting sources above screens with indirect lighting to avoid
reflectance problems.
Work methods and postures have also been researched. Legislation can be used to regulate such things
as the maximum weight that workers can be asked to lift, but little is laid down over other aspects of
physical work. The prevalence of upper limb disorders, following repetitive manual work, is now
causing concern. The size of legal settlements has focused attention on the need for preventative
measures. The optimization of the workplace layout, together with frequent changes in activity, appear
to be the best solution.
The study of shiftwork continues to be of importance (see HOURS OF WORK), with the search for an
ideal system being set against evidence on what constitutes the "natural" sleep/waking patterns for
people (see FATIGUE). Solutions are not straightforward as rapidly changing shifts are the most
disruptive to the body's natural rhythms, but permanent shifts, whilst they enable new rhythms to be
established, are not generally socially acceptable. The disruptive effect of long air journeys, the jet-lag
phenomenon, has also been studied in detail.
See also Job analysis; Job design; Motivator-hygiene theory
Bibliography
Parsons, K. C. (1993). Human thermal environments. London: Taylor & Francis.
Monk, T. H. & Folkard, S. (1992). Making shiftwork tolerable. London: Taylor & Francis.
Osborne, D. J. (Ed.), (1983). The physical environment at work. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Singleton, W. T. (Ed.), (1982). The body at work: Biological ergonomics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Wilson, J. R. & Corlett, E. N. (Eds), (1995). Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics
methodology. (2nd edn). London: Taylor & Francis.
R. B. STAMMERS
Work Measurement
see JOB ANALYSIS
Work Role Transitions
see CAREER TRANSITIONS

Document
Work-Sample Tests
see ASSESSMENT; SELECTION METHODS

Document
Page 613
Index
Note: Headwords are in bold type
ability, 1
group structure, 207
intelligence, 244
job analysis, 263
lack of, 22
and motivation, 337
performance, 411
person specification, 418
practical intelligence, 442
selection, 507
self-efficacy, 511
skill, 518
absenteeism, 1
accidents, 503
analysis, 294
flexitime, 180
job enrichment, 270
job satisfaction, 274

Document
stress, 541
accidents, 3, 119, 162, 503
accountability, 4
contract, 107
governance, 195
power, 439
social loafing, 522
accounting methods, 37
achievement, need for, 5, 21
acquisitions, 324
action
collective, 71, 112
concerted, 72
consultancy, 103
punitive, 461
and structure, 542
theories of, 146
action research, 5, 65, 367
action theory, 6, 164
adhocracy, 132
adjustment, work, 608
administrative technology, 557
Adult Career Concerns Inventory, 50

Document
advanced manufacturing technology, 8, 29, 232, 447, 559
affect, 9, 16, 66, 150
attitudes, 20, 21
attribution, 22
affiliation, need for, 10, 332
age, 10
absenteeism, 2
career plateauing, 49
career stages, 50
connectionist processes, 67
discrimination, 142
diversity management, 307
job influence, 11
job satisfaction, 227
life stages, 296
promotion, 571
retirement, 490
social factors, 297
substance abuse, 14
training, 579
unemployment, 593
age discrimination, 11

Document
agency restriction, 12
agency theory, 12, 391, 417, 534, 542, 581
privatization, 444
trust, 584
vertical integration, 600
agent-principal relationship, 195
agent-target relationship, 231
aggregation bias, 31
aggression, 183
alcohol and substance abuse, 14
alienation, 15, 559
Allen, T., 562
alliances, 34
Allport, Gordon, 419
altercasting, 500
altruism, 15, 599
ambiguity
communications, 80
psychological contract, 456
analysis levels, 65, 294
human resource strategy, 220
organizational change, 366
anarchy, 189

Document
anthropology, 121
anticipatory socialization, 15
anxiety, 16, 152
applicants, recruitment, 471
aptitude, 16
Argyris, C., 443, 455, 600
arousal, fatigue, 175
artificial intelligence, 245
Ashby, W. R., 385
assessment, 17
environmental, 114
interpersonal skills, 259
social constructionism, 521
assessment centers, 18, 509, 577
assets
and collaboration, 69
specificity, 581
attitude
cognitive dissonance, 66
commitment, 74
job design, 267
participation, 403
socialization, 523

Document
theory, 20
attitudes, dispositional approaches, 20
attraction–selection–attrition framework, 599
attribution, 21
of errors, 164
fundamental error, 17, 184
job insecurity, 271
redundancy, 472
stereotyping, 533
authoritarian personality, 23
authority, 24, 62
delegation, 133
groupthink, 208
hierarchy, 212
leadership style, 290
matrix organization, 320
national culture, 125
obedience, 352

Document
Page 614
and postmodernism, 436
power bases, 441
project management, 452
self management, 512
automation, 8, 24, 162, 269, 578
autonomous work groups, 25, 525
autonomy, 26
commitment, 74
job characteristics, 264
loose coupling, 299
self-concept, 45
work environment, 117
workers, 127
Bain, J., 542
Bales, R. F., 202
Bamforth, K. W., 525
banking industry, 357
bargaining, 343
game theory, 187
bargaining structure, 73
Barnard, C. I., 55, 63, 203, 301, 352

Document
barriers to entry, 28, 178
Bartlett, C. A., 339
batch production, 24, 29
Bayesian analysis, 531
behavior
control, 461
cues, 258
individual, 21
and learning, 291
observation, 18
and performance, 85, 412
theory x and y, 565
behavior modification, 29, 332
behavioral decision research, 30, 65, 492, 505, 598
behavioral intention, 20
Belbin, M., 205
benchmarking, 31, 569
bias, 31, 533
chaos theory, 62
decision making, 30
disability, 140
fundamental attribution error, 184
organizational setting, 65

Document
research design, 480
selection methods, 510
statistical methods, 531
biodata, 32, 509
Blau, P., 362
Blauner, R., 559
board responsibilities, 195
bonus payments, 33, 186, 283
boundaries, 366, 367
boundary spanning, 33, 78, 114, 238, 254, 357, 366
intergroup relations, 248
open systems, 354
uncertainty, 592
bounded rationality, 34, 36, 108, 384, 391, 468, 505, 592
Boyatzis, R. E., 83
brainstorming, 35, 200
Braverman, Harry, 283
bureaucracy, 35, 55, 182, 301
Aston studies, 483
and classical design theory, 62
communication, 78
contingency theory, 105

Document
decision making, 131
effectiveness, 392
information processing, 232
liabilities, 37
organizational design, 385
professionals, 450
properties, 36
research, 38
types, 386
vicious cycles, 600
burnout, 39, 499
business ethics, 40
business process reengineering, 42, 488, 526, 608
buyers, 178
California F-Scale, 23
capacities, 10
capital, and labor, 283
capitalism, 436
career, 44, 313
dual, 313
politics, 431
professionals, 450

Document
typologies, 48
vocational guidance, 602
career anchor, 44
career breaks, 45, 313
career choice, 16, 46, 50, 75, 228, 545, 605
career counseling, 47, 115
career development, 47, 422
career planning, 304
career plateauing, 49, 50
career stages, 50
career theory, 51
career transitions, 53
Carroll, G. R., 432
case study research, 54, 481, 483
catastrophe theory, 371
categorization, 247
causal inference, 466
centralization, 129
CEOs, 56
ceremonies, 494
Chandler, A. D., 55, 136, 386
change
effective, 59

Document
flexibility, 179
force field analysis, 181
Fragmentation studies, 380
functionalism, 184
novel/routine, 372
organizational, 366
organizational development, 360
process theory, 361
resistance to, 483
sensitivity training, 514
strategic management, 537
technological, 558
in values, 598
change, evaluation, 58
change, methods, 59
chaos theory, 61, 371
charismatic leaders, 288
Cherns, A., 525
chief executive officer: see CEO
chief operating officer: see COO
choice, 384
citizenship: see organizational citizenship

Document
civil rights, 141, 241
classical design theory, 62, 528
client relationships, 270, 446
closed systems, 552
coalition formation, 63, 131
codes of conduct, 64
codetermination, 135
coding/decoding, 550
coercion, 438
cognition, 20, 291
aging, 11
moral development, 329
negotiation, 344
performance, 10
cognition in organizations, 64
cognitive appraisal, 271
cognitive architecture, 66
cognitive dissonance, 66, 75, 532
cognitive ergonomics, 162
cognitive processes, 21, 64, 66

Document
socialization, 524
cognitive resource theory, 68, 199, 232
collaboration, 69
innovation adoption, 237
collateral organization, 70

Document
Page 615
collective action, 71, 112, 229, 247, 502
collective bargaining, 72, 135, 229, 407, 470, 571
collectives
charismatic leadership, 288
emergent properties, 150
ethnography, 167
representation, 476
collectivism/individualism, 122, 522, 573
command, unity of, 62
commensalism, 69, 82
commitment, 74
affective/continuance, 74
attitudinal/organizational, 74
behavioral, 75
client, 104
conformity, 98
employee involvement, 153
escalating, 417
self-management, 512
and turnover, 589
commitment, dual, 74, 76

Document
commitment, escalating, 76
communication, 77
and ambiguity, 380
channels, 79
conflict, 94
elements, 77
environment, 357
formal/informal, 79
functions, 78
group size, 206
human–computer interface, 215
ideational, 78
ideological, 78
meaning, 77
media, 78, 79
skills, 256, 257, 518
symbolism, 551
team building, 555
trust, 584
upward, 594
communication systems, automation, 25
communications technology, 80, 558

Document
community ecology, 82
community psychology, 6
comparison, social, 519
compatibility, 163
compensation, 13
competencies, 17, 19, 45, 83
factor analysis, 85
high performance managerial, 84
and interpersonal skills, 257
organizational learning, 395
outcomes, 86
skill, 518
competitive advantage
barriers to entry, 28
collaboration, 69
creativity, 116
reputation, 476
research and development, 479
resource-based theory, 485
technology transfer, 561
competitiveness, 87, 384, 543

Document
complexity, 88, 521
compliance, 24, 89, 231
computer, 215, 517
human interaction, 8, 25
sabotage, 503
computer integrated manufacturing, 8
computer modeling, 91
computer-aided design, 8, 90
conditioning, 92, 473
conduct, codes of, 64
conflict, 71, 92, 184
cognitive resource theory, 68
and consensus, 100
definitions, 93
dialectical process theory, 370
and disputes, 97
joint venture, 275
prisoners' dilemma, 443
procedural justice, 279
professionals/managers, 451

Document
and reciprocity, 470
sabotage, 502
sources, 93
see also role conflict
conflict management, 94, 96, 258
conflict resolution, 97
conflicts of interest, 229
conformity, 10, 98, 125, 200, 238
confrontation, 129
conglomerate diversification, 99
congruence, 100
connectionism, 67
consensus, 100
consultancy, 101, 116
consultancy intervention models, 103
consumerism, 162
content, and process, 446
contingency theory, 62, 105, 138, 232, 289, 321, 362, 403
effectiveness, 393
environment, 357
leadership, 422
organizational size, 399
uncertainty, 592

Document
continuous improvement, 42, 106, 175, 277, 360, 568
contract, 106
autonomy, 107
competency, 107
consideration, 107
discrete/recurrent/relational, 109
explicit/implicit, 108
organizational theory, 106
psychological, 217, 313, 455
safeguards, 108
social, 109
strategic alliances, 533
control, 62, 110
conflict, 93
decentralization, 127
family firms, 174
formalization, 182
function, 78
group development, 202
locus of, 298
mergers and acquisitions, 325
minorities, 327

Document
and ownership, 13
restructuring, 488
span, 270, 528
trust, 584
control theory, 513
COO, 56
cooperation, 95, 125, 383
cooperatives, 112
coping, 541
core competence, 113
distinctive, 113
innovation, 239
strategy management, 537
see also competence
coronary heart disease, 590
corporate ownership, and control, 12
corporate social performance, 114, 374
counseling in organizations, 115
Creative Problem Solving, 118
creativity, 45, 116, 235
minority influence, 327

Document
motivation, 117

Document
Page 616
obedience, 352
teleological theory, 369
crises, 118
punctuated equilibrium, 460
turnaround management, 586
Critical Incidents Approach, 262
critical theory, 120
cross-cultural research, 251
Crozier, M., 55
culture, 121
absenteeism, 3
conflict, 94
emotion, 152
ethnography, 167
international management, 251
leadership, 287
motivation, 227, 335
organization theory, 364
organizational, 376
resistance to change, 484
social loafing, 522

Document
symbolism, 550
uncertainty, 592
values, 294, 598
culture
cross-cultural research, 122
research, 376, 494
culture, group, 124
culture, national, 125
culture shock, 245
customers, 169, 394, 568
cybernetics, 110
self-regulation, 513
vicious cycles, 600
Daft, R. L., 385
death, organizational, 382
decentralization, 127, 136, 253, 545
decision making, 12, 25, 128
behavioral decision research, 30, 598
bias, 30
bounded rationality, 34
bureaucracy, 38

Document
business ethics, 41
careers, 46
commitment, 76
communications technology, 81
conformity, 99
Delphi group, 134
democratic, 112
evaluation research, 168
garbage can model, 189
group, 35, 90, 100, 199, 348
integration, 243
knowledge and skills, 418
motivation, 331, 333
mutual adjustment, 341
negotiation, 344
organization theory, 365
organizational neurosis, 396
participation, 127, 402
politics, 429

Document
power distance, 440
procedural justice, 279
quality circles, 463
rational, 65, 468
risks, 454, 492, 493
satisficing, 504
strategic choice, 132
uncertainty, 592
decline, organizational, 382
decoupling, 299
deep structure, 459
delegation, 62, 127, 133, 385, 439
Delphi, 134
Deming, W. Edwards, 106
democracy, 127, 135, 403
industrial, 73
trade unions, 572
demography, 383, 579
density dependence model, 433
departmentalization, 136, 144, 386
dependence

Document
power, 441
resources, 486
design, see organizational design
design processes, sociotechnical theory, 525
deskilling, 265, 268, 283, 451, 506
diagnosis, consultancy, 101, 103
dialectical theory, organizational change, 370
differentiation, 137, 138
integration, 243
linking pins, 297
organizational culture, 378
structural, 88
dilemmas, ethical, 137
dilemmas, organizational, 137
DiMaggio, P. J., 240
disability, 139
discipline, see also punishment
discretion, 114, 541
discrimination, 141
age, 11
alcohol and substance abuse, 14
biodata, 32

Document
and disability, 139
equal opportunity, 159
intelligence testing, 245
labor market, 282
prejudice, 442
racial, 467
sex differences, 515
status, 531
training, 579
disputes, 97
diversification, 99, 142
core competence, 113
related, 143
unrelated, 143
diversity
consequences, 310
content and structure, 310
ethnic and cultural, 307
individual differences, 227
management of, 226, 307
organizations, 307
practical implications, 310

Document
division of labor, 137, 144, 269
formalization, 182
divisionalization, 136
dominance, 145, 224
double-loop learning, 145, 388
downsizing, 147, 157, 488
and decline, 382
impact, 148
levels of analysis, 148
Doz, Y. L., 340
dramaturgy, rituals, 495
Drucker, P., 302
drug testing, 14
dual careers, 313
dual commitment, 76
Dunlop, J. T., 229
Durkheim, Émile, 203
ecology, 82, 155, 240, 433
econometrics, 465
economics

Document
institutional, 230
organizational, 390
public/private sectors, 196
risk-taking, 493
scarcity, 505
education
as institution, 239
organization climate, 374
effectiveness, 384

Document
Page 617
managerial, 316
organizational, 391, 465
payment systems, 408
productivity, 448
efficiency, 147
egalitarianism, 125
egocentricity, 200
emergent properties, 150
emotion, 9, 16, 20, 150
conflict, 93
equity theory, 161
problem solving, 104
rituals, 495
emotional labor, 152
emotions in organizations, 151
employee involvement, 153, 218, 402, 463, 504
employee ownership, 517
employee participation, 463, 526
Employee Stock Ownership Trusts, 517
employee theft, 154
employees, 26
continuous improvement, 106

Document
insecure, 271
international, 170
motivation, 335
screening, 212
third country nationals, 171
turnover, 588
welfare, 115
employment, as psychological contract, 455
Employment Assistance Programs, 14, 115
empowerment, 134, 155, 439
enactment, 65, 155, 436
enculturation, 78
engineering psychology: see ergonomics
enterprise bargaining, 73
entrainment, 156
entrepreneurship, 157, 433
corporate, 158
creativity, 117
prospector organizations, 538
small businesses, 519
environment
assessment, 114
change, 358, 367

Document
organizational decline, 382
resources, 486
as stakeholder, 529
systems theory, 552
task/institutional, 389
training, 573
working conditions, 610
environmental niches, 432
environmental selection, 432
equal opportunity, 159, 510, 521, 606
equifinality, 369
equilibrium, punctuated, 202, 434, 459
equity
joint ventures, 275
trust, 585
equity theory, 154, 160, 333, 406
redundancy, 472
social comparison, 520
status incongruence, 532
ERG theory, 161
ergonomics, 161, 411, 610

Document
cognitive, 162
software, 233, 527
error management, 164
errors, 145, 163, 164
ergonomics, 162
halo effect, 210
total quality management, 569
training, 214
ethics, 64, 599
commitment, 75
contract, 107
psychological testing, 458
ethnicity, 166
ethnography, 167
European Community, equal opportunity, 159
evaluation
goal setting, 193
performance, 410
training, 576
evaluation research, 58, 168
event history analysis, 530
evolution, 459
evolutionary economics, 391

Document
evolutionary theory, organizational change, 371
excellence, 169, 401
organizations, 292
postmodernism, 436
exchange relations, 170, 199, 296
exchange theory, 585
executive discretion, 57
expatriates, 53, 170, 245, 253
expectancies, 193
locus of control, 298
reality shock, 469
expectancy theory, 511, 600, see also vie theory
expectancy value theory, 333
expectations
contract, 108
institutional, 114
expected utility theory, 453
extinction, 173
extraversion/introversion, 173
Eysenck, H., 423
face-to-face communication, 79

Document
facilitation, 258, 453
failure, 396, 434
family firms, 174, 182, 519
fast track careers, 313
fatigue, 175
Fayol, H., 301
feedback, 5, 7, 77, 175
assessment, 17
autonomous work groups, 26
communications technology, 81
content, 176
control, 110
creativity, 117
evaluation research, 168
frequency, 176
goal setting, 193
job enrichment, 270
knowledge of results, 280
motivation, 334
open systems, 354
organizational, 175

Document
performance appraisal, 413
productivity, 449
reinforcement, 473
self-regulation, 513
sources, 176
surveys, 549
training, 575
vicious cycles, 600
work groups, 609
feelings, 151
Femininity–Masculinity, 122
feminism, 177, 224
Festinger, L., 519
field experiments, 211
field theory, 203
financial restructuring, 487
fine-tuning-to-disaster, 119
first mover advantages, 29, 87
Fisherian significance testing, 531
five forces framework, 178

Document
Flanders, A., 72
flexibility, 132, 179, 272, 389
flexitime, 180

Document
Page 618
Follett, M. P., 63
force field analysis, 180, 203
Ford, Henry, 183
Fordism, 62, 144, 500, 506
formal organization, 182
formalization, 128, 129, 182, 500
Forrester, J., 91
Foucault, Michel, 224
founders, 158, 182
fragmentation studies, organizational culture, 379
free riders, 198, 443, 522
Freeman, J., 432
Freud, Sigmund, 228
frustration, 183, 439
fulfillment, 360
functional design, 184, 386
functional job analysis, 262
functionalism, 184, 494
functionality, 527
fundamental attribution error, 17, 22, 184, 533
fuzzy sets, 50, 185

Document
g factor: see intelligence
gainsharing, 186, 415, 452
Galbraith, J. R., 385
game theory, 187
negotiation, 344
reputation, 476
risk-taking, 492
trust, 585
garbage can model, 91, 132, 189, 239, 447
gatekeepers, 189, 427, 458
gender, 190
absenteeism, 2
career breaks, 45
conflict, 95
cross-cultural factors, 122
discrimination, 141
diversity management, 307
ergonomics, 162
job analysis, 263
life stages, 297
occupations, 353
persistence, 417

Document
roles, 516
sexual harassment, 439, 516
women at work, 605
women managers, 607
generalization, 192, 564, 597
genetics, 467
Ghoshal, S., 339
Giddens, A., 542
glass ceiling, 605
global firm, 340
globalization, 248, 251, 579
goal congruence, 13
goal displacement, 37
goal setting, 6, 193
consultancy, 101
contract, 107
creativity, 117
delegation, 134
error, 163
human resource management, 217

Document
management by objectives, 303
motivation, 332
motivation and performance, 337
and performance appraisal, 412
self regulation, 513
goals, 193
and effectiveness, 392
motivation, 330
see also path–goal theory
Goffman, E., 139, 225, 499, 554
governance and ownership, 194, 386
government agencies, 28, 196, 561
government and business, 195, 196, 529
privatization, 444
gradualism, 459
graph theory, 198
graphology, 509
greenfield sites, 217
group behavior, 201
group cohesiveness, 100, 199, 201, 206
group culture, 124
group decision making, 35, 90, 100, 134, 199, 348, 493

Document
groupthink, 207
quality circles, 463
group development, 201, 207, 523
Group Discussion exercises, 18
group dynamics, 189, 199, 203, 443
change, 484
roles, 205
systems theory, 552
group effectiveness, 609
group membership, 223, 532
group norms, 204
dynamics, 203
force fields, 181
taboos, 554
group performance, 522
group polarization, 493
group pressure, 89, 98
group process, interventions, 99
group roles, 205
group size, 206

Document
groupthink, 93, 99, 200, 207
growth, bureaucracy, 38
growth need strength, 208, 264, 266, 510
Hage, J., 88
halo effect, 210
Hamel, G., 113
handicap, 139
handwriting analysis, 509
Hannan, M., 432
harassment, 439
hardiness, 53, 210, 593
Hawley, A., 82
Hawthorne effect, 211, 332, 609
hazard control, 503
health status, 2
Heenan, D. A., 339
Heider, F, 21
helplessness, learned, 21
heuristics, 30, 164
hierarchy, 122, 212, 385, 513
and brainstorming, 35

Document
gate keepers, 189
group decision making, 200
integration, 243
power bases, 127
role set, 499
self regulation, 513
Hofstede, G., 121, 122, 125, 252, 592
Homans, G. C., 278
honesty testing, 212
host country nationals, 172
hours of work, 213
human–computer interaction, 214, 560
human behavior, field theory, 203
human cognition, 232
human computer interaction, 8, 25, 162, 164, 233, 527, 578
human ecology, 82
human relations movement, 182, 215, 403
human resource management, 17, 74, 216
career, 46, 49, 50
equal opportunity, 159
expectancy theory, 601
Harvard approach, 216

Document
Page 619
high technology, 217
international, 248
market pressures, 216
participation, 403
realistic job previews, 468
strategy, 216, 219
human resource planning, 218, 220
human resource strategy, 25, 219
performance management, 415
hypothesis testing, 163
IBM, international management, 252
idea champions, 237
identification, 223
ethnicity, 166
referent power, 441
symbolism, 550
ideology, 64, 223

Document
conflicts, 95
and discrimination, 141
dominant, 224
government and business, 198
privatization, 445
rituals, 494
image systems, 7
imitators, 87
impairment, 139
implementation theory, 60, 361
impression management, 152, 200, 225, 329
perception, 409
personality testing, 427
public scrutiny, 458
Improshare(R), 186
improvement, continuous, 31, 42, 106, 277, 360, 568
In-Trays, 18
incentives, 36 see also bonus payments
individual behavior, 21, 204
individual differences, 53, 85, 116, 227
control, 110

Document
expectancy theory, 601
job design, 266
negotiation, 343
personnel selection, 508
recruitment, 471
self-esteem, 511
sex, 515
stress, 541
time management, 567
types A/B, 590
values, 598
individualism, 95, 122, 125, 520, 522, 573
industrial economics, 537
industrial psychology, 302, 362, 481
industrial relations, 96, 229
commitment, 76
deskilling, 269
job insecurity, 271
technology, 559
industry rivalry, 178
inefficiency, bureaucracy, 38
inequality, 431, 440

Document
influence, 231
group dynamics, 203
group norms, 204
institutional theory, 240
minority group, 327
participation, 402
and power, 437
social, 98
information
asymmetry, 13
information exchange, networking, 346
information processing, 66, 77, 231, 385
open systems, 354
upward communication, 594
information systems, 385
information technology, 8, 42, 79, 232, 558
age factor, 10
communications, 80
knowledge workers, 280
open systems, 355

Document
information workers, 280
informational restructuring, 487
initiation rituals, 494
innovation, 233
and benchmarking, 31
bureaucracy, 37
competitiveness, 87
diffusion, 238
enabling conditions, 235
integration, 244
life cycle theory, 369
motivation, 234
organizational, 234
organizational size and complexity, 234, 236
processes, 236
quantitative research, 482
innovation adoption, 237, 238, 558
innovation diffusion, 78, 238, 241
institutional economics, new, 230
institutional theory, 239, 362, 388

Document
empirical results, 241
guarantors, 108
professionals, 451
total quality management, 570
institutionalism, new, 242
institutions, 141, 242
instrumentality, 243, 601
integration, 137, 138, 243
organizational culture, 377
politics, 429
work flow, 500
integrity tests, 212
intellect structure, 1
intelligence, testing, 244, 442
interaction
game theory, 187
women/men, 190
interactionism, 227, 245

Document
motivation, 330
socialization, 524
symbolic, 342, 550
intercultural process, 245, 252
interdependence, 83, 96, 105
ecological, 433
work flow, 608
international human resource management, 248, 253
cultural factors, 251
high potential management, 313
host country nationals, 172
hours of work, 213
stakeholders, 529
International Standards, 353, 527
interorganizational relations, 69, 198, 254, 358, 366, 386, 486, 534, 582
interpersonal interactions, 170
interpersonal relationships, 226
interpersonal skills, 256, 518, 580
and competencies, 257

Document
Page 620
importance, 257
training, 259
interventionism, 367
interventions, 59, 71
consultancy, 101
group process, 99
interviewing, 249
for selection, 506, 509
intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, 260
isomorphism, 241, 261, 451
Jackson, J., 205
Jahoda, M., 6
Janis, I. L., 207
Japanese management, 125, 128
job analysis, 18, 85, 262
and description, 264
selection interview, 507
job attitudes, 481
job characteristics, 208, 263, 266

Document
job description, 264
roles, 496, 498
Job Description Index, 273
job design, 144, 265
errors, 163
fatigue, 175
repetitive work, 475
job deskilling, 8, 25, 90, 265, 268
job diagnostic surveys, 264
job enrichment, 266, 270, 402
job evaluation, 406
job insecurity, 75, 148, 271
emotion, 151
redundancy, 472
job involvement, 593
job performance, 85
job redesign, 6, 266
job regulation, 230
job rotation, 249, 266, 272, 276

Document
job satisfaction, 2, 9, 75, 103, 272
age, 11, 227
attitudes, 20, 21
equity theory, 161
hierarchy, 212
human relations movement, 215
interactionism, 245
and motivation, 339
personality, 421
professionals, 450
retirement, 490
rewards, 491
self-esteem, 511
turnover, 588
job security, 492 see also job insecurity
job simplification, 265
job stress, 115
job withdrawal, 604
joining up process, 107, 274, 468, 469, 494

Document
joint ventures, 275
intercultural, 246
politics, 431
judgment, 30
Juran, J. M., 106
just-in-time, 238, 276, 313, 569, 576, 592
justice, 335, 520
justice, distributive, 278, 585
justice, procedural, 279, 462, 472
kaizen, 164 see also continuous improvement
Kant, I., 563
Kanter, R. M., 349
Karasek, R. A., 541
Khun, T., 401
Kluckholn, C., 121
know-how see knowledge workers
knowledge
management education, 306
skills and abilities, 575
tacit, 561
and theory, 563

Document
knowledge of results, 280, 337
knowledge transfer, 252
knowledge workers, 280, 436
Kroeber, A. L., 121
labor, 5, 15, 283, 415
labor legislation, 73
labor market, 282
demography, 383
external, 282
flexibility, 179
human resource planning, 219
internal, 282
realistic job preview, 469
recruitment, 471
segmented, 282
turnover, 588
labor process theory, 230, 283, 293, 502
labor turnover, 75
Lawrence, P. R., 137, 243
leadership, 22, 55, 66, 284

Document
communication, 78
contingency theory, 422
cultural factors, 287
definitions, 284
delegation, 133
dilemmas, 138
influence, 231
informal, 287
integration, 377
machiavellianism, 300
and management, 285
micro level, 582
motivation of workforce, 261
need for power, 441
participation, 402
personality, 422
power, 438
research, 481
rituals, 494

Document
substitutes, 543
super leadership, 545
supervision, 286, 546
as symbolic action, 551
task and maintenance behavior, 554
transactional/transformational, 290, 546, 582
turnaround, 586
leadership, charismatic, 288
leadership contingencies, 289
learned helplessness, 21
learning
age factor, 11
behavior change, 92
behavior modification, 29
double-loop, 145
management development, 303
mentoring, 323
motivation, 331
organizational, 395
parallel structures, 70
socialization, 523

Document
see also training
learning curve, 395
learning, individual, 291
learning organization, 292, 360, 389

Document
Page 621
learning resistance, 259
legitimacy, 114, 293, 393, 433
and reputation, 477
values, 599
levels of analysis, 294, 366
Lewin, K., 5, 180, 189, 203, 484, 514
life cycle theory, 368, 489
life stage, 296
career development, 47
retirement, 490
unemployment, 593
lifestyle, 353
Likert, R., 555
liminality, 494
line and staff, 297
linkages, 299
linking pin, 297, 528

Document
Locke, E. A., 193
locus of control, 298, 337
long/short-term orientation, 122
loose coupling, 299
Lorsch, J. W., 137, 243
machiavellianism, 300, 424, 430, 437
maintenance behavior, 554
management, 62
conflict, 93
effectiveness, 110
functions, 62
Japanese, 566
and leadership, 285
politics, 429
scientific, 62
management by objectives (MBO), 302
management, classical theory, 300
management development, 172, 205, 303
management of diversity, 307
management education, 305, 573

Document
management of high potential, 312, 544
management theory, 5, 207
managerial behavior, 257, 314
characteristics, 315
content, 315
effectiveness, 316
grid, 316
models, 315
responsibilities, 315
managerial grid, 316
managerial style, 317
supervision, 547
women, 607
managers
change, 60
competencies, 84
and environment, 358
performing units, 512
resource dependence, 487

Document
role, 496
women, 516, 607
manifest and latent functions, 317
Manning, P. K., 550
manpower stock, 219
markets, 145, 216, 387, 487
Marx, K., 559
Marxism
distributive justice, 278
ideology, 224
industrial relations, 230
labor process theory, 283
Masculinity–Femininity, 122
Maslach Burnout Inventory, 39
Mason, R., 542
mass production, 24, 62, 265, 268, 276, 307, 318, 559
Master of Business Administration, 305
matrix organization, 96, 319, 386
Mayo, Elton, 203, 215
meaning, denotative/connotative, 550
measurement

Document
and analysis levels, 294
risk-taking, 493
validity, 596
mechanistic/organic, 128, 321
media choice see communication
mental health, 321
employees, 115
job design, 268
unemployment, 593
mentoring, 323, 496
mergers and acquisitions, 144, 324
intercultural process, 246
politics, 431
slack resources, 518
merit pay, 250, 415
Merton, R. K., 317, 600
metaphor, 326
Meyer, John, 239
micro-economics, 390
Miles, R. E., 386, 536, 538
Milgram, S., 98, 208, 352
Minnesota Importance Questionnaire, 491

Document
Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire, 273, 491
minority group influence, 327
Mischel, W., 419
mission statements, 249, 328
model-selection bias, 32
modeling, 231, 241
modernism, 436
modular organizations, 81
monopolies, 28
moods, 9
moral development, 41, 329
Morgenstern, Osker, 187
motivation, 66, 330
ability, 337
change, 484
and commitment, 74
control, 110
creativity, 117
cultural factors, 227, 335
extrinsic/intrinsic, 332
gainsharing, 187
goal setting, 193, 332
group size, 206

Document
innovation, 234
intrinsic/extrinsic, 260
management theory, 301
path–goal theory, 404
performance, 330, 411
productivity, 449
research methods, 481
rewards, 491
self-actualization, 510
skill levels, 269
social/cultural context, 334
surveys, 548
values, 598
vie theory, 243, 600
motivation and performance, 336, 511
motivator-hygiene theory, 273, 338
multifactor leadership questionnaire, 583

Document
Page 622
multinational corporations, 248, 275, 339
nationalization, 444
needs
assessment, 574
ERG theory, 161
for growth, 208
hierarchies, 491, 510
social, 215
negative feedback, 176
negotiated order, 342, 542
negotiation, 97, 131, 258, 342
contract, 107
personality, 424
network analysis, 198, 345, 497
networking, 51, 63, 346
communication, 77, 79
environment, 357
family firms, 174
high potential management, 313

Document
innovation, 239
interorganizational relations, 254
isomorphism, 261
job rotation, 249
mentoring, 324
multinational corporations, 340
professionalism, 241
reputation, 478
Neumann, John von, 187
new institutionalism, 242
Neyman-Pearson hypothesis testing, 531
nominal group technique, 348
nonwork/work, 151, 349, 567
norms
gender, 191
group, 204
not-for-profit organizations, 350
Nystrom, P. C., 385

Document
obedience, 24, 352
observational learning, 291
occupations, 269, 282, 352
Ohmae, K., 533
omitted-variable biases, 32
open systems, 105, 106, 354, 552
environment, 356
technology, 558
uncertainty, 592
open systems theory, 254, 386
operant behavior, 92, 291, 473
operationalization, 355
operations management, 276, 355
order theories, 141
organization development, 359
change, 367, 484
effectiveness, 59
group norms, 205
sensitivity, 514
survey feedback, 549

Document
team building, 555
organization and environment, 34, 255, 356
bureaucracy, 38
differentiation studies, 379
politics, 429
stakeholders, 529
technology, 557
uncertainty, 592
organization theory, 224, 361
contract, 106
design adaptation, 384
ideology, 224
institutions, 242
sabotage, 502
structure, 384
organizational behavior, 9, 362, 365
organizational boundaries, 354, 356, 366
boundary spanning, 33

Document
organizational change, 58, 98, 359, 366, 387
categorized, 60
diversity, 311
ecological, 434
entrainment, 156
innovation, 233
interorganizational relations, 255
politics, 430
processes, 368
routines, 395
technology, 214, 561
organizational citizenship, 195, 373, 456
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, 74
organizational conflict, 94
organizational culture, 121, 138, 152, 306, 360, 376, 432
and climate, 41, 375
communication, 78

Document
demography, 383
differentiation perspective, 378
diversity, 310
employee theft, 154
founders, 182
fragmentation perspective, 379
integration perspective, 377
matrix, 320
nexus approach, 379
operant learning, 474
rituals, 495
subjective approach, 381
succession planning, 544
values, 599
organizational decline and death, 382
organizational demography, 95, 383, 497
organizational design, 29, 36, 100, 136, 375, 384
technology, 81
ergonomics, 163
functional, 184
integration, 243
links, 555

Document
matrix, 319
power distance, 440
principles, 62
restructuring, 487
size of organization, 399
subunits, 543
technology, 559
organizational economics, 390
organizational effectiveness, 85, 147, 391, 465, 552
just-in-time, 277
paradox, 401
performance, 411
performance related pay, 417
process consultation, 446
organizational growth, 435
organizational innovation, 234
organizational learning, 146, 221, 292, 312, 388, 395, 452
organizational legitimacy, 294

Document
Page 623
organizational power, 437
organizational research, 396, 481, 482
agency theory, 13
computer simulation, 518
statistical methods, 530
technology, 557
validity, 596
organizational restructuring, 42, 49, 316
roles, 497
organizational rituals, 494
organizational roles, 496
organizational size, 88, 105, 147, 321, 363, 387, 399
innovation, 236
politics, 430
organizational socialization, 523
organizational sociology, 88, 362
organizational strategy, 220
organizational structure, 132
convergence, 252

Document
mass production, 318
process technology, 447
organizations
exchange relations, 170
multiform, 433
networking, 347
Ouchi, W. G., 566
outsourcing, 81
ownership
family firms, 174
and governance, 194
paradigm, 202, 326, 401
paradox, 394, 401
parallel learning structures, 70
partial reinforcement, 474
participation, 112, 402, 439
by employees, 463
delegation, 133
employee, 526
goal setting, 193

Document
participative management, 208
patents, 28
path–goal theory, 404
pay differentials, 406
effectiveness, 408
expatriates, 171
extrinsic motivation, 260
gainsharing, 186
instrumentality, 601
international human resource management, 249
performance-related, 179, 243, 415
rewards, 491
Penrose, E., 485
perception, 409, 563
assessment, 17
commitment escalating, 76
politics, 428
stereotyping, 533
performance, 5, 145

Document
age factor, 10
and behavior, 85
bonus payments, 33
change, 367
comparative, 230
goal setting, 193
group size, 206
Hawthorne effect, 211
and job satisfaction, 274
motivation, 330
participation, 403
self-efficacy, 511
social facilitation, 521
status, 532
work groups, 609
performance appraisal, 66, 177, 262, 411
creativity, 117
fundamental attribution error, 184
international human resources management, 250
productivity, 448

Document
research, 481
performance, individual, 410
performance management, 415
performance related pay, 179, 415
Perlmutter, H. V., 339
Perrow, C., 119, 387
persistence, 337, 417
person–job fit, 245, 418, 421
person specification, 418, 508
person-centered theories, 141
personal characteristics, 418
personality, 137, 419
action theory, 7
authoritarian, 23
Big Five Model, 423
conformity, 98
entrepreneurship, 158
field dependent people, 424
individual differences, 227

Document
interactionism, 245
intercultural factors, 246
leadership, 286
locus of control, 298
machiavellianism, 300
motivation, 332
need for power, 441
self-esteem, 511
types, 590
values, 598
women managers, 607
work involvement, 610
personality testing, 426, 456
personality traits, 9, 116, 420
emotion, 150
extraversion/introversion, 173
personnel management, 216, 427
downsizing, 147
selection methods, 17, 18, 32, 508
Peters, T., 514
Pfeffer, J., 363

Document
phenomenology, 228
planning, 428
plasticity, 422
politics, 428
careers, 431
coalition formation, 64
collective bargaining, 73
environmental selection, 432
population ecology, 293, 358, 364, 391, 432, 486
evolutionary theory, 371
interdependence, 433
processes, 434
Porter, M., 178, 536
Position Analysis Questionnaire, 263
positive feedback, 176
post-feminism, 177
postmodernism, 79, 168, 284, 436
cultural studies, 381

Document
taboos, 554
poverty, 12
Powell, W. W., 240

Document
Page 624
power, 5, 24, 437
autonomy, 26
coercive, 441
collective bargaining, 72
conflict, 93
corruption, 438
decentralization, 127
dialectical theory, 370
exchange relations, 170
expert, 441
fragmentation studies, 380
gender, 190
governance, 195
hierarchical, 212
and influence, 231
and leadership, 438
legitimacy, 293
negative, 439
political, 428
rituals, 494

Document
and uncertainty, 592
power bases, 63, 440, 529
power, distance, 122, 441
power, need for, 440
power sharing, 439
power-conflict, 141
practical intelligence, 283, 442
Prahalad, C. K., 113, 340
prejudice, 442, 467
prestige, 532
price leaders, 87
principal-agent relationship, 12
prisoners' dilemma, 443
privatization, 38, 198, 444
problem solving, 67, 135
creative, 118
emotional barriers, 104
group, 202
joint, 562
process consultation, 103, 445
process control, 67

Document
process technology, 447, 557
process theory, 447
product design, 387
product differentiation, 29, 87
product technology, 557
productivity, 448
accident rates, 503
CAD, 90
lost, 14
mass production, 318
maximizing, 144
quality of working life, 465
scientific management, 506
professionalism, 241, 449
career plateauing, 49
career stages, 48
role conflict, 496
sabotage, 502
technology, 560
professionals in organizations, 101, 314, 450
profit centers, 128

Document
profit sharing, 452
profitability, 28, 269
project management, 386, 452
projection, 453
property rights laws, 28
prospect theory, 453
protest, 71
psychoanalytic theory, 228
psychological contract, 51, 107, 217, 455, 469
vocational guidance, 602
psychometric tests: see psychological testing
public interest theory, 198
public responsibility, 114
punctuated equilibrium, 202, 434, 459
change, 368
technological change, 558
punishment, 329, 461, 547

Document
quality, 87, 393, 476 see also total quality management
quality circles, 218, 403, 463
quality control, 144
quality of working life, 15, 266, 378, 448, 464, 525
quasi-experimental design, 465, 480
questionnaires, 426, 548
race, 120, 166, 467
racism, 142, 443
Raiffa, H., 344
rationality, 468
bounded, 35, 108
commitment, 76
and emotion, 152
game theory, 344
and personality, 396
technology, 560
Vie theory, 601
re-engineering, 488
Realistic Conflict Theory, 247
realistic job previews, 468

Document
reality, 520, 564
reality shock, 469
reciprocity, 204, 329, 470, 584
employee theft, 154
tit-for-tat, 443
recruitment, 468, 470
and succession planning, 544
redundancy, 148, 456, 472, 594
reinforcement, 92, 175, 298, 473, 517
relative deprivation theory, 247
reliability, 375, 475
relocation, 282
repatriation, 171
repetitive strain injury, 475
repetitive work, 266, 475, 611
representation, 475
reputation, 169, 476
economic, 476

Document
integrative view, 478
social, 420
research
business ethics, 40
case studies, 54
cross-cultural, 122, 251
industrial/organizational psychology, 481
levels of analysis, 51
research design, 58, 480, 596
research and development management, 478
research methods, 402, 482, 483
resistance
force fields, 181
labor process, 284
sabotage, 502
resistance to change, 483
resource based theory, 69, 113, 391, 485, 537
strategic alliances, 534
resource dependence, 57, 363, 429, 486, 518
environment, 358
open systems, 354

Document

Document
Page 625
resource partitioning, 432
responsibilities
assignment, 22
diffused, 200
governance, 195
managerial, 315
restructuring, 487
roles, 497
results, knowledge of, 280
retirement, 490
rewards, 491
autonomous work groups, 26
business ethics, 41
creativity, 117
goal setting, 194
power base, 441
supervision, 547
turnover, 590

Document
Ricardo, D., 485
risk taking, 492
CEOs, 57
high-risk systems, 119
prospect theory, 453
safety, 504
and trust, 584
risky shift, 200, 204, 454, 493
rites, 494
rituals, 494
rivalry, 178
Rogers, C. R., 100
Rogers, E., 235
role ambiguity, 496, 498
role conflict, 496, 498
role distancing, 499
role over/underload, 499
role set, 496, 499, 500
role taking, 497, 500
emotion, 152
impression management, 225
socialization, 523
role theory, 496, 500

Document
business ethics, 41
stakeholders, 529
roles, 53, 495
boundary spanning, 33
CEO, 56
clarification, 556
competencies, 83
differentiation, 496
family firms, 174
formalization, 182
influence, 231
redefined, 96
rituals, 495
sex, 516
and status, 531
taboos, 554
Rotter, J. B., 298
routines, 395
routinization, 105, 500
Rucker Plan, 186

Document
rustout, 499
sabotage, 502
safety, 503, 504, 610
Salancik, G., 363
sample selection bias, 31
sanctions, 3, 461
satisficing, 201, 504
scale economies, 28
Scanlon Plan, 186
scarcity, 505
Schumpeter, J., 558
scientific management, 62, 265, 268, 301, 331, 356, 505
manager-led units, 512
and sociotechnical theory, 525
Scott, W. R., 362
selection
environmental, 432
methods, 18
personnel, 32, 249
and recruitment, 470
research, 481

Document
training, 577
selection interviewing, 506
self-actualization, 332, 338, 510
self-concept, 44, 223, 492
self-designing units, 512
self-efficacy, 53, 193, 511
self-esteem, 98, 176, 250, 417, 421, 511, 610
self-governing units, 512
self-interest, 15
self-leadership, 546
self-managed teams, 186, 511, 525, 546
self-management, 3, 134, 512, 566
self-presentation: see impression management
self-regulation, 22, 24, 26, 66, 152, 280, 513
self-reporting
emotion, 151
stress, 591
self-serving bias, 514
Selye, H., 539
Selznick, P., 362, 485
sensitivity training, 514, 555
seven s model, 100, 514

Document
sex, taboos, 554
sex differences, 515, 605
sex roles, 516
sexual harassment, 191, 516
Shannon, C., 77
Shaping, 517
share/equity ownership, 517
Sherif, M., 246
shiftwork, 213, 611
sick-building syndrome, 610
signalling theory, 476
Simmel, Georg, 203
simulation, 32, 481
simulation, computer, 517
situational determinants, 343, 419
size
group, 206
innovation, 236
skill, 101, 474, 518
acquisition, 16
learning, 474

Document
transfer, 101
Snow, C. C., 386, 536, 538
social attribution theory, 442 see also attribution
social categorization, 247, 442
social cognition, 228
social comparison, 22, 160, 170, 247, 493, 519
social constructionism, 155, 239, 391, 520
race, 467
reputations, 477
technology, 557
social contract, 109
Social Darwinism, 371
social dynamics, 530
social engineering, 220
social exchange, 278
social facilitation, 203, 204, 521, 522
social identity, 283, 442
Social Identity Theory, 247

Document
social influence, 89
social inhibition, 521
social learning, 228, 461, 523

Document
Page 626
social loafing, 200, 206, 443, 522
social networks: see networking
social perception, 409
social performance theory, 477
social psychology
status generalization, 532
social reality, 317
social reputation, 420
social systems
chaos theory, 61
role, 495
status, 531
socialization, 125, 203, 523
adjustment, 608
anticipatory, 15, 468
influence, 231
integration, 377
and mentoring, 323
transitions, 54

Document
values, 598
sociological theories, 52, 246, 364
sociological typologies, 48
sociotechnical theory, 266, 385, 525, 559
software ergonomics, 233, 527
span of control, 528
specialization, 89, 144
speciation, 371
stability, and change, 370
staffing
recruitment, 471
screening and turnover, 590
see also personnel management
stakeholders, 114, 195, 529
Stanford Prison Study, 98
Starbuck, W. H., 385
state-owned enterprises, 196
statistical methods, 295, 475, 530
statistics, 530
error, 164
status, 531
CEOs, 57

Document
occupations, 353
professionalism, 449
professionals, 450
status incongruence, 532
stereotyping, 17, 94, 96, 442, 532
cultural, 246
disability, 140
diversity, 310
gender, 191
job analysis, 263
women managers, 607
Stopford, J. M., 340
strategic alliances, 108, 533
politics, 431
strategic constituencies approach, 393
strategic contingencies theory, 429
strategic groups, 28
strategic management, 256, 535
CEOs, 57

Document
choice, 358
collaboration, 69
diversification, 143
dominance, 145
enactment, 155
environment, 358
mission statements, 328
multiform competition, 434
planning, 428
risk-taking, 493
seven s model, 514
technology, 558
top management teams, 536
strategic types, 386, 538
strategy
content/process, 535
human resource management, 216, 218, 219
innovation adoption, 237
international human resource management, 249
resource-based theory, 485

Document
strategy implementation, 515
stratification, 539
stress, 10, 539, 541
adjustment, 608
burnout, 39
ergonomics, 162
fatigue, 175
frustration, 183
gender, 191
hardiness, 210
job, 115
joining up process, 274
just-in-time, 277
management by, 106
and mental health, 322
new technology, 214
repetitive work, 266
role over/underload, 499
self-esteem, 511
supervisors, 548
type A/B, 540, 590

Document
stress management, 566
strikes, 71
Strodtbeck, F. L., 202
structural inertia theory, 434
structuration, 542
structure–conduct–performance model, 391, 537, 542
structure, 384
adaptation, 70
change, 367
stratification, 539
subjective expective utility, 46
substitutes for leadership, 543
subsystems, 387
subunits, 543
success, 325, 396
succession planning, 174, 313, 544
superleadership, 134, 545
supervision, 215, 546
control span, 528
leadership, 286
suppliers, 178
surveys, 481, 548, 549
symbiosis, 70, 82

Document
symbolic architecture, 67
symbolic interactionism, 342, 500, 550
symbolism, 288, 550
synectics, 118
synergy, 99, 245, 383, 534, 551, 609
diversification, 143
systems theory, 363, 387, 551
demography, 383
equifinality, 369
evolution, 460
feedback, 175
open systems, 354
safety, 503
status, 531
values, 599
T groups, 514, 555
taboos, 554
tacit knowledge, 561 see also practical knowledge
Tannenbaum, A. S., 127
Task Inventory Approach, 262
task and maintenance behavior, 554

Document
tasks
combining, 270
job analysis, 262

Document
Page 627
job design, 265
specialization, 144
work groups', 609
workflow, 608
Taylor, F. W., 268, 300, 505
Taylorism, 62, 238
team building, 306, 555, 556
teamwork, 569
self-managed, 511
technological determinism, 214
technological restructuring, 487
technology, 557
automation, 24
ergonomics, 161
high-risk, 119
human-centered, 526
impact, 6
job design, 268

Document
productivity, 449
skill levels, 269
standards, 558
uncertainty, 592
technology transfer, 251, 560
telecommuting, 81
teleological theory, 369
Temporal Comparison Theory, 520
tension, 138
Terry, G. R., 428
Thematic Apperception Test, 5, 10, 440
theory, 563
and paradigm, 401
theory X & Y, 506, 565
Theory Z, 566
Thibaut, J., 279
third country nationals, 171
Thompson, J. D., 385, 608
tight coupling, 299
time management, 499, 566
time and motion study, 301, 505
time series regression, 530

Document
tit-for-tat, 443
top management teams, 237, 396, 567
total quality management, 106, 252, 276, 360, 437, 568
tournament promotion, 313, 570
trade unions, 72, 76, 82, 135, 229, 571
conflict, 93
just-in-time, 277
safety management, 503
scientific management, 506
trainability testing, 578
training, 573
complexity, 88
and consultancy, 104
and consulting, 102
creativity, 118
human–computer interface, 214
and learning, 292
motivation, 337

Document
and turnover, 590
trait, 47, 228, 422
transaction cost economics, 581
transaction cost theory, 38, 69, 97, 108, 198, 363, 391, 534
joint ventures, 276
trust, 584
transformational/transactional theory, 582
transitions, 53, 54
transnational corporation, 340
travel to work areas, 282
Trist, E. L., 525
trust, 72, 455, 584
sources, 585
turnover, 53, 383, 588
two-factor theory: see motivator–hygiene theory
type A, 590

Document
uncertainty, 592
avoidance, 122
batch production, 29
bounded rationality, 35
and communication, 77
environment, 356
flexibility, 179
garbage can model, 189
job design, 267
satisficing, 505
and trust, 584
unemployment, 12, 317, 349, 472, 579, 593
psychological consequences, 594
women, 604
unions: see trade unions
usability, 527

Document
valence, 601
validity, 596
assessment, 18
biodata, 32
personality testing, 426
quasi-experiments, 465
validity generalization, 597
values, 598
collectivism/individualism, 573
commitment, 74
creation, 99
goal setting, 193
group culture, 124
group norms, 204
groupthink, 208
leadership, 285

Document
shared, 599
socialization, 523
top management teams, 567
variance theory, 447
vertical integration, 28, 143, 581, 600
vertical loading, 270
vicious cycles, 37, 120, 600
VIE theory, 243, 298, 600
vocational guidance, 47, 602
Voydanoff, P., 349
Vroom–Yetton model, 133
Walker, L., 279
Waterman, R., 514
Webb, S. and B., 72, 571
Weber, Max, 35, 212, 288, 301, 392, 437
Weick, K. E., 155
welfare economics, 196
Wells, L. T. Jr, 340
Whyte, W. F., 55
Williamson, O. E., 108, 363, 581
withdrawal, organizational, 604
women at work, 162, 604

Document
career breaks, 45

Document
Page 628
life stages, 297
paid work, 604
problems, 606
tournament promotion, 571
women managers, 313, 607
Woodward, J., 387
work
motivation, 330
and nonwork, 349
organization, 265
quality of life, 15
social/cultural context, 334
technology, 559
time, 213
values, 16
work adjustment, 46, 273, 274, 608
work flow, 608
work groups, 9, 134, 609
autonomous, 25, 525
ergonomics, 163

Document
job rotation, 272
size, 206
social loafing, 522
studies, 202
subunit, 543
team building, 556
work involvement, 610
work sample exercises, 18, 509
work units, 270
workers' cooperative, 135
workforce
assembly-line, 318
cultural diversity, 226
management, 506
structure, 352
working conditions, 464, 560, 610
cooperatives, 112
as hygiene, 338
trade unions, 572
working life: see quality of working life
works councils, 135

Document
Yin, R. K., 483

Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document

The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_I.html [2008-04-01 01:24:23]

THE BLACKWELL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MANAGEMENT

About the Editors

Cary L. Cooper is Professor of Organizational Psychology in the Manchester School of Management

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_II.html [2008-04-01 01:24:23]

The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior

Edited by Nigel Nicholson

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_III.html [2008-04-01 01:24:24]

Copyright © Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1995, 1998

First published 1995

Blackwell Publishers Inc

Blackwell Publishers Ltd

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_IV.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:25]

Typeset in 9.5 on 11pt Ehrhardt

This book is printed on acid-free paper

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_IV.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:25]

List of Contributors xiii

Dictionary Entries A–Z 1

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_V.html [2008-04-01 01:24:25]

Organizational Behavior – Coming of Age

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VI.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:26]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VI.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:26]

How to Use This Book

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VII.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:27]

definition – state of knowledge – current significance – future trends & applications

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VII.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:27]

The Field as Represented by the Dictionary

Level of Analysis (See Levels of Analysis)

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VIII.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:28]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_VIII.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:28]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_IX.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:29]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_IX.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:29]

A Model of the Field

Generating the Headword List

The Editorial Process

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_X.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:30]

You hold the result in your hands. Read, use, enjoy.

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_X.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:30]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XI.html (1 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:31]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XI.html (2 of 2) [2008-04-01 01:24:31]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XIII.html (1 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:32]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XIII.html (2 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:32]

Mary Ann Collins

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XIII.html (3 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:32]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XIV.html (1 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:33]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XIV.html (2 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:33]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XIV.html (3 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:33]

Dian Marie Hosking

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XV.html (1 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:34]

Anne Sigismund Huff

Manfred Kets de Vries

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XV.html (2 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:34]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XV.html (3 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:34]

file:///C|/downloadnetlibrary/Blackwell%20Ency/nlReader.dll@BookID=48684&FileName=Page_XVI.html (1 of 3) [2008-04-01 01:24:34]

Peter Smith Ring