Description
When we consider some of the major factors affecting individuals at work, how they are selected, socialized, developed through training and affected by the behaviour of their bosses and peers, we begin to see how pervasive the effects of our work experience can be in our lives.
CHAPTER OUTLINE
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
INDIVIDUALS AT WORK
Matching the person to the job
Fitting into the organization
Training – does it work?
Leadership styles
Job satisfaction
Stress at work
GROUPS AT WORK
More than the sum of the parts
Group decision making
ORGANIZATIONS AT WORK
Organizational design
Organizational culture
Power and politics
REDUNDANCY AND UNEMPLOYMENT
Redundancy – a kind of bereavement
Psychological effects of unemployment
FINAL THOUGHTS
SUMMARY
REVISION QUESTIONS
FURTHER READING
Organizational
Psychology 20
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:53 pm Page 428
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter you should appreciate that:
n organizations use a variety of techniques to ensure a ‘?t’ between employees and the organization – some are
more effective than others;
n designed appropriately, training that managers provide for employees can in?uence how those employees perform
their jobs;
n stress and employee attitudes are important in in?uencing performance in the workplace;
n several person and situational factors impact on team effectiveness and group decision making;
n organizational culture is important for workplace performance, and can be measured across several different
dimensions;
n power is an important construct in the workplace and can be de?ned and measured in several different ways;
n there is evidence for discrimination against women at work;
n unemployment can have serious psychological effects.
Within three years of reading this text, you are
very likely to enter and begin work in an organ-
ization that is quite new to you. This will represent
a major change in your life, associated with new
patterns of behaviour, attitudes, new knowledge
and skills.
In this chapter, we discover what psychologists
know about the experience of working in an organ-
ization, from starting to leaving. This journey
through the levels of work organizations and over
the lifespan of an individual’s experience can
cover only a relatively few topics, but in the pro-
cess it should provide an insight into a rich and
increasingly important sub-discipline.
Almost all studies in this area are conducted
in the organizations themselves, from three
perspectives:
1. individual – selection, socialization, training,
leadership, job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment, and the causes and
consequences of stress;
2. group – work group effectiveness and deci-
sion making; and
3. organizational – design and culture of the
organization, the exercise of power and the
experience of women at work.
We end by analysing the powerful effects of
redundancy and unemployment.
But the ?rst step is recruitment. How do organ-
izations achieve a ?t between an individual, the
job and the organization?
I NTRODUCTI ON
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:53 pm Page 429
430 430 Organizational Psychology
References – usually obtained from current or previous
employers, often in the ?nal stages of the selection process.
The information requested may be speci?c or general and
open-minded.
Biodata – biographical
information about the
candidate’s life history.
Some biodata invent-
ories contain several questions, including objective ques-
tions (such as professional quali?cations held) and more
subjective ones (such as preferences for different job
features).
Work-sample tests – using
samples of the job (e.g.
the contents of an in-
tray for an executive
position, or speci?c
kinds of typing for a
secretarial post). The
applicant is given instructions and a speci?c amount of
time to complete the tasks.
Handwriting analysis – making inferences about the candidate’s
characteristics by examining speci?c features of his/her
handwriting, such as slant and letter shapes.
Assessment centres – a com-
bination of some of
the above techniques.
Candidates are usually
processed in groups,
and some of the tech-
niques require them to
interact (e.g. simulated
group decision-making exercises).
Although the usefulness of
psychometric tests in selection
has been hotly debated by
psychologists, their validity
has been found to be relatively good (Robertson & Kinder,
1993). The drawback from the perspective of employers is
that training is required for those who wish to administer and
interpret these tests. Even though the ?nancial costs of ineffective
selection are potentially large, organizations still rely on tech-
niques such as personal references, graphology (handwriting
analysis) and even astrology. These techniques are demonstrably
and largely invalid as selection devices (Rafaeli & Klimoski,
1983).
Selection methods need to have good criterion validity. This
is the relationship between
scores on the selection
method and scores on the
ultimate performance meas-
ures, such as number of sales
made, commission earned
or other types of outcomes
required by the organization
(Landy & Farr, 1980).
When we consider some of the major factors affecting individuals
at work, how they are selected, socialized, developed through
training and affected by the behaviour of their bosses and peers,
we begin to see how pervasive the effects of our work experience
can be in our lives.
The jobs we do shape us by offering us a sense of growth,
commitment and satisfaction, or they can alienate us, creating
chronic feelings of anxiety and directly affecting our health and
wellbeing. The in?uence of work in colouring every aspect of our
lives is profound.
MATCHING THE PERSON TO THE JOB
Selection is based on the premise that there are stable individual
differences between people, which can be identi?ed (see chapters
13 and 14), and that these differences have an impact on how
effective people are in a particular job (Robertson, 1995).
Not surprisingly, psychologists have been at the forefront
of developing and using personnel selection methods. One of
the aims of selection is to ensure a ?t, i.e. a good match, between
the person and the organization. Failure to achieve this can not
only result in poor job performance, but the well being of the
employee also suffers, and ultimately the employment relation-
ship is likely to end.
Common selection procedures
The typical process for de-
signing a selection system
begins with a job analysis to
identify the essential require-
ments. This information is
used to create a job descrip-
tion, which forms the basis of a person speci?cation. This
speci?cation translates the demands of the job into human terms
and lists criteria that an applicant must satisfy if they are to per-
form the job successfully (Arnold, Robertson & Cooper, 1991).
Selection methods determine whether the applicant’s skills,
knowledge and abilities meet these criteria. For example, if the
person speci?cation states that good verbal reasoning skills are
required, a psychological test of verbal reasoning may well be
used in the selection procedure. Common selection procedures
(from Arnold, Robertson & Cooper 1991) are:
Interviews – often involving more than one interviewer. At a
panel interview, the applicant will be questioned by several
interviewers. The most important features of a job inter-
view are the extent to which a pre-planned structure is fol-
lowed, and the proportion of questions that are directly
related to the job.
Psychometric tests – including tests of cognitive ability (e.g. gen-
eral intelligence, verbal ability, numerical ability) and self-
report measures which are designed to evaluate personality.
INDIVIDUALS AT WORK
job analysis procedures for describing
jobs, including the nature of the work
and the relationships of the job-holder
with other people
biodata life history information about
job candidates
work-sample tests personnel assess-
ment techniques which require the
applicant to perform tasks that are
examples of the task demands of the job
in question
assessment centres series of assess-
ment exercises (e.g. interviews, work-
sample tests, group discussions) used to
assess a person’s potential for a job
psychometric tests assess cognitive
and personality dimensions
criterion validity the relationship
between a person’s scores in a selection
method (e.g. job interview or intelli-
gence test) and his/her scores on sub-
sequent performance measures (e.g.
supervisor’s rating of the person’s job
performance)
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:53 pm Page 430
Individuals at Work 431 431
Psychological tests show good criterion validity. For
example, one of the best predictors of job performance (for all
but very simple jobs) is general intelligence (Hunter & Hunter,
1984; see also chapter 13). And yet the most frequently used
selection method for many jobs is the unstructured inter-
view, which has poor criterion validity. Here, interviewers
ask a wide variety of questions, but without planning what
questions will elicit the information that best predicts job
performance.
Structured interviews, involv-
ing two or more interviewers
asking standard job-related
questions of all candidates,
are much better selection
methods, but they are rarely
used (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994; Wiesner & Cronshaw, 1988).
These interviewers are likely to ask targeted questions, such
as: ‘Have you ever been in a situation at work where a customer
was very angry about a service you had provided? Describe
the situation and how you handled it.’ This kind of question
will usually elicit clearer information about the likely future
performance of the candidate, because one thing we know for
sure is that one of the best predictors of future behaviour is past
behaviour (see chapter 17).
Personality tests (used for assessing traits such as conscien-
tiousness, con?dence and sociability) are increasingly popular
tools in employee selection (see chapter 14). Tests that assess
speci?c personality traits relevant to a particular job are reason-
ably valid predictors of job performance (Hogan & Roberts, 1996),
whereas general-purpose personality tests have lower validity
(Salgado, 1997).
FITTING INTO THE ORGANIZATION
Once you have started work for an organization, it will seek to
shape you to ?t in and to contribute to achieving its goals. This is
done through socialization and training.
The stages of socialization
Socialization is the process by which members of a society (be
it a country, organization or even a family) are taught how to
behave and feel by in?uential members of that society. In the
past, theory and research has concentrated on the development
of children and adolescents. But more recently it has become
clear that we are socialized and resocialized throughout our lives
(Wanous, Reichers & Malik, 1984).
When employees start work, they learn about their new jobs,
the work environment and how they are required to behave –
attending meetings on time, dressing according to certain stand-
ards, using particular styles of speech. They learn to align their
work values with those of the organization. For example, army
recruits are socialized, or indoctrinated, into the ‘army way’,
learning not only the rules and regulations but also the values and
behaviours that match the army’s distinctive culture. Many com-
mercial organizations emphasize customer service as vital, and
require employees to adopt the values, attitudes and behaviours
that support such a service strategy.
Socialization has all or some of the following stages (Wanous,
1992):
n confronting and accepting organizational reality – Wanous
(1978) suggested that organizations can make this ‘reality
shock’ stage smoother by providing applicants with a real-
istic job preview describing negative as well as positive
aspects of the job;
Figure 20.1
Despite the fact that psychological tests show good criterion
validity, the most frequently used selection method for many
jobs is the unstructured interview.
structured interviews in which the
questions are standardized across
interviewees
Figure 20.2
Like many new employees, army recruits learn to align their
work values with those of the organization, absorbing not only
the rules and regulations but also the values and behaviours
that match the army’s distinctive culture.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 431
432 432 Organizational Psychology
4. serial vs. disjunctive – the degree to which role models are
provided (as in apprenticeship or mentoring programmes),
or are deliberately withheld (as in sink-or-swim initiations,
in which the recruit is expected to ?gure out her own solu-
tions and is not told what to do);
5. sequential vs. random – the degree to which the process con-
sists of guiding the recruit through a series of discrete steps
and roles, as opposed to being open-ended (where training
is based on the needs of the individual, and there is no set
sequence in his/her progression); and
6. ?xed vs. variable – the degree to which stages of the training
process have ?xed timetables or are open-ended (such as in
some promotional systems, where the employee is not
advanced to the next stage until she is deemed ready).
Van Maanen and Schein argued that the more a newcomer’s
experiences are like the ?rst half of each pair given in the listing
above (e.g. collective, formal, sequential, etc.), the more likely
the recruit is to conform; individual perspectives and attitudes
will be stripped away and replaced by standardized behavi-
ours. Socialization into the army relies on strong socialization
tactics. New recruits are trained together, segregated from exper-
ienced soldiers, and socialization tends to suppress individual
aspects of the self (which are then replaced by conformity to
army norms).
TRAINING – DOES IT WORK?
Training is a learning process structured in a systematic fashion
and designed to raise the performance level of an employee
(Goldstein, 1993; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). With the marked
change in work environments over the last quarter of the twen-
tieth century (such as new ways of working, cutbacks at manage-
rial level and the devolution of responsibility and accountability
to individual staff ) has come an urgent need to develop and main-
tain staff skills through continuous training. Furthermore, with
the expanded use of new technology (and information techno-
logy in particular) most people at work need continual training
n achieving role clarity by discovering what is expected in
terms of job requirements and performance;
n becoming situated within the organizational context –
settling in and getting used to how things are done; and
n detecting signposts of successful socialization – e.g. feeling
accepted by colleagues, con?dence in completing the job
successfully, understanding the formal and informal aspects
of the job, and knowing the criteria used to assess job
performance.
This process of ‘learning the ropes’ has at least three elements
(Van Maanen & Schein, 1979, pp. 226–7):
n acquiring the knowledge required for both job performance
and general functioning in the organization (e.g. how to
make a grievance, what quality standards need to be met);
n acquiring a strategic base, i.e. a set of decision rules for solv-
ing problems and making decisions (e.g. building good rela-
tionships with colleagues in your and other departments,
knowing whether it is acceptable to question a senior man-
ager’s decision); and
n learning the organization’s purpose, which may be different
from what is publicly stated (e.g. employee welfare may, in
practice, be rated much lower than maximizing pro?ts).
How your job can change you
There is evidence that, over the longer term, an individual’s per-
sonality, values and cognitive functioning are changed by their
job. Kohn and Schooler (1983) found that jobs high in complex-
ity can enhance intellectual functioning. Von Rosenstiel (1989)
showed that people who started without a strong career ori-
entation and who were supportive of environmental protection
become less ‘green’ and more career-orientated when they took
a company job. Mortimer, Lorence and Kumka (1986) found
that people tend to value more, over time, things like money or
challenge that are characteristic of their particular type of work,
and to devalue things that are not, such as unconventional dress
or antipathy to rules (although they may start their career valuing
these latter characteristics more).
Not surprisingly, a problem with strong socialization tactics
is that they tend to create conformists with little inclination to
innovate (see chapter 18). Van Maanen and Schein (1979) pro-
posed six dimensions to socialization tactics:
1. collective vs. individual – the degree to which the organiza-
tion processes recruits in batches (where everyone has the
same learning experiences) or individually;
2. formal vs. informal – the degree to which the process is for-
malized (as in set training programmes), or is handled
informally (such as via individual supervision by the imme-
diate supervisor, and through learning on the job);
3. divestiture vs. investiture – the degree to which the process
destroys aspects of the self and replaces them (as in an army
training camp), or enhances aspects of the self (as in some
forms of professional development);
Pioneer
Edgar H. Schein (1928– ) is the Sloans Fellows Professor of
Management (Emeritus) and Senior Lecturer at the MIT
Sloan School of Management. He has contributed to the
discipline of organizational psychology in the areas of
organization development, career development and organ-
izational culture. In Career Survival: Strategic Job and Role
Planning, he presented concepts and activities for managers
based on research he ?rst reported in Career Dynamics:
Matching Individual and Organizational Needs (1978). He is
the author of Organizational Culture and Leadership (1992),
and is considered the leading international expert on organ-
izational culture.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 432
Individuals at Work 433 433
to update their skills (Ashton & Felstead, 1995; Pfeffer, 1998;
Tharenou & Burke, 2002). Yet the approach to training in many
organizations is often haphazard and reactive.
Psychologists have much to offer organizations in relation
to how training can best be used to achieve a ?t between the
individual and his job. Organ-
izations must undertake a
training needs assessment in
order to identify who needs
to develop more knowledge
and skills to successfully com-
plete their present and future
tasks. This is usually done through observation, interview, group
discussion and work samples. Training methods include on-the-
job training (coaching), lectures, simulations (e.g. cockpit simula-
tion), case studies and programmed instruction (via computers).
A critical question (given
the huge costs involved) is
whether training transfers
to job performance. Three
factors in?uence the transfer
of training:
n the similarity of training to work tasks – the more similar
the better;
n the employee’s motivation to use newly learned skills or
knowledge on the job; and
n organizational support for the transfer of training, such as
supervisory support for the implementation of new ideas.
Ideally, training should be evaluated to determine whether it is
achieving its desired ends. This can range from whether the indi-
vidual enjoyed the training and applies it, to whether it affects job
performance, customer satisfaction or even organizational pro-
ductivity and pro?tability.
Does training work in practice? Research shows that training
improves individual and organizational performance in a variety
of ways, including increased organizational productivity, better
product quality and improved customer service. In a review of
training research, Tharenou and Burke (2002) report that training
is related to:
n the acquisition and retention of essential employees;
n employee satisfaction;
n employee turnover rate (i.e. the percentage of employees
quitting their jobs each year);
n work productivity (e.g. sales per employee);
n product quality; and
n customer ratings of service and product quality.
LEADERSHIP STYLES
Organizational psychologists have struggled with the concept of
leadership since the mid twentieth century, changing their focus
from personality (‘leaders are born, not made’) to environmental
factors (‘circumstances determine who emerges as the leader’)
and back to personality again (Bass, 1990; Fiedler, 1967; House,
1977; see also chapter 18).
Today, there is a lot of
interest in charismatic or
transformational leadership.
This represents a leadership
style that enables the leader
to exercise diffuse and intense
in?uence over the beliefs,
values, behaviour and per-
formance of others (House,
Spangler & Woycke, 1991).
Such leaders tend to be dominant and self-con?dent with a need
to in?uence others while believing strongly in their own values.
They communicate their goals and visions clearly, and have high
expectations of their followers’ performance.
The fascination with this kind of leadership is evidenced by the
number of books by or about charismatic leaders. Some studies
suggest that these leaders inspire effort and satisfaction amongst
their employees, resulting in higher productivity. But Howell and
House (1995) caution against this type of leadership style because,
they argue, it can also have negative consequences. Think of
charismatic historical ?gures who have initiated destruction in
their societies (e.g. Adolf Hitler); or particular characters such as
the People’s Temple cult leader, Reverend Jim Jones, who per-
suaded his followers to feed a poison-laced drink to their children
and then drink it themselves. Nearly 1000 people died in this
incident (Osherow, 1981).
Howell and House distinguish between socialized and per-
sonalized charismatic leadership. ‘Socialized leaders’ emphasize
egalitarianism, serving collective interests rather than self-interest,
and developing and empowering others. They are altruistic, self-
controlled, follower-oriented (rather than narcissistic), and work
training needs assessment identi?ca-
tion of learning requirements, to facilit-
ate successful completion of present
and future roles
transfer of training application of what
was learned in job training to the job
itself
transformational leadership a style
used by leaders who tend to be dom-
inant and self-con?dent, need to in?u-
ence others, while believing strongly in
their own values, communicate their
goals and visions clearly, and have
high expectations of their followers’
performance
Figure 20.3
The negative in?uence of transformational leadership: the
People’s Temple cult leader, Reverend Jim Jones, persuaded
his followers to feed a poison-laced drink to their children and
then drink it themselves. Nearly 1000 people died.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 433
434 434 Organizational Psychology
Transformational and transactional leadership
The research issue
Bass’s (1985) theory of transformational leadership distinguishes between transactional leaders and transformational
leaders. Transactional leaders base their relationships with their followers on a series of exchanges or bargains. They reward
followers for accomplishing agreed objectives by giving recognition, bonuses, merit awards or particularly stimulating pro-
jects. They also ‘transact’ with followers by focusing on their mistakes, and delaying decisions or avoiding intervening until
something has gone wrong. Transformational leadership, in contrast, is characterized by behaviour that helps followers to
develop their knowledge and skills, stimulating them intellectually and inspiring them to go beyond self-interests to achieve
or pursue a higher vision, mission or purpose. Transactional leadership focuses on short-term corrective or reward-based
transactions, whereas transformational leaders employ charisma and give more consideration to each individual’s needs.
Transformational leaders focus on longer-term goals and place emphasis on developing a vision that inspires their followers.
Of course, all leaders are likely to display elements of both styles of leadership, but, according to this framework, it is
proposed that there will be considerable variation between leaders in the extent to which they employ predominantly one
or other style. Howell and Avolio (1993) decided to investigate the extent to which transactional and transformational lead-
ership behaviours predicted business performance.
Design and procedure
The researchers worked with 78 managers in a large Canadian ?nancial institution, which was one of the oldest and most
successful in the country. They measured leadership behaviour by administering the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) to (on average) four of the followers of each of the 78 managers. The MLQ measures transformational leader
behaviour by items such as ‘uses symbols and images to get his or her ideas across’, ‘provides reasons to change my way
of thinking about problems’ and ‘spends time coaching me’. Transactional leadership is measured by items such as ‘points
out what I will receive if I do what needs to be done’, ‘is alert for failure to meet standards’ and ‘things have to go wrong
for him or her to take action’.
One year later, the researchers gathered data on the performance of the business units for which each of the managers
was responsible. These data included productivity improvement, size of operating expense budget, conformity of salaries
to budget and total project costs.
Results and implications
The managers who displayed less transactional leadership behaviours and more consideration for individuals, intellectual
stimulation of followers and charisma had better business unit performance one year later. Transactional leadership
behaviours were also negatively related to unit performance.
The results suggest that managers need to develop a transformational leadership style in order to be more effective and
to contribute to the performance of their business units or organizations. But the authors point out that their results are
not entirely consistent with previous studies. Although previous studies reveal positive relationships between transforma-
tional leadership styles and performance, they also showed positive relationships between transactional behaviours and
performance.
Transactional leadership behaviours may lead to poorer performance in an environment, such as the ?nancial services
industry, where there is much change and turbulence. Employees may need to develop a longer-term vision of their work to
cope with long-term change, which transactional styles (focused as they are on meeting short-term goals) do not encour-
age. Interviews with senior managers in the organization revealed a concern that some managers had become too trans-
actional and spent too much time on meeting immediate goals and achieving short-term results rather than motivating,
empowering and inspiring employees. The researchers suspected that the negative relationships between transactional
styles and performance might have been a consequence of employees feeling that rewards were being used to control their
behaviour rather than reward performance.
The positive impact of transformational leadership on performance could be due to followers internalizing the charismatic
leader’s vision or values and consequently working hard to achieve that vision, regardless of the short-term consequences
for them. Such effects are more likely to be powerful (according to theory) in organizations that are coping with consider-
able change, where a focus on the long-term future helps to distract employees from the short-term stresses of additional
workloads or major change in their work.
The researchers speculate that transformational leadership may have a direct effect on the commitment levels of fol-
lowers and their preparedness to be good organizational ‘citizens’ who contribute beyond what they are required to, and
that this, in turn, affects business unit performance. The investigators call for more research to help us understand not just
whether, but how, transformational leadership behaviours in?uence job performance.
Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J., 1993, ‘Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for
innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
Resear Resear ch close-up 1 ch close-up 1
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 434
Individuals at Work 435 435
through legitimate authority and established systems. ‘Personal-
ized leaders’ are more self-interested and manipulative and can
engender pathological relationships with their followers, leading
to unhappy work outcomes such as poor performance, con?ict-
ridden relationships and poor individual wellbeing.
JOB SATISFACTION
Selection, socialization and training are all ways in which the
organization acts upon the individual at work. But how might
individuals react to these processes and to the experience of work
in general?
Job satisfaction is a judge-
ment we make about how
favourable our work envir-
onment is (Motowildo, 1996)
and can be re?ected in our
thoughts and feelings (Brief,
1998). It is the most researched construct in organizational psy-
chology and the subject of literally thousands of studies.
There are two approaches to assessing job satisfaction. The
?rst sees it as a single, global affective experience. So people are
asked to give an overall assessment: ‘In general, how satis?ed
are you with your job?’ The second, and more widely adopted,
approach is to view job satisfaction as a cluster of attitudes
towards different aspects of the job, such as pay, supervisory
support, autonomy, variety, working conditions and promotion
prospects. A mean score is calculated to represent a composite
measure of job satisfaction. Table 20.1 is a typical example of this
composite approach.
What makes a job satisfying?
Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) in?uential job characteristics the-
ory identi?es ?ve characteristics as contributors to job satisfaction:
n task identity – the extent to which the job represents a
whole piece of work (e.g. running a restaurant compared
with just washing the dishes);
n task signi?cance – how important the task is for society in
general, and for the goals of the organization;
n autonomy – the amount of freedom the person has to
decide on how best to do their job;
n feedback – receiving information about job performance
(imagine writing essays and never receiving feedback on
how well they were written); and
n variety – varied tasks are important (compare the work of
an organizational psychologist with that of a supermarket
check-out worker), but too much variety can create con-
?icting and therefore stressful demands.
job satisfaction a person’s attitude
(favourable or unfavourable) towards
their job
Table 20.1 Job satisfaction. Across samples of several thousand, 70 per cent of people score an average of between 3.5 and 5.5. If you rate your
satisfaction in this range, you are similar to most others at work but scores to the top end of this range clearly indicate a healthier person–job
?t. If your average satisfaction rating is higher than 5.5, you are in an unusually satisfying job. If your average rating is below 3.5, you should
consider changing those aspects of your job that are least satisfying, or even ?nding a new and more ful?lling role altogether.
Extremely Very Moderately Not sure Moderately Very Extremely
dissatis?ed dissatis?ed dissatis?ed satis?ed satis?ed satis?ed
1 The physical working conditions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 The freedom to choose your own
method of working. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Your fellow team members. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 The recognition you get for good work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Your immediate boss. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 The amount of responsibility you
are given. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 Your rate of pay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 The opportunity to use your ability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 Relationships between management
and workers in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 Your chance of promotion or
progression within the company. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 The way your ?rm is managed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 The attention paid to suggestions
you make. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13 Your hours of work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 The amount of variety in your job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15 Your job security. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16 The amount of training you receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Source: Warr, Cook and Wall (1979).
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 435
436 436 Organizational Psychology
component to job satisfaction. For example, in a survey of groups
of identical twins who were reared separately, Arvey, Bouchard,
Segal and Abraham (1989) found a signi?cant association between
their levels of job satisfaction. It appears from this research that
our genes in?uence our affective reactions to life, which can in
turn affect our job experiences.
Consequences of job satisfaction
Does high job satisfaction lead to better job performance, or does
high performance result in high job satisfaction (due, perhaps, to
pride or rewards associated with high performance)?
Whatever the causal direction, past research in this area indi-
cates that if a relationship does exist, it is a weak one (Iaffaldano
& Muchinsky, 1992). But more recent research provides renewed
support for the view that ‘a happy worker is a productive worker’.
Two studies have related the average level of job satisfaction in
an organization to measures of company performance, such as
pro?tability. They found that organizations with more satis?ed
employees tend to perform better than those whose employees
are less satis?ed (Ostroff, 1992; Patterson & West, 1998). These
organizational relationships are stronger than the association
between individual job satisfaction and individual job perform-
ance, because individual measures of productivity do not take
into account coordination and cooperation between employees.
So when people are generally satis?ed and well treated at work,
they seem more likely to be good organizational ‘citizens’, co-
operating with people from other departments, taking on tasks
outside their formal job descriptions and encouraging others to
perform effectively.
At the individual level, perhaps not surprisingly, low job satis-
faction signi?cantly increases the likelihood that the employee
will leave the organization (e.g. Crampton & Wagner, 1994).
STRESS AT WORK
Although it is dif?cult to estimate the cost of work-related stress,
many studies report that it has enormous impact in terms of
both economic costs and human suffering. For example, recent
survey research estimated that about half a million people in the
UK believe they are suffering from work-related stress, depres-
sion or anxiety ( Jones et al., 2003) and that, in 2001, 13.4 million
working days were lost in the UK due to stress, depression and
anxiety. Another survey estimated that ?ve million people in
the UK feel ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ stressed by their work (Smith
et al., 2000).
Based on 1995/96 prices, the Health and Safety Executive esti-
mated that the ?nancial cost of work-related stress to employers
was about £353 to £381 million and to society about £3.7 to £3.8
billion per year. Since these calculations were made, the esti-
mated number of working days lost due to stress has more than
doubled ( Jones et al., 2003).
The costs of stress stem not only from absenteeism and
lost productivity, but also from compensation claims, health
insurance and medical expenses. In the USA, annual mental stress
Many studies (e.g. Fried & Ferris, 1987) have found signi?cant
relationships between job characteristics and job satisfaction.
There is strong evidence that simple and monotonous jobs (e.g.
repeatedly undertaking a simple task on a factory production line)
are associated with job dissatisfaction (Melamed et al., 1995). On
the other hand, some people do not respond favourably to more
challenging and complex jobs (Spector, 1997), so personality fac-
tors may well also be relevant here.
Other environmental factors that show signi?cant relation-
ships with job satisfaction include supportive supervisors and co-
workers (Arvey, Carter & Buerkley, 1991) and equitable rewards
(Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). In the case of rewards, it is the
extent to which employees view these as distributed fairly that
affects satisfaction, rather than actual pay levels.
Job satisfaction has also been found to be related to IQ, mental
health and personality variables (e.g. O’Brien, 1983; Staw, Bell &
Clausen, 1986). It has even been argued that there is a genetic
Pioneer
J. Richard Hackman (1940– ) pioneered the Job
Characteristics Model in order to help specify the content
and methods of jobs. This model has in?uenced genera-
tions of researchers since the 1970s (Hackman & Oldham,
1976). The job characteristics model effectively linked the
design of jobs with motivation theory, in what has proved
to be a powerful theoretical framework. His work on
groups, developed in the 1980s and 1990s, has also had a
major in?uence (Hackman, 1990), particularly because of
his championing of qualitative methods for the study of
workgroups. Hackman is Cahners-Rabb Professor of Social
and Organizational Psychology at Harvard University in
the USA.
Figure 20.4
It is probably unsurprising that simple and monotonous jobs are
thought to be associated with job dissatisfaction.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 436
Individuals at Work 437 437
insurance claims in the California workers’ compensation system
have been estimated to be approximately $383 million (Beehr,
1995). Figure 20.5 presents a framework for thinking about
work-place stress.
Kinds of stress
The word ‘stress’ is used in a number of ways (see also chapter
19). For example, ‘I’ve got such a headache. It must be the stress
over this big project’; ‘I feel stressed when my boss is around’;
‘I feel tense and my concentration goes when I am under stress’.
There are numerous stressors in the work environment that
can result in distinctive physiological, psychological and behavi-
oural responses.
n Physical stressors can lead to both physical and mental health
problems. They might include the noise in a heavy con-
struction manufacturing site or at an aluminium smelting
plant, or the dirty and hot physical environment of a coal
mine or steel plant. Dangers in the work environment also
cause stress – think of the jobs of police of?cers or nurses in
accident and emergency departments of hospitals; both of
these sets of workers are often subject to violent attacks.
n Work load can be quantitative (too much work to do) and
qualitative, where work is too dif?cult for the individual
(French & Caplan, 1972). Work underload can also act as a
stressor (Cox, 1980) – again this can be quantitative (not
enough work to do) and/or qualitative (repetitive, routine,
under-stimulating).
n The person’s role in
the organization can also
lead to pressures in
the form of role con?ict
and ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964). Role con?ict occurs
when we have to deal with con?icting job demands. It is
not unusual for an individual to be caught between two
groups of people expecting different behaviours. This might
occur when a non-management employee is promoted to
a supervisory role and then has to balance the expectations
of previous colleagues with the new demands of man-
agement. Role ambigu-
ity occurs when we
are unsure about our
work requirements,
responsibilities and co-
workers’ expectations.
n Stress can also arise from career development issues, such as
fear of redundancy, failure to achieve promotion, or pro-
motion into a role we are not prepared for.
n Social stressors include poor relationships with supervisors,
peers and subordinates (characterized by, for example, low
trust and supportiveness).
n Finally, many studies have shown that the timing of work
(such as long hours or shift work) affects stress levels.
Physical stressors
? Noise, dirt, heat, vibrations,
chemical substances
? Dangers
Work load
? Quantitative overload (too much
work to do)
? Qualitative overload (work is too
difficult)
? Quantitative underload (too little
to do)
? Qualitative underload (repetitive,
monotonous work)
Role in organization
? Role ambiguity (unclear job
functions and responsibilities)
? Role conflict (conflicts between
demands at work)
? Responsibility for people
Career development
? Overpromotion
? Underpromotion
? Job insecurity
? Retirement
Social stressors
? Poor relations with supervisor,
colleagues, subordinates
Timing of work
? Night-work and shift-work
? Long hours
Resources
? Job knowledge and experience
? Social support
? Control
? Personality
Primary
appraisal
Secondary
appraisal
Coping
strategies
Stress
manifestations
? Physiological
? Psychological
? Behavioural
Figure 20.5
A framework of stress. Source: Based
on Kahn and Byosiere (1992).
role con?ict when demands placed on
an employee con?ict with one another
role ambiguity employee uncer-
tainty about their job functions and
responsibilities
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 437
438 438 Organizational Psychology
work. Karasek (1979) showed that the most damaging jobs
have a combination of high demands (volume and pace of
work) with low control.
Personality characteristics – Neurotic people are more likely to
see stimuli as threatening than are hardy characters.
Hardiness encompasses three personality traits: (i) com-
mitment, (ii) an internal locus of control ( believing that
you have control over your own life) and (iii) a sense of
welcoming challenge (Maddi & Kobasa, 1984; see also
chapters 14 and 19). Those who are high in hardiness tend
to view events as less stressful than do others, and they are
less likely to be overwhelmed by challenging situations.
Prevention of stress
Stress management programmes have multiplied since the 1970s
(Payne, 1995). Many of these programmes help participants to
perceive a situation as challenging rather than stressful. They
teach coping strategies and advise on diet, exercise, alcohol and
substance abuse. Some programmes use techniques such as self-
help groups, relaxation and meditation. Unfortunately, system-
atic evaluations of stress management programmes have shown
them to be of limited effectiveness (Briner & Reynolds, 1999).
Employers will sometimes
try to reduce stress through
changes in the workplace,
such as job redesign, or to
increase individuals’ resources
through social support or
increased control ( by increasing job responsibilities and/or par-
ticipation in decision making). And, of course, stressors can also
be tackled directly, for example by reducing noise or working
hours.
MORE THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS
Work groups, or teams, are in-
creasingly common in organ-
izations. Formal groups are
those designated as work
groups by the organization.
The members of these groups
usually have shared task
objectives. Examples of these
formal groups include health
care teams, management
groups, mining crews and research and development project
groups. Informal work groups are not de?ned by the organiza-
tion as functional units, but nevertheless have an impact on
organizational behaviour. Examples include friendship and pres-
sure groups.
GROUPS AT WORK
Reactions to stress
Although you and I may be subject to similar work stressors, our
responses and the amount of strain each of us feels can be very
different, depending on how we appraise the situation and what
coping strategies we use (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus &
Launier, 1978; see also chapters 6, 14 and 19). So the outcome of
stress is a function of the interaction of the individual and the
environment.
The resources that we bring to a work situation can also affect
the way each of us responds to stress. Job knowledge and experi-
ence, social support, control over our work, and personality char-
acteristics are the kinds of resources that determine whether
someone ?nds a situation stressful. Some of the most relevant
factors are:
Knowledge – People who have considerable job knowledge and
experience are more likely to be able to cope with stressful
situations. This is because they are less likely to experience
quantitative or qualitative work overload, and they are
likely to have more control over a situation than someone
with little experience or knowledge (see below).
Social support – Whilst poor relationships at work can be a
major source of stress, social support from colleagues and
supervisors can buffer the impact of stress, mitigating the
negative effects (e.g. Cummins, 1990; Manning, Jackson &
Fusilier, 1996). Social support may also come from outside
the job, from family and from friends.
Control – There is a widely held misperception that managers
have more stressful jobs than others. While they do tend to
have heavy workloads, deadlines, responsibility for com-
plex decisions, and many relationships to manage, stress-
related diseases are much less common in managers than
in blue-collar workers (Fletcher, 1988; Karasek & Theorell,
1990). One important reason for this appears to be that
managers have greater control (autonomy) over their
Figure 20.6
Shift work can affect stress levels.
job redesign techniques to increase the
variety, autonomy and completeness of
a job
work groups collectives of individuals
within organizations – formal groups
are designated as work groups by the
organization, and informal groups are
not de?ned by the organization as func-
tional units, but nevertheless have an
impact upon organizational behaviour
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 438
Groups at Work 439 439
Group in?uences on work behaviour
Early studies of organizational behaviour show that work groups
profoundly in?uence individual behaviour. In the 1920s and 1930s,
several studies were carried out at Western Electric’s Hawthorne
Works in Chicago, USA, to examine the effects of illumination
levels on workers’ performance in assembling and inspecting relays
used in telephone equipment. The researchers varied the level of
illumination and studied the effects on workers’ performance.
The results showed that any variation in the level of illumina-
tion (down to a level almost the equivalent of moonlight) led
to improvements in performance. This effect was explained
in terms of the workers’ appreciation of the attention and
interest shown in their work by researchers and managers, which
manifested itself in better
work performance. This
effect has come to be known
as the Hawthorne effect, and
?eld studies that test meth-
ods of intervention in organi-
zations have to demonstrate
that positive results are not simply due to this effect (this is some-
what analogous to the ‘placebo effect’ discussed in chapters 16
and 19).
Further studies in the Hawthorne Works examined the effects
of several other factors (such as number and length of rest
periods, and hours of work) on the performance of a small group
of female workers (see Everyday Psychology for more detail on this
Hawthorne effect when workers
appreciate the attention and interest
shown in their work by researchers and
managers, and show this appreciation
through better work performance
The Hawthorne Effect
The scienti?c management approach dominated thinking about human performance in organizations in the early part of the
twentieth century. It assumed that there was one best way to manage, and that productivity could be maximized by careful
study of job content, combined with ergonomic studies, standardized methods of job performance and appropriate selection
and training in the precise components required for the job. This approach informed the continued development of assem-
bly line methods in the early twentieth century, best typi?ed in the Ford Motor Company’s approach to vehicle production.
Roethlisberger and Dixon (1939) were inspired by the scienti?c management approach to investigate the effects of
(among other things) illumination levels on workers’ performance in Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works, near Chicago.
Their aim was to discover how to optimize the workplace by manipulating factors such as levels of lighting and hours of
work, in order to achieve maximum productivity.
Two groups of female employees took part in the ?rst element of the investigation, which took place in a relay assembly depart-
ment. The control group worked without any changes in the level of illumination in their workroom. In the experimental group the
lighting was systematically varied (being sometimes brighter and sometimes dimmer than the standard level of illumination
for the control group), and the productivity of the workers was continually monitored. Subsequent investigations examined
the effects on productivity of variables such as length of rest pauses, length of the working day and week, and a free lunch.
The ?ndings were quite baf?ing. Both the control group and the experimental group increased their productivity during the
study. Regardless of whether illumination levels were increased or decreased, the productivity of the experimental group
went up. Even when the illumination was turned so low that the women could barely see what they were doing, productiv-
ity went up! The introduction of changed lengths of working hours, weeks and rest pauses had a similar impact. Even the
introduction of a free lunch led to improved performance.
The results suggested that productivity rose because the women responded favourably to the ‘special attention’ they felt
they were getting from the investigators. Knowing they were being studied apparently made them feel important and valued,
and they were motivated to do their best, regardless of what changes were introduced.
In a second component of the investigation, conducted in the bank wiring room, members of work groups (this time all men)
were observed during their work and interviewed at length at the end of the working day or week. There was no intervention
here, since the aim was simply to observe the work process and discover how it could be done more ef?ciently and productively.
The men did not improve their productivity. Quite the contrary – they stopped work before the end of the working day and
later told the investigators that they were capable of being much more productive. It appeared that the men feared the study
would lead the company to raise the level of productivity required for the same rate of pay. So they deliberately kept pro-
ductivity low to ensure they were not required in the future to achieve unreasonable levels of performance. The men had
agreed informal rules between themselves about the level of productivity they would achieve, and they maintained this
through their cooperation and shared goals.
In contrast to the assumptions of the scienti?c management approach (i.e. that technological and ergonomic factors are
the predominant in?uences on workplace productivity), these investigations reveal the importance of social factors in work
performance. In both cases, interpersonal processes played the major role in determining productivity.
These ?ndings mark the birth of the ‘human relations’ movement, which drew attention to the importance of workers’
needs, attitudes, social relationships and group memberships in the workplace. It is an orientation that continues to have
a major in?uence on managerial practice today, most notably in the domain of human resource management.
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J., 1939, Management and the Worker, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ever Ever yday Psychology yday Psychology
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 439
440 440 Organizational Psychology
include decision-making leadership. Outputs refer to group per-
formance and team member well-being (see also chapter 18). A
model of these factors is shown in ?gure 20.8.
This work suggests that, ideally:
n teams should have intrinsically interesting tasks to perform
(Guzzo & Shea, 1992);
n each individual’s role should be essential and unique
(Guzzo & Shea, 1992);
n each individual should be subject to evaluation and receive
clear performance feedback (Pritchard et al., 1988);
n the team as a whole should have clear objectives, be subject
to evaluation, and receive performance feedback (Poulton
& West, 1999); and
n the team should frequently re?ect on their task objectives,
strategies and processes, modifying these as appropriate
(West, 1996).
phenomenon). The results suggest that the characteristics of the
social setting or group are at least as important as the technical
aspects of the work in explaining performance (Roethlisberger &
Dixon, 1939).
Types of group and what makes
them effective
Sundstrom, De Meuse and Futrell (1990) distinguish four main
types of formal work teams:
advice/involvement teams – e.g. committees, review panels,
boards, quality circles, employee involvement groups,
advisory councils;
production/service groups – e.g. assembly teams, manufacturing
crews;
project/development groups – e.g. research groups, planning
teams, specialist functional teams, development teams,
task forces; and
action/negotiation groups – e.g. entertainment groups, expedi-
tions, negotiating teams, surgery teams, cockpit crews.
In some organizations, groups as a whole may be hired, ?red,
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 com-
bined efforts of individuals may be better than the aggregate of
individual contributions – the principle of synergy.
A good deal of effort is now directed toward understanding
the factors that promote group effectiveness and this has led to
the development of models for understanding teams. A typical
model combines inputs, processes and outputs. Inputs include (for
example) organizational context and group composition; processes
The team task
? A task that requires
teamwork
? Clear task
? Challenging
Group composition
? Roles
? Diversity in skills and
experience
? Size
Organizational context
? Structure and culture
? Support systems
? Inter-team cooperation
Effectiveness
? Individual and team
performance
? Innovation
? Team member
? Customer
satisfaction
? Team viability
Team processes
? Clarity of objectives
? Participation
? Commitment to quality
? Support for innovation
? Reflexivity
? Leadership
Inputs Processes Outputs
Figure 20.7
The surgery team: a typical action/negotiation group.
Figure 20.8
An input–process–output model of team
performance. Source: West & Markiewicz,
2003.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 440
Groups at Work 441 441
Psychological safety in work teams
The research issue
In recent years, there has been a wave of research into teams at work. In particular, researchers seek to understand how
the climate in work teams affects their performance. In a study of hospital patient care teams (Edmondson, 1996), there
were clear differences between members’ beliefs about the social consequences or the safety of reporting medication
errors (giving the wrong drug to a patient, or giving too little or too much of the right drug). In some teams, nurses openly
reported and discussed errors. In other teams, they kept information about errors to themselves. A nurse in one team said,
‘Mistakes are serious, because of the toxicity of the drugs [we use] – so you’re never afraid to tell the Nurse Manager.’ In
contrast, a nurse in another team reported, ‘You get put on trial! People get blamed for mistakes . . . you don’t want to
have made one.’
In a subsequent study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, Edmondson (1999) examined whether psycho-
logical safety was evident, and whether it predicted learning in the team (e.g. about how to do the work better and meet
customer requirements).
Design and procedure
Edmondson studied teams in Of?ce Design Incorporated, an innovative manufacturer of of?ce furniture with some 5000
employees. There were four types of team in the organization: (i) functional teams, including sales, management and manu-
facturing teams; (ii) self-managed teams in sales and manufacturing; (iii) time-limited cross-functional product development
teams; and (iv) time-limited cross-functional project teams.
There were three phases of data collection. The ?rst phase involved preliminary qualitative research, in which Edmondson
observed eight team meetings, each of which lasted one to three hours. She also conducted 17 interviews (lasting for about
an hour each) with members or observers of these eight teams. The second phase involved a questionnaire survey of 496
members of 53 teams, and two or three managers identi?ed as observers of each team. The survey measured learning
behaviour in the team (‘we regularly take time out to ?gure out ways to improve our team’s work process’) and team feedback
(e.g. team goals, job satisfaction, team task design, internal motivation). Phase 3 involved follow-up qualitative research
with the six teams with the lowest level of learning behaviour, and the six with the highest level of learning behaviour.
The objective was to study these teams in more depth and explore differences between high- and low-learning teams.
Edmondson reviewed ?eld notes and tapes to construct short case studies describing each team, which were then used to
reveal which factors were most closely related to team learning. Customers’ and managers’ ratings of all the teams in the
study were used to provide measures of team performance and learning.
Results and implications
The study revealed considerable support for the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning
behaviour. Team psychological safety was conceptualized as a shared belief among members of a team that it is safe to
take interpersonal risks and that team members will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up (a
con?dence that stems from mutual respect and trust among team members). Edmondson found that psychological safety
predicted team learning and that this, in turn, predicted team performance, as rated by managers outside the teams. For
example, team members’ own descriptions illustrated how a climate of safety and supportiveness enabled them to embrace
error and make changes in product design as a result of seeking customer feedback. A lack of team safety contributed to
reluctance to ask for help, and unwillingness to question team goals for fear of sanctions being imposed by managers.
Quantitative analyses provided consistent support for the study’s hypotheses: learning behaviour appeared to mediate the
relationship between team psychological safety and team performance (i.e. team safety predicted performance because
safety led to learning, which, in turn, led to improved performance).
The ?ndings from Edmondson’s research indicate how team design and leadership enable effective team performance.
By producing a climate of psychological safety, they enable team members to explore errors and dif?culties and learn from
them. Members then make improvements in their work (i.e. products or services), and this, in turn, leads to improved per-
formance. The theoretical and practical implications of this work point to the importance of team psychological safety as a
central concept in understanding team composition, processes and outcomes (such as member mental health, and team
performance). At the same time, the results have practical implications for how we can make teams more effective and
innovative in the workplace.
Edmondson, A.C., 1996, ‘Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational in?uences on the
detection and correction of human error’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32 (1), 5–28.
Resear Resear ch close-up 2 ch close-up 2
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 441
442 442 Organizational Psychology
n Satis?cing – or making minimally acceptable decisions – is
another group tendency, and is related to this last point.
Observations of group decision-making processes repeatedly
show that, rather than generating a range of alternative
solutions before selecting the most suitable one, groups tend
to identify the ?rst minimally acceptable solution and then
search for reasons to accept that decision and reject other
possible options (March & Simon, 1958; see chapter 12).
n Social loa?ng is the tendency of individuals to put less effort
into achieving quality decisions in meetings than they do
when individual contributions can be identi?ed and evalu-
ated, their perception being that their contribution is
hidden in overall group performance (Latané, Williams &
Harkins, 1979).
n Diffusion of responsibility can inhibit individuals from tak-
ing responsibility for their actions when they are in a group
(e.g. Yinon et al., 1982). In this situation, people seem to
assume that the group will shoulder responsibility. For ex-
ample, if there is a crisis involving the functioning of expen-
sive technology, individuals may hold back from tackling
the issue on the assumption that others in their team will
take responsibility for making the necessary decisions. This
can threaten the overall quality of group decisions.
n Production-blocking is when individuals are inhibited from
both thinking of new ideas and offering them aloud to the
group by the competing verbalizations of others (Diehl &
Stroebe, 1987). This effect has been shown in the study of
brainstorming groups: quantity and often quality of ideas
produced by individuals working separately consistently
exceeded those produced by a group working together.
n The hidden pro?le is the powerful but unconscious tendency
of team members to focus on information all or most team
members already share and ignoring information that only
one or two team members have (even though it may be
brought to the attention of the group during decision mak-
ing and may be crucial) (Stasser, Vaughan & Stewart, 2000).
This catalogue of de?ciencies indicates that group decision-
making within organizations is more complex than is commonly
appreciated or understood.
Some useful techniques
Recently researchers have begun to identify ways of overcoming
some of these de?ciencies. For example, research on groupthink
has revealed that the phenomenon is most likely to occur in
groups where a supervisor is particularly dominant, and cohe-
siveness per se is not the crucial factor. Supervisors can therefore
be trained to be facilitative, seeking the contributions of individual
members before offering their own perceptions (see West, 1996).
Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell and Lowe (1992) have offered a
structured solution called the ‘stepladder technique’. Each group
member has thinking time before proposing any decisions, and
then pairs of group members present their ideas to each other and
discuss their respective opinions before making any decisions.
The next step involves pairs of pairs presenting their views to
GROUP DECISION MAKING
Factors in poor decision making
A principal assumption behind formal work groups is that a group
will make better decisions than members working alone. And yet
a good deal of research shows that social processes can under-
mine the effectiveness of group decision-making. While group
decisions are better than the average of the decisions made indi-
vidually by group members, experimental groups consistently fall
short of the quality of decisions made by the best individual mem-
ber (see chapter 18).
The implications of this for board and top management teams
are serious. Organizational and social psychologists have there-
fore devoted considerable effort to identifying the processes that
lead to poor group decision making:
n Personality factors can affect social behaviour: for example,
individual members may be too shy to offer their opinions
and knowledge assertively, therefore failing to contribute
fully to the group’s store of knowledge (Guzzo & Shea,
1992).
n Social conformity effects can cause group members to with-
hold opinions and information contrary to the majority view,
especially an organizationally dominant view (Hackman,
1992; Schlenker, 1980).
n Communication skills vary, and some members may be
unable to present their views and knowledge successfully,
while someone who has mastered ‘impression manage-
ment’ may disproportionately in?uence group decisions,
even in the absence of expertise (Leery & Kowalski, 1990).
n Domination by particular individuals can mean they claim
a disproportionate amount of ‘air time’ and argue so
vigorously that their own views generally prevail. Interest-
ingly, ‘air time’ and expertise are uncorrelated in groups
that perform poorly (Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell & Lowe,
1992).
n Egocentricity might take some individuals to senior positions,
but people with this trait tend to be unwilling to consider
opinions and knowledge contrary to their own, making for
poor communication within the group (Winter, 1973).
n Status and hierarchy effects can cause some members’ con-
tributions to be valued and attended to disproportionately.
So, when a senior executive is present in a meeting, her
views are likely to have an undue in?uence on the outcome
(Hollander, 1958).
n Group polarization is the tendency of work groups to make
decisions that are more extreme than the average of indi-
vidual members’ decisions (Myers & Lamm, 1976).
n Groupthink – a phenomenon identi?ed by Janis (1982) in his
study of policy decisions and ?ascos – is when a tightly knit
group makes a poor decision because it is more concerned
with achieving agreement than with the quality of its
decision making. This effect can be especially strong when
different departments see themselves as competing with
one another or when teams have very strong leaders.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 442
Organizations at Work 443 443
each other. The process continues, with each sub-group’s presen-
tation being followed by time for the group as a whole to discuss
the problem and ideas proposed. A ?nal decision is put off until
the entire group has presented.
Initial evidence suggests that the quality of group decisions
made using procedures like this is at least as good as that of
decisions made by their best individual members. This is consist-
ent with the ?nding that fostering disagreement in a vigorous
but cooperative way in organizations leads to better decisions
(Tjosvold, 1998).
Teams can avoid the hidden pro?le problem by ensuring that
members have clearly de?ned roles so that each is seen as a
source of potentially unique and important information, by
ensuring that members listen carefully to colleagues’ contribu-
tions in decision making, and by ensuring that leaders alert the
team to information that is uniquely held by only one or two
members.
Finally, there is some evidence that work groups that take time
out to re?ect on and appropriately modify their decision-making
processes are more effective than those that do not (Maier, 1970;
West, 1996, 2004).
While organizational psychologists have contributed a great
deal to our understanding of how individual performance can be
improved, it should be apparent from the issues considered in this
section that research on techniques for optimizing group decision
making is still in its infancy.
Researchers and practitioners in organizational psychology are
increasingly exploring how to structure and manage organiza-
tions that ensure that team working ful?ls its potential (West &
Markiewicz, 2003). This requires that organizations devolve deci-
sion making to teams, that the various teams work cooperatively
across team boundaries, that teams are well led, and that people
management processes (sometimes called Human Resource
Management systems or HRM) support team working. The chal-
lenge is to discover how to transform traditional organizations
into team-based organizations (see table 20.2).
Most of the research on work groups has been carried out by
psychologists. But the study of organizations has attracted atten-
tion from the full range of social and economic sciences. In recent
years, psychology has begun to play a relatively larger role, par-
ticularly in collaboration with other disciplines.
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN
The choice of structures and associated managerial processes that
enable an organization to operate effectively are described as
organizational design. These structures and processes will largely
determine how we experience an organization (Pugh, 1998a, b, c).
An army is large, highly structured, very formalized and
hierarchical, with clear status and rankings that determine author-
ity structures. Army rules and regulations provide strict decision-
making guidelines as well as restrictions on activities. On the
other hand, a small ?rm of consultants, which offers advice to
companies on how to select people for job openings, may have an
entirely different form. All consultants may have equal say in
how the business is run; they may operate as independent practi-
tioners; and there may be few rules and regulations determining
their behaviour.
There are ?ve interrelated concepts within the overarching
theme of organizational design: (i) organization, (ii) how they
design themselves, (iii) structure, (iv) effectiveness and (v) choice.
1. Organization The concept of organization can refer to a
range of types, including businesses, governmental organizations,
hospitals, universities, schools, not-for-pro?t organizations,
churches and so on.
2. Design Design as a concept implies a deliberate effort to ?nd
an appropriate and effective organizational form (Daft, 1992).
Having the army run like a small consultancy business, with few
rules, no hierarchy and lots of independent action, would render
it ineffective in a crisis, unable to orchestrate appropriate action.
So design also implies a managerial authority to put organiza-
tional structure into effect, i.e. to ensure that particular groups of
people work together on tasks speci?ed by management.
ORGANIZATIONS AT WORK
Figure 20.9
Groupthink is more likely to occur when there is a dominant
supervisor.
Table 20.2 Characteristics of traditional vs. team-based
organizations.
Individual command structures Collective decision-making structures
Manager controls Team monitors its performance
Vertical hierarchy Horizontal integration across teams
Stability and uniformity Change and innovation
One best way to organize Team tailors its own ways of
working
Managers manage Self-managing teams
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 443
444 444 Organizational Psychology
To be effective, organizations must focus on the internal envir-
onment (safety, rules and regulations) as well as on the external
environment (customers, the actions of competitors, govern-
ment regulations), but they will do so with different degrees of
relative emphasis.
Organizations will also tend to be predominantly either con-
trolling or ?exible in relation to the internal and external envir-
onment. Internal control means bureaucracy and rules and
regulations. Internal ?exibility means developing staff and giving
them autonomy to work their own way. External control involves
focusing on meeting customer requirements and productivity
goals. External ?exibility implies a concern with innovation, and
adapting the organization to the outside world.
The model, developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), sug-
gests that organizational effectiveness must be achieved in four
domains:
n human relations (internal ?exibility)
n goals (external control)
n internal processes (internal control)
n innovation (external ?exibility)
Yet these four domains represent underlying con?ict (Woodman
& Pasmore, 1991) between internal and external orientations of
organizational activity, and between control and ?exibility (e.g.
tightly de?ning employees’ roles as against encouraging them to
develop or ‘grow’ their jobs).
How organizations resolve these dilemmas determines both
organizational strategies and effectiveness. It is an interesting
exercise to apply the analysis to organizations you are personally
familiar with, and to then decide whether you consider that the
predominant orientation of the organization is external or internal,
and whether the emphasis is on ?exibility or control.
3. Structure An organiza-
tion’s structure consists in
its rules and regulations
(degree of formalization) and
the organizational elements
that determine procedures
for making decisions (degree
of centralization).
The military and govern-
ment departments are ex-
amples of highly centralized
organizations, whereas decentralized organizations include
voluntary organizations and partnerships (Hall, 1992). The trend
today is to decentralize decisions as much as possible (though in
practice this turns out to be very dif?cult to achieve), in order to
‘empower’ employees and derive maximum bene?t from their
knowledge, skills and abilities (Spreitzer, 1995).
Structure also includes the degree of specialization – that is,
how particular and unique each person’s job is. In some organ-
izations, there is a low degree of specialization and one person
may be expected to ?ll many roles. In a small rural health care
team, for example, a nurse may act as receptionist, record keeper,
telephonist, computer operator, diagnostician, treatment provider,
counsellor and even cleaner. In another organization, people
might have highly specialized roles, such as the telesales manager
for one speci?c product line for one particular geographical area.
4. Effectiveness Organizations are designed to be effective,
but de?ning ‘effectiveness’ is not easy (Cameron, 1986). For a car
manufacturer, being effective might mean maximizing produc-
tivity and pro?tability. But there may be other dimensions of
effectiveness that serve these ends, too, such as a high level of
innovation and creativity in product design, a satis?ed workforce
strongly committed to learning new skills, reducing waste to
improve operating ef?ciency, and ensuring high quality standards
for the product or service that is offered.
Figure 20.10 shows a model for analysing effectiveness based
on two core but complementary dimensions – (i) internal vs.
external orientation and (ii) ?exibility vs. control.
Pioneer
Derek Pugh (1930– ) inaugurated and led the Aston
Research programme, a major series of studies on the
structure, functioning and performance of organizations,
and the effects on the attitudes and behaviour of groups
and individuals within them (Pugh, 1998a, b, c). This
programme began at the University of Aston and later
continued at the London Business School and other
centres throughout the world. Pugh contributed to the
development of the new discipline of Organizational
Behaviour in business schools, and he was appointed the
?rst British Professor of the subject at the London Business
School in 1970.
centralization the degree to which
decisions can only be taken by senior
management, as against being devolved
to people throughout the organization
formalization written rules and re-
gulations governing activities in an
organization
Flexibility
Human relations
(training, employee
morale)
Innovation
(resource
acquisition, new
products, services)
Internal process
(efficiency, rules
and regulations)
Rational goal
(productivity
targets, quality
standards)
Control
Internal
orientation
External
orientation
Figure 20.10
What is organizational effectiveness? In the competing values
model, the effective organization combines emphases across
all four domains, but there are constant tensions between the
values of internal control, external ?exibility and internal ?exibil-
ity and external control. Managing these tensions is part of the
function of management. Source: Adapted from Quinn and
Rohrbaugh (1983).
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 444
Organizations at Work 445 445
5. Choice Finally, there is the concept of choice. Structures and
processes do not simply evolve. They are a consequence of man-
agerial choices, external factors (e.g. safety issues, or government
legislation on equal opportunities) and stakeholder pressures
(such as shareholders demanding bigger returns on their invest-
ments, or employees pressuring for better working conditions).
The downsizing trend
A critical element of organization design is size, or number of
employees (Hall, 1977). The experience of working in large organ-
izations (for example a major oil company such as BP) is very
different from working in a smaller organization (such as a
research institute which employs about 40 people).
Until the 1980s, the general trend was for organizations to
grow, but now reductions in size are more common. This is
partly because the spread of information technology, the develop-
ment of networked computers and the evolution of the personal
computer have all enabled networks of smaller organizations to
collaborate. So nowadays call centres are replacing bank tellers
and airlines reservation staff.
Organizations are also creating ?atter, team-based and less
centralized structures with fewer levels of management. And
there is a trend towards outsourcing (or contracting out) certain
core organizational services, such as catering, cleaning or com-
puter maintenance, thereby reducing the need for a large labour
force within an organization.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
As organization designs change, psychologists have investigated
new ways to analyse those organizations. One approach that has
caught the attention of many social scientists is to view organiza-
tions as ‘cultures’.
Manifestations of culture
Imagine describing to your friends the experience of visiting a
distant foreign country. You might talk about the dress, laws, reli-
gious beliefs, cultural values and traditions, physical environ-
ment, social attitudes, buildings, night life, recreational activities,
language, humour, food, values and rituals of that country.
Organizations can also be described in terms of their cultures,
including their values, attitudes and beliefs. Manifestations of cul-
ture include:
Hierarchy – e.g. the number of levels of command or manage-
ment, from the head of the organization to the lowest level
employee.
Pay levels – high or low, whether there is performance-related
pay, and what the differentials are between people at dif-
ferent grades.
Job descriptions – how detailed or restrictive they are, and what
aspects they emphasize (e.g. safety, productivity, cost sav-
ing or quality).
Informal practices – e.g. norms such as management and non-
management employees sitting at separate tables in the
canteen; strictly formal dress, uniforms or casual dress.
Espoused values and rituals – e.g. an emphasis on cooperation
and support vs. cut-and-thrust competition between
teams; cards, gifts and parties for those leaving the organ-
ization; celebrations at certain times of the calendar or
?nancial year.
Stories, jokes and jargon – e.g. commonly told stories about a
particular personal success or the failings of management;
jokes about the sales department; jargon or acronyms
(most government departments have a lexicon of
acronyms and jargon, which is often impenetrable to
outsiders).
Physical environment – of?ce space, canteens, rest rooms. Are
all spaces clean, tidy and comfortable or only the areas on
public display? Are there decorations, such as plants and
paintings, and adequate employee facilities, such as water
fountains?
The meanings of all these aspects of the organization taken
together tell us about its underlying culture (Schein, 1992). There
has been particular interest in how to ‘manage’ organizational
culture, and considerable re-
sources have been spent try-
ing to create ‘a service culture’
or ‘an open culture’ or ‘a
people culture’, to name but
three examples.
Understanding culture
Organizational psychologists have adopted three approaches to
understanding culture (Martin, 1992): integration, differentiation
and fragmentation. These differing dimensions suggest that organ-
izational culture is complex and that we can best understand it by
adopting a multidimensional perspective.
1. The integration perspective Those who adopt this view
believe that a ‘strong culture’ will lead to more effective organ-
izational performance. A strong culture is consistent throughout
the organization, and there is organization-wide consensus and
clarity. Senior management set the values and develop a mission
statement. When this is effectively communicated and imple-
mented via managerial practices, organization-wide consensus is
shaped. So employees know what they are supposed to do and
agree on the value of doing it.
McDonald (1991) described such a culture in the Los Angeles
Olympic Organizing Committee. The employees wore attractive
uniforms, developed elaborate rituals, introduced brightly
coloured stadium decorations, adopted an intense working pace
and told many stories about their charismatic leader, which all
reinforced an organization-wide commitment around a shared
set of values.
However, organizational psychologists now believe that cul-
ture is more complicated than the integration perspective alone
implies.
organizational culture the shared
meanings, values, attitudes and beliefs
held by organizational members
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 445
446 446 Organizational Psychology
The pursuit of power
‘Power’ can be de?ned as the probability of someone carrying out
their own will, despite resistance (Weber, 1947). It is not usually
wielded nakedly in organizations because it creates resentment
and resistance. Instead, those in power tend to use in?uence and
2. The differentiation perspective This view recognizes that
employees or members have differing interests, task responsibilit-
ies, backgrounds, experiences and expertise, which means that
work attitudes and values, as well as pay and working conditions,
will vary throughout the organization. Add the differing social
identities due to gender, class and ethnic background, and,
according to this perspective, the concept of a unifying culture
seems inappropriate. Instead, it is proposed that within the organ-
ization there are overlapping and nested sub-cultures, which
co-exist in relationships of harmony, con?ict or indifference.
Van Maanen (1991) found just this differentiation even in the
‘strong culture’ of Disneyland. Food vendors and street cleaners
were at the bottom of the status rankings whereas, among ride
operators, those responsible for ‘yellow submarines’ and ‘jungle
boats’ had high status. Some tension was noted between opera-
tors, supervisors and even customers as the different groups inter-
acted. At the same time, supervisors were engaged in an endless
struggle to catch operators breaking the rules.
According to Van Maanen, the con?ict or differentiation per-
spective offers a more realistic account of organizational culture
than the integration perspective.
3. The fragmentation perspective Ambiguity is a de?ning
feature of many organizations. According to the fragmentation
perspective, this ambiguity occurs because there simply is no con-
sensus about meanings, attitudes and values of the organization.
Meyerson (1991) demonstrated this approach in a study of a
social work organization. Where goals were unclear, there was
no consensus about appropriate ways to achieve them, and suc-
cess was hard to de?ne and to assess. In this organization, ambi-
guity was the salient feature of working life. As one social worker
reported: ‘It just seems to me like social workers are always a lit-
tle bit on the fringe; they’re part of the institution, but they’re
not. You know they have to be part of the institution in order to
really get what they need for their clients, but basically they’re
usually at odds with the institution’ (p. 140).
There is considerable debate about the types of cultures that are
associated with organizational effectiveness but some researchers
have gathered data from the employees of successful companies
on which characteristics they associate with their companies’ suc-
cess. These include emphases on customer service, quality of
goods and services, involvement of employees in decision mak-
ing, training for employees, teamwork and employee satisfaction
(see ?gure 20.11).
POWER AND POLITICS
Why do people get up out of their warm beds to get to work on
time on a cold winter morning? Why do they conform to the
of?ce dress code? Why do
they allow the boss to talk to
them in a way they would
not permit from others? The
explanation goes beyond the
simple need for pay – it relates
to issues of power and control.
power the probability of carrying out
one’s own will in an organization,
despite resistance from other organiza-
tional members
Customer service
Strong emphasis on customer service
Company provides quality service
Customer problems corrected quickly
Delivers products/services in a timely fashion
Quality
Senior management committed to quality service
Senior management demonstrates quality is a top priority
Supervisors provide service guidance
Supervisors set good examples in relation to quality
Work group quality is rated
Continuous improvement
Clear service standards are set
Quality is a priority vs. meeting deadlines
Quality is a priority vs. cost containment
Involvement
Front line staff have the authority necessary to meet
customers’ needs
Encouragement to be innovative
Encouragement to participate in decisions
Suf?cient effort to get opinions of staff
Management use employees’ good ideas
Training
Plans for training and development
Opportunities for staff to attend training
Staff given opportunities to improve skills
Staff are satis?ed with training opportunities
Staff have the right training to help them improve
New employees get necessary training
Information/Knowledge
Management gives clear vision/direction
Staff have a clear understanding of goals
Staff are informed about issues
Departments keep each other informed
Enough warning about changes
Satisfaction with organizational information
Teamwork/Cooperation
Cooperation to get the job done
Management encourages teamwork
Workload divided fairly
Enough people to do the work
Problems in teams corrected quickly
Overall satisfaction
High job satisfaction
Jobs use skills and abilities
Work gives a feeling of accomplishment
Satisfaction with organization
Rate the organization as a place to work
Proud to work for the organization
Would recommend working at the organization
High job security
Not seriously considering leaving the organization
Figure 20.11
Key dimensions of climate/culture linked to high-performing
organizations. Source: Adapted from Wiley and Brooks (2000).
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 446
Organizations at Work 447 447
persuasion, which is generally effective because we know that
they have the power to achieve their ends ultimately.
The pursuit of power for its own ends can be very destructive.
McClelland (1975) conducted an analysis of people’s needs for
power and showed how those with a strong power motive may
present themselves well at interview but be a disaster at work,
alienating others and reducing the capacity of the organization
to achieve cooperative, collaborative, concerted action. This is
because they tend to interpret most situations in power terms and
act in Machiavellian or manipulative ways to assert or gain power.
Power, according to French and Raven (1959), derives from
?ve sources:
n Legitimate power comes from position in the hierarchy and
is imposed by authority.
n Expert power results from access to knowledge and infor-
mation, so the computer wizard often gains considerable
power in an organization.
n Reward power is illustrated by the person who allocates
of?ces, parking spaces, pay rises, equipment or stationery –
such people may have considerable power without being in
a senior position in the hierarchy.
n Coercive power is the power to force others into action or
inaction by the threat of punishment, such as delaying the
payment of expenses claims.
n Referent power is wielded by someone whose persuasive-
ness, popularity or charisma lead others to accede to his/
her wishes or suggestions.
A pluralist view
The power and politics perspective (Pfeffer, 1981) examines the
way individuals and groups within organizations compete for
resources and other desired ends (e.g. of?ce space, visibility,
recognition, promotion).
This ‘pluralist’ view regards organizations as made up of a vari-
ety of interests and beliefs that should all be heard. It contrasts
with the notion that organizations can (with appropriate man-
agement) be one ‘happy family’ with everyone in the organiza-
tion believing in the same ideals as the strong leader. This latter
perspective is the ‘unitarist’ view (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).
The pluralist perspective is particularly relevant as businesses
become more global and our societies become more multi-
ethnic. Organizations must re?ect their societies if they are to be
sensitive to the needs and desires of their customers, quite apart
from the moral issues of equal opportunities. Organizational psy-
chologists are therefore becoming increasingly concerned with
managing a workforce that is diverse in terms of ethnicity, dis-
ability, age, culture and gender.
Women at work
A major area of research on power in organizations examines the
experiences of women at work. The list of potentially relevant
themes (some of which also apply to men) is long, including: bias
in selection, placement, performance appraisal and promotion;
sexual harassment; obstacles to achievement and advancement;
con?ict between work and family responsibilities. Other concerns
relate to being in a non-traditional (i.e. ‘male’) job and being in the
minority (worse still, a ‘token’) as a female manager (Gutek, 1993).
A signi?cant problem is stereotyping. The effects reach deep
into adult employment, where 52 per cent of employed women
work in occupational groups in which more than 60 per cent of
their co-workers are women, such as clerical and secretarial
work, service work and sales. Similarly, 54 per cent of men work
in occupational groups where more than 60 per cent of their co-
workers are men, including occupational groups such as man-
agers and administrators, craft and related occupations, plant and
machine operatives (Equal Opportunities Commission, 1998).
Women are also vastly over-represented in part-time work and
pregnancy is still (illegally) treated by some employers as a cause
for dismissal. In 1998, the UK Equal Opportunities Commission
reported that 34 per cent of complainants had been dismissed or
threatened with dismissal when they ?rst announced their preg-
nancy; 28 per cent were told so before going on maternity leave,
18 per cent while on leave, and 3 per cent on their return to the
workplace (Equal Opportunities Commission, 1998).
Perhaps most revealing of the pervasive discrimination against
women in the workplace is the data on pay. The gender gap in
average hourly pay of full-time employees, excluding overtime,
narrowed between 1998 and 2003 to its lowest value since records
began. However, women’s average hourly pay was still only
82 per cent of men’s. Average gross hourly earnings, excluding
overtime, of full-time women were 82 per cent of the equivalent
average for men.
Although women have increased their representation some-
what in the ranks of executives (from 8.9 per cent in 1991 to
18 per cent in 1998), they still account for less than 5 per cent of
company directors (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2004) in
the UK. In the US in 2004, only 8 of the top 500 companies were
headed by a woman.
One issue, which is much debated, is whether women have dif-
ferent managerial or leadership styles from men. The bulk of the
Figure 20.12
The pursuit of power for its own ends can be very destructive,
as the history books show.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 447
448 448 Organizational Psychology
Some employees volunteer for redundancy, and are happy to
leave the organization with some ?nancial package as compensa-
tion. Often, though, redundancy is perceived in terms of loss –
loss of income, prestige, status and social identity. Those who
are left behind in the organization often experience guilt, and,
although they may be willing to work harder, they generally feel
more insecure having witnessed the dismissal of colleagues
(Daniel, 1972; Hartley et al., 1991). Redundancy has even been
compared to bereavement, with associated psychological stages
of shock, denial, disbelief and, later, acceptance.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS
OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Unemployment usually has very negative psychological conse-
quences. Research from the 1930s to the present day has consist-
ently shown that the unemployed have poorer mental health
than comparable groups of employed people. Figure 20.14 shows
that only 18 per cent of the employed population are so severely
stressed that they would bene?t from professional help, whereas
this ?gure lies at 30 per cent for the unemployed. Unemployed
people have worse pro?les on measures of anxiety, depression,
life dissatisfaction, experienced stress, negative self-esteem and
hopelessness about the future. They are also more likely to report
social isolation and low levels of daily activity. Their physical
health is poorer, and they are more likely to attempt and commit
suicide (Fryer, 1992; Warr, 1987).
The average psychological wellbeing of school leavers who
become unemployed diverges from those who get satisfactory
jobs, even when their wellbeing before leaving school is similar.
And people who move out of unemployment into satisfactory
jobs show sharp improvements in mental health. These ?ndings
are striking in their consistency. The same picture emerges across
studies, samples, different research groups, countries and over time.
Striking, too, is the fact that the psychological effects of unem-
ployment extend to the whole family. In a classic study of a whole
village affected by unemployment, the effects were shown to
spread across the whole community, lowering its spirit and func-
tioning ( Jahoda, Lazarsfeld & Zeisel, 1972).
research suggests there are large differences within genders as
well as between them, but that women adopt a consistently more
democratic and participative style of management than men do
(Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Powell, 1993). Some researchers argue
that women also have a more ‘transformational’ style, inspiring
and encouraging their employees, whereas men tend to use a
‘transactional’ style, punishing and rewarding selectively to
achieve the desired task-related behaviours (e.g. Rosener, 1990).
The ?erce competition of globalization has led organizations to
outsource parts of their operations that other companies can do
less expensively. This has led
to more insecurity within
organizations, and to waves
of downsizing as organiza-
tions cut jobs that seem to
add cost but little value. Our concern here is with the effects of
redundancy and unemployment on those who experience these
events.
REDUNDANCY – A KIND OF BEREAVEMENT
While the beginning of an individual’s experience in an organiza-
tion is a process of learning new behaviours, the end may be a
process of letting go as a result of redundancy. Redundancy can
come about because of downsizing. It can also be a result of skills
obsolescence, as when e-mail networks reduce the need for an
internal post system and the traditional mail coordinator is no
longer required. Or it can be a result of outsourcing. For example,
school meal services may be contracted out to private catering
?rms, making ‘dinner assistants’ redundant.
REDUNDANCY AND UNEMPLOYMENT
Figure 20.13
The experiences of women at work are subject to major research,
which considers, for example, the ‘token woman’ in the workplace.
downsizing when organizations reduce
their workforce to save on labour costs
%
c
a
s
e
s
o
f
p
o
o
r
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
Employment status
Employed
Not in labour market
Unemployed
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 20.14
Percentage of cases of poor mental health by employment status.
Source: Based on British Household Panel Survey, 3rd wave data
(1993–94).
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 448
Final Thoughts 449 449
Work is a part of everyone’s life, whether it is domestic work, voluntary work, assisting in a shoe shop, or nursing in or managing a large
hospital. Our work contributes to the meaning we create about ourselves as we build a sense of identity. Our experience of work also
determines our psychological and physical health. But more than this, work organizations have a profound effect on society and on the
sense of community created within it. Our experience of work spills over into family life – those whose work is rewarding and ful?lling
take the bene?ts back into their families and communities. Moreover, organizations can be productive and enhancing players in society
or can behave in exploitative and unethical ways. So understanding work and organizations is of huge importance in human society.
To give just one example, one study has shown a strong link between the management of staff in hospitals and patient mortality
(West et al., 2002).
The challenge is to create work organizations that enhance human well-being, learning and creativity, contribute to society and its
development, and provide models of communities based on justice, ethics, innovation and economic effectiveness. There is much still to
discover, but psychological theory and research are proving to offer the most profound insights into the world of work as our under-
standing of this ?eld develops.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Summary
n Organizational psychology is an important and vibrant ?eld of inquiry which has been enjoying considerable growth in recent
decades throughout the industrialized world.
n It provides valuable insights that help us understand people’s actions, thoughts and feelings in relation to work, and con-
sequently how to improve the management of people at work.
n Organizational psychology has made signi?cant contributions to improving many areas of people management, including per-
sonnel selection, training, employee morale and motivation, working conditions, and organizational design and development.
n Although many companies continue to seek success through, for example, technology or cost reduction, rather than through
effectively managing their workforce, there is increasing evidence that people management is a crucial source of organizational
success.
n As a result, those individuals responsible for commercial organizations, as well as policy makers in government, are looking to
psychologists and other organizational scientists to help create organizations that are effective and ef?cient but are also experi-
enced as nurturing and supportive environments by the people who work within them.
n Recent research has demonstrated strong relationships between employee job satisfaction and organizational performance.
1. What are the main devices organizations use to ensure a ‘?t’ between employees and the organization?
2. What methods of selecting people for jobs are most effective?
3. How can managers ensure that the training they provide for employees in?uences how they perform
in their jobs?
4. Is there a link between employees’ attitudes and their performance at work?
5. Why should we be concerned about whether people are ‘stressed’ by their work and how can we
make work less stressful for people?
6. What factors hinder and help team effectiveness at work?
7. How can decision making by groups be made more effective?
8. Why is feeling ‘safe’ in a work team important for team performance?
9. What is organizational culture, and what dimensions could you use to describe the culture of organ-
izations that you have experienced (e.g. voluntary work, school, paid work)?
10. What are the main sources of power that people have at work – and what do we mean by ‘power’ in
organizations?
11. To what extent is discrimination against women at work a thing of the past?
12. What are the psychological effects of becoming unemployed?
REVI SI ON QUESTI ONS
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 449
450 450 Organizational Psychology
FURTHER READING
Brief, A.P. (1998). Attitudes in and around Organizations. London: Sage.
A critical overview of research on organizational attitudes.
Daft, R.L. (1998). Organizational Theory and Design. 6th edn. Cincinnati: South-Western.
Easily readable introduction to organizational design and effectiveness, drawing together many themes.
Goldstein, I.L. (1993). Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. 3rd edn. Paci?c Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
A good overview of practical and theoretical issues in the training ?eld.
Hackman, J.R. (ed.) (1990). Groups that Work (and Those that Don’t): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Insights into how work groups function, and the factors and conditions that enhance their effectiveness.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. 2nd edn. London: Sage.
One of the most original and stimulating frameworks for understanding the nature of organizational life.
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
An in?uential account of the nature, causes and effects of organizational culture.
Smith, M., & Robertson, I.T. (1993). Systematic Personnel Selection. London: Macmillan.
A comprehensive text on personnel selection issues.
West, M.A. (2004). Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research. Oxford: Blackwell.
An introduction to the relevant research and the practice of teamwork.
Contributing authors:
Michael West & Malcolm Patterson
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 450
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 451
doc_903656255.pdf
When we consider some of the major factors affecting individuals at work, how they are selected, socialized, developed through training and affected by the behaviour of their bosses and peers, we begin to see how pervasive the effects of our work experience can be in our lives.
CHAPTER OUTLINE
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
INDIVIDUALS AT WORK
Matching the person to the job
Fitting into the organization
Training – does it work?
Leadership styles
Job satisfaction
Stress at work
GROUPS AT WORK
More than the sum of the parts
Group decision making
ORGANIZATIONS AT WORK
Organizational design
Organizational culture
Power and politics
REDUNDANCY AND UNEMPLOYMENT
Redundancy – a kind of bereavement
Psychological effects of unemployment
FINAL THOUGHTS
SUMMARY
REVISION QUESTIONS
FURTHER READING
Organizational
Psychology 20
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:53 pm Page 428
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter you should appreciate that:
n organizations use a variety of techniques to ensure a ‘?t’ between employees and the organization – some are
more effective than others;
n designed appropriately, training that managers provide for employees can in?uence how those employees perform
their jobs;
n stress and employee attitudes are important in in?uencing performance in the workplace;
n several person and situational factors impact on team effectiveness and group decision making;
n organizational culture is important for workplace performance, and can be measured across several different
dimensions;
n power is an important construct in the workplace and can be de?ned and measured in several different ways;
n there is evidence for discrimination against women at work;
n unemployment can have serious psychological effects.
Within three years of reading this text, you are
very likely to enter and begin work in an organ-
ization that is quite new to you. This will represent
a major change in your life, associated with new
patterns of behaviour, attitudes, new knowledge
and skills.
In this chapter, we discover what psychologists
know about the experience of working in an organ-
ization, from starting to leaving. This journey
through the levels of work organizations and over
the lifespan of an individual’s experience can
cover only a relatively few topics, but in the pro-
cess it should provide an insight into a rich and
increasingly important sub-discipline.
Almost all studies in this area are conducted
in the organizations themselves, from three
perspectives:
1. individual – selection, socialization, training,
leadership, job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment, and the causes and
consequences of stress;
2. group – work group effectiveness and deci-
sion making; and
3. organizational – design and culture of the
organization, the exercise of power and the
experience of women at work.
We end by analysing the powerful effects of
redundancy and unemployment.
But the ?rst step is recruitment. How do organ-
izations achieve a ?t between an individual, the
job and the organization?
I NTRODUCTI ON
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:53 pm Page 429
430 430 Organizational Psychology
References – usually obtained from current or previous
employers, often in the ?nal stages of the selection process.
The information requested may be speci?c or general and
open-minded.
Biodata – biographical
information about the
candidate’s life history.
Some biodata invent-
ories contain several questions, including objective ques-
tions (such as professional quali?cations held) and more
subjective ones (such as preferences for different job
features).
Work-sample tests – using
samples of the job (e.g.
the contents of an in-
tray for an executive
position, or speci?c
kinds of typing for a
secretarial post). The
applicant is given instructions and a speci?c amount of
time to complete the tasks.
Handwriting analysis – making inferences about the candidate’s
characteristics by examining speci?c features of his/her
handwriting, such as slant and letter shapes.
Assessment centres – a com-
bination of some of
the above techniques.
Candidates are usually
processed in groups,
and some of the tech-
niques require them to
interact (e.g. simulated
group decision-making exercises).
Although the usefulness of
psychometric tests in selection
has been hotly debated by
psychologists, their validity
has been found to be relatively good (Robertson & Kinder,
1993). The drawback from the perspective of employers is
that training is required for those who wish to administer and
interpret these tests. Even though the ?nancial costs of ineffective
selection are potentially large, organizations still rely on tech-
niques such as personal references, graphology (handwriting
analysis) and even astrology. These techniques are demonstrably
and largely invalid as selection devices (Rafaeli & Klimoski,
1983).
Selection methods need to have good criterion validity. This
is the relationship between
scores on the selection
method and scores on the
ultimate performance meas-
ures, such as number of sales
made, commission earned
or other types of outcomes
required by the organization
(Landy & Farr, 1980).
When we consider some of the major factors affecting individuals
at work, how they are selected, socialized, developed through
training and affected by the behaviour of their bosses and peers,
we begin to see how pervasive the effects of our work experience
can be in our lives.
The jobs we do shape us by offering us a sense of growth,
commitment and satisfaction, or they can alienate us, creating
chronic feelings of anxiety and directly affecting our health and
wellbeing. The in?uence of work in colouring every aspect of our
lives is profound.
MATCHING THE PERSON TO THE JOB
Selection is based on the premise that there are stable individual
differences between people, which can be identi?ed (see chapters
13 and 14), and that these differences have an impact on how
effective people are in a particular job (Robertson, 1995).
Not surprisingly, psychologists have been at the forefront
of developing and using personnel selection methods. One of
the aims of selection is to ensure a ?t, i.e. a good match, between
the person and the organization. Failure to achieve this can not
only result in poor job performance, but the well being of the
employee also suffers, and ultimately the employment relation-
ship is likely to end.
Common selection procedures
The typical process for de-
signing a selection system
begins with a job analysis to
identify the essential require-
ments. This information is
used to create a job descrip-
tion, which forms the basis of a person speci?cation. This
speci?cation translates the demands of the job into human terms
and lists criteria that an applicant must satisfy if they are to per-
form the job successfully (Arnold, Robertson & Cooper, 1991).
Selection methods determine whether the applicant’s skills,
knowledge and abilities meet these criteria. For example, if the
person speci?cation states that good verbal reasoning skills are
required, a psychological test of verbal reasoning may well be
used in the selection procedure. Common selection procedures
(from Arnold, Robertson & Cooper 1991) are:
Interviews – often involving more than one interviewer. At a
panel interview, the applicant will be questioned by several
interviewers. The most important features of a job inter-
view are the extent to which a pre-planned structure is fol-
lowed, and the proportion of questions that are directly
related to the job.
Psychometric tests – including tests of cognitive ability (e.g. gen-
eral intelligence, verbal ability, numerical ability) and self-
report measures which are designed to evaluate personality.
INDIVIDUALS AT WORK
job analysis procedures for describing
jobs, including the nature of the work
and the relationships of the job-holder
with other people
biodata life history information about
job candidates
work-sample tests personnel assess-
ment techniques which require the
applicant to perform tasks that are
examples of the task demands of the job
in question
assessment centres series of assess-
ment exercises (e.g. interviews, work-
sample tests, group discussions) used to
assess a person’s potential for a job
psychometric tests assess cognitive
and personality dimensions
criterion validity the relationship
between a person’s scores in a selection
method (e.g. job interview or intelli-
gence test) and his/her scores on sub-
sequent performance measures (e.g.
supervisor’s rating of the person’s job
performance)
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:53 pm Page 430
Individuals at Work 431 431
Psychological tests show good criterion validity. For
example, one of the best predictors of job performance (for all
but very simple jobs) is general intelligence (Hunter & Hunter,
1984; see also chapter 13). And yet the most frequently used
selection method for many jobs is the unstructured inter-
view, which has poor criterion validity. Here, interviewers
ask a wide variety of questions, but without planning what
questions will elicit the information that best predicts job
performance.
Structured interviews, involv-
ing two or more interviewers
asking standard job-related
questions of all candidates,
are much better selection
methods, but they are rarely
used (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994; Wiesner & Cronshaw, 1988).
These interviewers are likely to ask targeted questions, such
as: ‘Have you ever been in a situation at work where a customer
was very angry about a service you had provided? Describe
the situation and how you handled it.’ This kind of question
will usually elicit clearer information about the likely future
performance of the candidate, because one thing we know for
sure is that one of the best predictors of future behaviour is past
behaviour (see chapter 17).
Personality tests (used for assessing traits such as conscien-
tiousness, con?dence and sociability) are increasingly popular
tools in employee selection (see chapter 14). Tests that assess
speci?c personality traits relevant to a particular job are reason-
ably valid predictors of job performance (Hogan & Roberts, 1996),
whereas general-purpose personality tests have lower validity
(Salgado, 1997).
FITTING INTO THE ORGANIZATION
Once you have started work for an organization, it will seek to
shape you to ?t in and to contribute to achieving its goals. This is
done through socialization and training.
The stages of socialization
Socialization is the process by which members of a society (be
it a country, organization or even a family) are taught how to
behave and feel by in?uential members of that society. In the
past, theory and research has concentrated on the development
of children and adolescents. But more recently it has become
clear that we are socialized and resocialized throughout our lives
(Wanous, Reichers & Malik, 1984).
When employees start work, they learn about their new jobs,
the work environment and how they are required to behave –
attending meetings on time, dressing according to certain stand-
ards, using particular styles of speech. They learn to align their
work values with those of the organization. For example, army
recruits are socialized, or indoctrinated, into the ‘army way’,
learning not only the rules and regulations but also the values and
behaviours that match the army’s distinctive culture. Many com-
mercial organizations emphasize customer service as vital, and
require employees to adopt the values, attitudes and behaviours
that support such a service strategy.
Socialization has all or some of the following stages (Wanous,
1992):
n confronting and accepting organizational reality – Wanous
(1978) suggested that organizations can make this ‘reality
shock’ stage smoother by providing applicants with a real-
istic job preview describing negative as well as positive
aspects of the job;
Figure 20.1
Despite the fact that psychological tests show good criterion
validity, the most frequently used selection method for many
jobs is the unstructured interview.
structured interviews in which the
questions are standardized across
interviewees
Figure 20.2
Like many new employees, army recruits learn to align their
work values with those of the organization, absorbing not only
the rules and regulations but also the values and behaviours
that match the army’s distinctive culture.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 431
432 432 Organizational Psychology
4. serial vs. disjunctive – the degree to which role models are
provided (as in apprenticeship or mentoring programmes),
or are deliberately withheld (as in sink-or-swim initiations,
in which the recruit is expected to ?gure out her own solu-
tions and is not told what to do);
5. sequential vs. random – the degree to which the process con-
sists of guiding the recruit through a series of discrete steps
and roles, as opposed to being open-ended (where training
is based on the needs of the individual, and there is no set
sequence in his/her progression); and
6. ?xed vs. variable – the degree to which stages of the training
process have ?xed timetables or are open-ended (such as in
some promotional systems, where the employee is not
advanced to the next stage until she is deemed ready).
Van Maanen and Schein argued that the more a newcomer’s
experiences are like the ?rst half of each pair given in the listing
above (e.g. collective, formal, sequential, etc.), the more likely
the recruit is to conform; individual perspectives and attitudes
will be stripped away and replaced by standardized behavi-
ours. Socialization into the army relies on strong socialization
tactics. New recruits are trained together, segregated from exper-
ienced soldiers, and socialization tends to suppress individual
aspects of the self (which are then replaced by conformity to
army norms).
TRAINING – DOES IT WORK?
Training is a learning process structured in a systematic fashion
and designed to raise the performance level of an employee
(Goldstein, 1993; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). With the marked
change in work environments over the last quarter of the twen-
tieth century (such as new ways of working, cutbacks at manage-
rial level and the devolution of responsibility and accountability
to individual staff ) has come an urgent need to develop and main-
tain staff skills through continuous training. Furthermore, with
the expanded use of new technology (and information techno-
logy in particular) most people at work need continual training
n achieving role clarity by discovering what is expected in
terms of job requirements and performance;
n becoming situated within the organizational context –
settling in and getting used to how things are done; and
n detecting signposts of successful socialization – e.g. feeling
accepted by colleagues, con?dence in completing the job
successfully, understanding the formal and informal aspects
of the job, and knowing the criteria used to assess job
performance.
This process of ‘learning the ropes’ has at least three elements
(Van Maanen & Schein, 1979, pp. 226–7):
n acquiring the knowledge required for both job performance
and general functioning in the organization (e.g. how to
make a grievance, what quality standards need to be met);
n acquiring a strategic base, i.e. a set of decision rules for solv-
ing problems and making decisions (e.g. building good rela-
tionships with colleagues in your and other departments,
knowing whether it is acceptable to question a senior man-
ager’s decision); and
n learning the organization’s purpose, which may be different
from what is publicly stated (e.g. employee welfare may, in
practice, be rated much lower than maximizing pro?ts).
How your job can change you
There is evidence that, over the longer term, an individual’s per-
sonality, values and cognitive functioning are changed by their
job. Kohn and Schooler (1983) found that jobs high in complex-
ity can enhance intellectual functioning. Von Rosenstiel (1989)
showed that people who started without a strong career ori-
entation and who were supportive of environmental protection
become less ‘green’ and more career-orientated when they took
a company job. Mortimer, Lorence and Kumka (1986) found
that people tend to value more, over time, things like money or
challenge that are characteristic of their particular type of work,
and to devalue things that are not, such as unconventional dress
or antipathy to rules (although they may start their career valuing
these latter characteristics more).
Not surprisingly, a problem with strong socialization tactics
is that they tend to create conformists with little inclination to
innovate (see chapter 18). Van Maanen and Schein (1979) pro-
posed six dimensions to socialization tactics:
1. collective vs. individual – the degree to which the organiza-
tion processes recruits in batches (where everyone has the
same learning experiences) or individually;
2. formal vs. informal – the degree to which the process is for-
malized (as in set training programmes), or is handled
informally (such as via individual supervision by the imme-
diate supervisor, and through learning on the job);
3. divestiture vs. investiture – the degree to which the process
destroys aspects of the self and replaces them (as in an army
training camp), or enhances aspects of the self (as in some
forms of professional development);
Pioneer
Edgar H. Schein (1928– ) is the Sloans Fellows Professor of
Management (Emeritus) and Senior Lecturer at the MIT
Sloan School of Management. He has contributed to the
discipline of organizational psychology in the areas of
organization development, career development and organ-
izational culture. In Career Survival: Strategic Job and Role
Planning, he presented concepts and activities for managers
based on research he ?rst reported in Career Dynamics:
Matching Individual and Organizational Needs (1978). He is
the author of Organizational Culture and Leadership (1992),
and is considered the leading international expert on organ-
izational culture.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 432
Individuals at Work 433 433
to update their skills (Ashton & Felstead, 1995; Pfeffer, 1998;
Tharenou & Burke, 2002). Yet the approach to training in many
organizations is often haphazard and reactive.
Psychologists have much to offer organizations in relation
to how training can best be used to achieve a ?t between the
individual and his job. Organ-
izations must undertake a
training needs assessment in
order to identify who needs
to develop more knowledge
and skills to successfully com-
plete their present and future
tasks. This is usually done through observation, interview, group
discussion and work samples. Training methods include on-the-
job training (coaching), lectures, simulations (e.g. cockpit simula-
tion), case studies and programmed instruction (via computers).
A critical question (given
the huge costs involved) is
whether training transfers
to job performance. Three
factors in?uence the transfer
of training:
n the similarity of training to work tasks – the more similar
the better;
n the employee’s motivation to use newly learned skills or
knowledge on the job; and
n organizational support for the transfer of training, such as
supervisory support for the implementation of new ideas.
Ideally, training should be evaluated to determine whether it is
achieving its desired ends. This can range from whether the indi-
vidual enjoyed the training and applies it, to whether it affects job
performance, customer satisfaction or even organizational pro-
ductivity and pro?tability.
Does training work in practice? Research shows that training
improves individual and organizational performance in a variety
of ways, including increased organizational productivity, better
product quality and improved customer service. In a review of
training research, Tharenou and Burke (2002) report that training
is related to:
n the acquisition and retention of essential employees;
n employee satisfaction;
n employee turnover rate (i.e. the percentage of employees
quitting their jobs each year);
n work productivity (e.g. sales per employee);
n product quality; and
n customer ratings of service and product quality.
LEADERSHIP STYLES
Organizational psychologists have struggled with the concept of
leadership since the mid twentieth century, changing their focus
from personality (‘leaders are born, not made’) to environmental
factors (‘circumstances determine who emerges as the leader’)
and back to personality again (Bass, 1990; Fiedler, 1967; House,
1977; see also chapter 18).
Today, there is a lot of
interest in charismatic or
transformational leadership.
This represents a leadership
style that enables the leader
to exercise diffuse and intense
in?uence over the beliefs,
values, behaviour and per-
formance of others (House,
Spangler & Woycke, 1991).
Such leaders tend to be dominant and self-con?dent with a need
to in?uence others while believing strongly in their own values.
They communicate their goals and visions clearly, and have high
expectations of their followers’ performance.
The fascination with this kind of leadership is evidenced by the
number of books by or about charismatic leaders. Some studies
suggest that these leaders inspire effort and satisfaction amongst
their employees, resulting in higher productivity. But Howell and
House (1995) caution against this type of leadership style because,
they argue, it can also have negative consequences. Think of
charismatic historical ?gures who have initiated destruction in
their societies (e.g. Adolf Hitler); or particular characters such as
the People’s Temple cult leader, Reverend Jim Jones, who per-
suaded his followers to feed a poison-laced drink to their children
and then drink it themselves. Nearly 1000 people died in this
incident (Osherow, 1981).
Howell and House distinguish between socialized and per-
sonalized charismatic leadership. ‘Socialized leaders’ emphasize
egalitarianism, serving collective interests rather than self-interest,
and developing and empowering others. They are altruistic, self-
controlled, follower-oriented (rather than narcissistic), and work
training needs assessment identi?ca-
tion of learning requirements, to facilit-
ate successful completion of present
and future roles
transfer of training application of what
was learned in job training to the job
itself
transformational leadership a style
used by leaders who tend to be dom-
inant and self-con?dent, need to in?u-
ence others, while believing strongly in
their own values, communicate their
goals and visions clearly, and have
high expectations of their followers’
performance
Figure 20.3
The negative in?uence of transformational leadership: the
People’s Temple cult leader, Reverend Jim Jones, persuaded
his followers to feed a poison-laced drink to their children and
then drink it themselves. Nearly 1000 people died.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 433
434 434 Organizational Psychology
Transformational and transactional leadership
The research issue
Bass’s (1985) theory of transformational leadership distinguishes between transactional leaders and transformational
leaders. Transactional leaders base their relationships with their followers on a series of exchanges or bargains. They reward
followers for accomplishing agreed objectives by giving recognition, bonuses, merit awards or particularly stimulating pro-
jects. They also ‘transact’ with followers by focusing on their mistakes, and delaying decisions or avoiding intervening until
something has gone wrong. Transformational leadership, in contrast, is characterized by behaviour that helps followers to
develop their knowledge and skills, stimulating them intellectually and inspiring them to go beyond self-interests to achieve
or pursue a higher vision, mission or purpose. Transactional leadership focuses on short-term corrective or reward-based
transactions, whereas transformational leaders employ charisma and give more consideration to each individual’s needs.
Transformational leaders focus on longer-term goals and place emphasis on developing a vision that inspires their followers.
Of course, all leaders are likely to display elements of both styles of leadership, but, according to this framework, it is
proposed that there will be considerable variation between leaders in the extent to which they employ predominantly one
or other style. Howell and Avolio (1993) decided to investigate the extent to which transactional and transformational lead-
ership behaviours predicted business performance.
Design and procedure
The researchers worked with 78 managers in a large Canadian ?nancial institution, which was one of the oldest and most
successful in the country. They measured leadership behaviour by administering the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) to (on average) four of the followers of each of the 78 managers. The MLQ measures transformational leader
behaviour by items such as ‘uses symbols and images to get his or her ideas across’, ‘provides reasons to change my way
of thinking about problems’ and ‘spends time coaching me’. Transactional leadership is measured by items such as ‘points
out what I will receive if I do what needs to be done’, ‘is alert for failure to meet standards’ and ‘things have to go wrong
for him or her to take action’.
One year later, the researchers gathered data on the performance of the business units for which each of the managers
was responsible. These data included productivity improvement, size of operating expense budget, conformity of salaries
to budget and total project costs.
Results and implications
The managers who displayed less transactional leadership behaviours and more consideration for individuals, intellectual
stimulation of followers and charisma had better business unit performance one year later. Transactional leadership
behaviours were also negatively related to unit performance.
The results suggest that managers need to develop a transformational leadership style in order to be more effective and
to contribute to the performance of their business units or organizations. But the authors point out that their results are
not entirely consistent with previous studies. Although previous studies reveal positive relationships between transforma-
tional leadership styles and performance, they also showed positive relationships between transactional behaviours and
performance.
Transactional leadership behaviours may lead to poorer performance in an environment, such as the ?nancial services
industry, where there is much change and turbulence. Employees may need to develop a longer-term vision of their work to
cope with long-term change, which transactional styles (focused as they are on meeting short-term goals) do not encour-
age. Interviews with senior managers in the organization revealed a concern that some managers had become too trans-
actional and spent too much time on meeting immediate goals and achieving short-term results rather than motivating,
empowering and inspiring employees. The researchers suspected that the negative relationships between transactional
styles and performance might have been a consequence of employees feeling that rewards were being used to control their
behaviour rather than reward performance.
The positive impact of transformational leadership on performance could be due to followers internalizing the charismatic
leader’s vision or values and consequently working hard to achieve that vision, regardless of the short-term consequences
for them. Such effects are more likely to be powerful (according to theory) in organizations that are coping with consider-
able change, where a focus on the long-term future helps to distract employees from the short-term stresses of additional
workloads or major change in their work.
The researchers speculate that transformational leadership may have a direct effect on the commitment levels of fol-
lowers and their preparedness to be good organizational ‘citizens’ who contribute beyond what they are required to, and
that this, in turn, affects business unit performance. The investigators call for more research to help us understand not just
whether, but how, transformational leadership behaviours in?uence job performance.
Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J., 1993, ‘Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for
innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
Resear Resear ch close-up 1 ch close-up 1
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 434
Individuals at Work 435 435
through legitimate authority and established systems. ‘Personal-
ized leaders’ are more self-interested and manipulative and can
engender pathological relationships with their followers, leading
to unhappy work outcomes such as poor performance, con?ict-
ridden relationships and poor individual wellbeing.
JOB SATISFACTION
Selection, socialization and training are all ways in which the
organization acts upon the individual at work. But how might
individuals react to these processes and to the experience of work
in general?
Job satisfaction is a judge-
ment we make about how
favourable our work envir-
onment is (Motowildo, 1996)
and can be re?ected in our
thoughts and feelings (Brief,
1998). It is the most researched construct in organizational psy-
chology and the subject of literally thousands of studies.
There are two approaches to assessing job satisfaction. The
?rst sees it as a single, global affective experience. So people are
asked to give an overall assessment: ‘In general, how satis?ed
are you with your job?’ The second, and more widely adopted,
approach is to view job satisfaction as a cluster of attitudes
towards different aspects of the job, such as pay, supervisory
support, autonomy, variety, working conditions and promotion
prospects. A mean score is calculated to represent a composite
measure of job satisfaction. Table 20.1 is a typical example of this
composite approach.
What makes a job satisfying?
Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) in?uential job characteristics the-
ory identi?es ?ve characteristics as contributors to job satisfaction:
n task identity – the extent to which the job represents a
whole piece of work (e.g. running a restaurant compared
with just washing the dishes);
n task signi?cance – how important the task is for society in
general, and for the goals of the organization;
n autonomy – the amount of freedom the person has to
decide on how best to do their job;
n feedback – receiving information about job performance
(imagine writing essays and never receiving feedback on
how well they were written); and
n variety – varied tasks are important (compare the work of
an organizational psychologist with that of a supermarket
check-out worker), but too much variety can create con-
?icting and therefore stressful demands.
job satisfaction a person’s attitude
(favourable or unfavourable) towards
their job
Table 20.1 Job satisfaction. Across samples of several thousand, 70 per cent of people score an average of between 3.5 and 5.5. If you rate your
satisfaction in this range, you are similar to most others at work but scores to the top end of this range clearly indicate a healthier person–job
?t. If your average satisfaction rating is higher than 5.5, you are in an unusually satisfying job. If your average rating is below 3.5, you should
consider changing those aspects of your job that are least satisfying, or even ?nding a new and more ful?lling role altogether.
Extremely Very Moderately Not sure Moderately Very Extremely
dissatis?ed dissatis?ed dissatis?ed satis?ed satis?ed satis?ed
1 The physical working conditions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 The freedom to choose your own
method of working. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Your fellow team members. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 The recognition you get for good work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Your immediate boss. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 The amount of responsibility you
are given. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 Your rate of pay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 The opportunity to use your ability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 Relationships between management
and workers in the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 Your chance of promotion or
progression within the company. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 The way your ?rm is managed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 The attention paid to suggestions
you make. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13 Your hours of work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 The amount of variety in your job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15 Your job security. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16 The amount of training you receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Source: Warr, Cook and Wall (1979).
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 435
436 436 Organizational Psychology
component to job satisfaction. For example, in a survey of groups
of identical twins who were reared separately, Arvey, Bouchard,
Segal and Abraham (1989) found a signi?cant association between
their levels of job satisfaction. It appears from this research that
our genes in?uence our affective reactions to life, which can in
turn affect our job experiences.
Consequences of job satisfaction
Does high job satisfaction lead to better job performance, or does
high performance result in high job satisfaction (due, perhaps, to
pride or rewards associated with high performance)?
Whatever the causal direction, past research in this area indi-
cates that if a relationship does exist, it is a weak one (Iaffaldano
& Muchinsky, 1992). But more recent research provides renewed
support for the view that ‘a happy worker is a productive worker’.
Two studies have related the average level of job satisfaction in
an organization to measures of company performance, such as
pro?tability. They found that organizations with more satis?ed
employees tend to perform better than those whose employees
are less satis?ed (Ostroff, 1992; Patterson & West, 1998). These
organizational relationships are stronger than the association
between individual job satisfaction and individual job perform-
ance, because individual measures of productivity do not take
into account coordination and cooperation between employees.
So when people are generally satis?ed and well treated at work,
they seem more likely to be good organizational ‘citizens’, co-
operating with people from other departments, taking on tasks
outside their formal job descriptions and encouraging others to
perform effectively.
At the individual level, perhaps not surprisingly, low job satis-
faction signi?cantly increases the likelihood that the employee
will leave the organization (e.g. Crampton & Wagner, 1994).
STRESS AT WORK
Although it is dif?cult to estimate the cost of work-related stress,
many studies report that it has enormous impact in terms of
both economic costs and human suffering. For example, recent
survey research estimated that about half a million people in the
UK believe they are suffering from work-related stress, depres-
sion or anxiety ( Jones et al., 2003) and that, in 2001, 13.4 million
working days were lost in the UK due to stress, depression and
anxiety. Another survey estimated that ?ve million people in
the UK feel ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ stressed by their work (Smith
et al., 2000).
Based on 1995/96 prices, the Health and Safety Executive esti-
mated that the ?nancial cost of work-related stress to employers
was about £353 to £381 million and to society about £3.7 to £3.8
billion per year. Since these calculations were made, the esti-
mated number of working days lost due to stress has more than
doubled ( Jones et al., 2003).
The costs of stress stem not only from absenteeism and
lost productivity, but also from compensation claims, health
insurance and medical expenses. In the USA, annual mental stress
Many studies (e.g. Fried & Ferris, 1987) have found signi?cant
relationships between job characteristics and job satisfaction.
There is strong evidence that simple and monotonous jobs (e.g.
repeatedly undertaking a simple task on a factory production line)
are associated with job dissatisfaction (Melamed et al., 1995). On
the other hand, some people do not respond favourably to more
challenging and complex jobs (Spector, 1997), so personality fac-
tors may well also be relevant here.
Other environmental factors that show signi?cant relation-
ships with job satisfaction include supportive supervisors and co-
workers (Arvey, Carter & Buerkley, 1991) and equitable rewards
(Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). In the case of rewards, it is the
extent to which employees view these as distributed fairly that
affects satisfaction, rather than actual pay levels.
Job satisfaction has also been found to be related to IQ, mental
health and personality variables (e.g. O’Brien, 1983; Staw, Bell &
Clausen, 1986). It has even been argued that there is a genetic
Pioneer
J. Richard Hackman (1940– ) pioneered the Job
Characteristics Model in order to help specify the content
and methods of jobs. This model has in?uenced genera-
tions of researchers since the 1970s (Hackman & Oldham,
1976). The job characteristics model effectively linked the
design of jobs with motivation theory, in what has proved
to be a powerful theoretical framework. His work on
groups, developed in the 1980s and 1990s, has also had a
major in?uence (Hackman, 1990), particularly because of
his championing of qualitative methods for the study of
workgroups. Hackman is Cahners-Rabb Professor of Social
and Organizational Psychology at Harvard University in
the USA.
Figure 20.4
It is probably unsurprising that simple and monotonous jobs are
thought to be associated with job dissatisfaction.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 436
Individuals at Work 437 437
insurance claims in the California workers’ compensation system
have been estimated to be approximately $383 million (Beehr,
1995). Figure 20.5 presents a framework for thinking about
work-place stress.
Kinds of stress
The word ‘stress’ is used in a number of ways (see also chapter
19). For example, ‘I’ve got such a headache. It must be the stress
over this big project’; ‘I feel stressed when my boss is around’;
‘I feel tense and my concentration goes when I am under stress’.
There are numerous stressors in the work environment that
can result in distinctive physiological, psychological and behavi-
oural responses.
n Physical stressors can lead to both physical and mental health
problems. They might include the noise in a heavy con-
struction manufacturing site or at an aluminium smelting
plant, or the dirty and hot physical environment of a coal
mine or steel plant. Dangers in the work environment also
cause stress – think of the jobs of police of?cers or nurses in
accident and emergency departments of hospitals; both of
these sets of workers are often subject to violent attacks.
n Work load can be quantitative (too much work to do) and
qualitative, where work is too dif?cult for the individual
(French & Caplan, 1972). Work underload can also act as a
stressor (Cox, 1980) – again this can be quantitative (not
enough work to do) and/or qualitative (repetitive, routine,
under-stimulating).
n The person’s role in
the organization can also
lead to pressures in
the form of role con?ict
and ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964). Role con?ict occurs
when we have to deal with con?icting job demands. It is
not unusual for an individual to be caught between two
groups of people expecting different behaviours. This might
occur when a non-management employee is promoted to
a supervisory role and then has to balance the expectations
of previous colleagues with the new demands of man-
agement. Role ambigu-
ity occurs when we
are unsure about our
work requirements,
responsibilities and co-
workers’ expectations.
n Stress can also arise from career development issues, such as
fear of redundancy, failure to achieve promotion, or pro-
motion into a role we are not prepared for.
n Social stressors include poor relationships with supervisors,
peers and subordinates (characterized by, for example, low
trust and supportiveness).
n Finally, many studies have shown that the timing of work
(such as long hours or shift work) affects stress levels.
Physical stressors
? Noise, dirt, heat, vibrations,
chemical substances
? Dangers
Work load
? Quantitative overload (too much
work to do)
? Qualitative overload (work is too
difficult)
? Quantitative underload (too little
to do)
? Qualitative underload (repetitive,
monotonous work)
Role in organization
? Role ambiguity (unclear job
functions and responsibilities)
? Role conflict (conflicts between
demands at work)
? Responsibility for people
Career development
? Overpromotion
? Underpromotion
? Job insecurity
? Retirement
Social stressors
? Poor relations with supervisor,
colleagues, subordinates
Timing of work
? Night-work and shift-work
? Long hours
Resources
? Job knowledge and experience
? Social support
? Control
? Personality
Primary
appraisal
Secondary
appraisal
Coping
strategies
Stress
manifestations
? Physiological
? Psychological
? Behavioural
Figure 20.5
A framework of stress. Source: Based
on Kahn and Byosiere (1992).
role con?ict when demands placed on
an employee con?ict with one another
role ambiguity employee uncer-
tainty about their job functions and
responsibilities
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 437
438 438 Organizational Psychology
work. Karasek (1979) showed that the most damaging jobs
have a combination of high demands (volume and pace of
work) with low control.
Personality characteristics – Neurotic people are more likely to
see stimuli as threatening than are hardy characters.
Hardiness encompasses three personality traits: (i) com-
mitment, (ii) an internal locus of control ( believing that
you have control over your own life) and (iii) a sense of
welcoming challenge (Maddi & Kobasa, 1984; see also
chapters 14 and 19). Those who are high in hardiness tend
to view events as less stressful than do others, and they are
less likely to be overwhelmed by challenging situations.
Prevention of stress
Stress management programmes have multiplied since the 1970s
(Payne, 1995). Many of these programmes help participants to
perceive a situation as challenging rather than stressful. They
teach coping strategies and advise on diet, exercise, alcohol and
substance abuse. Some programmes use techniques such as self-
help groups, relaxation and meditation. Unfortunately, system-
atic evaluations of stress management programmes have shown
them to be of limited effectiveness (Briner & Reynolds, 1999).
Employers will sometimes
try to reduce stress through
changes in the workplace,
such as job redesign, or to
increase individuals’ resources
through social support or
increased control ( by increasing job responsibilities and/or par-
ticipation in decision making). And, of course, stressors can also
be tackled directly, for example by reducing noise or working
hours.
MORE THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS
Work groups, or teams, are in-
creasingly common in organ-
izations. Formal groups are
those designated as work
groups by the organization.
The members of these groups
usually have shared task
objectives. Examples of these
formal groups include health
care teams, management
groups, mining crews and research and development project
groups. Informal work groups are not de?ned by the organiza-
tion as functional units, but nevertheless have an impact on
organizational behaviour. Examples include friendship and pres-
sure groups.
GROUPS AT WORK
Reactions to stress
Although you and I may be subject to similar work stressors, our
responses and the amount of strain each of us feels can be very
different, depending on how we appraise the situation and what
coping strategies we use (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus &
Launier, 1978; see also chapters 6, 14 and 19). So the outcome of
stress is a function of the interaction of the individual and the
environment.
The resources that we bring to a work situation can also affect
the way each of us responds to stress. Job knowledge and experi-
ence, social support, control over our work, and personality char-
acteristics are the kinds of resources that determine whether
someone ?nds a situation stressful. Some of the most relevant
factors are:
Knowledge – People who have considerable job knowledge and
experience are more likely to be able to cope with stressful
situations. This is because they are less likely to experience
quantitative or qualitative work overload, and they are
likely to have more control over a situation than someone
with little experience or knowledge (see below).
Social support – Whilst poor relationships at work can be a
major source of stress, social support from colleagues and
supervisors can buffer the impact of stress, mitigating the
negative effects (e.g. Cummins, 1990; Manning, Jackson &
Fusilier, 1996). Social support may also come from outside
the job, from family and from friends.
Control – There is a widely held misperception that managers
have more stressful jobs than others. While they do tend to
have heavy workloads, deadlines, responsibility for com-
plex decisions, and many relationships to manage, stress-
related diseases are much less common in managers than
in blue-collar workers (Fletcher, 1988; Karasek & Theorell,
1990). One important reason for this appears to be that
managers have greater control (autonomy) over their
Figure 20.6
Shift work can affect stress levels.
job redesign techniques to increase the
variety, autonomy and completeness of
a job
work groups collectives of individuals
within organizations – formal groups
are designated as work groups by the
organization, and informal groups are
not de?ned by the organization as func-
tional units, but nevertheless have an
impact upon organizational behaviour
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 438
Groups at Work 439 439
Group in?uences on work behaviour
Early studies of organizational behaviour show that work groups
profoundly in?uence individual behaviour. In the 1920s and 1930s,
several studies were carried out at Western Electric’s Hawthorne
Works in Chicago, USA, to examine the effects of illumination
levels on workers’ performance in assembling and inspecting relays
used in telephone equipment. The researchers varied the level of
illumination and studied the effects on workers’ performance.
The results showed that any variation in the level of illumina-
tion (down to a level almost the equivalent of moonlight) led
to improvements in performance. This effect was explained
in terms of the workers’ appreciation of the attention and
interest shown in their work by researchers and managers, which
manifested itself in better
work performance. This
effect has come to be known
as the Hawthorne effect, and
?eld studies that test meth-
ods of intervention in organi-
zations have to demonstrate
that positive results are not simply due to this effect (this is some-
what analogous to the ‘placebo effect’ discussed in chapters 16
and 19).
Further studies in the Hawthorne Works examined the effects
of several other factors (such as number and length of rest
periods, and hours of work) on the performance of a small group
of female workers (see Everyday Psychology for more detail on this
Hawthorne effect when workers
appreciate the attention and interest
shown in their work by researchers and
managers, and show this appreciation
through better work performance
The Hawthorne Effect
The scienti?c management approach dominated thinking about human performance in organizations in the early part of the
twentieth century. It assumed that there was one best way to manage, and that productivity could be maximized by careful
study of job content, combined with ergonomic studies, standardized methods of job performance and appropriate selection
and training in the precise components required for the job. This approach informed the continued development of assem-
bly line methods in the early twentieth century, best typi?ed in the Ford Motor Company’s approach to vehicle production.
Roethlisberger and Dixon (1939) were inspired by the scienti?c management approach to investigate the effects of
(among other things) illumination levels on workers’ performance in Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works, near Chicago.
Their aim was to discover how to optimize the workplace by manipulating factors such as levels of lighting and hours of
work, in order to achieve maximum productivity.
Two groups of female employees took part in the ?rst element of the investigation, which took place in a relay assembly depart-
ment. The control group worked without any changes in the level of illumination in their workroom. In the experimental group the
lighting was systematically varied (being sometimes brighter and sometimes dimmer than the standard level of illumination
for the control group), and the productivity of the workers was continually monitored. Subsequent investigations examined
the effects on productivity of variables such as length of rest pauses, length of the working day and week, and a free lunch.
The ?ndings were quite baf?ing. Both the control group and the experimental group increased their productivity during the
study. Regardless of whether illumination levels were increased or decreased, the productivity of the experimental group
went up. Even when the illumination was turned so low that the women could barely see what they were doing, productiv-
ity went up! The introduction of changed lengths of working hours, weeks and rest pauses had a similar impact. Even the
introduction of a free lunch led to improved performance.
The results suggested that productivity rose because the women responded favourably to the ‘special attention’ they felt
they were getting from the investigators. Knowing they were being studied apparently made them feel important and valued,
and they were motivated to do their best, regardless of what changes were introduced.
In a second component of the investigation, conducted in the bank wiring room, members of work groups (this time all men)
were observed during their work and interviewed at length at the end of the working day or week. There was no intervention
here, since the aim was simply to observe the work process and discover how it could be done more ef?ciently and productively.
The men did not improve their productivity. Quite the contrary – they stopped work before the end of the working day and
later told the investigators that they were capable of being much more productive. It appeared that the men feared the study
would lead the company to raise the level of productivity required for the same rate of pay. So they deliberately kept pro-
ductivity low to ensure they were not required in the future to achieve unreasonable levels of performance. The men had
agreed informal rules between themselves about the level of productivity they would achieve, and they maintained this
through their cooperation and shared goals.
In contrast to the assumptions of the scienti?c management approach (i.e. that technological and ergonomic factors are
the predominant in?uences on workplace productivity), these investigations reveal the importance of social factors in work
performance. In both cases, interpersonal processes played the major role in determining productivity.
These ?ndings mark the birth of the ‘human relations’ movement, which drew attention to the importance of workers’
needs, attitudes, social relationships and group memberships in the workplace. It is an orientation that continues to have
a major in?uence on managerial practice today, most notably in the domain of human resource management.
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J., 1939, Management and the Worker, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ever Ever yday Psychology yday Psychology
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 439
440 440 Organizational Psychology
include decision-making leadership. Outputs refer to group per-
formance and team member well-being (see also chapter 18). A
model of these factors is shown in ?gure 20.8.
This work suggests that, ideally:
n teams should have intrinsically interesting tasks to perform
(Guzzo & Shea, 1992);
n each individual’s role should be essential and unique
(Guzzo & Shea, 1992);
n each individual should be subject to evaluation and receive
clear performance feedback (Pritchard et al., 1988);
n the team as a whole should have clear objectives, be subject
to evaluation, and receive performance feedback (Poulton
& West, 1999); and
n the team should frequently re?ect on their task objectives,
strategies and processes, modifying these as appropriate
(West, 1996).
phenomenon). The results suggest that the characteristics of the
social setting or group are at least as important as the technical
aspects of the work in explaining performance (Roethlisberger &
Dixon, 1939).
Types of group and what makes
them effective
Sundstrom, De Meuse and Futrell (1990) distinguish four main
types of formal work teams:
advice/involvement teams – e.g. committees, review panels,
boards, quality circles, employee involvement groups,
advisory councils;
production/service groups – e.g. assembly teams, manufacturing
crews;
project/development groups – e.g. research groups, planning
teams, specialist functional teams, development teams,
task forces; and
action/negotiation groups – e.g. entertainment groups, expedi-
tions, negotiating teams, surgery teams, cockpit crews.
In some organizations, groups as a whole may be hired, ?red,
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 com-
bined efforts of individuals may be better than the aggregate of
individual contributions – the principle of synergy.
A good deal of effort is now directed toward understanding
the factors that promote group effectiveness and this has led to
the development of models for understanding teams. A typical
model combines inputs, processes and outputs. Inputs include (for
example) organizational context and group composition; processes
The team task
? A task that requires
teamwork
? Clear task
? Challenging
Group composition
? Roles
? Diversity in skills and
experience
? Size
Organizational context
? Structure and culture
? Support systems
? Inter-team cooperation
Effectiveness
? Individual and team
performance
? Innovation
? Team member
? Customer
satisfaction
? Team viability
Team processes
? Clarity of objectives
? Participation
? Commitment to quality
? Support for innovation
? Reflexivity
? Leadership
Inputs Processes Outputs
Figure 20.7
The surgery team: a typical action/negotiation group.
Figure 20.8
An input–process–output model of team
performance. Source: West & Markiewicz,
2003.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 440
Groups at Work 441 441
Psychological safety in work teams
The research issue
In recent years, there has been a wave of research into teams at work. In particular, researchers seek to understand how
the climate in work teams affects their performance. In a study of hospital patient care teams (Edmondson, 1996), there
were clear differences between members’ beliefs about the social consequences or the safety of reporting medication
errors (giving the wrong drug to a patient, or giving too little or too much of the right drug). In some teams, nurses openly
reported and discussed errors. In other teams, they kept information about errors to themselves. A nurse in one team said,
‘Mistakes are serious, because of the toxicity of the drugs [we use] – so you’re never afraid to tell the Nurse Manager.’ In
contrast, a nurse in another team reported, ‘You get put on trial! People get blamed for mistakes . . . you don’t want to
have made one.’
In a subsequent study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company, Edmondson (1999) examined whether psycho-
logical safety was evident, and whether it predicted learning in the team (e.g. about how to do the work better and meet
customer requirements).
Design and procedure
Edmondson studied teams in Of?ce Design Incorporated, an innovative manufacturer of of?ce furniture with some 5000
employees. There were four types of team in the organization: (i) functional teams, including sales, management and manu-
facturing teams; (ii) self-managed teams in sales and manufacturing; (iii) time-limited cross-functional product development
teams; and (iv) time-limited cross-functional project teams.
There were three phases of data collection. The ?rst phase involved preliminary qualitative research, in which Edmondson
observed eight team meetings, each of which lasted one to three hours. She also conducted 17 interviews (lasting for about
an hour each) with members or observers of these eight teams. The second phase involved a questionnaire survey of 496
members of 53 teams, and two or three managers identi?ed as observers of each team. The survey measured learning
behaviour in the team (‘we regularly take time out to ?gure out ways to improve our team’s work process’) and team feedback
(e.g. team goals, job satisfaction, team task design, internal motivation). Phase 3 involved follow-up qualitative research
with the six teams with the lowest level of learning behaviour, and the six with the highest level of learning behaviour.
The objective was to study these teams in more depth and explore differences between high- and low-learning teams.
Edmondson reviewed ?eld notes and tapes to construct short case studies describing each team, which were then used to
reveal which factors were most closely related to team learning. Customers’ and managers’ ratings of all the teams in the
study were used to provide measures of team performance and learning.
Results and implications
The study revealed considerable support for the relationship between team psychological safety and team learning
behaviour. Team psychological safety was conceptualized as a shared belief among members of a team that it is safe to
take interpersonal risks and that team members will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up (a
con?dence that stems from mutual respect and trust among team members). Edmondson found that psychological safety
predicted team learning and that this, in turn, predicted team performance, as rated by managers outside the teams. For
example, team members’ own descriptions illustrated how a climate of safety and supportiveness enabled them to embrace
error and make changes in product design as a result of seeking customer feedback. A lack of team safety contributed to
reluctance to ask for help, and unwillingness to question team goals for fear of sanctions being imposed by managers.
Quantitative analyses provided consistent support for the study’s hypotheses: learning behaviour appeared to mediate the
relationship between team psychological safety and team performance (i.e. team safety predicted performance because
safety led to learning, which, in turn, led to improved performance).
The ?ndings from Edmondson’s research indicate how team design and leadership enable effective team performance.
By producing a climate of psychological safety, they enable team members to explore errors and dif?culties and learn from
them. Members then make improvements in their work (i.e. products or services), and this, in turn, leads to improved per-
formance. The theoretical and practical implications of this work point to the importance of team psychological safety as a
central concept in understanding team composition, processes and outcomes (such as member mental health, and team
performance). At the same time, the results have practical implications for how we can make teams more effective and
innovative in the workplace.
Edmondson, A.C., 1996, ‘Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational in?uences on the
detection and correction of human error’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32 (1), 5–28.
Resear Resear ch close-up 2 ch close-up 2
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 441
442 442 Organizational Psychology
n Satis?cing – or making minimally acceptable decisions – is
another group tendency, and is related to this last point.
Observations of group decision-making processes repeatedly
show that, rather than generating a range of alternative
solutions before selecting the most suitable one, groups tend
to identify the ?rst minimally acceptable solution and then
search for reasons to accept that decision and reject other
possible options (March & Simon, 1958; see chapter 12).
n Social loa?ng is the tendency of individuals to put less effort
into achieving quality decisions in meetings than they do
when individual contributions can be identi?ed and evalu-
ated, their perception being that their contribution is
hidden in overall group performance (Latané, Williams &
Harkins, 1979).
n Diffusion of responsibility can inhibit individuals from tak-
ing responsibility for their actions when they are in a group
(e.g. Yinon et al., 1982). In this situation, people seem to
assume that the group will shoulder responsibility. For ex-
ample, if there is a crisis involving the functioning of expen-
sive technology, individuals may hold back from tackling
the issue on the assumption that others in their team will
take responsibility for making the necessary decisions. This
can threaten the overall quality of group decisions.
n Production-blocking is when individuals are inhibited from
both thinking of new ideas and offering them aloud to the
group by the competing verbalizations of others (Diehl &
Stroebe, 1987). This effect has been shown in the study of
brainstorming groups: quantity and often quality of ideas
produced by individuals working separately consistently
exceeded those produced by a group working together.
n The hidden pro?le is the powerful but unconscious tendency
of team members to focus on information all or most team
members already share and ignoring information that only
one or two team members have (even though it may be
brought to the attention of the group during decision mak-
ing and may be crucial) (Stasser, Vaughan & Stewart, 2000).
This catalogue of de?ciencies indicates that group decision-
making within organizations is more complex than is commonly
appreciated or understood.
Some useful techniques
Recently researchers have begun to identify ways of overcoming
some of these de?ciencies. For example, research on groupthink
has revealed that the phenomenon is most likely to occur in
groups where a supervisor is particularly dominant, and cohe-
siveness per se is not the crucial factor. Supervisors can therefore
be trained to be facilitative, seeking the contributions of individual
members before offering their own perceptions (see West, 1996).
Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell and Lowe (1992) have offered a
structured solution called the ‘stepladder technique’. Each group
member has thinking time before proposing any decisions, and
then pairs of group members present their ideas to each other and
discuss their respective opinions before making any decisions.
The next step involves pairs of pairs presenting their views to
GROUP DECISION MAKING
Factors in poor decision making
A principal assumption behind formal work groups is that a group
will make better decisions than members working alone. And yet
a good deal of research shows that social processes can under-
mine the effectiveness of group decision-making. While group
decisions are better than the average of the decisions made indi-
vidually by group members, experimental groups consistently fall
short of the quality of decisions made by the best individual mem-
ber (see chapter 18).
The implications of this for board and top management teams
are serious. Organizational and social psychologists have there-
fore devoted considerable effort to identifying the processes that
lead to poor group decision making:
n Personality factors can affect social behaviour: for example,
individual members may be too shy to offer their opinions
and knowledge assertively, therefore failing to contribute
fully to the group’s store of knowledge (Guzzo & Shea,
1992).
n Social conformity effects can cause group members to with-
hold opinions and information contrary to the majority view,
especially an organizationally dominant view (Hackman,
1992; Schlenker, 1980).
n Communication skills vary, and some members may be
unable to present their views and knowledge successfully,
while someone who has mastered ‘impression manage-
ment’ may disproportionately in?uence group decisions,
even in the absence of expertise (Leery & Kowalski, 1990).
n Domination by particular individuals can mean they claim
a disproportionate amount of ‘air time’ and argue so
vigorously that their own views generally prevail. Interest-
ingly, ‘air time’ and expertise are uncorrelated in groups
that perform poorly (Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell & Lowe,
1992).
n Egocentricity might take some individuals to senior positions,
but people with this trait tend to be unwilling to consider
opinions and knowledge contrary to their own, making for
poor communication within the group (Winter, 1973).
n Status and hierarchy effects can cause some members’ con-
tributions to be valued and attended to disproportionately.
So, when a senior executive is present in a meeting, her
views are likely to have an undue in?uence on the outcome
(Hollander, 1958).
n Group polarization is the tendency of work groups to make
decisions that are more extreme than the average of indi-
vidual members’ decisions (Myers & Lamm, 1976).
n Groupthink – a phenomenon identi?ed by Janis (1982) in his
study of policy decisions and ?ascos – is when a tightly knit
group makes a poor decision because it is more concerned
with achieving agreement than with the quality of its
decision making. This effect can be especially strong when
different departments see themselves as competing with
one another or when teams have very strong leaders.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 442
Organizations at Work 443 443
each other. The process continues, with each sub-group’s presen-
tation being followed by time for the group as a whole to discuss
the problem and ideas proposed. A ?nal decision is put off until
the entire group has presented.
Initial evidence suggests that the quality of group decisions
made using procedures like this is at least as good as that of
decisions made by their best individual members. This is consist-
ent with the ?nding that fostering disagreement in a vigorous
but cooperative way in organizations leads to better decisions
(Tjosvold, 1998).
Teams can avoid the hidden pro?le problem by ensuring that
members have clearly de?ned roles so that each is seen as a
source of potentially unique and important information, by
ensuring that members listen carefully to colleagues’ contribu-
tions in decision making, and by ensuring that leaders alert the
team to information that is uniquely held by only one or two
members.
Finally, there is some evidence that work groups that take time
out to re?ect on and appropriately modify their decision-making
processes are more effective than those that do not (Maier, 1970;
West, 1996, 2004).
While organizational psychologists have contributed a great
deal to our understanding of how individual performance can be
improved, it should be apparent from the issues considered in this
section that research on techniques for optimizing group decision
making is still in its infancy.
Researchers and practitioners in organizational psychology are
increasingly exploring how to structure and manage organiza-
tions that ensure that team working ful?ls its potential (West &
Markiewicz, 2003). This requires that organizations devolve deci-
sion making to teams, that the various teams work cooperatively
across team boundaries, that teams are well led, and that people
management processes (sometimes called Human Resource
Management systems or HRM) support team working. The chal-
lenge is to discover how to transform traditional organizations
into team-based organizations (see table 20.2).
Most of the research on work groups has been carried out by
psychologists. But the study of organizations has attracted atten-
tion from the full range of social and economic sciences. In recent
years, psychology has begun to play a relatively larger role, par-
ticularly in collaboration with other disciplines.
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN
The choice of structures and associated managerial processes that
enable an organization to operate effectively are described as
organizational design. These structures and processes will largely
determine how we experience an organization (Pugh, 1998a, b, c).
An army is large, highly structured, very formalized and
hierarchical, with clear status and rankings that determine author-
ity structures. Army rules and regulations provide strict decision-
making guidelines as well as restrictions on activities. On the
other hand, a small ?rm of consultants, which offers advice to
companies on how to select people for job openings, may have an
entirely different form. All consultants may have equal say in
how the business is run; they may operate as independent practi-
tioners; and there may be few rules and regulations determining
their behaviour.
There are ?ve interrelated concepts within the overarching
theme of organizational design: (i) organization, (ii) how they
design themselves, (iii) structure, (iv) effectiveness and (v) choice.
1. Organization The concept of organization can refer to a
range of types, including businesses, governmental organizations,
hospitals, universities, schools, not-for-pro?t organizations,
churches and so on.
2. Design Design as a concept implies a deliberate effort to ?nd
an appropriate and effective organizational form (Daft, 1992).
Having the army run like a small consultancy business, with few
rules, no hierarchy and lots of independent action, would render
it ineffective in a crisis, unable to orchestrate appropriate action.
So design also implies a managerial authority to put organiza-
tional structure into effect, i.e. to ensure that particular groups of
people work together on tasks speci?ed by management.
ORGANIZATIONS AT WORK
Figure 20.9
Groupthink is more likely to occur when there is a dominant
supervisor.
Table 20.2 Characteristics of traditional vs. team-based
organizations.
Individual command structures Collective decision-making structures
Manager controls Team monitors its performance
Vertical hierarchy Horizontal integration across teams
Stability and uniformity Change and innovation
One best way to organize Team tailors its own ways of
working
Managers manage Self-managing teams
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 443
444 444 Organizational Psychology
To be effective, organizations must focus on the internal envir-
onment (safety, rules and regulations) as well as on the external
environment (customers, the actions of competitors, govern-
ment regulations), but they will do so with different degrees of
relative emphasis.
Organizations will also tend to be predominantly either con-
trolling or ?exible in relation to the internal and external envir-
onment. Internal control means bureaucracy and rules and
regulations. Internal ?exibility means developing staff and giving
them autonomy to work their own way. External control involves
focusing on meeting customer requirements and productivity
goals. External ?exibility implies a concern with innovation, and
adapting the organization to the outside world.
The model, developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), sug-
gests that organizational effectiveness must be achieved in four
domains:
n human relations (internal ?exibility)
n goals (external control)
n internal processes (internal control)
n innovation (external ?exibility)
Yet these four domains represent underlying con?ict (Woodman
& Pasmore, 1991) between internal and external orientations of
organizational activity, and between control and ?exibility (e.g.
tightly de?ning employees’ roles as against encouraging them to
develop or ‘grow’ their jobs).
How organizations resolve these dilemmas determines both
organizational strategies and effectiveness. It is an interesting
exercise to apply the analysis to organizations you are personally
familiar with, and to then decide whether you consider that the
predominant orientation of the organization is external or internal,
and whether the emphasis is on ?exibility or control.
3. Structure An organiza-
tion’s structure consists in
its rules and regulations
(degree of formalization) and
the organizational elements
that determine procedures
for making decisions (degree
of centralization).
The military and govern-
ment departments are ex-
amples of highly centralized
organizations, whereas decentralized organizations include
voluntary organizations and partnerships (Hall, 1992). The trend
today is to decentralize decisions as much as possible (though in
practice this turns out to be very dif?cult to achieve), in order to
‘empower’ employees and derive maximum bene?t from their
knowledge, skills and abilities (Spreitzer, 1995).
Structure also includes the degree of specialization – that is,
how particular and unique each person’s job is. In some organ-
izations, there is a low degree of specialization and one person
may be expected to ?ll many roles. In a small rural health care
team, for example, a nurse may act as receptionist, record keeper,
telephonist, computer operator, diagnostician, treatment provider,
counsellor and even cleaner. In another organization, people
might have highly specialized roles, such as the telesales manager
for one speci?c product line for one particular geographical area.
4. Effectiveness Organizations are designed to be effective,
but de?ning ‘effectiveness’ is not easy (Cameron, 1986). For a car
manufacturer, being effective might mean maximizing produc-
tivity and pro?tability. But there may be other dimensions of
effectiveness that serve these ends, too, such as a high level of
innovation and creativity in product design, a satis?ed workforce
strongly committed to learning new skills, reducing waste to
improve operating ef?ciency, and ensuring high quality standards
for the product or service that is offered.
Figure 20.10 shows a model for analysing effectiveness based
on two core but complementary dimensions – (i) internal vs.
external orientation and (ii) ?exibility vs. control.
Pioneer
Derek Pugh (1930– ) inaugurated and led the Aston
Research programme, a major series of studies on the
structure, functioning and performance of organizations,
and the effects on the attitudes and behaviour of groups
and individuals within them (Pugh, 1998a, b, c). This
programme began at the University of Aston and later
continued at the London Business School and other
centres throughout the world. Pugh contributed to the
development of the new discipline of Organizational
Behaviour in business schools, and he was appointed the
?rst British Professor of the subject at the London Business
School in 1970.
centralization the degree to which
decisions can only be taken by senior
management, as against being devolved
to people throughout the organization
formalization written rules and re-
gulations governing activities in an
organization
Flexibility
Human relations
(training, employee
morale)
Innovation
(resource
acquisition, new
products, services)
Internal process
(efficiency, rules
and regulations)
Rational goal
(productivity
targets, quality
standards)
Control
Internal
orientation
External
orientation
Figure 20.10
What is organizational effectiveness? In the competing values
model, the effective organization combines emphases across
all four domains, but there are constant tensions between the
values of internal control, external ?exibility and internal ?exibil-
ity and external control. Managing these tensions is part of the
function of management. Source: Adapted from Quinn and
Rohrbaugh (1983).
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 444
Organizations at Work 445 445
5. Choice Finally, there is the concept of choice. Structures and
processes do not simply evolve. They are a consequence of man-
agerial choices, external factors (e.g. safety issues, or government
legislation on equal opportunities) and stakeholder pressures
(such as shareholders demanding bigger returns on their invest-
ments, or employees pressuring for better working conditions).
The downsizing trend
A critical element of organization design is size, or number of
employees (Hall, 1977). The experience of working in large organ-
izations (for example a major oil company such as BP) is very
different from working in a smaller organization (such as a
research institute which employs about 40 people).
Until the 1980s, the general trend was for organizations to
grow, but now reductions in size are more common. This is
partly because the spread of information technology, the develop-
ment of networked computers and the evolution of the personal
computer have all enabled networks of smaller organizations to
collaborate. So nowadays call centres are replacing bank tellers
and airlines reservation staff.
Organizations are also creating ?atter, team-based and less
centralized structures with fewer levels of management. And
there is a trend towards outsourcing (or contracting out) certain
core organizational services, such as catering, cleaning or com-
puter maintenance, thereby reducing the need for a large labour
force within an organization.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
As organization designs change, psychologists have investigated
new ways to analyse those organizations. One approach that has
caught the attention of many social scientists is to view organiza-
tions as ‘cultures’.
Manifestations of culture
Imagine describing to your friends the experience of visiting a
distant foreign country. You might talk about the dress, laws, reli-
gious beliefs, cultural values and traditions, physical environ-
ment, social attitudes, buildings, night life, recreational activities,
language, humour, food, values and rituals of that country.
Organizations can also be described in terms of their cultures,
including their values, attitudes and beliefs. Manifestations of cul-
ture include:
Hierarchy – e.g. the number of levels of command or manage-
ment, from the head of the organization to the lowest level
employee.
Pay levels – high or low, whether there is performance-related
pay, and what the differentials are between people at dif-
ferent grades.
Job descriptions – how detailed or restrictive they are, and what
aspects they emphasize (e.g. safety, productivity, cost sav-
ing or quality).
Informal practices – e.g. norms such as management and non-
management employees sitting at separate tables in the
canteen; strictly formal dress, uniforms or casual dress.
Espoused values and rituals – e.g. an emphasis on cooperation
and support vs. cut-and-thrust competition between
teams; cards, gifts and parties for those leaving the organ-
ization; celebrations at certain times of the calendar or
?nancial year.
Stories, jokes and jargon – e.g. commonly told stories about a
particular personal success or the failings of management;
jokes about the sales department; jargon or acronyms
(most government departments have a lexicon of
acronyms and jargon, which is often impenetrable to
outsiders).
Physical environment – of?ce space, canteens, rest rooms. Are
all spaces clean, tidy and comfortable or only the areas on
public display? Are there decorations, such as plants and
paintings, and adequate employee facilities, such as water
fountains?
The meanings of all these aspects of the organization taken
together tell us about its underlying culture (Schein, 1992). There
has been particular interest in how to ‘manage’ organizational
culture, and considerable re-
sources have been spent try-
ing to create ‘a service culture’
or ‘an open culture’ or ‘a
people culture’, to name but
three examples.
Understanding culture
Organizational psychologists have adopted three approaches to
understanding culture (Martin, 1992): integration, differentiation
and fragmentation. These differing dimensions suggest that organ-
izational culture is complex and that we can best understand it by
adopting a multidimensional perspective.
1. The integration perspective Those who adopt this view
believe that a ‘strong culture’ will lead to more effective organ-
izational performance. A strong culture is consistent throughout
the organization, and there is organization-wide consensus and
clarity. Senior management set the values and develop a mission
statement. When this is effectively communicated and imple-
mented via managerial practices, organization-wide consensus is
shaped. So employees know what they are supposed to do and
agree on the value of doing it.
McDonald (1991) described such a culture in the Los Angeles
Olympic Organizing Committee. The employees wore attractive
uniforms, developed elaborate rituals, introduced brightly
coloured stadium decorations, adopted an intense working pace
and told many stories about their charismatic leader, which all
reinforced an organization-wide commitment around a shared
set of values.
However, organizational psychologists now believe that cul-
ture is more complicated than the integration perspective alone
implies.
organizational culture the shared
meanings, values, attitudes and beliefs
held by organizational members
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 445
446 446 Organizational Psychology
The pursuit of power
‘Power’ can be de?ned as the probability of someone carrying out
their own will, despite resistance (Weber, 1947). It is not usually
wielded nakedly in organizations because it creates resentment
and resistance. Instead, those in power tend to use in?uence and
2. The differentiation perspective This view recognizes that
employees or members have differing interests, task responsibilit-
ies, backgrounds, experiences and expertise, which means that
work attitudes and values, as well as pay and working conditions,
will vary throughout the organization. Add the differing social
identities due to gender, class and ethnic background, and,
according to this perspective, the concept of a unifying culture
seems inappropriate. Instead, it is proposed that within the organ-
ization there are overlapping and nested sub-cultures, which
co-exist in relationships of harmony, con?ict or indifference.
Van Maanen (1991) found just this differentiation even in the
‘strong culture’ of Disneyland. Food vendors and street cleaners
were at the bottom of the status rankings whereas, among ride
operators, those responsible for ‘yellow submarines’ and ‘jungle
boats’ had high status. Some tension was noted between opera-
tors, supervisors and even customers as the different groups inter-
acted. At the same time, supervisors were engaged in an endless
struggle to catch operators breaking the rules.
According to Van Maanen, the con?ict or differentiation per-
spective offers a more realistic account of organizational culture
than the integration perspective.
3. The fragmentation perspective Ambiguity is a de?ning
feature of many organizations. According to the fragmentation
perspective, this ambiguity occurs because there simply is no con-
sensus about meanings, attitudes and values of the organization.
Meyerson (1991) demonstrated this approach in a study of a
social work organization. Where goals were unclear, there was
no consensus about appropriate ways to achieve them, and suc-
cess was hard to de?ne and to assess. In this organization, ambi-
guity was the salient feature of working life. As one social worker
reported: ‘It just seems to me like social workers are always a lit-
tle bit on the fringe; they’re part of the institution, but they’re
not. You know they have to be part of the institution in order to
really get what they need for their clients, but basically they’re
usually at odds with the institution’ (p. 140).
There is considerable debate about the types of cultures that are
associated with organizational effectiveness but some researchers
have gathered data from the employees of successful companies
on which characteristics they associate with their companies’ suc-
cess. These include emphases on customer service, quality of
goods and services, involvement of employees in decision mak-
ing, training for employees, teamwork and employee satisfaction
(see ?gure 20.11).
POWER AND POLITICS
Why do people get up out of their warm beds to get to work on
time on a cold winter morning? Why do they conform to the
of?ce dress code? Why do
they allow the boss to talk to
them in a way they would
not permit from others? The
explanation goes beyond the
simple need for pay – it relates
to issues of power and control.
power the probability of carrying out
one’s own will in an organization,
despite resistance from other organiza-
tional members
Customer service
Strong emphasis on customer service
Company provides quality service
Customer problems corrected quickly
Delivers products/services in a timely fashion
Quality
Senior management committed to quality service
Senior management demonstrates quality is a top priority
Supervisors provide service guidance
Supervisors set good examples in relation to quality
Work group quality is rated
Continuous improvement
Clear service standards are set
Quality is a priority vs. meeting deadlines
Quality is a priority vs. cost containment
Involvement
Front line staff have the authority necessary to meet
customers’ needs
Encouragement to be innovative
Encouragement to participate in decisions
Suf?cient effort to get opinions of staff
Management use employees’ good ideas
Training
Plans for training and development
Opportunities for staff to attend training
Staff given opportunities to improve skills
Staff are satis?ed with training opportunities
Staff have the right training to help them improve
New employees get necessary training
Information/Knowledge
Management gives clear vision/direction
Staff have a clear understanding of goals
Staff are informed about issues
Departments keep each other informed
Enough warning about changes
Satisfaction with organizational information
Teamwork/Cooperation
Cooperation to get the job done
Management encourages teamwork
Workload divided fairly
Enough people to do the work
Problems in teams corrected quickly
Overall satisfaction
High job satisfaction
Jobs use skills and abilities
Work gives a feeling of accomplishment
Satisfaction with organization
Rate the organization as a place to work
Proud to work for the organization
Would recommend working at the organization
High job security
Not seriously considering leaving the organization
Figure 20.11
Key dimensions of climate/culture linked to high-performing
organizations. Source: Adapted from Wiley and Brooks (2000).
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 446
Organizations at Work 447 447
persuasion, which is generally effective because we know that
they have the power to achieve their ends ultimately.
The pursuit of power for its own ends can be very destructive.
McClelland (1975) conducted an analysis of people’s needs for
power and showed how those with a strong power motive may
present themselves well at interview but be a disaster at work,
alienating others and reducing the capacity of the organization
to achieve cooperative, collaborative, concerted action. This is
because they tend to interpret most situations in power terms and
act in Machiavellian or manipulative ways to assert or gain power.
Power, according to French and Raven (1959), derives from
?ve sources:
n Legitimate power comes from position in the hierarchy and
is imposed by authority.
n Expert power results from access to knowledge and infor-
mation, so the computer wizard often gains considerable
power in an organization.
n Reward power is illustrated by the person who allocates
of?ces, parking spaces, pay rises, equipment or stationery –
such people may have considerable power without being in
a senior position in the hierarchy.
n Coercive power is the power to force others into action or
inaction by the threat of punishment, such as delaying the
payment of expenses claims.
n Referent power is wielded by someone whose persuasive-
ness, popularity or charisma lead others to accede to his/
her wishes or suggestions.
A pluralist view
The power and politics perspective (Pfeffer, 1981) examines the
way individuals and groups within organizations compete for
resources and other desired ends (e.g. of?ce space, visibility,
recognition, promotion).
This ‘pluralist’ view regards organizations as made up of a vari-
ety of interests and beliefs that should all be heard. It contrasts
with the notion that organizations can (with appropriate man-
agement) be one ‘happy family’ with everyone in the organiza-
tion believing in the same ideals as the strong leader. This latter
perspective is the ‘unitarist’ view (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).
The pluralist perspective is particularly relevant as businesses
become more global and our societies become more multi-
ethnic. Organizations must re?ect their societies if they are to be
sensitive to the needs and desires of their customers, quite apart
from the moral issues of equal opportunities. Organizational psy-
chologists are therefore becoming increasingly concerned with
managing a workforce that is diverse in terms of ethnicity, dis-
ability, age, culture and gender.
Women at work
A major area of research on power in organizations examines the
experiences of women at work. The list of potentially relevant
themes (some of which also apply to men) is long, including: bias
in selection, placement, performance appraisal and promotion;
sexual harassment; obstacles to achievement and advancement;
con?ict between work and family responsibilities. Other concerns
relate to being in a non-traditional (i.e. ‘male’) job and being in the
minority (worse still, a ‘token’) as a female manager (Gutek, 1993).
A signi?cant problem is stereotyping. The effects reach deep
into adult employment, where 52 per cent of employed women
work in occupational groups in which more than 60 per cent of
their co-workers are women, such as clerical and secretarial
work, service work and sales. Similarly, 54 per cent of men work
in occupational groups where more than 60 per cent of their co-
workers are men, including occupational groups such as man-
agers and administrators, craft and related occupations, plant and
machine operatives (Equal Opportunities Commission, 1998).
Women are also vastly over-represented in part-time work and
pregnancy is still (illegally) treated by some employers as a cause
for dismissal. In 1998, the UK Equal Opportunities Commission
reported that 34 per cent of complainants had been dismissed or
threatened with dismissal when they ?rst announced their preg-
nancy; 28 per cent were told so before going on maternity leave,
18 per cent while on leave, and 3 per cent on their return to the
workplace (Equal Opportunities Commission, 1998).
Perhaps most revealing of the pervasive discrimination against
women in the workplace is the data on pay. The gender gap in
average hourly pay of full-time employees, excluding overtime,
narrowed between 1998 and 2003 to its lowest value since records
began. However, women’s average hourly pay was still only
82 per cent of men’s. Average gross hourly earnings, excluding
overtime, of full-time women were 82 per cent of the equivalent
average for men.
Although women have increased their representation some-
what in the ranks of executives (from 8.9 per cent in 1991 to
18 per cent in 1998), they still account for less than 5 per cent of
company directors (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2004) in
the UK. In the US in 2004, only 8 of the top 500 companies were
headed by a woman.
One issue, which is much debated, is whether women have dif-
ferent managerial or leadership styles from men. The bulk of the
Figure 20.12
The pursuit of power for its own ends can be very destructive,
as the history books show.
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 447
448 448 Organizational Psychology
Some employees volunteer for redundancy, and are happy to
leave the organization with some ?nancial package as compensa-
tion. Often, though, redundancy is perceived in terms of loss –
loss of income, prestige, status and social identity. Those who
are left behind in the organization often experience guilt, and,
although they may be willing to work harder, they generally feel
more insecure having witnessed the dismissal of colleagues
(Daniel, 1972; Hartley et al., 1991). Redundancy has even been
compared to bereavement, with associated psychological stages
of shock, denial, disbelief and, later, acceptance.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS
OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Unemployment usually has very negative psychological conse-
quences. Research from the 1930s to the present day has consist-
ently shown that the unemployed have poorer mental health
than comparable groups of employed people. Figure 20.14 shows
that only 18 per cent of the employed population are so severely
stressed that they would bene?t from professional help, whereas
this ?gure lies at 30 per cent for the unemployed. Unemployed
people have worse pro?les on measures of anxiety, depression,
life dissatisfaction, experienced stress, negative self-esteem and
hopelessness about the future. They are also more likely to report
social isolation and low levels of daily activity. Their physical
health is poorer, and they are more likely to attempt and commit
suicide (Fryer, 1992; Warr, 1987).
The average psychological wellbeing of school leavers who
become unemployed diverges from those who get satisfactory
jobs, even when their wellbeing before leaving school is similar.
And people who move out of unemployment into satisfactory
jobs show sharp improvements in mental health. These ?ndings
are striking in their consistency. The same picture emerges across
studies, samples, different research groups, countries and over time.
Striking, too, is the fact that the psychological effects of unem-
ployment extend to the whole family. In a classic study of a whole
village affected by unemployment, the effects were shown to
spread across the whole community, lowering its spirit and func-
tioning ( Jahoda, Lazarsfeld & Zeisel, 1972).
research suggests there are large differences within genders as
well as between them, but that women adopt a consistently more
democratic and participative style of management than men do
(Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Powell, 1993). Some researchers argue
that women also have a more ‘transformational’ style, inspiring
and encouraging their employees, whereas men tend to use a
‘transactional’ style, punishing and rewarding selectively to
achieve the desired task-related behaviours (e.g. Rosener, 1990).
The ?erce competition of globalization has led organizations to
outsource parts of their operations that other companies can do
less expensively. This has led
to more insecurity within
organizations, and to waves
of downsizing as organiza-
tions cut jobs that seem to
add cost but little value. Our concern here is with the effects of
redundancy and unemployment on those who experience these
events.
REDUNDANCY – A KIND OF BEREAVEMENT
While the beginning of an individual’s experience in an organiza-
tion is a process of learning new behaviours, the end may be a
process of letting go as a result of redundancy. Redundancy can
come about because of downsizing. It can also be a result of skills
obsolescence, as when e-mail networks reduce the need for an
internal post system and the traditional mail coordinator is no
longer required. Or it can be a result of outsourcing. For example,
school meal services may be contracted out to private catering
?rms, making ‘dinner assistants’ redundant.
REDUNDANCY AND UNEMPLOYMENT
Figure 20.13
The experiences of women at work are subject to major research,
which considers, for example, the ‘token woman’ in the workplace.
downsizing when organizations reduce
their workforce to save on labour costs
%
c
a
s
e
s
o
f
p
o
o
r
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
Employment status
Employed
Not in labour market
Unemployed
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 20.14
Percentage of cases of poor mental health by employment status.
Source: Based on British Household Panel Survey, 3rd wave data
(1993–94).
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 448
Final Thoughts 449 449
Work is a part of everyone’s life, whether it is domestic work, voluntary work, assisting in a shoe shop, or nursing in or managing a large
hospital. Our work contributes to the meaning we create about ourselves as we build a sense of identity. Our experience of work also
determines our psychological and physical health. But more than this, work organizations have a profound effect on society and on the
sense of community created within it. Our experience of work spills over into family life – those whose work is rewarding and ful?lling
take the bene?ts back into their families and communities. Moreover, organizations can be productive and enhancing players in society
or can behave in exploitative and unethical ways. So understanding work and organizations is of huge importance in human society.
To give just one example, one study has shown a strong link between the management of staff in hospitals and patient mortality
(West et al., 2002).
The challenge is to create work organizations that enhance human well-being, learning and creativity, contribute to society and its
development, and provide models of communities based on justice, ethics, innovation and economic effectiveness. There is much still to
discover, but psychological theory and research are proving to offer the most profound insights into the world of work as our under-
standing of this ?eld develops.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Summary
n Organizational psychology is an important and vibrant ?eld of inquiry which has been enjoying considerable growth in recent
decades throughout the industrialized world.
n It provides valuable insights that help us understand people’s actions, thoughts and feelings in relation to work, and con-
sequently how to improve the management of people at work.
n Organizational psychology has made signi?cant contributions to improving many areas of people management, including per-
sonnel selection, training, employee morale and motivation, working conditions, and organizational design and development.
n Although many companies continue to seek success through, for example, technology or cost reduction, rather than through
effectively managing their workforce, there is increasing evidence that people management is a crucial source of organizational
success.
n As a result, those individuals responsible for commercial organizations, as well as policy makers in government, are looking to
psychologists and other organizational scientists to help create organizations that are effective and ef?cient but are also experi-
enced as nurturing and supportive environments by the people who work within them.
n Recent research has demonstrated strong relationships between employee job satisfaction and organizational performance.
1. What are the main devices organizations use to ensure a ‘?t’ between employees and the organization?
2. What methods of selecting people for jobs are most effective?
3. How can managers ensure that the training they provide for employees in?uences how they perform
in their jobs?
4. Is there a link between employees’ attitudes and their performance at work?
5. Why should we be concerned about whether people are ‘stressed’ by their work and how can we
make work less stressful for people?
6. What factors hinder and help team effectiveness at work?
7. How can decision making by groups be made more effective?
8. Why is feeling ‘safe’ in a work team important for team performance?
9. What is organizational culture, and what dimensions could you use to describe the culture of organ-
izations that you have experienced (e.g. voluntary work, school, paid work)?
10. What are the main sources of power that people have at work – and what do we mean by ‘power’ in
organizations?
11. To what extent is discrimination against women at work a thing of the past?
12. What are the psychological effects of becoming unemployed?
REVI SI ON QUESTI ONS
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 449
450 450 Organizational Psychology
FURTHER READING
Brief, A.P. (1998). Attitudes in and around Organizations. London: Sage.
A critical overview of research on organizational attitudes.
Daft, R.L. (1998). Organizational Theory and Design. 6th edn. Cincinnati: South-Western.
Easily readable introduction to organizational design and effectiveness, drawing together many themes.
Goldstein, I.L. (1993). Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. 3rd edn. Paci?c Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
A good overview of practical and theoretical issues in the training ?eld.
Hackman, J.R. (ed.) (1990). Groups that Work (and Those that Don’t): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Insights into how work groups function, and the factors and conditions that enhance their effectiveness.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. 2nd edn. London: Sage.
One of the most original and stimulating frameworks for understanding the nature of organizational life.
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
An in?uential account of the nature, causes and effects of organizational culture.
Smith, M., & Robertson, I.T. (1993). Systematic Personnel Selection. London: Macmillan.
A comprehensive text on personnel selection issues.
West, M.A. (2004). Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research. Oxford: Blackwell.
An introduction to the relevant research and the practice of teamwork.
Contributing authors:
Michael West & Malcolm Patterson
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 450
PSY_C20.qxd 1/2/05 3:54 pm Page 451
doc_903656255.pdf