10 8
Roloff – 10 8
More on Kelman’s approach - Compliance, Indentification, Internalization
Money will motivate people to do more, not a better-quality, of the desired behavior, since paying attention to quality may limit the quantity of the behavior that can be done…people will cut quality and ethical corners to do more of the behavior, and get more money.
Social Recognition – Employee of the Month, “attaboys” - sometimes leads to problems, embarrassment, a sellout or yes-man image.
Feedback – letting an employee know how they are doing compared to how they should be doing. Feedback typically comes in the form of performance appraisals, which are typically what managers and employees like least about their jobs. Biases affect evaluations…this motivator has the weakest impact, doesn’t motivate people to improve.
The Harshness effect – Managers evaluate employees more harshly than objective indicators would justify – “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” – power obscures the evaluation process. Kitnis worked with two groups, one with a leader with power to hire/fire/punish, one with a leader with no authority, just a supervisory role. Results of the study showed that people who have authority use it. People with power attribute more success to their own efforts. Power corrupts ones view of the world, the leaders with power distanced themselves from their groups in the study.
The Leniency Effect – When using rating scales, only the upper part of the scale is use This is done because managers hate to give bad feedback. High self-monitors can be guilty of the leniency effect. There is a relational explanation for this, but also a cognitive effect – a manager will emphasize an employee’s strengths, however few, because they notice contrasts. According to Attribution Theories, a manager figures out why an employee performs poorly and attributes it to the employee’s behavior, but the employee attributes it to external factors. Whose opinion changes the most when the two meet to discuss the problems? The employer’s opinion changes, because he or she listens to an explanation from the employee, usually rehearsed. Most managers don’t argue with the reasons given by employees, thus the leniency effect.
Mobility Bias – The fear that an employee will leave influences the appraisal. Appraisal is an over-reward to prevent the high-performing employee from leaving. Marriage, kids, and mortgages limit mobility, and therefore the bias in favor of the employee. The secret to getting more money is to not be loyal.
What do organizations do about bias? (They think leniency is the most serious) How do organizations overcome leniency? Force ranking, or rank-and-yank. Mentoring and hiring the best are often discouraged, because employees fear their performance could be exceeded by high-achievers. “Designated Victims” will be hired. Rank and yank will cause problems, employees will resist. Teamwork suffers, people would rather work alone when rank-and-yank is in place.
All three evaluation methods together, (money, social recognition, feedback) are more effective than any one.
Identification – Charismatic leadership styles – dot com leaders were this type of leader…what are the traits of a charismatic leader?
1) Has a strategic vision they can articulate
2) Engage in personal risk – if we fail, I’m going down with the ship
3) Sensitive to the Environment – Roloff stresses this trait – person with the vision understands the reality of the situation, not a pie in the sky vision.
4) Sensitive to employees’ needs – they are grounded, are looking out for employees, are up-front about things
5) The willingness to engage in unconventional behavior – quirkiness – people able to make changes are insiders, outsiders, insiders with outsider’s perspectives and outsiders with insider’s perspective…usually the hybrid types are more successful, and are quirky.
Which component impacts and productivity? 1, 3 are the most important, the others don’t show a consistent pattern.
2 Major disadvantages:
1) Charisma is attributed to people, people assume a person is charismatic if they’ve survived a major crisis;
2) People become dependent on charismatic leaders rather than take individual action.
Internalization –ASA Theory
Attraction, Selection, and Attrition
How do people select jobs for which to apply?
People apply because they think they fit, recruiters think they fit, and stay because they think they fit. ASA is about fit.
Personality – does it fit the culture of the company? We can also talk about how well the personality fits the group one is a part of, and the degree to which one’s personality fits the job.
Theory suggests that fit could mean a values fit.
Attraction – what attracts people to apply for jobs? A team-based culture attracts extroverts, agreeable people, but also non-conscientious people, because conscientious people hate team-based culture…it isn’t easy to work with others, individual recognition and rewards are not as available. Innovative culture attracts open-personalities, but conscientious people don’t care for it, because conscientious people prefer clear standard operating procedure. A detail-oriented culture attracts conscientious people, though others find that culture boring.
A study compared actual culture from people inside to the outside impression of the culture…the mission statement was the source of some impressions of the culture, others looked at the ads for products made by the company….talking to people within the company made no difference, because employees could spin based on their own experiences. Interpersonal sources give more variance. The degree of personal experience as an outsider – if you’d done business with the company – made no difference. There doesn’t seem to be a reliable way to determine culture until one is an insider.
The Selection phase can discover a match, even if the applicant’s impression was wrong at first. Applicants were broken into types:
1) Some told the recruiter they were culture matches;
2) “Self-promotion” strategy - their credentials fit the job;
3) ”Other Enhancers” - complimented the recruiter;
4) Opinion Conformity - agreed with everything the recruiter said;
5) The Non-verbal strategy – applicants didn’t speak much, just smiled a lot.
The most powerful strategy was the group who said they were culture matches, got to the next round…weak correlation with credentials fits…complimentors decreased chances, agreeableness reduced chances, being smiley reduces.
Roloff believes that fit is most important…how do recruiters decide if there is a fit?
What do recruiters look for? Recruiter’s subjective measures of fit are highly correlated with the objective measures. They are still biased…the first bias is likeability, the second is GPA. The third bias was work experience; it was uncorrelated with fit. Physical attractiveness also made recruiters think an applicant is a fit.
Attrition – Whether an employee stays at a job. When values are out of step with a company’s culture, an employee will leave…if compatible with workgroup but not company, they’ll stay, but the reverse isn’t true…day to day contacts are more influential to attrition.
ASA theory suggests:
Hire different people who fit the culture you want, rather than the one you have; it doesn’t often work, the new people feel like they don’t fit; many new people must be brought in. Ostracizing happens, people aren’t nice to those whom they don’t like, the silent treatment is the most common form…cyber-ostracism will exclude people from email that goes to many others…exclusion drives people out. Some companies use the social structure to convince people to leave companies. What does this mean about how easy it is to change an organization? It isn’t easy. Superficial diversity – skin color, gender, et al – doesn’t matter as much as Deep Diversity, or differences in attitude and values. This suggests that companies are not very innovative, and have no diversity of outlook.
Katz has another approach – start at individual level, what reasons do they give for doing what they do?
1) The Instrumental Function – I do what I do because it works, rewards exceed costs
2) Value Expression – similar to internalization – I do what I do because it’s consistent with my values.
3) Social Adjustment – I do what I do because I want to fit in with other people – some have changed churches, religions as they moved up through organizations to reflect status.
4) Ego Defense – I do what I do because I want to hide something undesirable about myself. Sexists and Racists have low self-esteem, and demean others to compensate…has since been refuted; these people have an inflated sense of self-worth. Officers won’t come to training, they feel inferior, incompetent.
5) The Knowledge Function - I do what I do because I understand it, it allows me to predict the future, I am good at it. When Microsoft changes Windows, some people react negatively because they used to know how to use it, now they have to relearn.
Katz says that two people could hold the same attitude about something for different reasons, so we’re never sure which function is motivating someone. The only way to change a person’s opinion is to address all functions directly. The primary function must be identified and attacked in order to change an attitude, e.g. for high self-monitors, market research, and ads that show someone fitting in by using the product (social adjustment) works…for low self-monitors, values expression or instrumentality works best. Sometimes a person’s attitude and behavior serves multiple functions…what to do? Attack both functions.
More on Kelman’s approach - Compliance, Indentification, Internalization
Money will motivate people to do more, not a better-quality, of the desired behavior, since paying attention to quality may limit the quantity of the behavior that can be done…people will cut quality and ethical corners to do more of the behavior, and get more money.
Social Recognition – Employee of the Month, “attaboys” - sometimes leads to problems, embarrassment, a sellout or yes-man image.
Feedback – letting an employee know how they are doing compared to how they should be doing. Feedback typically comes in the form of performance appraisals, which are typically what managers and employees like least about their jobs. Biases affect evaluations…this motivator has the weakest impact, doesn’t motivate people to improve.
The Harshness effect – Managers evaluate employees more harshly than objective indicators would justify – “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” – power obscures the evaluation process. Kitnis worked with two groups, one with a leader with power to hire/fire/punish, one with a leader with no authority, just a supervisory role. Results of the study showed that people who have authority use it. People with power attribute more success to their own efforts. Power corrupts ones view of the world, the leaders with power distanced themselves from their groups in the study.
The Leniency Effect – When using rating scales, only the upper part of the scale is use This is done because managers hate to give bad feedback. High self-monitors can be guilty of the leniency effect. There is a relational explanation for this, but also a cognitive effect – a manager will emphasize an employee’s strengths, however few, because they notice contrasts. According to Attribution Theories, a manager figures out why an employee performs poorly and attributes it to the employee’s behavior, but the employee attributes it to external factors. Whose opinion changes the most when the two meet to discuss the problems? The employer’s opinion changes, because he or she listens to an explanation from the employee, usually rehearsed. Most managers don’t argue with the reasons given by employees, thus the leniency effect.
Mobility Bias – The fear that an employee will leave influences the appraisal. Appraisal is an over-reward to prevent the high-performing employee from leaving. Marriage, kids, and mortgages limit mobility, and therefore the bias in favor of the employee. The secret to getting more money is to not be loyal.
What do organizations do about bias? (They think leniency is the most serious) How do organizations overcome leniency? Force ranking, or rank-and-yank. Mentoring and hiring the best are often discouraged, because employees fear their performance could be exceeded by high-achievers. “Designated Victims” will be hired. Rank and yank will cause problems, employees will resist. Teamwork suffers, people would rather work alone when rank-and-yank is in place.
All three evaluation methods together, (money, social recognition, feedback) are more effective than any one.
Identification – Charismatic leadership styles – dot com leaders were this type of leader…what are the traits of a charismatic leader?
1) Has a strategic vision they can articulate
2) Engage in personal risk – if we fail, I’m going down with the ship
3) Sensitive to the Environment – Roloff stresses this trait – person with the vision understands the reality of the situation, not a pie in the sky vision.
4) Sensitive to employees’ needs – they are grounded, are looking out for employees, are up-front about things
5) The willingness to engage in unconventional behavior – quirkiness – people able to make changes are insiders, outsiders, insiders with outsider’s perspectives and outsiders with insider’s perspective…usually the hybrid types are more successful, and are quirky.
Which component impacts and productivity? 1, 3 are the most important, the others don’t show a consistent pattern.
2 Major disadvantages:
1) Charisma is attributed to people, people assume a person is charismatic if they’ve survived a major crisis;
2) People become dependent on charismatic leaders rather than take individual action.
Internalization –ASA Theory
Attraction, Selection, and Attrition
How do people select jobs for which to apply?
People apply because they think they fit, recruiters think they fit, and stay because they think they fit. ASA is about fit.
Personality – does it fit the culture of the company? We can also talk about how well the personality fits the group one is a part of, and the degree to which one’s personality fits the job.
Theory suggests that fit could mean a values fit.
Attraction – what attracts people to apply for jobs? A team-based culture attracts extroverts, agreeable people, but also non-conscientious people, because conscientious people hate team-based culture…it isn’t easy to work with others, individual recognition and rewards are not as available. Innovative culture attracts open-personalities, but conscientious people don’t care for it, because conscientious people prefer clear standard operating procedure. A detail-oriented culture attracts conscientious people, though others find that culture boring.
A study compared actual culture from people inside to the outside impression of the culture…the mission statement was the source of some impressions of the culture, others looked at the ads for products made by the company….talking to people within the company made no difference, because employees could spin based on their own experiences. Interpersonal sources give more variance. The degree of personal experience as an outsider – if you’d done business with the company – made no difference. There doesn’t seem to be a reliable way to determine culture until one is an insider.
The Selection phase can discover a match, even if the applicant’s impression was wrong at first. Applicants were broken into types:
1) Some told the recruiter they were culture matches;
2) “Self-promotion” strategy - their credentials fit the job;
3) ”Other Enhancers” - complimented the recruiter;
4) Opinion Conformity - agreed with everything the recruiter said;
5) The Non-verbal strategy – applicants didn’t speak much, just smiled a lot.
The most powerful strategy was the group who said they were culture matches, got to the next round…weak correlation with credentials fits…complimentors decreased chances, agreeableness reduced chances, being smiley reduces.
Roloff believes that fit is most important…how do recruiters decide if there is a fit?
What do recruiters look for? Recruiter’s subjective measures of fit are highly correlated with the objective measures. They are still biased…the first bias is likeability, the second is GPA. The third bias was work experience; it was uncorrelated with fit. Physical attractiveness also made recruiters think an applicant is a fit.
Attrition – Whether an employee stays at a job. When values are out of step with a company’s culture, an employee will leave…if compatible with workgroup but not company, they’ll stay, but the reverse isn’t true…day to day contacts are more influential to attrition.
ASA theory suggests:
Hire different people who fit the culture you want, rather than the one you have; it doesn’t often work, the new people feel like they don’t fit; many new people must be brought in. Ostracizing happens, people aren’t nice to those whom they don’t like, the silent treatment is the most common form…cyber-ostracism will exclude people from email that goes to many others…exclusion drives people out. Some companies use the social structure to convince people to leave companies. What does this mean about how easy it is to change an organization? It isn’t easy. Superficial diversity – skin color, gender, et al – doesn’t matter as much as Deep Diversity, or differences in attitude and values. This suggests that companies are not very innovative, and have no diversity of outlook.
Katz has another approach – start at individual level, what reasons do they give for doing what they do?
1) The Instrumental Function – I do what I do because it works, rewards exceed costs
2) Value Expression – similar to internalization – I do what I do because it’s consistent with my values.
3) Social Adjustment – I do what I do because I want to fit in with other people – some have changed churches, religions as they moved up through organizations to reflect status.
4) Ego Defense – I do what I do because I want to hide something undesirable about myself. Sexists and Racists have low self-esteem, and demean others to compensate…has since been refuted; these people have an inflated sense of self-worth. Officers won’t come to training, they feel inferior, incompetent.
5) The Knowledge Function - I do what I do because I understand it, it allows me to predict the future, I am good at it. When Microsoft changes Windows, some people react negatively because they used to know how to use it, now they have to relearn.
Katz says that two people could hold the same attitude about something for different reasons, so we’re never sure which function is motivating someone. The only way to change a person’s opinion is to address all functions directly. The primary function must be identified and attacked in order to change an attitude, e.g. for high self-monitors, market research, and ads that show someone fitting in by using the product (social adjustment) works…for low self-monitors, values expression or instrumentality works best. Sometimes a person’s attitude and behavior serves multiple functions…what to do? Attack both functions.
posted by Robert at 8:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home