By the end of this section, you will be able to: * Define
organizational psychology * Explain the measurement and determinants
of job satisfaction * Describe key elements of management and
leadership * Explain the significance of organizational culture
Organizational psychology is the second major branch of study and
practice within the discipline of industrial and organizational
psychology. In organizational psychology{: data-type=“term”
.no-emphasis}, the focus is on social interactions and their effect on
the individual and on the functioning of the organization. In this
section, you will learn about the work organizational psychologists have
done to understand job satisfaction, different styles of management,
different styles of leadership, organizational culture, and teamwork.
Some people love their jobs, some people tolerate their jobs, and some
people cannot stand their jobs. Job satisfaction{:
data-type=“term”} describes the degree to which individuals enjoy their
job. It was described by Edwin Locke (1976) as the state of feeling
resulting from appraising one’s job experiences. While job satisfaction
results from both how we think about our work (our cognition) and how we
feel about our work (our affect) (Saari & Judge, 2004), it is described
in terms of affect. Job satisfaction is impacted by the work itself, our
personality, and the culture we come from and live in (Saari & Judge,
2004).
Job satisfaction is typically measured after a change in an
organization, such as a shift in the management model, to assess how the
change affects employees. It may also be routinely measured by an
organization to assess one of many factors expected to affect the
organization’s performance. In addition, polling companies like Gallup
regularly measure job satisfaction on a national scale to gather broad
information on the state of the economy and the workforce (Saad, 2012).
Job satisfaction is measured using questionnaires that employees
complete. Sometimes a single question might be asked in a very
straightforward way to which employees respond using a rating scale,
such as a Likert scale, which was discussed in the chapter on
personality. A Likert scale (typically) provides five possible answers
to a statement or question that allows respondents to indicate their
positive-to-negative strength of agreement or strength of feeling
regarding the question or statement. Thus the possible responses to a
question such as “How satisfied are you with your job today?” might be
“Very satisfied,” “Somewhat satisfied,” “Neither satisfied, nor
dissatisfied,” “Somewhat dissatisfied,” and “Very dissatisfied.” More
commonly the survey will ask a number of questions about the employee’s
satisfaction to determine more precisely why he is satisfied or
dissatisfied. Sometimes these surveys are created for specific jobs; at
other times, they are designed to apply to any job. Job satisfaction can
be measured at a global level, meaning how satisfied in general the
employee is with work, or at the level of specific factors intended to
measure which aspects of the job lead to satisfaction
([link]).
Factors Involved in Job Satisfaction–Dissatisfaction
Factor
Description
Autonomy
Individual responsibility, control over decisions
Work content
Variety, challenge, role clarity
Communication
Feedback
Financial rewards
Salary and benefits
Growth and development
Personal growth, training, education
Promotion
Career advancement opportunity
Coworkers
Professional relations or adequacy
Supervision and feedback
Support, recognition, fairness
Workload
Time pressure, tedium
Work demands
Extra work requirements, insecurity of position
Research has suggested that the work-content factor, which includes
variety, difficulty level, and role clarity of the job, is the most
strongly predictive factor of overall job satisfaction (Saari & Judge,
2004). In contrast, there is only a weak correlation between pay level
and job satisfaction (Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw, & Rich, 2010).
Judge et al. (2010) suggest that individuals adjust or adapt to higher
pay levels: Higher pay no longer provides the satisfaction the
individual may have initially felt when her salary increased.
Why should we care about job satisfaction? Or more specifically, why
should an employer care about job satisfaction? Measures of job
satisfaction are somewhat correlated with job performance; in
particular, they appear to relate to organizational citizenship or
discretionary behaviors on the part of an employee that further the
goals of the organization (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Job
satisfaction is related to general life satisfaction, although there has
been limited research on how the two influence each other or whether
personality and cultural factors affect both job and general life
satisfaction. One carefully controlled study suggested that the
relationship is reciprocal: Job satisfaction affects life satisfaction
positively, and vice versa (Judge & Watanabe, 1993). Of course,
organizations cannot control life satisfaction’s influence on job
satisfaction. Job satisfaction, specifically low job satisfaction, is
also related to withdrawal behaviors, such as leaving a job or
absenteeism (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). The relationship with
turnover itself, however, is weak (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).
Finally, it appears that job satisfaction is related to organizational
performance, which suggests that implementing organizational changes to
improve employee job satisfaction will improve organizational
performance (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).
There is opportunity for more research in the area of job satisfaction.
For example, Weiss (2002) suggests that the concept of job satisfaction
measurements have combined both emotional and cognitive concepts, and
measurements would be more reliable and show better relationships with
outcomes like performance if the measurement of job satisfaction
separated these two possible elements of job satisfaction.
Tip
Job Satisfaction in Federal Government Agencies
A 2013 study of job satisfaction in the U.S. federal government found
indexes of job satisfaction plummeting compared to the private
sector. The largest factor in the decline was satisfaction with pay,
followed by training and development opportunities. The Partnership
for Public Service, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, has
conducted research on federal employee job satisfaction since 2003.
Its primary goal is to improve the federal government’s management.
However, the results also provide information to those interested in
obtaining employment with the federal government.
Among large agencies, the highest job satisfaction ranking went to
NASA, followed by the Department of Commerce and the intelligence
community. The lowest scores went to the Department of Homeland
Security.
The data used to derive the job satisfaction score come from three
questions on the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. The questions
are:
I recommend my organization as a good place to work.
Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your
organization? {: type=“1”}
The questions have a range of six possible answers, spanning a range
of strong agreement or satisfaction to strong disagreement or
dissatisfaction. How would you answer these questions with regard to
your own job? Would these questions adequately assess your job
satisfaction?
You can explore the Best Places To Work In The Federal Government
study at their Web site: www.bestplacestowork.org. The Office of
Personnel Management also produces a report based on their survey:
www.fedview.opm.gov.
Job stresspastehere affects job
satisfaction. Job stress, or job strain, is caused by specific stressors
in an occupation. Stress can be an ambigious term as it is used in
common language. Stress is the perception and response of an individual
to events judged as ovewhelming or threatening to the individual’s
well-being (Gyllensten & Palmer, 2005). The events themselves are the
stressors. Stress is a result of an employee’s perception that the
demands placed on them exceed their ability to meet them (Gyllensten &
Palmer, 2005), such as having to fill multiple roles in a job or life in
general, workplace role ambiguity, lack of career progress, lack of job
security, lack of control over work outcomes, isolation, work overload,
discrimination, harrassment, and bullying (Colligan & Higgins, 2005).
The stressors are different for women than men and these differences are
a significant area of research (Gyllensten & Palmer, 2005). Job stress
leads to poor employee health, job performance, and family life
(Colligan & Higgins, 2005).
As already mentioned, job insecurity contributes significantly to job
stress. Two increasing threats to job security are downsizing events and
corporate mergers. Businesses typically involve I-O psychologists in
planning for, implementing, and managing these types of organizational
change.
Downsizing{: data-type=“term”} is an increasingly common response
to a business’s pronounced failure to achieve profit goals, and it
involves laying off a significant percentage of the company’s employees.
Industrial-organizational psychologists may be involved in all aspects
of downsizing: how the news is delivered to employees (both those being
let go and those staying), how laid-off employees are supported (e.g.,
separation packages), and how retained employees are supported. The
latter is important for the organization because downsizing events
affect the retained employee’s intent to quit, organizational
commitment, and job insecurity (Ugboro, 2006).
In addition to downsizing as a way of responding to outside strains on a
business, corporations often grow larger by combining with other
businesses. This can be accomplished through a merger (i.e., the joining
of two organizations of equal power and status) or an acquisition (i.e.,
one organization purchases the other). In an acquisition, the purchasing
organization is usually the more powerful or dominant partner. In both
cases, there is usually a duplication of services between the two
companies, such as two accounting departments and two sales forces. Both
departments must be merged, which commonly involves a reduction of staff
([link]). This leads to organizational
processes and stresses similar to those that occur in downsizing events.
Mergers require determining how the organizational culture will change,
to which employees also must adjust (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg,
Monden, & de Lima, 2002). There can be additional stress on workers as
they lose their connection to the old organization and try to make
connections with the new combined group (Amiot, Terry, Jimmieson, &
Callan, 2006). Research in this area focuses on understanding employee
reactions and making practical recommendations for managing these
organizational changes.
Many people juggle the demands of work life with the demands of their
home life, whether it be caring for children or taking care of an
elderly parent; this is known as work-family balance{:
data-type=“term”}. We might commonly think about work interfering with
family, but it is also the case that family responsibilities may
conflict with work obligations (Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000).
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) first identified three sources of
work–family conflicts:
time devoted to work makes it difficult to fulfill requirements of
family, or vice versa,
strain from participation in work makes it difficult to fulfill
requirements of family, or vice versa, and
specific behaviors required by work make it difficult to fulfill the
requirements of family, or vice versa.
Women often have greater responsibility for family demands, including
home care, child care, and caring for aging parents, yet men in the
United States are increasingly assuming a greater share of domestic
responsibilities. However, research has documented that women report
greater levels of stress from work–family conflict (Gyllensten & Palmer,
2005).
There are many ways to decrease work–family conflict and improve
people’s job satisfaction (Posig & Kickul, 2004). These include support
in the home, which can take various forms: emotional (listening),
practical (help with chores). Workplace support can include
understanding supervisors, flextime, leave with pay, and telecommuting.
Flextime usually involves a requirement of core hours spent in the
workplace around which the employee may schedule his arrival and
departure from work to meet family demands. Telecommuting{:
data-type=“term”} involves employees working at home and setting their
own hours, which allows them to work during different parts of the day,
and to spend part of the day with their family. Recall that Yahoo! had a
policy of allowing employees to telecommute and then rescinded the
policy. There are also organizations that have onsite daycare centers,
and some companies even have onsite fitness centers and health clinics.
In a study of the effectiveness of different coping methods, Lapierre &
Allen (2006) found practical support from home more important than
emotional support. They also found that immediate-supervisor support for
a worker significantly reduced work–family conflict through such
mechanisms as allowing an employee the flexibility needed to fulfill
family obligations. In contrast, flextime did not help with coping and
telecommuting actually made things worse, perhaps reflecting the fact
that being at home intensifies the conflict between work and family
because with the employee in the home, the demands of family are more
evident.
Posig & Kickul (2004) identify exemplar corporations with policies
designed to reduce work–family conflict. Examples include IBM’s policy
of three years of job-guaranteed leave after the birth of a child,
Lucent Technologies offer of one year’s childbirth leave at half pay,
and SC Johnson’s program of concierge services for daytime errands.
See also
Glassdoor is a website that
posts job satisfaction reviews for different careers and
organizations. Use this site to research possible careers and/or
organizations that interest you.
A significant portion of I-O research focuses on management and human
relations. Douglas McGregor (1960) combined scientific
management{: data-type=“term”} (a theory of management that analyzes
and synthesizes workflows with the main objective of improving economic
efficiency, especially labor productivity) and human relations into the
notion of leadership behavior. His theory lays out two different styles
called Theory X and Theory Y. In the Theory X{: data-type=“term”}
approach to management, managers assume that most people dislike work
and are not innately self-directed. Theory X managers perceive employees
as people who prefer to be led and told which tasks to perform and when.
Their employees have to be watched carefully to be sure that they work
hard enough to fulfill the organization’s goals. Theory X workplaces
will often have employees punch a clock when arriving and leaving the
workplace: Tardiness is punished. Supervisors, not employees, determine
whether an employee needs to stay late, and even this decision would
require someone higher up in the command chain to approve the extra
hours. Theory X supervisors will ignore employees’ suggestions for
improved efficiency and reprimand employees for speaking out of order.
These supervisors blame efficiency failures on individual employees
rather than the systems or policies in place. Managerial goals are
achieved through a system of punishments and threats rather than
enticements and rewards. Managers are suspicious of employees’
motivations and always suspect selfish motivations for their behavior at
work (e.g., being paid is their sole motivation for working).
In the Theory Y{: data-type=“term”} approach, on the other hand,
managers assume that most people seek inner satisfaction and fulfillment
from their work. Employees function better under leadership that allows
them to participate in, and provide input about, setting their personal
and work goals. In Theory Y workplaces, employees participate in
decisions about prioritizing tasks; they may belong to teams that, once
given a goal, decide themselves how it will be accomplished. In such a
workplace, employees are able to provide input on matters of efficiency
and safety. One example of Theroy Y in action is the policy of Toyota
production lines that allows any employee to stop the entire line if a
defect or other issue appears, so that the defect can be fixed and its
cause remedied (Toyota Motor Manufacturing, 2013). A Theory Y workplace
will also meaningfully consult employees on any changes to the work
process or management system. In addition, the organization will
encourage employees to contribute their own ideas. McGregor (1960)
characterized Theory X as the traditional method of management used in
the United States. He agued that a Theory Y approach was needed to
improve organizational output and the wellbeing of individuals.
[link] summarizes how these two management
approaches differ.
Theory X and Theory Y Management Styles
Theory X
Theory Y
People dislike work and avoid it.
People enjoy work and find it natural.
People avoid responsibility.
People are more satisified when given responsibility.
People want to be told what to do.
People want to take part in setting their own work goals.
Goals are achieved through rules and punishments.
Goals are achieved through enticements and rewards.
Another management style was described by Donald Clifton, who focused
his research on how an organization can best use an individual’s
strengths, an approach he called strengths-based management. He and his
colleagues interviewed 8,000 managers and concluded that it is important
to focus on a person’s strengths, not their weaknesses. A strength is a
particular enduring talent possessed by an individual that allows her to
provide consistent, near-perfect performance in tasks involving that
talent. Clifton argued that our strengths provide the greatest
opportunity for growth (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). An example of a
strength is public speaking or the ability to plan a successful event.
The strengths-based approach is very popular although its effect on
organization performance is not well-studied. However, Kaiser &
Overfield (2011) found that managers often neglected improving their
weaknesses and overused their strengths, both of which interfered with
performance.
Leadership is an important element of management. Leadership styles have
been of major interest within I-O research, and researchers have
proposed numerous theories of leadership. Bass (1985) popularized and
developed the concepts of transactional leadership versus
transformational leadership styles. In transactional leadership{:
data-type=“term”}, the focus is on supervision and organizational goals,
which are achieved through a system of rewards and punishments (i.e.,
transactions). Transactional leaders maintain the status quo: They are
managers. This is in contrast to the transformational leader. People who
have transformational leadership{: data-type=“term”} possess four
attributes to varying degrees: They are charismatic (highly liked role
models), inspirational (optimistic about goal attainment),
intellectually stimulating (encourage critical thinking and problem
solving), and considerate (Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996).
As women increasingly take on leadership roles in corporations,
questions have arisen as to whether there are differences in leadership
styles between men and women (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen,
2003). Eagly & Johnson (1990) conducted a meta-analysis to examine
gender and leadership style. They found, to a slight but significant
degree, that women tend to practice an interpersonal style of leadership
(i.e., she focuses on the morale and welfare of the employees) and men
practice a task-oriented style (i.e., he focuses on accomplishing
tasks). However, the differences were less pronounced when one looked
only at organizational studies and excluded laboratory experiments or
surveys that did not involve actual organizational leaders. Larger
sex-related differences were observed when leadership style was
categorized as democratic or autocratic, and these differences were
consistent across all types of studies. The authors suggest that
similarities between the sexes in leadership styles are attributable to
both sexes needing to conform the organization’s culture; additionally,
they propose that sex-related differences reflect inherent differences
in the strengths each sex brings to bear on leadership practice. In
another meta-analysis of leadership style, Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, &
van Engen (2003) found that women tended to exhibit the characteristics
of transformational leaders, while men were more likely to be
transactional leaders. However, the differences are not absolute; for
example, women were found to use methods of reward for performance more
often than men, which is a component of transactional leadership. The
differences they found were relatively small. As Eagly,
Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen (2003) point out, research shows that
transformational leadership approaches are more effective than
transactional approaches, although individual leaders typically exhibit
elements of both approaches.
The workplace today is rapidly changing due to a variety of factors,
such as shifts in technology, economics, foreign competition,
globalization, and workplace demographics. Organizations need to respond
quickly to changes in these factors. Many companies are responding to
these changes by structuring their organizations so that work can be
delegated to work teams{: data-type=“term”}, which bring together
diverse skills, experience, and expertise. This is in contrast to
organizational structures that have individuals at their base (Naquin &
Tynan, 2003). In the team-based approach, teams are brought together and
given a specific task or goal to accomplish. Despite their burgeoning
popularity, team structures do not always deliver greater
productivity—the work of teams is an active area of research (Naquin &
Tynan, 2003).
Why do some teams work well while others do not? There are many
contributing factors. For example, teams can mask team members that are
not working (i.e., social loafing). Teams can be inefficient due to poor
communication; they can have poor decision-making skills due to
conformity effects; and, they can have conflict within the group. The
popularity of teams may in part result from the team halo effect: Teams
are given credit for their successes. but individuals within a team are
blamed for team failures (Naquin & Tynan, 2003). One aspect of team
diversity is their gender mix. Researchers have explored whether gender
mix has an effect on team performance. On the one hand, diversity can
introduce communication and interpersonal-relationship problems that
hinder performance, but on the other hand diversity can also increase
the team’s skill set, which may include skills that can actually improve
team member interactions. Hoogendoorn, Oosterbeek, & van Praag (2013)
studied project teams in a university business school in which the
gender mix of the teams was manipulated. They found that gender-balanced
teams (i.e., nearly equal numbers of men and women) performed better, as
measured by sales and profits, than predominantly male teams. The study
did not have enough data to determine the relative performance of female
dominated teams. The study was unsuccessful in identifying which
mechanism (interpersonal relationships, learning, or skills mixes)
accounted for performance improvement.
There are three basic types of teams: problem resolution teams, creative
teams, and tactical teams. Problem resolution teams are created for the
purpose of solving a particular problem or issue; for example, the
diagnostic teams at the Centers for Disease Control. Creative teams are
used to develop innovative possibilities or solutions; for example,
design teams for car manufacturers create new vehicle models. Tactical
teams are used to execute a well-defined plan or objective, such as a
police or FBI SWAT team handling a hostage situation (Larson & LaFasto,
1989). One area of active research involves a fourth kind of team—the
virtual team; these studies examine how groups of geographically
disparate people brought together using digital communications
technology function (Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Virtual teams are
more common due to the growing globalization of organizations and the
use of consulting and partnerships facilitated by digital communication.
Each company and organization has an organizational culture.
Organizational culture{: data-type=“term”} encompasses the values,
visions, hierarchies, norms, and interactions among its employees. It is
how an organization is run, how it operates, and how it makes
decisions—the industry in which the organization participates may have
an influence. Different departments within one company can develop their
own subculture within the organization’s culture. Ostroff, Kinicki, and
Tamkins (2003) identify three layers in organizational culture:
observable artifacts, espoused values, and basic assumptions. Observable
artifacts are the symbols, language (jargon, slang, and humor),
narratives (stories and legends), and practices (rituals) that represent
the underlying cultural assumptions. Espoused values are concepts or
beliefs that the management or the entire organization endorses. They
are the rules that allow employees to know which actions they should
take in different situations and which information they should adhere
to. These basic assumptions generally are unobservable and unquestioned.
Researchers have developed survey instruments to measure organizational
culture.
With the workforce being a global marketplace, your company may have a
supplier in Korea and another in Honduras and have employees in the
United States, China, and South Africa. You may have coworkers of
different religious, ethnic, or racial backgrounds than yourself. Your
coworkers may be from different places around the globe. Many workplaces
offer diversity training to help everyone involved bridge and understand
cultural differences. Diversity training{: data-type=“term”}
educates participants about cultural differences with the goal of
improving teamwork. There is always the potential for prejudice between
members of two groups, but the evidence suggests that simply working
together, particularly if the conditions of work are set carefully that
such prejudice can be reduced or eliminated. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)
conducted a meta-analysis to examine the question of whether contact
between groups reduced prejudice between those groups. They found that
there was a moderate but significant effect. They also found that, as
previously theorized, the effect was enhanced when the two groups met
under conditions in which they have equal standing, common goals,
cooperation between the groups, and especially support on the part of
the institution or authorities for the contact.
Tip
Managing Generational Differences
An important consideration in managing employees is age. Workers’
expectations and attitudes are developed in part by experience in
particular cultural time periods. Generational constructs are
somewhat arbitrary, yet they may be helpful in setting broad
directions to organizational management as one generation leaves the
workforce and another enters it. The baby boomer generation (born
between 1946 and 1964) is in the process of leaving the workforce and
will continue to depart it for a decade or more. Generation X (born
between the early 1960s and the 1980s) are now in the middle of their
careers. Millennials (born from 1979 to the early 1994) began to come
of age at the turn of the century, and are early in their careers.
Today, as these three different generations work side by side in the
workplace, employers and managers need to be able to identify their
unique characteristics. Each generation has distinctive expectations,
habits, attitudes, and motivations (Elmore, 2010). One of the major
differences among these generations is knowledge of the use of
technology in the workplace. Millennials are technologically
sophisticated and believe their use of technology sets them apart
from other generations. They have also been characterized as
self-centered and overly self-confident. Their attitudinal
differences have raised concerns for managers about maintaining their
motivation as employees and their ability to integrate into
organizational culture created by baby boomers (Myers & Sadaghiani,
2010). For example, millennials may expect to hear that they need to
pay their dues in their jobs from baby boomers who believe they paid
their dues in their time. Yet millennials may resist doing so because
they value life outside of work to a greater degree (Myers &
Sadaghiani, 2010). Meister & Willyerd (2010) suggest alternative
approaches to training and mentoring that will engage millennials and
adapt to their need for feedback from supervisors: reverse mentoring,
in which a younger employee educates a senior employee in social
media or other digital resources. The senior employee then has the
opportunity to provide useful guidance within a less demanding role.
Recruiting and retaining millennials and Generation X employees poses
challenges that did not exist in previous generations. The concept of
building a career with the company is not relatable to most
Generation X employees, who do not expect to stay with one employer
for their career. This expectation arises from of a reduced sense of
loyalty because they do not expect their employer to be loyal to them
(Gibson, Greenwood, & Murphy, 2009). Retaining Generation X workers
thus relies on motivating them by making their work meaningful
(Gibson, Greenwood, & Murphy, 2009). Since millennials lack an
inherent loyalty to the company, retaining them also requires effort
in the form of nurturing through frequent rewards, praise, and
feedback.
Millennials are also interested in having many choices, including
options in work scheduling, choice of job duties, and so on. They
also expect more training and education from their employers.
Companies that offer the best benefit package and brand attract
millennials (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010).
One well-recognized negative aspect of organizational culture is a
culture of harassmentpastehere, including
sexual harassment. Most organizations of any size have developed sexual
harassment policies that define sexual harassment (or harassment in
general) and the procedures the organization has set in place to prevent
and address it when it does occur. Thus, in most jobs you have held, you
were probably made aware of the company’s sexual harassment policy and
procedures, and may have received training related to the policy. The
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.) provides the
following description of sexual harassment{: data-type=“term”}:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other
verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual
harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an
individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s
work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
work environment. (par. 2)
One form of sexual harassment is called quid pro quo. Quid pro quo means
you give something to get something, and it refers to a situation in
which organizational rewards are offered in exchange for sexual favors.
Quid pro quo harassment is often between an employee and a person with
greater power in the organization. For example, a supervisor might
request an action, such as a kiss or a touch, in exchange for a
promotion, a positive performance review, or a pay raise. Another form
of sexual harassment is the threat of withholding a reward if a sexual
request is refused. Hostile environment sexual harassment is another
type of workplace harassment. In this situation, an employee experiences
conditions in the workplace that are considered hostile or intimidating.
For example, a work environment that allows offensive language or jokes
or displays sexually explicit images. Isolated occurrences of these
events do not constitute harassment, but a pattern of repeated
occurrences does. In addition to violating organizational policies
against sexual harassment, these forms of harassment are illegal.
Harassment does not have to be sexual; it may be related to any of the
protected classes in the statutes regulated by the EEOC: race, national
origin, religion, or age.
In the summer of August 1986, a part-time postal worker with a troubled
work history walked into the Edmond, Oklahoma, post office and shot and
killed 15 people, including himself. From his action, the term “going
postal” was coined, describing a troubled employee who engages in
extreme violence.
Workplace violence is one aspect of workplace safety that I-O
psychologists study. Workplace violence{: data-type=“term”} is any
act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other
threatening, disruptive behavior that occurs at the workplace. It ranges
from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide
(Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2014).
There are different targets of workplace violence: a person could commit
violence against coworkers, supervisors, or property. Warning signs
often precede such actions: intimidating behavior, threats, sabotaging
equipment, or radical changes in a coworker’s behavior. Often there is
intimidation and then escalation that leads to even further escalation.
It is important for employees to involve their immediate supervisor if
they ever feel intimidated or unsafe.
Murder is the second leading cause of death in the workplace. It is also
the primary cause of death for women in the workplace. Every year there
are nearly two million workers who are physically assaulted or
threatened with assault. Many are murdered in domestic violence
situations by boyfriends or husbands who chose the woman’s workplace to
commit their crimes.
There are many triggers for workplace violence. A significant trigger is
the feeling of being treated unfairly, unjustly, or disrespectfully. In
a research experiment, Greenberg (1993) examined the reactions of
students who were given pay for a task. In one group, the students were
given extensive explanations for the pay rate. In the second group, the
students were given a curt uninformative explanation. The students were
made to believe the supervisor would not know how much money the student
withdrew for payment. The rate of stealing (taking more pay than they
were told they deserved) was higher in the group who had been given the
limited explanation. This is a demonstration of the importance of
procedural justice in organizations. Procedural justice{:
data-type=“term”} refers to the fairness of the processes by which
outcomes are determined in conflicts with or among employees.
In another study by Greenberg & Barling (1999), they found a history of
aggression and amount of alcohol consumed to be accurate predictors of
workplace violence against a coworker. Aggression against a supervisor
was predicted if a worker felt unfairly treated or untrusted. Job
security and alcohol consumption predicted aggression against a
subordinate. To understand and predict workplace violence, Greenberg &
Barling (1999) emphasize the importance of considering the employee
target of aggression or violence and characteristics of both the
workplace characteristics and the aggressive or violent person.
Organizational psychology is concerned with the effects of interactions
among people in the workplace on the employees themselves and on
organizational productivity. Job satisfaction and its determinants and
outcomes are a major focus of organizational psychology research and
practice. Organizational psychologists have also studied the effects of
management styles and leadership styles on productivity. In addition to
the employees and management, organizational psychology also looks at
the organizational culture and how that might affect productivity. One
aspect of organization culture is the prevention and addressing of
sexual and other forms of harassment in the workplace. Sexual harassment
includes language, behavior, or displays that create a hostile
environment; it also includes sexual favors requested in exchange for
workplace rewards (i.e., quid pro quo). Industrial-organizational
psychology has conducted extensive research on the triggers and causes
of workplace violence and safety. This enables the organization to
establish procedures that can identify these triggers before they become
a problem.
Question
A ________ is an example of a tactical team.
surgical team
car design team
budget committee
sports team {: type=“a”}
Check Answer
A
Question
Which practice is an example of Theory X management?
telecommuting
flextime
keystroke monitoring
team meetings {: type=“a”}
Check Answer
C
Question
Which is one effect of the team halo effect?
teams appear to work better than they do
teams never fail
teams lead to greater job satisfaction
teams boost productivity {: type=“a”}
Check Answer
A
Question
Which of the following is the most strongly predictive factor of
overall job satisfaction?
financial rewards
personality
autonomy
work content {: type=“a”}
Check Answer
D
Question
What is the name for what occurs when a supervisor offers a
work-related reward in exchange for a sexual favor?
If you designed an assessment of job satisfaction, what elements
would it include?
Answers may vary, but they should include that the assessment
would include more than one question to try to understand the
reasons for the level of job satisfaction. It may also include
questions that assess the importance of emotional and cognitive
job satisfaction factors.
Downsizing has commonly shown to result in a period of lowered
productivity for the organizations experiencing it. What might be
some of the reasons for this observation?
Answers may vary, but they should include factors like lower job
satisfaction, higher job stress, disruption of organizational
culture, and other factors related to the concepts covered.
How would you handle the situation if you were being sexually
harassed? What would you consider sexual harassment?
Answers may vary, but they should include telling the person that
you are not comfortable with these actions and then reporting it
to human resources. The definition of sexual harassment may
discuss the sexual nature of the event, feelings of discomfort,
fear, or anxiety, and recurrences of events.
sexually-based behavior that is knowingly unwanted and has an
adverse effect of a person’s employment status, interferes with a
person’s job performance, or creates a hostile or intimidating
work environment ^
assumes workers are people who seek to work hard and productively;
managers and workers can find creative solutions to problems;
workers do not need to be controlled and punished ^
characteristic of leaders who focus on supervision and
organizational goals achieved through a system of rewards and
punishments; maintenance of the organizational status quo ^
characteristic of leaders who are charismatic role models,
inspirational, intellectually stimulating, and individually
considerate and who seek to change the organization ^
group of people within an organization or company given a specific
task to achieve together
Copyright Notice
This work is (being) adapted from on OpenStax Psychology 2e which is licensed under creative commons attribution 4.0 license. We license our work under a similar license.
If you copy, adapt, remix or build up on work, you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner,
but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.