We can think of perception as a bubble that surrounds us and influences significantly the way we receive, interpret, and process information received from our environments. The many factors influencing perception are shown in Figure 4.2 and include characteristics of the perceiver, the setting, and the perceived.

Figure 4.1. Contrasting perceptions between managers and subordinates regarding performance appraisal interviews.

Figure 4.2. Factors influencing the perception process.

The Perceiver A person's past experiences, needs or motives, personality, values, and attitudes may all influence the perceptual process. Someone with a strong achievement need tends to perceive a situation in terms of that need. If doing well in class is perceived as a way to help meet your achievement need, for example, you will tend to emphasize that aspect when choosing classes to take. In the same way, a person with a negative attitude toward younger workers may react antagonistically when asked to work for a young, newly-hired team leader.

The Setting The physical, social, and organizational context of the setting also can influence the perceptual process. When Kim Jeffrey was promoted to CEO of Nestlés Perrier, he was perceived by subordinates as a frightening figure because he gave vent to his temper and had occasional confrontations with them. Before the promotion Jeffrey's flare-ups had been tolerable; in the new setting as CEO they caused intimidation. The problem was resolved after he received feedback and learned of his subordinates' perceptions.^[249]

The Perceived Characteristics of the perceived person, object, or event—such as contrast, intensity, figure-ground separation, size, motion, and repetition or novelty—are also important in the perceptual process. For example, one Macintosh computer among six HPs, or one man among six women will be perceived differently than one of six Macintosh computers or one of six men because there is less contrast. intensity can vary in terms of brightness, color, depth, sound, and the like. A bright red sports car stands out from a group of gray sedans; whispering or shouting stands out from ordinary conversation. This concept is known as figure-ground separation: it depends on which image is perceived as the background and which as the figure. Look, for example, at the small illustration in Figure 4.3. What do you see, faces or a vase?

Figure 4.3. Figure and ground illustration.

In the matter of size, very small or very large people tend to be perceived differently and more readily than average-sized people. In terms of motion, moving objects are perceived differently than stationary objects. And, of course, repetition or frequency can also influence perceptions, as television advertisers well know. Finally, the novelty of a situation affects its perception. A college student with streaks of hair dyed purple may be perceived quite differently by an instructor than others wearing more natural hair colors.

The various stages of the perception process are shown in Figure 4.4. They show that information processing during the perception process involves attention and selection, organization, interpretation, and retrieval.

Attention and Selection Our senses are constantly bombarded with so much information that if we don't screen it, we quickly become incapacitated with information overload. Selective screening lets in only a tiny proportion of all the information available. Some of the selectivity comes from controlled processing—consciously deciding what information to pay attention to and what to ignore. Think for example, about the last time you were at a noisy restaurant and screened out all the sounds but those of the person with whom you were talking. Screening can also take place without the perceiver's conscious awareness. We drive cars often without consciously thinking about the process of driving; we're aware of things like traffic lights and other cars but don't pay conscious attention to them. Such selectivity of attention and automatic information processing works well most of the time. But if a nonroutine event occurs, such as an animal darting onto the road, you may have an accident unless you quickly shift to controlled processing.

Figure 4.4. Stages of information processing during the perception process.

Organization Even though selective screening takes place in the attention stage, it is still necessary to find ways to organize the information efficiently. Schemas help us do this. They are cognitive frameworks that represent organized knowledge developed through experience about a given concept or stimulus.^[250]

A script schema is defined as a knowledge framework that describes the appropriate sequence of events in a given situation.^[251] For example, an experienced manager would use a script schema to think about the appropriate steps involved in running a meeting. A self schema contains information about a person's own appearance, behavior, and personality. For instance, people with decisiveness schemas tend to perceive themselves in terms of that aspect, especially in circumstances calling for leadership.

Person schemas refer to the way individuals sort others into categories, such as types or groups, in terms of similar perceived features. The terms prototype and stereotype are often used in this regard. They are abstract sets of features commonly associated with members of a category. Once the prototype is formed, it is stored in long-term memory and retrieved only when needed for a comparison of how well a person matches the prototype's features. For instance, you may have a "good worker" prototype that includes hard work, intelligence, punctuality, articulateness, and decisiveness. This prototype is used as a measure against which to compare people at work. Stereotypes can be considered as prototypes based on such demographic characteristics as gender, age, physical ability, and racial and ethnic groups.

Finally, person-in-situation schemas combine schemas built around persons (self and person schemas) and events (script schemas).^[252] A manager might organize his or her perceived information in a meeting around a decisiveness schema for both himself or herself and a key participant in the meeting. Here, a script schema would provide the steps and their sequence in the meeting; the manager would push through the steps decisively and would call on the selected participants periodically throughout the meeting to respond decisively. Note that although this approach might facilitate organization of important information, the perceptions of those attending might not be completely accurate because the decisiveness element of the person-in-situation schema did not allow them enough time for open discussion.

Interpretation Once your attention has been drawn to certain stimuli and you have grouped or organized this information, the next step is to uncover the reasons behind the actions. That is, even if your attention is called to the same information and you organize it in the same way your friend does, you may interpret it differently or make different attributions about the reasons behind what you have perceived. For example, as a team leader, you might attribute compliments from a team member to his being an eager worker, whereas your friend might interpret the behavior as insincere flattery.

RESEARCH INSIGHT

Interactional Justice Perceptions Affect Intent to Leave

Research reported by Merideth Ferguson, Neta Moye, and Ray Friedman links perceptions of interactional justice during recruitment interviews with effects on long term employment relationships. Focusing on issues of fairness in the workplace, a substantial literature on organizational justice shows that people respond to perceived fair and unfair treatments in positive and negative ways, with the links between perceived injustice and negative behaviors being particularly strong.

This research examined fairness perceptions regarding negotiations taking place during the recruitment process and how these perceptions affected later intentions to leave. Two hypotheses were tested. First, it was hypothesized that perceived use of negotiation pressure by recruiters would have a negative impact on perceived interactional justice by job applicants. Second, it was hypothesized that perceived interactional injustice during recruiting negotiations would have a positive long-term impact on later intentions to leave by the newly hired employees.

Two studies were conducted. The first study asked a sample of 68 university alumni of a business program about their retrospective perceptions of interactional justice during job negotiations and their current intentions to leave. The second study asked a sample of recent MBA graduates to report perceptions of interactional justice during their job negotiations; they were asked six months later to report on their intentions to leave the new employer. Results from both studies offered confirmation for the two hypotheses.

In conclusion, Ferguson et al. state: "the sense of injustice one feels during a negotiation affects an employee's turnover intentions with the hiring organization ... negotiations in the recruitment process can set the tone for the future employment relationship." They recommend future research to examine how negotiating tactics like slow responses, dishonesty, disrespect, and lack of concessions influence justice perceptions and later intent to leave. They also suggest that perceived injustice in recruiting when jobs are plentiful may lead to applicants making alternative job choices, while such injustice when jobs are scarce may result in employees accepting the jobs but harboring intent to leave when the opportunity permits.

Do the Research

What is your experience with interactional justice in the recruiting process? Can you design a study to gather the experiences of your cohorts, friends, and others on campus? How can your study pinpoint the impact of tactics such as setting a tight time limit on a job offer?

Source: Merideth Ferguson, Neta Moye, and Ray Friedman, "The Lingering Effects of the Recruitment Experience on the Long-Term Employment Relationship," Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, Vol. 1 (2008), pp. 246–262.

Retrieval So far, we have discussed the stages of the perception process as if they all occurred at the same time. However, to do so ignores the important component of memory. Each of the previous stages forms part of that memory and contributes to the stimuli or information stored there. The information stored in our memory must be retrieved if it is to be used.

All of us at times have trouble retrieving information stored in our memories. More commonly, memory decays, so that only some of the information is retrieved. Schemas play an important role in this area, and make it difficult for people to remember things not included in them. For example, given the prototype of a "good worker" as someone showing lots of effort, punctuality, intelligence, articulateness, and decisiveness, you may emphasize these traits and overlook others when evaluating the performance of a team member whom you generally consider good. Something like decisiveness gets overestimated because it is part of your high-performance prototype.

Richard Branson, CEO of the Virgin Group, may be one of the richest and most famous executives in the world. One of his early business accomplishments was the successful startup of Virgin Airlines, now a major competitor of British Airways (BA). In a memoir, the former head of BA, Lord King, said: "If Richard Branson had worn a shirt and tie instead of a goatee and jumper, I would not have underestimated him."^[253] This is an example of how much our impressions count—both positive and negative. Knowing this, scholars today emphasize the importance of impression management, the systematic attempt to behave in ways that will create and maintain desired impressions in the eyes of others.^[254]

Donna Byrd, publisher of TheRoot.com

Using the right social networks can create the right impression. Donna Byrd, publisher at TheRoot.com, uses LinkedIn and Twitter to voice expert opinions and publicize her company. "If you do it consistently," she says, "you can become a trusted voice in your particular area of expertise."

Most of us have heard the advice: "Don't forget to make a good first impression." And, no doubt, first impressions do count in how others perceive us. In fact, we practice a lot of impression management as a matter of routine in everyday life. We dress, talk, act, and surround ourselves with things that reinforce a desirable self-image and help to convey that same image to other persons. When well done, impression management can help us to advance in jobs and careers, form relationships with people we admire, and even create pathways to group memberships. It involves such activities as associating with the "right people," "dressing up" and "dressing down" at the right times, making eye contact when introduced to someone, doing favors to gain approval, flattering others to favorably impress them, taking credit for a favorable event, apologizing for a negative event while seeking a pardon, agreeing with the opinions of others, and downplaying the severity of a negative event.^[255]

Given the complexity of the information streaming toward us from the environments, we use various means of simplifying and organizing our perceptions. One of the most common is the stereotype. It occurs when we identify someone with a group or category, and then use the attributes perceived to be associated with the group or category to describe the individual. Although this makes things easier for us by reducing the need to deal with unique individual characteristics, it is an oversimplification. Because stereotypes obscure individual differences, we can easily end up missing the real individual. For managers this means not accurately understanding the needs, preferences, and abilities of others in the workplace.

Some of the most common stereotypes, at work and in life in general, relate to such factors as gender, age, race, and physical ability. Why are so few top executives in industry African-Americans or Hispanics? Legitimate questions can be asked about racial and ethnic stereotypes and about the slow progress of minority managers into America's corporate mainstream.^[256] Why is it that women constitute only a small percentage of American managers sent abroad to work on international business assignments? A Catalyst study of opportunities for women in global business points to gender stereotypes that place women at a disadvantage compared to men for these types of opportunities. The tendency is to assume women lack the ability and/or willingness to work abroad.^[257] Gender stereotypes may cause even everyday behavior to be misconstrued, for example: "He's talking with co-workers." (Interpretation: He's discussing a new deal); "She's talking with co-workers." (Interpretation: She's gossiping).^[258]

Ability stereotypes and age stereotypes also exist in the workplace. A physically or mentally challenged candidate may be overlooked by a recruiter even though possessing skills that are perfect for the job. A talented older worker may not be promoted because a manager assumes older workers are cautious and tend to avoid risk.^[259] Yet a Conference Board survey of workers 50 and older reports that 72 percent felt they could take on additional responsibilities, and two-thirds were interested in further training and development.^[260] And then there's the flip side; can a young person be a real leader, even a CEO? Facebook's founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is only in his mid-20s, and when current CEO Sheryl Sandberg was being recruited from Google she admits to this thought: "Wow, I'm going to work for a CEO who is quite young." After working for him she now says: "Mark is a great leader ... Mark has a real purity of vision ... He brings people along with him."^[261]

A halo effect occurs when one attribute of a person or situation is used to develop an overall impression of the individual or situation. Like stereotypes, these distortions are more likely to occur in the organization stage of perception. Halo effects are common in our everyday lives. When meeting a new person, for example, a pleasant smile can lead to a positive first impression of an overall "warm" and "honest" person. The result of a halo effect is the same as that associated with a stereotype, however, in that individual differences are obscured.

Halo effects are particularly important in the performance appraisal process because they can influence a manager's evaluations of subordinates' work performance. For example, people with good attendance records tend to be viewed as intelligent and responsible; those with poor attendance records are considered poor performers. Such conclusions may or may not be valid. It is the manager's job to try to get true impressions rather than allowing halo effects to result in biased and erroneous evaluations.

Google and Procter & Gamble

Selective perception is an enemy of innovation, one that the two firms are tackling head-on through job swaps. "Proctoids" from P&G's rigid culture and "Googlers" from a fashion-forward flexible culture are spending time in each other's firms. And they end up talking about how much they learned.

Selective perception is the tendency to single out those aspects of a situation, person, or object that are consistent with one's needs, values, or attitudes. Its strongest impact occurs in the attention stage of the perceptual process. This perceptual distortion was identified in a classic research study involving executives in a manufacturing company.^[262] When asked to identify the key problem in a comprehensive business policy case, each executive selected a problem consistent with his or her functional area work assignments. Most marketing executives viewed the key problem area as sales, whereas production people tended to see the problem as one of production and organization. These differing viewpoints would likely affect how each executive would approach the problem; they might also create difficulties as the executives tried to work together to improve things.

Projection is the assignment of one's personal attributes to other individuals; it is especially likely to occur in the interpretation stage of perception. A classic projection error is illustrated by managers who assume that the needs of their subordinates and their own coincide. Suppose, for example, that you enjoy responsibility and achievement in your work. Suppose, too, that you are the newly appointed manager of a team whose jobs seem dull and routine. You may move quickly to expand these jobs to help the workers achieve increased satisfaction from more challenging tasks because you want them to experience things that you, personally, value in work. But this may not be a good decision. If you project your needs onto the subordinates, individual differences are lost. Instead of designing the subordinates' jobs to best fit their needs, you have designed their jobs to best fit your needs. The problem is that the subordinates may be quite satisfied and productive doing jobs that seem dull and routine to you. Projection can be controlled through a high degree of self-awareness and empathy—the ability to view a situation as others see it.

The Elsewhere Class

They're hi-tech young professionals called the Elsewhere Class and they struggle to balance work and leisure. "Elsewhere" is the place you are thinking about even though physically not there; technology is an enabler. You may be at home or out shopping, but you're thinking it's time to check work messages.

We mentioned earlier how a bright red sports car would stand out from a group of gray sedans because of its contrast. This shows a contrast effect in which the meaning or interpretation of something is arrived at by contrasting it with a recently occurring event or situation. This form of perceptual distortion can occur say, when a person gives a talk following a strong speaker or is interviewed for a job following a series of mediocre applicants. A contrast effect occurs when an individual's characteristics are contrasted with those of others recently encountered and who rank higher or lower on the same characteristics.

A final perceptual distortion is the self-fulfilling prophecy—the tendency to create or find in another situation or individual that which you expected to find in the first place. A self-fulfilling prophecy is sometimes referred to as the "Pygmalion effect," named for a mythical Greek sculptor who created a statue of his ideal mate and then made her come to life.^[263]

Managers will find that self-fulfilling prophecies can have both positive and negative outcomes. In effect, they may create in work situations that which we expect to find. Suppose you assume that team members prefer to satisfy most of their needs outside the work setting and want only minimal involvement with their jobs. Consequently, you provide them with simple, highly structured jobs designed to require little involvement. Can you predict what response they will have to this situation? In fact, they may show the very same lack of commitment you assumed they would have in the first place; your initial expectations get confirmed as a negative self-fulfilling prophecy.

ETHICS IN OB

WORKERS REPORT VIEWS ON ETHICAL WORKPLACE CONDUCT

These data on ethical workplace conduct are from a survey conducted for Deloitte & Touche USA.

• 42 percent of workers say the behavior of their managers is a major influence on an ethical workplace.

• Most common unethical acts by managers and supervisors include verbal, sexual and racial harassment, misuse of company property, and giving preferential treatment.

• Most workers consider it unacceptable to steal from an employer, cheat on expense reports, take credit for another's accomplishments, and lie on time sheets.

• Most workers consider it acceptable to ask a work colleague for a personal favor, take sick days when not ill, use company technology for personal affairs.

• Top reasons for unethical behavior are lack of personal integrity (80%) and lack of job satisfaction (60%).

• 91 percent of workers are more likely to behave ethically when they have work-life balance; 30 percent say they suffer from poor work-life balance.

Note

Whose Ethics Count? Shouldn't an individual be accountable for her or his own ethical reasoning and analysis? How and why is it that the ethics practices of others, including managers, influence our ethics behaviors? What can be done to strengthen people's confidence in their own ethical frameworks so that even bad management won't result in unethical practices?

Self-fulfilling prophecies can also have a positive side. We know that students introduced to their teachers as "intellectual bloomers" often do better on achievement tests than do their counterparts who lack such a positive introduction. But why? In a study of army tank crews, one set of tank commanders was told that some members of their assigned crews had exceptional abilities while others were only average. In reality, the crew members had been assigned randomly so that the two test groups were equal in ability. The commanders later reported that the so-called "exceptional" crew members performed better than the "average" ones. The study also revealed the commanders had given more attention and praise to the crew members for whom they had the higher expectations.^[264] The self-fulfilling effects in these cases argue strongly for managers to adopt positive and optimistic approaches toward others at work.

Attributions play roles in perception, and attribution theory helps us to understand this process. It focuses on how people attempt to understand the causes of an event, assess responsibility for the outcomes, and evaluate the personal qualities of the people involved in it.^[265] Attribution theory is especially concerned with whether the assumption is that an individual's behavior has been internally or externally caused. Internal causes are believed to be under an individual's control—you believe Jake's performance is poor because he is lazy. External causes are seen as coming from outside a person—you believe Kellie's performance is poor because the software she's using is out of date.

According to attribution theory three factors influence this internal or external determination of causality: distinctiveness, consensus, and consistency. Distinctiveness considers how consistent a person's behavior is across different situations. If Jake's performance is typically low, regardless of the technology with which he is working, we tend to assign the poor performance to an internal attribution—there's something wrong with Jake. If the poor performance is unusual, we tend to assign an external cause to explain it—there's something happening in the work context.

Consensus takes into account how likely all those facing a similar situation are to respond in the same way. If all the people using the same technology as Jake perform poorly, we tend to assign his performance problem to an external attribution. If others do not perform poorly, we attribute the poor performance to internal causation. Consistency concerns whether an individual responds the same way across time. If Jake performs poorly over a sustained period of time, we tend to give the poor performance an internal attribution. If his low performance is an isolated incident, we may well attribute it to an external cause.

Two perception errors are associated with the assignment of internal versus external causation—fundamental attribution error and self-serving bias.^[266] Look at the data reported in Figure 4.5. When managers were asked to identify, or attribute, causes of poor performance among their subordinates, they most often blamed internal deficiencies of the individual—lack of ability and effort, rather than external deficiencies in the situation—lack of support. This demonstrates fundamental attribution error—the tendency to underestimate the influence of situational factors and to overestimate the influence of personal factors in evaluating someone else's behavior. When asked to identify causes of their own poor performance, however, the managers mostly cited lack of support—an external, or situational, deficiency. This indicates self-serving bias—the tendency to deny personal responsibility for performance problems but to accept personal responsibility for performance success.

Figure 4.5. Health care managers' attributions of causes for poor performance.

The managerial implications of attribution theory can be traced back to the fact that perceptions influence behavior.^[267] For example, a manager who believes that subordinates are not performing well and perceives the reason to be an internal lack of effort is likely to respond with attempts to "motivate" the subordinates to work harder; the possibility of changing external, situational factors that may remove job constraints and provide better organizational support may be largely ignored. This oversight could sacrifice major performance gains. Interestingly, when supervisors in the study evaluated their own behavior, they indicated their performance would benefit from having better support. Because of self-serving bias, the supervisors' own abilities or willingness to work hard were not believed to be at issue.

In cross-cultural comparisons of attribution tendencies, the highly individualistic American culture tends to overemphasize internal causes and underemphasize external ones when explaining events. This can result in negative attributions toward other persons experiencing performance problems, such as one's team mates or direct reports. Such negative attributions, in turn, tend to generate actions designed to improve performance by correcting individual deficiencies—by negative performance evaluations and more training, for example, rather than those designed to increase external support for work performance.^[268] By contrast, research from Korea shows tendencies toward negative self-serving bias; that is, Korean managers are more prone to attribute work group failure to themselves—"I was not a capable leader," than to external causes.^[269] In India the fundamental attribution error overemphasizes external rather than internal causes for failure. Why these various differences occurred is not clear, but differing cultural values appear to play a role.

Perception and attribution are important components in social learning theory, which describes how learning takes place through the reciprocal interactions among people, behavior, and environment. Figure 4.6 illustrates this model as drawn from the work of Albert Bandura.^[270] According to the figure, the individual uses modeling or vicarious learning to acquire behavior by observing and imitating others. The person then attempts to acquire these behaviors by modeling them through practice. In a work situation, the model may be a manager or coworker who demonstrates desired behaviors. Mentors or senior workers who befriend younger and more inexperienced protégés can also be important models. Indeed, some have argued that a shortage of mentors for women in senior management has been a major constraint to their progression up the career ladder.^[271]

Figure 4.6. Simplified model of social learning.

The symbolic processes shown in Figure 4.6 are important in social learning. Words and symbols used by managers and others in the workplace can help communicate values, beliefs, and goals and thus serve as guides to an individual's behavior. For example, a "thumbs up" or other signal from the boss lets you know your behavior is appropriate. At the same time, the person's self-control is important in influencing his or her own behavior. And self-efficacy—the person's belief that he or she can perform adequately in a situation, is an important part of such self-control. Closely associated with the concept of self-efficacy are such terms as confidence, competence, and ability.^[272]

People with high self-efficacy believe that they have the necessary abilities for a given job, that they are capable of the effort required, and that no outside events will hinder them from attaining their desired performance level.^[273] In contrast, people with low self-efficacy believe that no matter how hard they try, they cannot manage their environment well enough to be successful. For example, if you feel self-efficacy as a student, a low grade on one test is likely to encourage you to study harder, talk to the instructor, or do other things to enable you to do well the next time. In contrast, a person low in self-efficacy would probably drop the course or give up studying. Of course, even people who are high in self-efficacy do not control their environment entirely. Some ideas on how to build or enhance self-efficacy are listed in OB Savvy 4.1.

Leaders on Leadership

RICHARD BRANSON LEADS WITH PERSONALITY AND FLAMBOYANCE

Sir Richard Branson, well-known founder of Virgin Group, is a believer in positive reinforcement. "For the people who work for you or with you, you must lavish praise on them at all times," he says. "If a flower is watered, it flourishes. If not it shrivels up and dies." And besides, he goes on to add: "Its much more fun looking for the best in people."

Virgin Group is a business conglomerate employing some 25,000 people around the globe. It holds over 200 companies, including Virgin Mobile, Virgin Records, and even a space venture—Virgin Galactic. It's all very creative and ambitious—but that's Branson. "I love to learn things I know little about," he says.

But if you bump into Branson on the street you might be surprised. He's casual, he's smiling, and he's fun; he's also brilliant when it comes to business and leadership. He's been listed among the 25 most influential business leaders. His goal is to build Virgin into "the most respected brand in the world." And as the man behind the brand he's described as "flamboyant," something that he doesn't deny and also considers a major business advantage that keeps him and his ventures in the public eye.

About leadership Branson says: "Having a personality of caring about people is important ... You can't be a good leader unless you generally like people. That is how you bring out the best in them." He claims his own style was shaped by his family and childhood. At age 10 his mother put him on a 300-mile bike ride to build character and endurance. At 16 he started a student magazine. By the age of 22 he was launching Virgin record stores. And by the time he was 30 Virgin Group was running at high speed.

As for himself, Branson says he'll probably never retire. Now known as Sir Richard after being knighted, he enjoys Virgin today "as a way of life" that he greatly enjoys. But he also says that "In the next stage of my life I want to use our business skills to tackle social issues around the world ... Malaria in Africa kills four million people a year. AIDS kills even more ... I don't want to waste this fabulous situation in which I've found myself."

Classical conditioning, studied by Ivan Pavlov, is a form of learning through association that involves the manipulation of stimuli to influence behavior. The Russian psychologist "taught" dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell by ringing the bell when feeding the dogs. The sight of the food naturally caused the dogs to salivate. The dogs "learned" to associate the bell ringing with the presentation of meat and to salivate at the ringing of the bell alone. Such learning through association is so common in organizations that it is often ignored until it causes considerable confusion.

The key here is to understand stimulus and conditioned stimulus. A stimulus is something that incites action and draws forth a response, such as food for the dogs. The trick is to associate one neutral potential stimulus—the bell ringing, with another initial stimulus that already affects behavior—the food. The once-neutral stimulus is called a conditioned stimulus when it affects behavior in the same way as the initial stimulus. Take a look at Figure 4.7 for a work example. Here, the boss's smiling becomes a conditioned stimulus because of its linkage to his criticisms.

The reinforcement approach popularized by B. F. Skinner extends reinforcement to applications that include more than just stimulus and response behavior.^[275] It involves operant conditioning as the process of controlling behavior by manipulating its consequences. You may think of operant conditioning as learning by reinforcement. In management the goal is to use reinforcement principles to systematically reinforce desirable work behavior and discourage undesirable work behavior.^[276]

Classical and operant conditioning differ in two important ways. First, control in operant conditioning is via manipulation of consequences. Second, operant conditioning calls for examining antecedents, behavior, and consequences. The antecedent is the condition leading up to or "cueing" behavior. Figure 4.7 gives the example of an agreement with the boss to work overtime as needed. If the employee actually does work overtime, this is the behavior. The consequence would be the boss's praise. In operant conditioning, the behavior based in the antecedent is drawn forth by the manipulation of consequences.

Figure 4.8. A sample of contrived and natural extrinsic rewards that can be allocated by managers.

The basis for operant conditioning rests in E. L. Thorndike's law of effect.^[277] It is simple but powerful: behavior that results in a pleasant outcome is likely to be repeated, whereas behavior that results in an unpleasant outcome is not likely to be repeated. The implications of this law are rather straightforward. If, as a supervisor, you want more of a behavior, you must make the consequences for the individual positive.

Note that the emphasis is on consequences that can be manipulated rather than on consequences inherent in the behavior itself. OB research often emphasizes specific types of rewards that are considered from the reinforcement perspective to influence individual behavior. Extrinsic rewards, such as pay and praise, are positively valued work outcomes that are given to the individual by some other person. They become external reinforcers or environmental consequences that can substantially influence a person's work behaviors through the law of effect.

Figure 4.8 presents a sample of extrinsic rewards that can be allocated by managers in using the law of effect in the workplace.^[278] Some of these rewards are contrived rewards that are planned, and have direct costs and budgetary implications. Examples are pay increases and cash bonuses. A second category includes natural rewards that have no cost other than the manager's personal time and efforts. Examples are verbal praise and recognition in the workplace. The use of such rewards to systematically reinforce desirable work behavior and to discourage unwanted work behavior is known as organizational behavior modification, or OB Mod for short. It involves the use of four basic reinforcement strategies: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement (or avoidance), punishment, and extinction.^[279]

B. F. Skinner and his followers advocate positive reinforcement—the administration of positive consequences that tend to increase the likelihood of repeating the desirable behavior in similar settings. For example, a team leader nods to a team member to express approval after she makes a useful comment during a sales meeting. This increases the likelihood of future useful comments from the team member, just as the leader would hope.

To begin using a strategy of positive reinforcement, we need to be aware that positive reinforcers and rewards are not necessarily the same. Recognition, for example, is both a reward and a potential positive reinforcer. But it becomes a positive reinforcer only if a person's performance later improves. Sometimes, a "reward" doesn't work as intended. For example, a team leader might praise a team member in front of others for finding errors in a report that the group had prepared. If the members then give their teammate the silent treatment, however, the worker is less likely to report such errors in the future. In this case, the "reward" fails to serve as a positive reinforcer of the desired work behavior.

To have maximum reinforcement value, a reward must be delivered only if the desired behavior is exhibited. That is, the reward must be contingent on the desired behavior. This principle is known as the law of contingent reinforcement. For example, a supervisor's praise should be contingent on the subordinate's doing something identifiably well, such as giving a constructive suggestion in a meeting. Also, the reward must be given as soon as possible after the desired behavior. This is known as the law of immediate reinforcement.^[280] If the supervisor waits for the annual performance review to praise the subordinate for providing constructive comments, the law of immediate reinforcement would be violated.

Shaping The power of positive reinforcement can be mobilized through a process known as shaping. This is the creation of a new behavior by the positive reinforcement of successive approximations to it. For example, new machine operators in the Ford Motor casting operation in Ohio must learn a complex series of tasks in pouring molten metal into castings in order to avoid gaps, overfills, or cracks.^[281] The molds are filled in a three-step process, with each step progressively more difficult than its predecessor. Astute master craftspersons first show newcomers how to pour as the first step and give praise based on what they did right. As the apprentices gain experience, they are given praise only when all of the elements of the first step are completed successfully. Once the apprentices have mastered the first step, they move to the second. Reinforcement is given only when the entire first step and an aspect of the second step are completed successfully. Over time, apprentices learn all three steps and are given contingent positive rewards immediately upon completing a casting that has no cracks or gaps. In this way behavior is shaped gradually rather than changed all at once.

Scheduling Positive Reinforcement Positive reinforcement can be given according to either continuous or intermittent schedules. Continuous reinforcement administers a reward each time a desired behavior occurs, whereas intermittent reinforcement rewards behavior only periodically. In general, continuous reinforcement draws forth a desired behavior more quickly than does intermittent reinforcement. But it is costly in the consumption of rewards and the behavior is more easily extinguished when reinforcement is no longer present. Behavior acquired under intermittent reinforcement lasts longer upon the discontinuance of reinforcement, and thus is more resistant to extinction. This is why shaping typically begins with a continuous reinforcement schedule and then gradually shifts to an intermittent one.

As shown in Figure 4.9, intermittent reinforcement can be given according to fixed or variable schedules. Variable schedules typically result in more consistent patterns of desired behavior than do fixed reinforcement schedules. Fixed-interval schedules provide rewards at the first appearance of a behavior after a given time has elapsed. Fixed-ratio schedules result in a reward each time a certain number of the behaviors have occurred. A variable-interval schedule rewards behavior at random times, while a variable-ratio schedule rewards behavior after a random number of occurrences.

Figure 4.9. Alternative schedules of reinforcement in OB Mod.

A second reinforcement strategy used in OB Mod is negative reinforcement or avoidance learning. It uses the withdrawal of negative consequences to increase the likelihood of repeating the desirable behavior in similar settings. For example, a manager at McDonald's regularly nags a worker about being late for work and then doesn't nag when the worker next shows up on time. The term "negative reinforcement" comes from this withdrawal of the negative consequences. The strategy is also sometimes called avoidance because its intent is for the person to avoid the negative consequence by performing the desired behavior. For instance, we stop at a red light to avoid a traffic ticket, or a worker who prefers the day shift is allowed to return to that shift if she performs well on the night shift.

A third reinforcement strategy is punishment. Unlike positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, it is intended not to encourage positive behavior but to discourage negative behavior. Formally defined, punishment is the administration of negative consequences or the withdrawal of positive consequences that tend to reduce the likelihood of repeating the behavior in similar settings.

There is evidence that punishment administered for poor performance can lead to better performance without a significant effect on satisfaction. But punishment seen by workers as arbitrary and capricious leads to low satisfaction as well as low performance.^[282] The point is that punishment can be handled poorly, or it can be handled well as suggested in OB Savvy 4.2.

Finally, punishment may be offset by positive reinforcement received from another source. It is possible for a worker to be reinforced by peers at the same time that the worker is receiving punishment from the manager. Sometimes the positive value of such peer support is so great that the individual chooses to put up with the punishment. Thus, the undesirable behavior continues. As many times as an experienced worker may be verbally reprimanded by a supervisor for playing jokes on new employees, for example, the "grins" offered by other workers may well justify continuation of the jokes in the future.

The final reinforcement strategy in OB Mod is extinction—the withdrawal of the reinforcing consequences for a given behavior. For example, Enya is often late for work and co-workers cover for her (positive reinforcement). The manager instructs Enya's co-workers to stop covering, thus withdrawing the positive consequences. This is a use of extinction to try and get rid of an undesirable behavior.

This extinction strategy decreases the frequency of or weakens behavior. But the behavior is not "unlearned"; it simply is not exhibited. Since the behavior is no longer reinforced, it will reappear if reinforced again. Whereas positive reinforcement seeks to establish and maintain desirable work behavior, extinction is intended to weaken and eliminate undesirable behavior.

Figure 4.10 summarizes and illustrates the use of each reinforcement strategy in OB Mod. They are all designed to direct work behavior toward practices desired by management. Both positive and negative reinforcement are used to strengthen the desirable behavior of improving work quality when it occurs. Punishment is used to weaken the undesirable behavior of high error rates and involves either administering negative consequences or withdrawing positive consequences. Similarly, extinction is used deliberately to weaken the undesirable behavior of high error rates when it occurs. Note also that these strategies may be used in combination as well as independently.

The effective use of the four reinforcement strategies can help manage human behavior at work. Testimony to this effect is found in the wide application of these strategies in all sorts of work settings, and by the growing number of consulting firms that specialize in reinforcement techniques. But use of these approaches is not without criticism.

Figure 4.10. Examples of comprehensive managerial use of reinforcement strategies.

Some critics of the reinforcement approach claim that the success of specific programs involves isolated cases that have been analyzed without the benefit of scientific research designs; it is hard to conclude definitively whether the observed results were caused by reinforcement dynamics. In fact, one critic argues that the improved performance may well have occurred only because of the goal setting involved—that is, because specific performance goals were clarified, and workers were individually held accountable for their accomplishment.^[283] Another major criticism rests with potential value dilemmas associated with using reinforcement to influence human behavior at work. For example, some maintain that the systematic use of reinforcement strategies leads to a demeaning and dehumanizing view of people that stunts human growth and development.^[284] Others believe managers abuse the power of their position and knowledge by exerting external control over individual behavior.

Advocates of the reinforcement approach attack its critics head on. They agree that behavior modification involves the control of behavior, but they also argue that behavior control is an irrevocable part of every manager's job. The real question, they say, is how to ensure that any manipulation is done in a positive and constructive fashion.^[285]