qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw

PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS

REPORT TWO - PERCEPTION

10/19/2011

GROUP SIX – ZULFADLI, SYAFIQAH AND LINA

Question one

An employee does an unsatisfactory job on an assigned project. Explain the attribution

process that this person’s manager will use to form judgments about this employee’s job

performance.

Attribution theory is concerned with how individuals interpret events and how this relates to

their thinking and behavior. Attribution theory assumes that people try to determine why people do

what they do. A person seeking to understand why another person did something may attribute one

or more causes to that behavior.

According to Heider a person can make two attributions: internal attribution, the inference

that a person is behaving in a certain way because of something about the person, such as attitude,

character or personality. Internally caused behaviors are those that are believed to be under the

personal control of the individual and also external attribution, the inference that a person is

behaving a certain way because of something about the situation he or she is in. Externally caused

behavior is seen as resulting from outside causes; that is, the person is seen as having been forced

into the behavior by the situation.

Attribution theory assumes that people try to determine why people do what they do, that

is, interpret causes to an event or behavior. A three-stage process underlies an attribution: behavior

must be observed or perceived; behavior must be determined to be intentional, behavior attributed

to internal or external causes

Using the attribution process, the manager has to observe on this employee’s behavior and

also their problems. This could be useful in determining whether the employee is intent ally or

extent ally caused to be unsatisfactory on his/her assigned project. The Manager’s perception in

using the attribution process could use the three guidelines on judging the employee’s job

performance which are: their distinctiveness, consensus and consistency in doing their project.

Distinctiveness refers to whether an individual displays different behaviors in different

situations. What we want to know is whether the observed behavior is unusual. If it is, the observer

is likely to give the behavior an external attribution. If this action is not unusual, it will probably be

judged as internal.

Consensus occurs if everyone who is faced with a similar situation responds in the same way.

If consensus were high, you would be expected to give an external attribution to the employee

tardiness, whereas if other employees who took the same route made it to work on time, your

conclusion as to causation would be internal that is consistency in person actions. Does the person

respond the same way over time? The more consistent the behavior, the more the observer is

inclined to attribute it to internal causes.

Our attributions are also significantly driven by our emotional and motivational drives.

Blaming other people and avoiding personal recrimination are very real self-serving attributions. We

will also make attributions to defend what we perceive as attacks. We will point to injustice in an

unfair world. We will even tend to blame victims (of us and of others) for their fate as we seek to

distance ourselves from thoughts of suffering the same plight. We will also tend to ascribe less

variability to other people than ourselves, seeing ourselves as more multifaceted and less

predictable than others. This may well because we can see more of what is inside ourselves (and

spend more time doing this).

Individuals behave in a given manner based not on the way their external environment

actually is but, rather, on what they see or believe it to be. An organization may spend millions of

dollars to create a pleasant work environment for its employees. However, in spite of these

expenditures, if an employee believes that his or her job is lousy, that employee will behave

accordingly. It is the employee’s perception of a situation that becomes the basis for his or her

behavior.

The evidence suggests that what individuals perceive from their work situation will influence

their productivity more than will the situation itself. Whether or not a job is actually interesting or

challenging is irrelevant. Whether or not a manager successfully plans and organizes the work of his

or her employees and actually helps them to structure their work more efficiently and effectively is

far less important than how employees perceive the manager’s efforts. Similarly, issues like fair pay

for work performed, the validity of performance appraisals, and the adequacy of working conditions

are not judged by employees in a way that assures common perceptions, nor can we be assured

that individuals will interpret conditions about their jobs in a favorable light. Therefore, to be able to

influence productivity, it is necessary to assess how workers perceive their jobs.

Absenteeism, turnover, and job satisfaction are also reactions to the individual’s perceptions.

Dissatisfaction with working conditions or the belief that there is a lack of promotion opportunities

in the organization are judgments based on attempts to make some meaning out of one’s job. The

employee’s conclusion that a job is good or bad is an interpretation. Managers must spend time

understanding how each individual interprets reality and, where there is a significant difference

between what is seen and what exists, try to eliminate the distortions. Failure to deal with the

differences when individuals perceive the job in negative terms will result in increased absenteeism

and turnover and lower job satisfaction.

Question 2

How might managers use the grapevine for their benefit?

The formal network, made up of memos, reports, staff meetings, department meetings,

conferences, company newsletters and official notices is highly documented and as such has very

little chance for change. However, nearly all of the information within the grapevine is

undocumented and is thereby open to change and interpretation as it moves through the network.

It often travels faster than formal channels.

The grapevine is very useful in supplementing formal channels. It provides people with an

outlet for their imaginations and apprehensions as well. It also helps satisfy a natural desire to know

what is really going on. The grapevine is flexible and personal and can spread information faster

than the formal communication channels. It is also capable of penetrating even the tightest security

because it cuts across organizational lines and deals directly with people in the know. Bosses who

chose not to pay attention to the grapevine have 50% less credible information than those who do

and it exists because of excessive structuring of formal work flows and the excessive channeling of

information flows. It is fed by personal apprehension, wish fulfillment, retaliation, and gossip.

Surprisingly, most researchers have found that most grapevine information is either true or has

within it a root of truth.

Since the grapevine arises from social interactions, it is as unpredictable, full of life, and

varied as people are. It is the expression of their natural motivation to communicate. It is the

exercise of their freedom of speech and is a natural, normal activity. The grapevine starts early in

the morning in the car pools. Once everyone has arrived at work, grapevine activity takes place

nearly all day long down hallways, around corners, in meetings, and especially by the coffee

machine. The peak time of the days are breaks and lunch hour during which management has little

or no control over the topics of conversation. In the late afternoon the work day has finished but the

grapevine has not.

After a short time interval, some employees meet again. They are on company softball

teams, golf leagues, and bowling teams. The grapevine at that time goes into full swing again and

remains active with one final activity peak at a local bar. The following day, the cycle is repeated. It

is the wide range of locations where the grapevine takes place in mixture with the fact that

grapevine participants come from informal social groups within the organization which points out its

difference from formal management communication.

Structured management uses verbal messages to communicate through the chain of

command, while grapevine communication jumps from one department to another and from any

level of management to another. It moves up, down, horizontally, vertically and diagonally all within

a short span of time. The grapevine, as communication, can be compared to the organizations

formal information network.

The management can use grapevine to supplement the formal channels of communication.

Though it carries some degree of error and distortion, efforts can be made to correct it. Ignoring the

grapevine is nothing but to ignore a valuable source of communication and also information, though

grapevine is sort of feedback from employee themselves. The management can eliminate its

negative consequences and, at the same time, it can promote its positive benefits. The managers

have to learn to manage and control it by listening to the grapevine very carefully to find out what

current concerns are. Managers cannot kill the grapevine, but they can prevent it from spreading.

The rumors spread when the situations are unpredictable, unstructured, unplanned and are

beyond the control of a person or the persons who are involved in them. The management can open

up all the channels of organizational communication to present the facts positively before the

employees and thereby can fight the negative messages with the positive weapons of facts and

figures. Therefore, the best way to manage and control it is to provide accurate and substantial

information of the situations to the employees. The managers should pick up the false rumors and

dispel them by providing correct information

Other solution is communicating face to face with employees equally and across the board;

always tell the truth; if you (as a manager) do not know just say so and find out what the problems

really are. Never try to use the grapevine yourself especially when the grapevine carries a lie, correct

it immediately with the facts; make no public comments about race, religion, politics, or personal

matters unrelated to work because you can de-motivate your employee as they take your words to

heart.

The negative consequences of the grapevine can be easily eliminated if the management is

successful in creating trust-relationship with the employees. It also prevents the boredom, idleness

and suspicions among the employees. Better job design and better quality of work life can easily

bring the grapevine under the control of the management.

Before taking any decision or action, the managers must consider its possible effects on the

informal groups and systems in the organization. The management can use the grapevine as a

barometer of the public opinions in the organization or to feel the pulse of the employees in a

particular situation. This will surely help them to take right policy decisions.

In the formal activities of the organization, the management should avoid threatening the

informal groups, which are responsible in spreading the grapevine effectively. The management

should find out the people in the informal groups who are more active on grapevine. These people

should be accurately and adequately informed so that the false rumors causing excitement and

insecurity do not spread among the employees. The management should remember that the

workplace community is maintained not only by the work itself but also by the informal human

relationships. Therefore, the manager should honestly try to integrate their interests with those of

the informal groups.

In conclusion, the grapevine in many ways helps keep people honest; it can dissuade people

from engaging on behavior that they don’t want others to know about. This is a two edge sword. On

one hand, people will think twice about taking what they know is a wrong course of action. On the

other hand, they may also think twice about taking a necessary risk and doing the right thing, fearful

those appearances that may give rise to rumors. So the managers should decide whether to be a

good listener, be honest and communicate directly to their employees needs’ to continue to

function efficiently or to ignore others feedback and be the arrogant manager.