MONTGOMERY, JERALD JAMES G.

Masters in Business Administration – 1

Organizational Behavior
Self-Test Questions Set No. 1

1. What does the phrase “behavior is caused” mean?

Basing from the concepts of organizational and industrial psychology, behavior is

sort of systematic, therefore, not random and there could be patterns that arise
from an individual, which could be modified and studied upon to their roots and
causes. With this, individual difference, wants, needs and motivations can be
seen. Moreover, it is consistent with research suggesting that past behavior is
the best predictor of future behavior. The arguments and statements below will
try to dissect circumventing the phrase ‘behavior is caused”.

There is this what we call attribution theory. In this theory, attribution refers
simply to how people explain the cause of another’s or their own behavior.
Somehow, it is the cognitive process by which people draw conclusions about
the factors that influence, or make sense of, one another’s behavior. 1 There are
two general types of attributions that people make: dispositional attributions,
which ascribe a person’s behavior to internal factors such as personality traits,
motivation, or ability, and situational attributions, which attribute a person’s
behavior to external factors such as equipment or social influence from others. 2

However, the classic work of Edward Tolman can be used to represent the
cognitive theoretical approach in defining behavioral causes. Although Tolman
believed behavior to be the appropriate unit of analysis, he felt that behavior is
purposive, that it is directed toward a goal. In his laboratory experiments, he
found that animals learned to expect that certain events would follow one
another. For example, animals learned to behave as if they expected food when
a certain cue appeared. Thus, Tolman believed that learning consists of the
expectancy that a particular event will lead to a particular consequence. This
cognitive concept of expectancy implies that the organism is thinking about, or is
conscious or aware of, the goal. Thus, Tolman and others espousing the
cognitive approach felt that behavior is best explained by these cognitions.

With this, several individual behaviors result from a person’s participation in an

organization. One important behavior is productivity. Productivity, as defined in
terms of an individual, is an indicator of an employee’s efficiency and is
measured in terms of the products or services or both created per unit of input.
For example, if Juan makes 200 units of a product in a day and Pedro makes
only 180 units in a day, then, assuming that the units are of the same quality and
Juan and Pedro make the same wages, Juan is more productive than Pedro.
 However, of particular interest to the study of organizational behavior is Schein’s
idea3 that the organization itself also contributes to socialization. He points out
that the process includes the learning of those values, norms, and behavior
patterns that, from the organization’s and the work group’s points of view, are
necessary for any new organization member. Specific techniques of socializing
new employees would include the use of mentors or role models, orientation and
training programs, reward systems, and career planning.

Lastly, Maslow also hedged on some of his other original ideas, for example, that
higher needs may emerge after lower needs that have been unfulfilled or
suppressed for a long period are satisfied; thus, he stressed that human behavior
is multidetermined and multi-motivated.

In short, the phrase can be broadly interpreted through the belief that there are
underlying why’s in every how or action or idea or anything that we manifest as a
social human being. Our behavior towards any crisis, incident, person, or a thing
could be influenced by our own perception or cognitive status, our emotions,
experiences, from the learnings we acquire through socialization and most
importantly, our own motivation to attain what we desire or to possess what we
wish to have. Basically, and essentially, our behavior is dictated by our impulse
to succeed and is guided by our moral compass that is directed to our personal
aims, that has been shaped by our learnings, motivations and needs, and our
world view, which commands our attributions to our self or to others.

2. We have opinions, biases, hunches, and misinformation that we use both in

making statements about others and in deciding what we do. What can you
suggest as a logical and practical way of understanding human behavior?

It is very true that any individual possesses his own opinion, biases, hunches and
unfortunately, most of us are victims and channels of misinformation that affects
both our thoughts, ideas and actions. Sometimes, these could lead us into pits of
conflict and misunderstanding to a fellow individual, hence, this must be an issue
that is imperatively needed to be resolved.

The conflicts we face may be viewed as stemming from a variety of causes,

including both our interactions with other people. Why did someone do
something that hurt us? To the extent that we believe we are harmed by an
individual's malevolent motives e.g., the desire to hurt us, conflict could be
inevitable. However, whenever we believe that we suffered harm because of
factors outside someone's control e.g., an accident, conflict is less likely to occur.
As you might imagine, it can be problematic if we falsely attribute the harm, we
suffer to another's negative intent when, in reality, that person's behavior was
caused by external factors.

In the concept of organizational behavior, most effective managers attempt to

avoid conflict through the application of their understanding of logical and
 practical ways of human behavior by using constructive criticism instead—that is,
criticism that can be used effectively by the recipient to improve his or her
performance. Managers in an organization also note that holding a grudge is
wasting energy that could be devoted to more productive organizational
endeavors. In general, companies that are considered great places in which to
work are characterized by high levels of trust between people at all levels. With
this, the organization must also couple it with expanding the pool of scarce
resources permits both managers to achieve their objectives without having to
give up anything of value. Thus, each side wins

To encapsulate, a logical and practical way of understanding human behavior is

through looking to its constructive effects and economic utility. If such behavior is
not helpful to the individual or to the organization as a whole, it must not be
tolerated; hence, controlled or “weeded” out to establish an environment that
aims only to the elevation of the whole entity. With this, managers and
organizational behavior scientists must come in close contact into ways of
creating policies and practices that encourages positive and advantageous
behaviors that gives profitable agencies and opportunities to the organization.

3. What behavioral predictions might you make if you knew that an individual had
(a) external locus of control?
(b) internal locus of control?

Organizational behavior scientists are concerned with how to follow patters and
to predict people’s reactions through the studying their behavior. Many experts in
the field have devised the practical application of attribution-locus of control
theory. Using locus of controls, work behavior may be explained by whether
employees perceive their outcomes as controlled internally or externally.
Employees who perceive internal control feel that they personally can influence
their outcomes through their own ability, skills, or effort. Employees who perceive
external control feel that their outcomes are beyond their own control; they feel
that external forces such as luck or task difficulty control their outcomes. This
perceived locus of control may have a differential impact on their motivation to
perform.

Internally controlled employees, as per one study, are generally more satisfied
with their jobs, with high changes to be in managerial positions, and are greatly
satisfied with a participatory management style than employees who perceive
external control.4 Several studies reveal that these managers are better
performers5, are more considerate of subordinates6, tend not to burn out7, follow
a more strategic style of executive action 8, have improved attitudes over a long
period of time following promotions9,and present the most positive impression in
a recruiting interview.1011

Moreover, individuals who have external locus of control are comprehensively

described someone who gives negative economic utility to the organization and
should be taken note seriously by the management. They could be recounted as
someone who when the less control an individual has over the pace of his work,
the greater his stress and dissatisfaction. Jobs that provide a low level of variety,
significance, autonomy, feedback, and identity appear to create stress and
reduce satisfaction and involvement in the job. 12 Not everyone reacts to
autonomy in the same way, however. For those with an external locus of control,
increased job control increases the tendency to experience stress and
exhaustion.13

With this, we can clearly see and predict signs of an individual that is externally
controlled. It is also true that certain jobs are more stressful than others but, as
we’ve seen, individuals differ in their response to stressful situations. We know
individuals with little experience or an external locus of control tend to be more
prone to stress. Therefore, selection and placement decisions should take these
facts into consideration by the management.

On the other hand, internally controlled individual is someone that brings positive
impact to an organization. They could be the intelligent people and those who
score high on openness to experience that are also more likely to be creative. 14
Other traits of creative people are independence, self-confidence, risk taking, an
internal locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity, a low need for structure, and
perseverance.15

In a goal-oriented organization, goal commitment is most likely to occur when

goals are made public. It is also the time when an individual that has an internal
locus of control that the goals are self-set rather than assigned. 16 With this,
leadership skills of an individual can obviously arise, and leader–follower
relationships may be stronger when followers have a more active role in shaping
their own job performance. There is actually a research on 287 software
developers and 164 supervisors17 that showed leader member relationships have
a stronger impact on employee performance and attitudes when employees have
higher levels of autonomy and a more internal locus of control.

Another study of managers in the United States, Europe, and Asia found those
with a positive self-concept and high-risk tolerance coped better with
organizational change. A study of 258 police officers found those higher in
growth-needs strength, internal locus of control, and internal work motivation had
more positive attitudes about organizational change efforts. 18

In terms of traits, we find that employees who are high self-monitors possess an
internal locus of control, and have a high need for power are more likely to
engage in political behavior.19 The high self-monitor is more sensitive to social
cues, exhibits higher levels of social conformity, and is more likely to be skilled in
political behavior than the low self-monitor. Because they believe they can
control their environment, individuals with an internal locus of control are more
 prone to take a proactive stance and attempt to manipulate situations in their
favor.

Obviously, management should not restrict hiring to only experienced individuals

with an internal locus, but such individuals may adapt better to high-stress jobs
and perform those jobs more effectively. Similarly, training can increase an
individual’s self-efficacy and thus lessen job strain to those who have low internal
locus of control or to those who have external locus of control. With these
predictors and indicators, I, as a vigilant HR Manager could readily cope up in
managing my organization’s human capital.

4. Identify five roles you play. What behaviors do they require? Are many of this
role in conflict? If so, in what way? How do you resolve these conflicts?

A role is defined as a position that has expectations evolving from established

norms. People living in contemporary society assume a succession of roles
throughout life. A typical sequence of social roles would be that of child, son or
daughter, teenager, college student, boyfriend or girlfriend, spouse, parent, and
grandparent. Each of these roles has recognized expectations that are acted out
like a role in a play. Besides progressing through a succession of roles such as
those just mentioned, the adult in modern society fills numerous other roles at the
same time, i.e. work-related and communal or societal-related positions.

I, myself, identifies five roles I play currently in life, as follows: 1) a son; 2) a

friend; 3) an MBA Student; 4) a marketing consultant; and, 5) a college instructor.
Many of the five are compatible but some creates conflicts particularly in the
notions of how I suppose to act them and on how others believe I should act.
Nonetheless, I am in constant learning how to balance and create the equilibrium
whenever circumstances push me to have an action.

Being a son much compatible to being a friend and an MBA student since these
roles requires me to be someone who is able to listen, become a humble person,
learn new things, and explore the potentialities and the deepest parts of me that I
myself had never been into. Being a college instructor and a marketing
consultant has several compatibilities since both requires me to become precise
and careful with what I say and what I deliver to the parties who needs the
knowledge, skills and advises I am to impart.

Role conflicts arise when the other party in every given role could not understood
well my actions and it is imperative, too, that internally, my roles can have
conflicts with each other. In a given situation, I can be a friend and a son but I
cannot be a friend and a MBA student, especially during exams; similarly, I could
neither be a friend and a marketing consultant when I am to give an honest
assessment to the given project or prospected bidding proposal nor be a friend
and at the same time a college instructor to my students when I am giving
grades.
 Obviously, these conflicts are resolved ultimately by reminding myself always the
boundaries between my responsibilities and obligations anent to my role, to know
my own ethics, and where should I put myself using my own moral compass. It is
imperative still to reevaluate my values and beliefs and aligning them to the
norms and to the professional integrity that I must possess. Pragmatically
speaking, the best way to resolve these conflicts is to first recognize that such
conflicts might arise and to prevent them by happening through putting a space
between yourself and to the other being involved. For example, I must tell my
students that inside the school I am the authority in the classroom and they must
see me as their educational facilitator and instructor rather than a caring and
loving friend, and so goes with the other scenarios.

However, even how much stress could these role conflicts give, there is
additional research evidence indicating that multiple roles provide benefits e.g.,
practice at multitasking, relevant experience, for the managerial role at work and
those who are committed to multiple roles i.e., doing it all, may have higher life
satisfaction, self-esteem, and self-acceptance. 20

5. “High cohesiveness in a group leads to higher productivity” Do you agree or

disagree? Explain.

Cohesiveness can be defined as the degree to which members are attracted to

each other and motivated to stay in the group. With this statement alone, I must
agree that a stable and utilitarian amount of cohesiveness must provide a group
or an organization the maximum positive economic feedback and performance
that it desires.

As per Szilagyi Jr. and Wallace Jr., there are factors that affect a group’s
cohesiveness.21 The factors that increase factors group cohesiveness are as
follows: a) Agreement on group goals; b) Frequency of interaction; c) Personal
attractiveness; and, d) Intergroup Favorable evaluation. On the other hand, these
are the factors that decrease group cohesiveness, as follows: a) Disagreement
on goals; b) Large group size; c) Unpleasant experiences; d) Intragroup
competition; and, e) Domination by one or more members.

Therefore, it could also be noticed that a constructively interacting group is good

for achieving commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group
cohesiveness, and the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for
generating a large number of ideas. When teams have excess members,
cohesiveness and mutual accountability decline, social loafing increases, and
people communicate less.

For example, a meta-analysis of a number of studies over the years found that
group cohesiveness has a highly significant positive effect on performance. 22
However, of even more importance to group performance may be leadership. For
example, a highly cohesive group that is given positive leadership may have the
highest possible productivity. Organizational characteristics such as explicit
formalized goals, rigid rules and procedures, and cohesive work groups can also
replace formal leadership. In other words, both leadership and group dynamics
factors, such as cohesiveness, can have an important impact on group
performance in organizations.

And, of course, a substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional

conflicts can reduce group effectiveness. A study found that low intragroup
cohesiveness and negative relationships across groups were significantly related
to higher perceptions of intergroup conflict. 23 Among the undesirable
consequences are poor communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and
subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting among members.

This approach is characterized by personal and mutual understanding, tolerance

of individual differences, constructive conflict about substantive matters, realistic
expectations about team performance, and acceptance of the authority structure.
The resulting trust engenders cohesiveness and a free exchange of information
between team members, thus, creating a more harmonious norms that is
coherent and aligned within the organization.

So, what can management do to encourage group cohesiveness? (1) Make the
group smaller, (2) encourage agreement with group goals, (3) increase the time
members spend together, (4) increase the group’s status and the perceived
difficulty of attaining membership, (5) stimulate competition with other groups, (6)
give rewards to the group rather than to individual members, and (7) physically
isolate the group.24

To conclude, as the team members work and socialize with each other,
cohesiveness will be enhanced because of the opportunity to talk with each
other, to discover commonalities, and to share experiences. However,
performance may or may not improve as cohesiveness increases. Improvement
is also contingent on the group’s performance norms. A cohesive group enforces
norms. Thus, if norms are high, greater cohesiveness should result in better
performance.
FOOTNOTES & CITATIONS:
1
Donald L. McCabe and Jane E. Dutton, “Making Sense of the Environment: The Role of Perceived
Effectiveness,” Human Relations, May 1993, pp. 623–643.

2
Spencer A. Rathus, Psychology, 4th ed., Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Fort Worth,Tex., 1990, pp. 613–614.

3
Edgar H. Schein, “Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management,” in David Kolb, Irwin Rubin,
and James McIntyre (Eds.), Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
N.J., 1971, pp. 14–15.

4
Terence R. Mitchell, Charles M. Smyser, and Stan E.Weed, “Locus of Control: Supervision and Work
Satisfaction,” Academy of Management Journal, September 1975, pp. 623–631.

5
The higher performance of internally controlled managers was verified by the use of student subjects in a study
by Carl R.Anderson and Craig Eric Schneier, “Locus of Control, Leader Behavior and Leader Performance
among Management Students,” Academy of Management Journal, December 1978, pp. 690–698. For a more
recent study, see Gary Blau, “Testing the Relationships of Locus of Control to Different Performance
Dimensions,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, June 1993, pp. 125–138.

6
Margaret W. Pryer and M. K. Distenfano, “Perceptions of Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and Internal–External
Control across Three Nursing Levels,” Nursing Research, November–December 1971, pp. 534–537.

7
Eli Glogow, “Research Note: Burnout and Locus of Control,” Public Personnel Management, Spring 1986, p.
79.

8
Danny Miller, Manfred F. R. Kets DeVries, and Jean-Marie Toulouse, “Top Executive Locus of Control and Its
Relationship to Strategy-Making, Structure, and Environment,” Academy of Management Journal, June 1982,
pp. 237–253.
9

Simon S. K. Lam and John Schaubroeck, “The Role of Locus of Control in Reactions to Being Promoted and to
Being Passed Over,” Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 43, No. 1, 2000, pp. 66–78.
10

11

Joanne Silvester, Fiona Mary Anderson-Gough, Neil R. Anderson, and Afandi R. Mohamed, “Locus of Control,
Attributions and Impression Management in the Selection Interview,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology,Vol. 75, 2002, pp. 59–76.

12
J. R. Hackman and G. R. Oldham, “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey,” Journal of Applied Psychology
(April 1975), pp. 159–170; J. J. Hakanen, A. B. Bakker, and M. Jokisaari, “A 35-Year Follow-Up Study on
Burnout Among Finnish Employees,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16, no. 3 (2011), pp. 345–360;
E. R. Crawford, J. A. Lepine, and B. L. Rich, “Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee Engagement
and Burnout,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95, no. 5 (September 1995), pp. 834–848; and G. A. Chung-Yan,
“The Nonlinear Effects of Job Complexity and Autonomy on Job Satisfaction, Turnover, and Psychological Well-
Being,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 15, no. 3 (2010), pp. 237–251.

13
L. L. Meier, N. K. Semmer, A. Elfering, and N. Jacobshagen, “The Double Meaning of Control: Three-Way
Interactions Between Internal Resources, Job Control, and Stressors at Work,” Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 13, no. 3 (2008), pp. 244–258.

14
G. J. Feist and F. X. Barron, “Predicting Creativity from Early to Late Adulthood: Intellect, Potential, and
Personality,” Journal of Research in Personality (April 2003), pp. 62–88.

15
R. W. Woodman, J. E. Sawyer, and R. W. Griffin, “Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity,” Academy of
Management Review (April 1993), p. 298; J. M. George and J. Zhou, “When Openness to Experience and
Conscientiousness Are Related to Creative Behavior: An Interactional Approach,” Journal of Applied Psychology
(June 2001), pp. 513–524; and E. F. Rietzschel, C. K. W. de Dreu, and B. A. Nijstad, “Personal Need for
Structure and Creative Performance: The Moderating Influence of Fear of Invalidity,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin (June 2007),
pp. 855–866.

16
J. R. Hollenbeck, C. R. Williams, and H. J. Klein, “An Empirical Examination of the Antecedents of
Commitment to Difficult Goals,” Journal of Applied Psychology 74, no. 1 (1989), pp. 18–23. See also J. C.
Wofford, V. L. Goodwin, and S. Premack, “Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Personal Goal Level and of the
Antecedents and Consequences of Goal Commitment,” Journal of Management 18, no. 3 (1992), pp. 595–615;
M. E. Tubbs, “Commitment as a Moderator of the Goal-Performance Relation: A Case for Clearer Construct
Definition,” Journal of Applied Psychology 78, no. 1 (1993), pp. 86–97; and J. E. Bono and A. E. Colbert,
“Understanding Responses to Multi-Source Feedback: The Role of Core Self-Evaluations,” Personnel
Psychology 58, no. 1 (2005), pp. 171–203.

17
M. Ozer, “Personal and Task-Related Moderators of Leader-Member Exchange Among Software Developers,”
Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 5 (2008), pp. 1174–1182

18
S. M. Elias, “Employee Commitment in Times of Change: Assessing the Importance of Attitudes Toward
Organizational Change,” Journal of Management 35, no. 1 (2009), pp. 37–55

19
See, for example, G. R. Ferris, G. S. Russ, and P. M. Fandt, “Politics in Organizations,” in R. A. Giacalone and
P. Rosenfeld (eds.), Impression Management in the Organization (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989), pp.
155 156; and W. E. O’Connor and T. G. Morrison, “A Comparison of Situational and Dispositional Predictors of
Perceptions of Organizational Politics,” Journal of Psychology (May 2001), pp. 301–312.

20
Marian N. Ruderman, Patricia J. Ohlott, Kate Panzer, and Sara N. King, “Benefits of Multiple Roles for
Managerial Women,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2002, pp. 369–386; and Samuel Aryee,
E. S. Srinivas, and Hwee Hoon Tan, “Rhythms of Life:Antecedents and Outcomes of Work-Family Balance in
Employed Parents,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 1, 2005, pp. 132–146.
21

Source: Adapted from Andrew D. Szilagyi, Jr., and Marc J. Wallace, Jr., Organizational Behavior and
Performance, 5th ed., Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown, Glenview, Ill., 1990, pp. 282–283.

22
Stanley Schachter, Norris Ellertson, Dorothy McBride, and Doris Gregory, “An Experimental Study of
Cohesiveness and Productivity,” Human Relations,August 1951, pp. 229–239.Also see Jeffrey Polzer, “Making
Diverse Teams Click,” Harvard Business Review,Vol. 86, No. 7/8, 2008, pp. 20–21.

23
Giuseppe Labianca, Daniel Brass, and Barbara Gray, “Social Networks and Perceptions of Intergroup Conflict:
The Role of Negative Relationships and Third Parties,” Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 41, No. 1, 1998,
pp. 55–67.
24

Based on J. L. Gibson, J. M. Ivancevich, and J. H. Donnelly Jr., Organizations, 8th ed. (Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin,
1994), p. 323.