Organizational behavior entails research on individuals within an organizational setting. Such research is crucial for the effective management of organizational structures and requires particular focus on the behavioral traits of individuals while alone (private individuals) as well as in the context of interpersonal relationships such as observed in behavior of individuals while working with others in a professional environment as a team or a group (Sing). Studies on organizational behavior aim at actuating an understanding of the factors influencing groups and individual dynamics within organizational settings for better efficiency and effectiveness of these groups and the overarching organizational structure which facilitates the setting. For example, an understanding of certain psychological and sociological dynamics of individualized identity is essential from a managerial perspective to aid in effective communication between employees and administrative factions within an organization. In addition, this understanding is an essential element of effective impression management and the assimilation of new employees or colleagues into the professional environment of the organization. Organizational behavior draws heavily from sociological and psychological sciences, as well as from concepts and principles of communication theory, to facilitate the maximum degree of communication and collaboration among group members.
Several levels of analysis are applied to understand organizational behavior as an extension of the relationship between behaviors and actions of individuals in the context of situational circumstances presented in the workplace. Behavioral actions on an individual level within the organization are largely a product of a nexus of socio-cultural and environment influences, through which one determines and influences the nature of one’s behavior and actions to correspond the perceived situational conditions and constructed interpretations of identity concerning those with whom the individual directly or indirectly interacts. While there are three levels of analysis which can be conducted to gage the nature of organizational behavior, this research paper will focus on the individual level of analysis which an examination is based on perception, creativity, personality, motivation, and cooperative behavior between individuals. This analysis will incorporate principles and references drawn from the fields of medicine, engineering, and the psychological sciences. More specifically, this research paper will focus on analyzing the nature of conscious perception and attribution in an examination of organizational behavior on an individual level.
Perception can be broadly defined as an individual’s maintenance of contact with one’s environment as well as the internal state of one’s sense of self and conscious awareness. (Parikh & Gupta, 100). It is not difficult to realize the important role played by perception in determining organizational behavior, considering that its consequences are essential for organizations at various levels to function effectively and efficiently. Individual perception influences the nature of one’s beliefs, behaviors and actions both in an intrapersonal and interpersonal setting, such as when working with others in group settings in an organizational structure such as company or non-profit agency. The perception of one’s sense of identity, for instance, is a crucial factor to consider when attempting to regulate or gage organizational behavior. The nature of the relationship between one’s perception of personal identity and the perceived collective identity of the overarching organizational structure of which he or she is a component significantly influences one’s engagement or disillusionment with an organization.
Another crucial component of individual perception on an organizational level is the nature of one’s perception of the role of authority, which fundamentally influences the manner through which an individual will, at least initially, engage with managerial or administrative factions within an organization. Some individuals have experienced instances of notably substandard leadership which have left them slightly jaded and skeptical of individuals in leadership roles, and there are others possess a seemingly inherent distaste for authority, but both require effective organizational leadership to effectively assimilate and productively function in an organizational structure. Furthermore, perception influences behavior that in turn leads to personal, interpersonal, group, and organizational consequences. It is also important to incorporate an understanding of social perception as a category of factors that influence an individual’s perception of others and its impact on organizational behavior. Social perception can broadly be applied to the perceptions of similarity and differences between one’s sense of internalized identity and the socially constructed identities of one’s group members or coworkers, the perception and subjective interpretation of which is dependent on a myriad of factors such as physiological, socio-cultural, socio-economic, ethnic attributes, as well as countless other character traits and personal preferences.
How we judge and interpret both the behavior of ourselves and those in our immediate social environment, as well as the nature of organizational behavior in a structured group setting, could be better understood by studying the role of perception and attribution as faculties of consciousness on an individual level. In this paper, I will give a detailed explanation of perception and its relationship to attribution. In doing so, this analysis will describe behavior not only as a function of preferences, values, and individuality, but also as a function of the situational constraints and demands perceived and experienced on an individual level. Behavior entails interpreting the environment through a subjectively defined lens and through this perception formulating the basis of one’s actions and correlated reactions to the external conditions of one’s social reality. Therefore, perception will be described as a process through which individuals detect, perceive, identify and respond to environmental stimuli.
Human perception is interesting in that it goes beyond the stimuli and information presented by the environment by paying prejudiced attention to some environmental aspects while ignoring others that could be directly ostensible to other people. One example of how this subconsciously prejudicial perception is applied on an individual level yet maintained on an institutional scale within contemporary U.S society is symbolically represented through the epistemological lens applied to the interpretation of subjective conditions defining one’s social reality as a “lower-middle class” of society as being virtually synonymous with or similar to the perceived conditions of all other “middle or lower-middle class” citizens in the U.S. Thus demonstrates how socio-economic status as a citizen in a capitalist society fundamentally influences one’s “prejudiced” perception of identity with other “lower middle class” members of U.S society while causing individuals to ignore the “ostensible” nature of interrelated systems of institutionalized oppression, such as racism or gender based discrimination, which can marginalize members of society to varying degrees. Another example of how perception can transcend the boundaries of external stimuli can be seen in one’s ability to perceive “perception” as a secular psychological or conscious phenomenon while simultaneously being constrained to conceive the nature of “perception” from the subjective conditions of one’s internalized interpretation based in constructed personal reality Thus, perception may, albeit subjectively, be seen as existing simultaneously in both an empirical and metaphysical form. How we perceive our environment is not wholly rational, as we are subject to the influences of such things as conditioned emotive responses to particular environmental stimuli which can elicit seemingly hard-wared responses which can have little or no basis in the situational stimuli of the present moment. This section will seek to further deconstruct the nature of perception to demonstrate that it is a systematic process comprised of various sub-processes such as selection, filtering, distortion, organizing, interpretation, feedback, and the resultant behavior (Singh, 99). Various elements of perception will also be briefly discussed such as the perceiver, the target, and the situation or perceptual context (Parikh & Gupta, 101) (Nelson & Quick, 47).
I will now seek to explore on how perception influences organizational behavior by describing how humanity perceives visual objects, such as the logo or other iconic references to the organizational struggle to which and individual identifies, as well as the effects that such tendencies have on behavior in an organizational setting on both an intrapersonal and interpersonal scale. The section will cover common tendencies engaged in by individuals and groups when perceiving other people and items through critically examining how the processes of perception and forms of perception bias, as well the influence of attribution processes, as the and the consequences emanating from such perceptions. Kelley’s attribution model/theory in social perception will be used to briefly explain individuals’ behaviors. Kelley employs three factors in his theory which will be utilized for this analysis: consistency, consensus and distinctiveness (Parikh & Gupta, 103).
The paper will then correlate attribution and perception to decisions and behavior through discussing Herold Kelley’s Attribution theory to define attribution and correlate it to perception (Singh, 106). The theory, in a nutshell, states that when we view a person’s behavior, we try to determine whether it was caused externally or internally. More specifically, the theory draws upon inferential logical in the assertion that observation of behavior arises from the principle of “co-variation” and thus a behavior or action witnessed by one individual as performed by another is interpreted through the application of three sets of “co-variable data” to determine the casual nature of the behavior in question.(Hawa) Kelley’s Theory states that the cause of an event must be present during the period which the event occurs and absent when the event stops or otherwise fails to occur.(Hawa) Individuals employ three systems of co-variation in their assessment of the casual origin of observed behavior, which are defined as Consistence, Consensus and Distinctiveness. Consensus refers whether other individuals behave in an identical or similar manner in the context of identical or similar circumstances. Consistency refers to the interpretation of whether an individual behaves in an identical or similar manner in response to identical or similar stimuli from one incident to the next. Finally, Distinctiveness is used to refer to the manner through which an individual adapts or fails to adapt his or her behavior to changes in situational circumstances. ( Parikh & Gupta, 103). fundamentally similar manner Thus we attempt to externally attribute an individual’s behavior as an expected/appropriate or unexpected/deviant response to external environmental/situational stimuli, or as motivated more by external stimuli or internal components of one’s subjective perception of self and reality at large.
This section will also discuss Weiner’s explanation for attribution regarding the dimensions of controllability, stability, and locus control. Weiner’s Theory of Attribution functions upon the assertion that individuals inherently seek to understand the causal nature of the behavior of others through the subconscious application of a three-stage process in which an individual must perceive or observe a behavior and determine this behavior as either consciously intentional or unintentional, as well as if the individual engaging in the behavior is “forced” by external conditions.( Parikh & Gupta, 103) Furthermore, this process is based upon three causal dimensions of controllability, stability and locus control. Locus control is a casual dimension which represents both an internal and external “pole”, which in turn symbolically represents the distinction between external and internalized stimuli as casual origins of behavior. The cause of stability demonstrates whether a cause changes over time, such as “ability” which can be defined as a “stable, internal” cause as opposed to “effort” which is “instable and internal” due to its transitory nature. (Hawa) Controllability demonstrates the contrast between causes one can control, such as one’s physical stamina or level of educational attainment, with clauses beyond the individual’s immediate control, such as the weather or luck. Weiner’s model is significant due to the manner through which it correlates people’s perception, feelings, and behavior in causal relationships top the principles of attribution, and motivation which in turn affect their efforts to participate in or deviate from his or her role in an organizational setting. Thus a fundamental understanding of Weiner’s Attribution Theory will provide individuals on all levels within an organizational structure to encourage and maintain an appropriate degree of reciprocal professional decorum and behavior to maintain the effective function of the group dynamic within the workforce.
The next discussion will focus on understanding the common perceptual biases or errors concerning perception and attribution. Such biases could be related to self-perception, which can be considered as the irrational or otherwise inaccurate perception of one’s sense of social identity or perceived physiological capacities in response to situational circumstances such as the responsibilities of individuals engaged in a group project within an organization such as a business or company. individuals engage into a group setting each possessing an inherent system of predetermined standards which largely guide one’s organizational behavior in group settings and the perceived inherent sense of influence or authority in circumstances necessitating effective leadership or innovative solutions. One primary form of perception bias is the
as perception self-enhancement bias, which is the tendency to overestimate one’s performance and abilities and see oneself more positively than as perceived by others. The second self-perception error is the “false consensus error,” which is the tendency to overestimate the similarities between one’s self and another person. The overarching influence of perceptual bias extends to our conscious and subconscious interpretation of virtually every element of our perceived reality, which itself is also predisposed to the constraints of one’s personality, feelings, values, and emotions.
On attribution errors, the focus will be made on the fundamental attribution error that involves ‘taking’ credit for an achievement while blaming either the environment or other persons for failure. I will also cover optimistic bias, where an individual view himself more successful than the target. The third bias to be discussed at this stage will be the self-serving bias that is a tendency of persons to attribute their activities to situational factors when they fail but proclaims internal attributions for victory (Parikh & Gupta, 106).
Moreover, the manner in which we perceive others contributes to our behavior that in turn shapes another person’s behavior while interacting with him/her. This phenomenon is referred to as the social perception. Similar to self-perception, social perception also has its errors. Such errors include the irrational conscious process of judgement based on stereotypes, in which the perceiver has a tendency of evaluating the social identity or defining characteristics of the perceived individual or group of individuals based on prejudicially predetermined interpretations of archetypal identity, such perceiving members of a particular ethnic group with racist or xenophobic stereotypes with no basis in objective reality. Social perception directed through stereotypical references irrationally reinforces a fundamentally superficial application of attribution to reconcile the perceived nature of behavior by members of a particular group with inherent beliefs based in prejudiced perception regarding the group or class to which the target fits (Singh, 104).
Another error is the “halo effect,” which describes the prejudiced perception that occurs during an individual’s judgment of another individual or group of individuals in which a target is judged favorably by the selective perception of a sole single positive trait. One example of the practical application of the halo effect in the context of contemporary society which as at once ironic yet effective is the manner through which this perceptual error is employed by followers or orthodox religions like Christianity to affix an inherent sense of moral integrity in their judgement of other individuals who identify as Christians or members or other respective religious sects. This predefined ascription of moral integrity and overarching favorable influence of other individuals who share one’s identity with a particular religious sect despite any objective proof to establish such judgements is just one example of how the “halo effect” is incorporated within the context of a socially stratified society to reinforce a distorted social perception of collective identity based on irrationally superficial attribution. The third error is defined as “projection”, which is the process whereby an individual irrationally assumes that other individuals the matrix of his or her interpersonal networks feel and think in the same manner as he or she does in a particular situation. This error is undoubtedly also motivated by the irrational subconscious attribution of the perceived behavior and actions of others as to the same casual origins interpreted by the individual in his or her subjective perception of direct experience.
The final component of this paper will explore how perceptual, and attribution errors could be reduced. This section will focus on impression management to shape others’ perception to attain organizational success. Impression management is a tool that plays a significant role in managerial efficacy. Management deals with numerous constituencies comprising of differing expectations, demands, and interests. Therefore, it is necessary to keep those constituencies contented as they control valuable resources. Since such resources are important for the organization’s performance, it becomes imperative for management to manage impressions. While errors in perception and attribution will undoubtedly impact the behavior of individuals in group settings and within organizational structures, impression management exists as an effective countermeasure to combat these fallacies of distorted consciousness which can have a significant positive impact on regulating organizational behavior on both an individual and collective level Impression management is a critical component within administrative and managerial factions of an organizational structure, as it is necessary to establish and maintain an impression of effective leadership and democratic dialogue among individuals as well through the perceived identity of the company or organizational structure itself.
In summary, it is fundamentally important that members of an organizational structure, particularly those in roles of authority, have a fundamental understanding of how conscious and subconscious process such as perceptual and attribution based judgements influence the actions and behaviors of individuals both on an intrapersonal and interpersonal basis, such as through individual participation in group based activities. A working knowledge of these concepts is also important for members of management or administration to practically apply them in the context of daily operational routine to mediate potential conflicts between conflicting constellations of perception and attribution based judgments among employees and thus more effectively facilitate uninterrupted productivity in the workplace. Conceptual countermeasures such as impression management should also be employed to impose an overarching system of guidelines dictating the parameters of professional behavior within and collective identity of an organizational structure.
of orientation between one’s sense of self, the perceived identity of other individuals populating his or her social reality, and
I will then give recommendations on the steps to control the perception process that include: self-awareness, avoiding regular perceptual distortions, avoiding inappropriate attributions, being empathetic, knowing oneself, and diversifying management programs (Singh, 109). The paper will then end with a conclusion of the research project and recommendation for further study on the topic. Such a proposal is calling for research on how perception and attribution could be nurtured to induce motivation within organizations fostering a conducive organizational behavior and success.
Works Cited
Dr. Hawa Singh. Organisational Behavior. 2010-11st ed. New Delhi, IN: FK Publications, 2011. Print.
Nelson, Debra L., and James C. Quick. ORGB 4. 200 First Stamford Place, 4th Floor, Stamford Place, CT 06902: Cengage Learning. Print.
Parikh, Margie, and Rajen K. Gupta. Organisational Behaviour. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Education Pte., 2010. Print.
