14
Conflict and Negotiation
MyManagementLab
®
Improve Your Grade!
When you see this icon , visit mymanagementlab.com for activities that are
applied, personalized, and offer immediate feedback.
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the three types of conflict and the three loci of conflict.
2. Outline the conflict process.
3. Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining.
4. Apply the five steps of the negotiation process.
5. Show how individual differences influence negotiations.
6. Describe the social factors that influence negotiations.
7. Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiations.
Chapter Warm-up
If your professor has chosen to assign this, go to the Assignments section of
mymanagementlab.com to complete the chapter warm-up.
A Definition of Conflict
Conflict
A process that begins
when one party
perceives that another
party has negatively
affected, or is about
to negatively affect,
something that the first
party cares about.
There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict,1 but common to most is the idea that
conflict is a perception of differences or opposition. If no one is aware of a conflict, then
it is generally agreed no conflict exists. Opposition or incompatibility, as well as interaction, are also needed to begin the conflict process.
We define conflict broadly as a process that begins when one party perceives another
party has affected or is about to negatively affect something the first party cares about.
Conflict describes the point in ongoing activity when interaction becomes disagreement.
People experience a wide range of conflicts in organizations over an incompatibility of
226
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 226
16/09/16 2:15 PM
Chapter 14 • Conflict and Negotiation 227
goals, differences in interpretations of facts, disagreements over behavioral expectations,
and the like. Our definition covers the full range of conflict levels, from overt and violent
acts to subtle forms of disagreement.
Contemporary perspectives differentiate types of conflict based on their effects.
Functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves its performance, and
is thus a constructive form of conflict. For example, a debate among members of a work
team about the most efficient way to improve production can be functional if unique
points of view are discussed and compared openly. Conflict that hinders group performance is destructive or dysfunctional conflict. A highly personal struggle for control that
distracts from the task at hand in a team is dysfunctional. Exhibit 14-1 provides an overview depicting the effect of levels of conflict. To understand different types of conflict,
we will discuss next the types of conflict and the loci of conflict.
Functional conflict
Conflict that supports
the goals of the group
and improves its
performance.
Dysfunctional conflict
Conflict that hinders
group performance.
Unit Performance
(High)
B
A
(Low)
C
Level of Conflict
Situation
Level of
Conflict
Type of
Conflict
Unit’s Internal
Characteristics
Unit Performance
Outcome
Apathetic
Stagnant
Nonresponsive
to change
Lack of new
ideas
Low
Viable
Self-critical
Innovative
High
Disruptive
Chaotic
Uncooperative
Low
A
Low
or
none
Dysfunctional
B
Optimal
Functional
C
High
Dysfunctional
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 227
(High)
Exhibit 14-1
The Effect of
Levels of Conflict
16/09/16 2:15 PM
228 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics
Types of Conflict
Relationship conflict
Conflict based on
interpersonal
relationships.
Task conflict
Conflict over content
and goals of the work.
Process conflict
Conflict over how
work gets done.
One means of understanding conflict is to identify the type of disagreement, or what the
conflict is about. Is it a disagreement about goals? Is it about people who just rub one
another the wrong way? Or is it about the best way to get things done? Although each
conflict is unique, researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: relationship, task, or process. Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships. Task
conflict relates to the content and goals of the work. Process conflict is about how the
work gets done.
Relationship Conflict Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in
work settings, are almost always dysfunctional. Why? It appears that the friction and
interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and
decrease mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks.
Of the three types, relationship conflicts also appear to be the most psychologically
exhausting to individuals. Because they tend to revolve around personalities, you can see
how relationship conflicts can become destructive. After all, we can’t expect to change
our coworkers’ personalities, and we would generally take offense at criticisms directed
at who we are as opposed to how we behave.
While scholars agree that relationship conflict is dysfunctional, there is
considerably less agreement about whether task and process conflicts are functional. Early
research suggested that task conflict within groups correlated to higher group performance,
but a review of 116 studies found that generalized task conflict was essentially unrelated
to group performance. However, close examination revealed that task conflict among top
management teams was positively associated with performance, whereas conflict lower
in the organization was negatively associated with group performance, perhaps because
people in top positions may not feel as threatened in their organizational roles by conflict.
This review also found that it mattered whether other types of conflict were occurring
at the same time. If task and relationship conflict occurred together, task conflict more
likely was negative, whereas if task conflict occurred by itself, it more likely was positive.
Other scholars have argued that the strength of conflict is important: if task conflict is
very low, people aren’t really engaged or addressing the important issues; if task conflict
is too high, infighting will quickly degenerate into relationship conflict. Moderate levels
of task conflict may thus be optimal. Supporting this argument, one study in China found
that moderate levels of task conflict in the early development stage increased creativity in
groups, but high levels decreased team performance.2
Finally, the personalities of the teams appear to matter. One study demonstrated
that teams of individuals who are, on average, high in openness and emotional stability
are better able to turn task conflict into increased group performance. The reason may be
that open and emotionally stable teams can put task conflict in perspective and focus on
how the variance in ideas can help solve the problem, rather than letting it degenerate into
relationship conflicts.
Task Conflict
Process Conflict What about process conflict? Researchers found that process
conflicts are about delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around the
perception that some members as shirking, and conflicts over roles can leave some group
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 228
16/09/16 2:15 PM
Chapter 14 • Conflict and Negotiation 229
members feeling marginalized. Thus, process conflicts often become highly personalized
and quickly devolve into relationship conflicts. It’s also true, of course, that arguing about
how to do something takes time away from actually doing it. We’ve all been part of groups
in which the arguments and debates about roles and responsibilities seem to go nowhere.
Loci of Conflict
Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or the framework within
which the conflict occurs. Here, too, there are three basic types. Dyadic conflict is conflict between two people. Intragroup conflict occurs within a group or team. Intergroup
conflict is conflict between groups or teams.
Nearly all the literature on relationship, task, and process conflicts considers intragroup conflict (within the group). That makes sense given that groups and teams often
exist only to perform a particular task. However, it doesn’t necessarily tell us all we need
to know about the context and outcomes of conflict. For example, research has found
that for intragroup task conflict to positively influence performance within the team, it is
important that the team has a supportive climate in which mistakes aren’t penalized and
every team member “[has] the other’s back.”3 But is this concept applicable to the effects
of intergroup conflict? Think about, say, NFL football. As we said, for a team to adapt and
improve, perhaps a certain amount of intragroup conflict (but not too much) is good for
team performance, especially when the team members support one another. But would we
care whether members from one team supported members from another team? Probably
not. In fact, if groups are competing with one another so that only one team can “win,”
conflict seems almost inevitable. Still, it must be managed. Intense intergroup conflict
can be quite stressful to group members and might well affect the way they interact. One
study found, for example, that high levels of conflict between teams caused individuals to
focus on complying with norms within their teams.4
It may surprise you how certain individuals become most important during intergroup conflicts. One study that focused on intergroup conflict found an interplay between
an individual’s position within a group and the way that individual managed conflict
between groups. Group members who were relatively peripheral in their own group were
better at resolving conflicts between their group and another one. But this happened only
when those peripheral members were still accountable to their groups, and the effect can
be confounded by dyadic conflicts.5 Thus, being at the core of your work group does not
necessarily make you the best person to manage conflict with other groups.
Altogether, understanding functional and dysfunctional conflict requires not only
that we identify the type of conflict; we also need to know where it occurs. It’s possible
that while the concepts of relationship, task, and process conflicts are useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conflict, they are less useful in explaining the effects
of intergroup conflict. But how do we make conflict as productive as possible? A better
understanding of the conflict process, discussed next, will provide insight about potential
controllable variables.
The Conflict Process
The conflict process has five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition
and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes (see Exhibit 14-2).
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 229
Dyadic conflict
Conflict that occurs
between two people.
Intragroup conflict
Conflict that occurs
within a group or team.
Intergroup conflict
Conflict between
different groups or
teams.
Conflict process
A process that
has five stages:
potential opposition
or incompatibility,
cognition and
personalization,
intentions, behavior,
and outcomes.
16/09/16 2:15 PM
230 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics
Exhibit 14-2
The Conflict
Process
Stage I
Stage II
Potential opposition Cognition and
or incompatibility personalization
Antecedent conditions
• Communication
• Structure
• Personal variables
Perceived
conflict
Felt
conflict
Stage III
Stage IV
Stage V
Intentions
Behavior
Outcomes
Conflict-handling
intentions
• Competing
• Collaborating
• Compromising
• Avoiding
• Accommodating
Overt conflict
• Party’s
behavior
• Other’s
reaction
Increased
group
performance
Decreased
group
performance
Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility
The first stage of conflict is the appearance of conditions—causes or sources—that create
opportunities for it to arise. These conditions need not lead directly to conflict, but one of
them is necessary if it is to surface. We group the conditions into three general categories:
communication, structure, and personal variables.
Communication Communication can be a source of conflict.6 There are opposing
forces that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the
communication channel (see Chapter 11). These factors, along with jargon and insufficient
information, can be barriers to communication and potential antecedent conditions to
conflict. The potential for conflict has also been found to increase with too little or
too much communication. Communication is functional up to a point, after which it is
possible to overcommunicate, increasing the potential for conflict.
Structure The term structure in this context includes variables such as size of group,
degree of specialization in tasks assigned to group members, jurisdictional clarity,
member–goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and degree of dependence
between groups. The larger the group and the more specialized its activities, the greater
the likelihood of conflict. Tenure and conflict are inversely related, meaning that the
longer a person stays with an organization, the less likely conflict becomes. Therefore,
the potential for conflict is greatest when group members are newer to the organization
and when turnover is high.
Personal Variables Our last category of potential sources of conflict is personal
variables, which include personality, emotions, and values. People high in the personality
traits of disagreeableness, neuroticism, or self-monitoring (see Chapter 5) are prone to
tangle with other people more often—and to react poorly when conflicts occur.7 Emotions
can cause conflict even when they are not directed at others. For example, an employee
who shows up to work irate from her hectic morning commute may carry that anger into
her workday, which can result in a tension-filled meeting.8 Furthermore, differences in
preferences and values can generate increased levels of conflict. For example, a study
in Korea found that when group members didn’t agree about their desired achievement
levels, there was more task conflict; when group members didn’t agree about their desired
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 230
16/09/16 2:15 PM
Chapter 14 • Conflict and Negotiation 231
interpersonal closeness levels, there was more relationship conflict; and when group
members didn’t have similar desires for power, there was more conflict over status.9
Stage II: Cognition and Personalization
If the conditions cited in Stage I negatively affect something one party cares about, then
the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage.
As we noted in our definition of conflict, one or more of the parties must be aware
that antecedent conditions exist. However, just because a disagreement is a perceived
conflict does not mean it is personalized. It is at the felt conflict level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that they experience anxiety, tension, frustration, or
hostility.
Stage II is important because it’s where conflict issues tend to be defined, where the
parties decide what the conflict is about.10 The definition of conflict is important because
it delineates the set of possible settlements. Most evidence suggests that people tend to
default to cooperative strategies in interpersonal interactions unless there is a clear signal
that they are faced with a competitive person. However, if our disagreement regarding,
say, your salary is a zero-sum situation (the increase in pay you want means there will be
that much less in the raise pool for me), I am going to be far less willing to compromise
than if I can frame the conflict as a potential win–win situation (the dollars in the salary
pool might be increased so both of us could get the added pay we want).
Second, emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions.11 Negative emotions
allow us to oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpretations on the other
party’s behavior.12 In contrast, positive feelings increase our tendency to see potential
relationships among elements of a problem, take a broader view of the situation, and
develop innovative solutions.13
Perceived conflict
Awareness by one
or more parties of
the existence of
conditions that create
opportunities for
conflict to arise.
Felt conflict
Emotional involvement
in a conflict that
creates anxiety,
tenseness, frustration,
or hostility.
Stage III: Intentions
Intentions intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions, and their overt behavior. They are decisions to act in a given way.14 There is slippage between intentions and
behavior, so behavior does not always accurately reflect a person’s intentions.
Using two dimensions—assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts
to satisfy his or her own concerns) and cooperativeness (the degree to which one
party attempts to satisfy the other party’s concerns)—we can identify five conflicthandling intentions: competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive
and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (mid-range on both assertiveness and
cooperativeness).15
Intentions are not always fixed. During the course of a conflict, intentions might
change if a party is able to see the other’s point of view or to respond emotionally to
the other’s behavior. People generally have preferences among the five conflict-handling
intentions. We can predict a person’s intentions rather well from a combination of intellectual and personality characteristics.
Competing When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests regardless of the
impact on the other parties in the conflict, that person is competing. We are more apt to
compete when resources are scarce.
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 231
Intentions
Decisions to act in a
given way.
Competing
A desire to satisfy
one’s interests,
regardless of the
impact on the other
party to the conflict.
16/09/16 2:15 PM
232 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics
Collaborating When parties in conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns
Collaborating
A situation in which
the parties to a conflict
each desire to satisfy
fully the concerns of
all parties.
Avoiding
The desire to withdraw
from or suppress a
conflict.
Accommodating
The willingness of one
party in a conflict to
place the opponent’s
interests above his or
her own.
Compromising
A situation in which
each party to a conflict
is willing to give up
something.
of all parties, there is cooperation and a search for a mutually beneficial outcome. In
collaborating, parties intend to solve a problem by clarifying differences rather than by
accommodating various points of view. If you attempt to find a win–win solution that
allows both parties’ goals to be completely achieved, that’s collaborating.
Avoiding A person may recognize a conflict exists and want to withdraw from or
suppress it. Examples of avoiding include trying to ignore a conflict and keeping away
from others with whom you disagree.
Accommodating A party who seeks to appease an opponent may be willing to place
the opponent’s interests above his or her own, sacrificing to maintain the relationship. We
refer to this intention as accommodating. Supporting someone else’s opinion despite
your reservations about it, for example, is accommodating.
Compromising In compromising, there is no winner or loser. Rather, there is a
willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a solution with incomplete
satisfaction of both parties’ concerns. The distinguishing characteristic of compromising,
therefore, is that each party intends to give up something.
A review that examined the effects of the four sets of behaviors across multiple
studies found that openness and collaborating were both associated with superior group
performance, whereas avoiding and competing strategies were associated with significantly worse group performance.16 These effects were nearly as large as the effects of
relationship conflict. This further demonstrates that it is not just the existence of conflict
or even the type of conflict that creates problems, but rather the ways people respond to
conflict and manage the process once conflicts arise.
Stage IV: Behavior
Stage IV is a dynamic process of interaction. For example, you make a demand on me,
I respond by arguing, you threaten me, I threaten you back, and so on. Exhibit 14-3
provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. Each behavioral stage in a conflict is
built upon a foundation. At the lowest point are perceptions, misunderstandings, and differences of opinions. These may grow to subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms
Overt
attacks
Verbal disputes, negative
moods, protective behaviors
Differing perceptions
Exhibit 14-3
Dynamic Escalation of Conflict
Sources: P. T. Coleman, R. R. Vallacher, A. Nowak, and L. Bui-Wrzosinska, “Intractable Conflict as an Attractor: A
Dynamical Systems Approach to Conflict Escalation and Intractability,” The American Behavioral Scientist 50, no. 11
(2007): 1545–75; K. K. Petersen, “Conflict Escalation in Dyads with a History of Territorial Disputes,” International
Journal of Conflict Management 21, no. 4 (2010): 415–33.
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 232
16/09/16 2:15 PM
Chapter 14 • Conflict and Negotiation 233
of tension, such as a student challenging a point the instructor has made. Conflict can
intensify until it becomes highly destructive. Strikes, riots, and wars clearly fall in this
upper range. Conflicts that reach the upper ranges of the continuum are almost always
dysfunctional. Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower levels.
In conflict, intentions are translated into certain likely behaviors. Competing brings
out active attempts to contend with team members, and greater individual effort to achieve
ends without working together. Collaborating efforts create an investigation of multiple solutions with other members of the team and trying to find a solution that satisfies all parties
as much as possible. Avoidance is seen in behavior like refusals to discuss issues and reductions in effort toward group goals. People who accommodate put their relationships ahead
of the issues in the conflict, deferring to others’ opinions and sometimes acting as a subgroup with them. Finally, when people compromise, they both expect to (and do) sacrifice
parts of their interests, hoping that if everyone does the same, an agreement will sift out.
If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what options exist if conflict is too low to be functional and needs to be increased?
This brings us to techniques of conflict management. We have already described several
techniques in terms of conflict-handling intentions. Under ideal conditions, a person’s
intentions should translate into comparable behaviors.
Stage V: Outcomes
Conflict management
The use of resolution
and stimulation
techniques to achieve
the desired level of
conflict.
The action–reaction interplay between conflicting parties creates consequences. As our
model demonstrates (see Exhibit 14-1), these outcomes may be functional if the conflict
improves the group’s performance, or dysfunctional if it hinders performance.
Functional Outcomes Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of
decisions, stimulates creativity and innovation, encourages interest and curiosity among
group members, provides the medium for problems to be aired and tensions released, and
fosters self-evaluation and change. Mild conflicts also may generate energizing emotions
so members of groups become more active and engaged in their work.17
Conflict is an antidote for groupthink (see Chapter 9). Conflict doesn’t allow the
group to passively rubber-stamp decisions that may be based on weak assumptions, inadequate consideration of relevant alternatives, or other debilities. Conflict challenges
the status quo and furthers the creation of new ideas, promotes reassessment of group
goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group will respond to change.
An open discussion focused on higher-order goals can make functional outcomes more
likely. Groups that are extremely polarized do not manage their underlying disagreements
effectively and tend to accept suboptimal solutions, or they avoid making decisions altogether rather than work out the conflict.18 Research studies in diverse settings confirm the
functionality of active discussion. Team members with greater differences in work styles
and experience tend to share more information with one another.19
Dysfunctional Outcomes The destructive consequences of conflict on the
performance of a group or an organization are generally well known: Uncontrolled
opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties and eventually leads to
the destruction of the group. A substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional
conflicts can reduce group effectiveness.20 Among the undesirable consequences are poor
communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 233
16/09/16 2:15 PM
234 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics
the primacy of infighting among members. All forms of conflict—even the functional
varieties—appear to reduce group member satisfaction and trust.21 When active
discussions turn into open conflicts between members, information sharing between
members decreases significantly.22 At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning
to a halt and threaten the group’s survival.
Managing Conflict One of the keys to minimizing counterproductive conflicts
is recognizing when there really is a disagreement. Many apparent conflicts are due
to people using different verbiage to discuss the same general course of action. For
example, someone in marketing might focus on “distribution problems,” while someone
from operations talks about “supply chain management” to describe essentially the
same issue. Successful conflict management recognizes these different approaches and
attempts to resolve them by encouraging open, frank discussions focused on interests
rather than issues. Another approach is to have opposing groups pick parts of the solution
that are most important to them and then focus on how each side can get its top needs
satisfied. Neither side may get exactly what it wants, but each side will achieve the most
important parts of its agenda.23 Third, groups that resolve conflicts successfully discuss
differences of opinion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises.24 An
open discussion makes it much easier to develop a shared perception of the problems
at hand; it also allows groups to work toward a mutually acceptable solution. Fourth,
managers need to emphasize shared interests in resolving conflicts, so groups that
disagree with one another don’t become too entrenched in their points of view and start
to take the conflicts personally. Groups with cooperative conflict styles and a strong
underlying identification with the overall group goals are more effective than groups with
a competitive style.25
Cultural Influences Differences across countries in conflict resolution strategies
may be based on collectivistic versus individualistic (see Chapter 4) tendencies and
motives. Collectivistic cultures see people as deeply embedded in social situations,
whereas individualistic cultures see them as autonomous. As a result, collectivists are
more likely to seek to preserve relationships and promote the good of the group as
a whole, and they prefer indirect methods for resolving differences of opinion. One
study suggests that top management teams in Chinese high-technology firms prefer
collaboration even more than compromising and avoiding. Collectivists may also be
more interested in demonstrations of concern and working through third parties to
resolve disputes, whereas individualists will be more likely to confront differences of
opinion directly and openly.
Cross-cultural negotiations can create issues of trust.26 One study of Indian and
U.S. negotiators found that respondents reported having less trust in their cross-culture
negotiation counterparts. The lower level of trust was associated with less discovery of
common interests between parties, which occurred because cross-culture negotiators
were less willing to disclose and solicit information. Another study found that both U.S.
and Chinese negotiators tended to have an ingroup bias, which led them to favor negotiating partners from their own cultures. For Chinese negotiators, this was particularly true
when accountability requirements were high.
Having considered conflict—its nature, causes, and consequences—we now turn to
negotiation, which often resolves conflict.
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 234
16/09/16 2:15 PM
Chapter 14 • Conflict and Negotiation 235
Watch It
If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of
mymanagementlab.com to complete the video exercise titled Gordon Law
Group: Conflict and Negotiation.
Negotiation
Negotiation permeates the interactions of almost everyone in groups and organizations.
There’s the obvious: Labor bargains with management. There’s the not-so-obvious: managers negotiate with employees, peers, and bosses; salespeople negotiate with customers;
purchasing agents negotiate with suppliers. Then there’s the subtle: an employee agrees to
cover for a colleague for a few minutes in exchange for a future favor. In today’s loosely
structured organizations, in which members often work with colleagues over whom they
have no direct authority and with whom they may not even share a common boss, negotiation skills are critical.
We can define negotiation as a process that occurs when two or more parties decide how to allocate scarce resources.27 Although we commonly think of the
outcomes of negotiation in one-shot economic terms, like negotiating over the price
of a car, every negotiation in organizations also affects the relationship between negotiators and the way negotiators feel about themselves.28 Depending on how much
the parties are going to interact with one another, sometimes maintaining the social
relationship and behaving ethically will be just as important as achieving an immediate outcome of bargaining. Note that we use the terms negotiation and bargaining
interchangeably.
Negotiation
A process in which
two or more parties
exchange goods or
services and attempt to
agree on the exchange
rate for them.
Bargaining Strategies
There are two general approaches to negotiation—distributive bargaining and integrative
bargaining.29 As Exhibit 14-4 shows, they differ in their goals and motivation, focus, interests, information sharing, and duration of relationship. Let’s define each and illustrate
the differences.
Bargaining
Characteristic
Distributive
Bargaining
Integrative
Bargaining
Goal
Get as much of the pie as
possible
Expand the pie so that both
parties are satisfied
Motivation
Win–lose
Win–win
Focus
Positions (“I can’t go
beyond this point on this
issue.”)
Interests (“Can you explain why
this issue is so important to you?”)
Interests
Opposed
Congruent
Information sharing
Low (Sharing information
will only allow other party
to take advantage)
High (Sharing information will
allow each party to find ways to
satisfy interests of each party)
Duration of relationship
Short term
Long term
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 235
Exhibit 14-4
Distributive
Versus
Integrative
Bargaining
16/09/16 2:15 PM
236 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics
Distributive Bargaining You see a used car advertised for sale online that looks
Distributive
bargaining
Negotiation that seeks
to divide up a fixed
amount of resources; a
win–lose situation.
Fixed pie
The belief that there is
only a set amount of
goods or services to be
divvied up between the
parties.
Integrative bargaining
Negotiation that seeks
one or more settlements that can create a
win–win solution.
great. You go see the car. It’s perfect, and you want it. The owner tells you the asking
price. You don’t want to pay that much. The two of you negotiate. The negotiating strategy
you’re engaging in is called distributive bargaining. Its identifying feature is that it
operates under zero-sum conditions—that is, any gain I make is at your expense, and vice
versa (see Chapter 13). Every dollar you can get the seller to cut from the car’s price is a
dollar you save, and every dollar the seller can get from you comes at your expense. The
essence of distributive bargaining is negotiating over who gets what share of a fixed pie.
By fixed pie, we mean a set amount of goods or services to be divvied up. When the pie
is fixed, or the parties believe it is, they tend to bargain distributively.
The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14-5. Parties A and B
represent two negotiators. Each has a target point that defines what he or she would like to
achieve. Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest acceptable outcome—
the point beyond which the party would break off negotiations rather than accept a less
favorable settlement. The area between these two points makes up each party’s aspiration
range. As long as there is some overlap between A’s and B’s aspiration ranges, there exists
a settlement range in which each one’s aspirations can be met.
When you are engaged in distributive bargaining, one of the best things you can do
is make the first offer and make it an aggressive one. Making the first offer shows power;
individuals in power are much more likely to make initial offers, speak first at meetings,
and thereby gain the advantage. Another reason this is a good strategy is the anchoring
bias, mentioned in Chapter 6. People tend to fixate on initial information. Once that anchoring point has been set, they fail to adequately adjust it based on subsequent information. A savvy negotiator sets an anchor with the initial offer, and scores of negotiation
studies show that such anchors greatly favor the person who sets them.30
Integrative Bargaining Jake was a Chicago luxury boutique owned by Jim
Wetzel and Lance Lawson. In the early days of the business, Wetzel and Lawson
moved millions of dollars of merchandise from many up-and-coming designers. They
developed such a good rapport that many designers would send allotments to Jake
without requiring advance payment. When the economy soured in 2008, Jake had
trouble selling inventory, and designers were not being paid for what they had shipped
to the store. Despite the fact that many designers were willing to work with the store on
a delayed payment plan, Wetzel and Lawson stopped returning their calls. Lamented one
designer, Doo-Ri Chung, “You kind of feel this familiarity with people who supported
you for so long. When they have cash-flow issues, you want to make sure you are there
for them as well.”31 Chung’s attitude shows the promise of integrative bargaining. In
contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining assumes that one or more of
Party A’s aspiration range
Settlement
range
Exhibit 14-5
Staking Out the
Bargaining Zone
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 236
Party A’s
target
point
Party B’s
resistance
point
Party B’s aspiration range
Party A’s
resistance
point
Party B’s
target
point
16/09/16 2:15 PM
Chapter 14 • Conflict and Negotiation 237
the possible settlements can create a win–win solution. Of course, as the Jake example
shows, both parties must be engaged for integrative bargaining to work.
Choosing Bargaining Methods In terms of intraorganizational behavior,
integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining because the former builds
long-term relationships. Integrative bargaining bonds negotiators and allows them to
leave the bargaining table feeling they have achieved a victory. Distributive bargaining,
however, leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosity and deepen divisions when
people have to work together on an ongoing basis. Research shows that over repeated
bargaining episodes, a losing party who feels positively about the negotiation outcome is
much more likely to bargain cooperatively in subsequent negotiations.
Why, then, don’t we see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answer
lies in the conditions necessary for it to succeed. These include opposing parties who are
open with information and candid about concerns, are sensitive to the other’s needs and
trust, and maintain flexibility. Because these conditions seldom exist in organizations,
negotiations often take a win-at-any-cost dynamic.
Compromise and accommodation may be your worst enemy in negotiating a win–
win agreement. Both reduce the pressure to bargain integratively. After all, if you or your
opponent caves in easily, no one needs to be creative to reach a settlement. Consider a
classic example in which two siblings are arguing over who gets an orange. Unknown to
them, one sibling wants the orange to drink the juice, whereas the other wants the orange
peel to bake a cake. If one capitulates and gives the other the orange, they will not be
forced to explore their reasons for wanting the orange, and thus they will never find the
win–win solution: They could each have the orange because they want different parts.
The Negotiation Process
Exhibit 14-6 provides a simplified model of the negotiation process. It views negotiation
as made up of five steps: (1) preparation and planning, (2) definition of ground rules,
Preparation and
planning
Definition of
ground rules
Clarification and
justification
Bargaining and
problem solving
Closure and
implementation
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 237
Exhibit 14-6
The Negotiation
Process
16/09/16 2:15 PM
238 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics
(3) clarification and justification, (4) bargaining and problem solving, and (5) closure and
implementation.32
This may be the most important part of the
process. Before you start negotiating, do your homework. What’s the nature of the
conflict? What’s the history leading up to this negotiation? Who’s involved and what
are their perceptions of the conflict? Then consider your goals, in writing, with
a range of outcomes from “most helpful” to “minimally acceptable.” If you’re a
supply manager at Dell Computer, for instance, and your goal is to get a significant
cost reduction from your keyboard supplier, make sure this goal stays paramount
in discussions and doesn’t get overshadowed by other issues. Next, assess what
you think are the other party’s goals. What intangible or hidden interests may be
important to them? On what might they be willing to settle? Think carefully about
what the other side might be willing to give up. People who underestimate their
opponent’s willingness to give on key issues before the negotiation even starts end
up with lower outcomes.33
Once you’ve gathered your information, develop a strategy. You should determine
your and the other side’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA. Your
BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement. Any
offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than an impasse. Conversely,
you shouldn’t expect success in your negotiation effort unless you’re able to make the
other side an offer it finds more attractive than its BATNA.
In nearly all cases, the party with superior alternatives will do better in a negotiation, so experts advise negotiators to solidify their BATNA prior to any interaction.34
Therefore, be equipped to counter arguments with facts and figures that support your position. There is an interesting exception to this general rule—negotiators with absolutely
no alternative to a negotiated agreement sometimes “go for broke” since they don’t even
consider what would happen if the negotiation falls through.35
Preparation and Planning
BATNA
The best alternative to a negotiated
agreement; the least
the individual should
accept.
Definition of Ground Rules Once you’ve done your planning and developed a
strategy, you’re ready to define with the other party the ground rules and procedures of
the negotiation itself. Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time
constraints, if any, will apply? To what issues will negotiation be limited? Will you follow
a specific procedure if an impasse is reached? During this phase, the parties will exchange
their initial proposals or demands.
Clarification and Justification When you have exchanged initial positions,
you and the other party will explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify your original
demands. This step needn’t be confrontational. Rather, it’s an opportunity for
educating each other on the issues, why they are important, and how you arrived at
your initial demands. Provide the other party with any documentation that supports
your position.
The essence of the negotiation process is
the actual give-and-take in trying to hash out an agreement. This is where both parties
need to make concessions. Relationships change as a result of negotiation, so take
that into consideration. If you could “win” a negotiation but push the other side into
Bargaining and Problem Solving
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 238
16/09/16 2:15 PM
Chapter 14 • Conflict and Negotiation 239
resentment or animosity, it might be wiser to pursue a more compromising style. If
preserving the relationship will make you seem easily exploited, you may consider a
more aggressive style. As an example of how the tone of a relationship in negotiations
matters, people who feel good about the process of a job offer negotiation are more
satisfied with their jobs and less likely to turn over a year later regardless of their actual
outcomes from these negotiations.36
Closure and Implementation The final step in the negotiation process is
formalizing your agreement and developing procedures necessary for implementing
and monitoring it. For major negotiations—from labor–management negotiations to
bargaining over lease terms—this requires hammering out the specifics in a formal
contract. For other cases, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than
a handshake.
Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness
Are some people better negotiators than others? The answer is complex. Four factors
influence how effectively individuals negotiate: personality, mood/emotions, culture, and
gender.
Personality Traits in Negotiations Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating
tactics if you know something about his or her personality? Because personality and
negotiation outcomes are related but only weakly, the answer is, at best, “sort of.”37
Most research has focused on the Big Five traits of agreeableness, for obvious reasons—
agreeable individuals are cooperative, compliant, kind, and conflict-averse. We might
think such characteristics make agreeable individuals easy prey in negotiations, especially
distributive ones. The evidence suggests, however, that overall agreeableness is weakly
related to negotiation outcomes.
Self-efficacy (see Chapter 7) is one individual-difference variable that consistently
seems to relate to negotiation outcomes.38 This is a fairly intuitive finding—it isn’t too
surprising to hear that those who believe they will be more successful in negotiation situations tend to perform more effectively. It may be that individuals who are more confident
stake out stronger claims, are less likely to back down from their positions, and exhibit
confidence that intimidates others. Although the exact mechanism is not yet clear, it does
seem that negotiators may benefit from trying to get a boost in confidence before going
to the bargaining table.
Moods/Emotions in Negotiations Do moods and emotions influence negotiation?
They do, but the way they work depends on the emotion as well as the context. A negotiator
who shows anger can induce concessions, for instance, because the other negotiator
believes no further concessions from the angry party are possible. One factor that governs
this outcome, however, is power—you should show anger in negotiations only if you
have at least as much power as your counterpart. If you have less, showing anger actually
seems to provoke “hardball” reactions from the other side.39 “Faked” anger, or anger
produced from surface acting, is not effective, but showing anger that is genuine (deep
acting) is (see Chapter 4).40 Having a history of showing anger, rather than sowing the
seeds of revenge, actually induces more concessions because the other party perceives the
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 239
16/09/16 2:15 PM
240 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics
negotiator as “tough.”41 Anger has a cultural context. For instance, one study found that
when East Asian participants showed anger, it induced more concessions than when the
negotiator expressing anger was from the United States or Europe, perhaps because of the
stereotype of East Asians as refusing to show anger.42
Another relevant emotion is disappointment. Generally, a negotiator who perceives
disappointment from his or her counterpart concedes more. Anxiety also may impact negotiation. For example, one study found that individuals who experienced more anxiety
about a negotiation used more deceptions in dealing with others.43 Another study found
that anxious negotiators expect lower outcomes, respond to offers more quickly, and exit
the bargaining process more quickly, leading them to obtain worse outcomes.44 Even
emotional unpredictability affects outcomes; researchers have found that negotiators who
express positive and negative emotions in an unpredictable way extract more concessions
because this behavior makes the other party feel less in control.45 As one negotiator put
it, “Out of the blue, you may have to react to something you have been working on in
one way, and then something entirely new is introduced, and you have to veer off and
refocus.”46
Culture in Negotiations Do people from different cultures negotiate differently?
The simple answer is the obvious one: Yes, they do. In general, people negotiate more
effectively within cultures than between them. For example, a Colombian is apt to do
better negotiating with a Colombian than with a Sri Lankan.
It appears that for successful cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially important
that the negotiators be high in openness. This suggests a good strategy is to choose crosscultural negotiators who are high on openness, and it helps to avoid factors such as time
pressure that tend to inhibit learning about the other party.47 Second, because emotions
are culturally sensitive, negotiators need to be especially aware of the emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiation. For example, individuals from East Asian cultures may
feel that using anger to get their way in a negotiation is not a legitimate tactic, so they
refuse to cooperate when their opponents become upset.48
Gender in Negotiations There are many areas of organizational behavior (OB)
in which men and women are not that different. Negotiation is not one of them. It
seems fairly clear that men and women negotiate differently, that men and women
are treated differently by negotiation partners, and that these differences affect
outcomes.
A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative and pleasant in negotiations than men. Though this is controversial, there is some merit to it. Men tend
to place a higher value on status, power, and recognition, whereas women tend to
place a higher value on compassion and altruism. Moreover, women tend to value
relationship outcomes more than men, and men tend to value economic outcomes
more than women.49
These differences affect both negotiation behavior and negotiation outcomes.
Compared to men, women tend to behave in a less assertive, less self-interested, and
more accommodating manner. As one review concluded, women “are more reluctant to
initiate negotiations, and when they do initiate negotiations, they ask for less, are more
willing to accept [the] offer, and make more generous offers to their negotiation partners
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 240
16/09/16 2:15 PM
Chapter 14 • Conflict and Negotiation 241
than men do.”50 A study of MBA students at Carnegie-Mellon University found that
the male students took the step of negotiating their first offer 57 percent of the time,
compared to 4 percent for the female students. The net result? A $4,000 difference in
starting salaries.51
One comprehensive literature review suggested that the tendency for men to
receive better negotiation outcomes in some situations did not cover all situations.
Indeed, the evidence suggested women and men bargain more equally in certain situations, women sometimes outperform men, and both men and women obtain more
nearly equal outcomes when negotiating on behalf of someone else.52 In other words,
everyone is better at advocating for others than they are at advocating for themselves.
Factors that increased the predictability of negotiations also tended to reduce gender differences. When the range of negotiation settlements was well defined, men and
women were more equal in outcomes. When more experienced negotiators were at the
table, men and women were also nearly equivalent. The study authors proposed that
when situations are more ambiguous, with less well-defined terms and less experienced
negotiators, stereotypes may have stronger effects, leading to larger gender differences
in outcomes.
Negotiating in a Social Context
We have mostly been discussing negotiations that occur among parties that meet only
once, and in isolation from other individuals. However, in organizations, many negotiations are open-ended and public. When you are trying to figure out who in a work group
should do a tedious task, negotiating with your boss to get a chance to travel internationally, or asking for more money for a project; there’s a social component to the negotiation.
You are probably negotiating with someone you already know and will work with again,
and the negotiation and its outcome are likely to be topics people will talk about. To really
understand negotiations in practice, then, we must consider the social factors of reputation and relationships.
Reputation
Your reputation is the way other people think and talk about you. When it comes to
negotiation, having a reputation for being trustworthy matters. In short, trust in a negotiation process opens the door to many forms of integrative negotiation strategies that
benefit both parties.53 The most effective way to build trust is to behave in an honest way
across repeated interactions. Then, others feel more comfortable making open-ended offers with many different outcomes. This helps to achieve win–win outcomes, since both
parties can work to achieve what is most important to themselves while still benefiting
the other party.
Sometimes we either trust or distrust people based on word-of-mouth about a person’s characteristics. What characteristics help a person develop a trustworthy reputation?
A combination of competence and integrity.54 Negotiators higher in self-confidence and
cognitive ability are seen as more competent by negotiation partners.55 They are also
considered better able to accurately describe a situation and their own resources, and are
more credible when they make suggestions for creative solutions to impasses. Individuals
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 241
16/09/16 2:15 PM
242 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics
who have a reputation for integrity can also be more effective in negotiations.56 They are
seen as more likely to keep their promises and present information accurately, so others
are more willing to accept their promises as part of a bargain. This opens many options
for the negotiator that wouldn’t be available to someone who is not seen as trustworthy.
Finally, individuals who have higher reputations are better liked and have more friends
and allies—in other words, they have more social resources, which may give them more
understood power in negotiations.
Relationships
There is more to repeated negotiations than just reputation. The social, interpersonal
component of relationships with repeated negotiations means that individuals go
beyond valuing what is simply good for themselves and instead start to think about
what is best for the other party and the relationship as a whole.57 Repeated negotiations built on a foundation of trust also broaden the range of options, since a favor
or concession today can be offered in return for some repayment further down the
road.58 Repeated negotiations also facilitate integrative problem solving. This occurs
partly because people begin to see their negotiation partners in a more personal way
over time and come to share emotional bonds.59 Repeated negotiations also make
integrative approaches more workable because a sense of trust and reliability has
been built up.60
Third-Party Negotiations
mediator
A neutral third party
who facilitates a
negotiated solution
by using reasoning,
persuasion, and
suggestions for
alternatives.
Arbitrator
A third party to a
negotiation who has
the authority to dictate
an agreement.
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 242
To this point, we’ve discussed bargaining in terms of direct negotiations. Occasionally,
however, individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve
their differences through direct negotiations. In such cases, they may turn to a third party
to help them find a solution. There are three basic third-party roles: mediator, arbitrator,
and conciliator.
A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using
reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives, and the like. Mediators are widely
used in labor–management negotiations and in civil court disputes. Their overall effectiveness is fairly impressive. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported a settlement rate through mediation at 72.1 percent.61 But the
situation is the key to whether mediation will succeed; the conflicting parties must be
motivated to bargain and resolve their conflict. In addition, conflict intensity can’t be too
high; mediation is most effective under moderate levels of conflict. Finally, perceptions
of the mediator are important; to be effective, the mediator must be perceived as neutral
and noncoercive.
An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. Arbitration can be voluntary (requested by the parties) or compulsory (forced on the parties by
law or contract). The big plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a
settlement. Whether there is a downside depends on how heavy-handed the arbitrator
appears. If one party is left feeling overwhelmingly defeated, that party is certain to be
dissatisfied and the conflict may resurface at a later time.
16/09/16 2:15 PM
Chapter 14 • Conflict and Negotiation 243
A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link
between the negotiator and the opponent. This role was made famous by Robert Duval in
the first Godfather film. As Don Corleone’s adopted son and a lawyer by training, Duval
acted as an intermediary between the Corleones and the other Mafioso families. Comparing conciliation to mediation in terms of effectiveness has proven difficult because the
two overlap a great deal. In practice, conciliators typically act as more than mere communication conduits. They also engage in fact-finding, interpreting messages, and persuading disputants to develop agreements.
Conciliator
A trusted third
party who provides
an informal
communication link
between the negotiator
and the opponent.
Summary
While many people assume conflict lowers group and organizational performance,
this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. Levels of conflict can be either too high or
too low to be constructive. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is
one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released, and
initiates the seeds of change without being disruptive or preventing the coordination
of activities.
Implications for Managers
• Choose an authoritarian management style in emergencies, when unpopular actions
need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, and
discipline), and when the issue is vital to the organization’s welfare. Be certain to
communicate your logic when possible to make certain others remain engaged and
productive.
• Seek integrative solutions when your objective is to learn, when you want to merge
insights from people with different perspectives, when you need to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus, and when you need to work
through feelings that have interfered with a relationship.
• You can build trust by accommodating others when you find you’re wrong, when
you need to demonstrate reasonableness, when other positions need to be heard,
when issues are more important to others than to yourself, when you want to satisfy
others and maintain cooperation, when you can build social credits for later issues,
to minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing, and when others should
learn from their own mistakes.
• Consider compromising when goals are important but not worth potential disruption, when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals,
and when you need temporary settlements to complex issues.
• Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but it often reduces the satisfaction of
one or more negotiators because it is confrontational and focused on the short term.
Integrative bargaining, in contrast, tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties
and build lasting relationships.
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 243
16/09/16 2:15 PM
244 Part 4 • Negotiating Power and Politics
P
I
Personal Inventory Assessments
A
PERSONAL INVENTORY ASSESSMENTS
Strategies for Handling Conflict
We all handle conflict, but few of us may have actual strategies in place. Take this PIA to
further explore ways to handle conflict.
MyManagementLab
®
Go to mymanagementlab.com for Auto-graded writing questions as well as the following
Assisted-graded writing questions:
14-1. Do you think employee conflicts are, in general, bad? Why? In what ways do you think they
might be constructive?
14-2. MyManagementLab Only—comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter.
M14_ROBB3859_14_SE_C14.indd 244
16/09/16 2:15 PM
5
Personality and Values
MyManagementLab
®
Improve Your Grade!
When you see this icon , visit mymanagementlab.com for activities that are
applied, personalized, and offer immediate feedback.
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe personality, the way it is measured, and the factors that shape it.
2. Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) personality framework and the Big Five Model.
3. Discuss how the concepts of core self-evaluation (CSE), self-monitoring, and proactive personality contribute to the understanding of personality.
4. Describe how the situation affects whether personality predicts behavior.
5. Contrast terminal and instrumental values.
6. Describe the differences between person–job fit and person–organization fit.
7. Compare Hofstede’s five value dimensions and the GLOBE framework.
Chapter Warm-up
If your professor has chosen to assign this, go to the Assignments section of
www.mymanagementlab.com to complete the chapter warm-up.
Personality
Why are some people quiet and passive, while others are loud and aggressive? Are certain
personality types better adapted than others for certain jobs? Before we can answer these
questions, we need to address a more basic one: what is personality?
64
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 64
16/09/16 11:25 AM
Chapter 5 • Personality and Values
65
What Is Personality?
When we speak of someone’s personality, we use many adjectives to describe how they
act and seem to think; in fact, research participants used 624 distinct adjectives to describe
people they knew.1 As organizational behaviorists, however, we organize characteristics
by overall traits describing the growth and development of a person’s personality.
Defining Personality For our purposes, think of personality as the sum of ways in
which an individual reacts to and interacts with others. We most often describe personality
in terms of the measurable traits a person exhibits.
Early work on personality tried to identify and label enduring characteristics that
describe an individual’s behavior including shy, aggressive, submissive, lazy, ambitious,
loyal, and timid. When someone exhibits these characteristics in a large number of situations and they are relatively enduring over time, we call them personality traits.2 The
more consistent the characteristic over time and the more frequently it occurs in diverse
situations, the more important the trait is in describing the individual.
Assessing Personality Personality assessments have been increasingly used
Personality
The sum total of ways
in which an individual
reacts to and interacts
with others.
Personality traits
Enduring
characteristics
that describe an
individual’s behavior.
in diverse organizational settings. In fact, 8 of the top 10 U.S. private companies and
57 percent of all large U.S. companies use them,3 including Xerox, McDonald’s, and
Lowe’s.4 Schools such as DePaul University have also begun to use personality tests
in their admissions process.5 Personality tests are useful in hiring decisions and help
managers forecast who is best for a job.6
Measuring Results The most common means of measuring personality is through
self-report surveys in which individuals evaluate themselves on a series of factors, such
as “I worry a lot about the future.” In general, when people know their personality scores
are going to be used for hiring decisions, they rate themselves as about half a standard
deviation more conscientious and emotionally stable than if they are taking the test to
learn more about themselves.7 Another problem is accuracy; for example, a candidate
who is in a bad mood when taking a survey may very well receive inaccurate scores.
Culture and Ratings Research indicates our culture influences the way we rate
ourselves. People in individualistic countries (see Chapter 4) like the United States and
Australia trend toward self-enhancement, while people in collectivistic countries (see
Chapter 4) like Taiwan, China, and South Korea trend toward self-diminishment. Selfenhancement does not appear to harm a person’s career in individualistic countries,
but it does in collectivist countries, where humility is valued. Interestingly, underrating
(self-diminishment) may harm a person’s career in both collectivistic and individualistic
communities.8
Self-Reports and Observer-Ratings Observer-ratings surveys provide an
independent assessment of personality. Here, a coworker or another observer does the
rating. Though the results of self-reports and observer-ratings surveys are strongly
correlated, research suggests observer-ratings surveys predict job success more than
self-ratings alone.9 However, each can tell us something unique about an individual’s
behavior, so a combination of self-reports and observer-ratings predicts performance
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 65
16/09/16 11:25 AM
66
Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others
better than any one type of information. The implication is clear: Use both self-reports and
observers-ratings (per SS) of personality when making important employment decisions.
Personality Determinants An early debate centered on whether an individual’s
Heredity
Factors determined
at conception;
one’s biological,
physiological, and
inherent psychological
makeup.
personality is the result of heredity or environment. Personality appears to be a result of
both; however, research tends to support the importance of heredity over environment.
Heredity refers to factors determined at conception. Physical stature, facial features,
gender, temperament, muscle composition and reflexes, energy level, and biological
rhythms are either completely or substantially influenced by parentage—by your
biological parents’ genetic, physiological, and inherent psychological makeup. The
heredity approach argues that the ultimate explanation of an individual’s personality is
the molecular structure of the genes, located on the chromosomes. This is not to suggest
that personality never changes. For example, people’s scores on dependability tend to
increase over time, as when young adults start families and establish careers. Personality
is also more changeable in adolescence and more stable among adults.10 However, strong
individual differences in dependability remain; everyone tends to change by about the
same amount, so their rank order stays roughly the same.11
Personality Frameworks
Throughout history, people have sought to understand what makes individuals behave in
myriad ways. Many of our behaviors stem from our personalities, so understanding the
components of personality helps us predict behavior. Important theoretical frameworks
and assessment tools, discussed next, help us categorize and study the dimensions of
personality.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI)
A personality test that
taps 4 characteristics
and classifies people
into 1 of 16 personality
types.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is the most widely used personalityassessment instrument in the world.12 It is a 100-question personality test that asks people
how they usually feel or act in situations. Respondents are classified as extraverted or
introverted (E or I), sensing or intuitive (S or N), thinking or feeling (T or F), and judging
or perceiving (J or P):
• Extraverted (E) versus Introverted (I). Extraverted individuals are outgoing,
sociable, and assertive. Introverts are quiet and shy.
• Sensing (s) versus Intuitive (N). Sensing types are practical and prefer routine and
order, and they focus on details. Intuitives rely on unconscious processes and look
at the “big picture.”
• Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F). Thinking types use reason and logic to handle
problems. Feeling types rely on their personal values and emotions.
• Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). Judging types want control and prefer order
and structure. Perceiving types are flexible and spontaneous.
The MBTI describes personality types by identifying one trait from each of the
four pairs. For example, Introverted/Intuitive/Thinking/Judging people (INTJs) are
visionaries with original minds and great drive. They are skeptical, critical, independent, determined, and often stubborn. ENFJs are natural teachers and leaders. They are
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 66
16/09/16 11:25 AM
Chapter 5 • Personality and Values
67
relational, motivational, intuitive, idealistic, ethical, and kind. ESTJs are organizers. They
are realistic, logical, analytical, and decisive, perfect for business or mechanics. The
ENTP type is innovative, individualistic, versatile, and attracted to entrepreneurial ideas.
This person tends to be resourceful in solving challenging problems but may neglect
routine assignments.
One problem with the MBTI is that the model forces a person into one type or
another; that is, you’re either introverted or extraverted. There is no in-between. Another
problem is with the reliability of the measure: When people retake the assessment, they
often receive different results. An additional problem is in the difficulty of interpretation.
There are levels of importance for each of the MBTI facets, and separate meanings for
certain combinations of facets, all of which require trained interpretation that can leave
room for error. Finally, results from the MBTI tend to be unrelated to job performance.
The Big Five Personality Model
The MBTI may lack strong supporting evidence, but an impressive body of research
supports the Big Five Model, which proposes that five basic dimensions underlie all others and encompass most of the significant variation in human personality.13 Test scores
of these traits do a very good job of predicting how people behave in a variety of reallife situations14 and remain relatively stable for an individual over time, with some daily
variations.15 These are the Big Five factors:
• Conscientiousness. The conscientiousness dimension is a measure of reliability. A
highly conscientious person is responsible, organized, dependable, and persistent.
Those who score low on this dimension are easily distracted, disorganized, and
unreliable.
• Emotional stability. The emotional stability dimension taps a person’s ability to
withstand stress. People with emotional stability tend to be calm, self-confident,
and secure. High scorers are more likely to be positive and optimistic; they are generally happier than low scorers. Emotional stability is sometimes discussed as its
converse, neuroticism. Low scorers (those with high neuroticism) are hypervigilant
and vulnerable to the physical and psychological effects of stress. Those with high
neuroticism tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and insecure.
• Extraversion. The extraversion dimension captures our comfort level with
relationships. Extraverts tend to be gregarious, assertive, and sociable. They are
generally happier and are often ambitious.16 On the other hand, introverts (low extraversion) tend to be more thoughtful, reserved, timid, and quiet.
• Openness to experience. The openness to experience dimension addresses the
range of a person’s interests and their fascination with novelty. Open people are
creative, curious, and artistically sensitive. Those at the low end of the category are
conventional and find comfort in the familiar.
• Agreeableness. The agreeableness dimension refers to an individual’s propensity
to defer to others. Agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting. You might
expect agreeable people to be happier than disagreeable people. They are, but only
slightly. When people choose organizational team members, agreeable individuals
are usually their first choice. In contrast, people who score low on agreeableness
can be cold and antagonistic.
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 67
Big Five Model
A personality
assessment model
that taps five basic
dimensions.
Conscientiousness
A personality dimension
that describes someone
who is responsible,
dependable, persistent,
and organized.
Emotional stability
A personality dimension
that characterizes
someone as calm,
self-confident, and
secure (positive) versus
nervous, depressed, and
insecure (negative).
Extraversion
A personality
dimension describing
someone who is
sociable, gregarious,
and assertive.
Openness to experience
A personality dimension
that characterizes
someone in terms of
imagination, sensitivity,
and curiosity.
Agreeableness
A personality
dimension that
describes someone
who is good natured,
cooperative, and
trusting.
16/09/16 11:25 AM
68
Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others
How Do the Big Five Traits Predict Behavior at Work?
There are many relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance,17 and we are learning more about them every day. Let’s explore one trait at a
time, beginning with the strongest predictor of job performance—conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness at Work Conscientiousness is key. As researchers recently
stated, “Personal attributes related to conscientiousness and agreeableness are important
for success across many jobs, spanning across low to high levels of job complexity,
training, and experience.”18 Employees who score higher in conscientiousness develop
higher levels of job knowledge, probably because highly conscientious people learn more
(conscientiousness may be related to GPA),19 and these levels correspond with higher
levels of job performance. Conscientious people are also more able to maintain their job
performance when faced with abusive supervision, according to a study in India.20
Like any trait, conscientiousness has its pitfalls. Highly conscientious individuals
can prioritize work over family, resulting in more conflict between their work and family
roles (termed work-family conflict).21 They may also become too focused on their own
work to help others in the organization,22 and they don’t adapt well to changing contexts.
Furthermore, conscientious people may have trouble learning complex skills early in a
training process because their focus is on performing well rather than on learning. Finally,
they are often less creative, especially artistically.23
Despite pitfalls, conscientiousness is the best overall predictor of job performance.
However, the other Big Five traits are also related to aspects of performance and have
other implications for work and for life. Exhibit 5-1 summarizes these other relations.
BIG FIVE TRAITS
WHY IS IT RELEVANT?
Emotional stability
• Less negative thinking and
fewer negative emotions
• Less hypervigilant
• Higher job and life
satisfaction
• Lower stress levels
Extraversion
• Better interpersonal skills
• Greater social dominance
• More emotionally expressive
• Higher performance
• Enhanced leadership
• Higher job and life satisfaction
Openness
• Increased learning
• More creative
• More flexible and autonomous
• Training performance
• Enhanced leadership
• More adaptable to change
• Better liked
• More compliant and
conforming
• Higher performance
• Lower levels of deviant
behavior
• Greater effort and persistence
• More drive and discipline
• Better organized and planning
• Higher performance
• Enhanced leadership
• Greater longevity
Agreeableness
Exhibit 5-1
Model of How
Big Five Traits
Influence OB
Criteria
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 68
Conscientiousness
WHAT DOES IT AFFECT?
16/09/16 11:25 AM
69
Chapter 5 • Personality and Values
Emotional Stability at Work Of the Big Five traits, emotional stability is most
strongly related to life satisfaction, job satisfaction, and low stress levels. People with
high emotional stability can adapt to unexpected or changing demands in the workplace.24
At the other end of the spectrum, neurotic individuals who are unable to cope with these
demands may experience burnout.25 These people also tend to experience work-family
conflict, which can affect work outcomes.26
Extraversion at Work Extraverts perform better in jobs with significant
interpersonal interaction. They are socially dominant, “take charge” people.27 Extraversion
is a relatively strong predictor of leadership emergence in groups. Some negatives are that
extraverts are more impulsive than introverts, are more likely to be absent from work, and
may be more likely than introverts to lie during job interviews.28
Openness at Work Open people are more likely to be effective leaders—and more
comfortable with ambiguity. They cope better with organizational change and are more
adaptable. While openness isn’t related to initial performance on a job, individuals higher
in openness are less susceptible to a decline in performance over a longer time period.29
Open people also experience less work-family conflict.30
Agreeableness at Work Agreeable individuals are better liked than disagreeable
people; they tend to do better in interpersonally oriented jobs such as customer service.
They’re more compliant and rule abiding, less likely to get into accidents, and more
satisfied in their jobs. They also contribute to organizational performance by engaging
in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; see Chapter 1).31 Disagreeable people, on
the other hand, are more likely to engage in counterproductive work behavior (CWB; see
Chapter 3), as are people low in conscientiousness.32 Low agreeableness also predicts
involvement in work accidents.33 Lastly, agreeableness is associated with lower levels of
career success (especially earnings), perhaps because highly agreeable people consider
themselves less marketable and are less willing to assert themselves.34
In general, the Big Five personality factors appear in almost all cross-cultural studies,35 including China, Israel, Germany, Japan, Spain, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, and
the United States. However, a study of illiterate indigenous people in Bolivia suggested
the Big Five framework may be less applicable when studying the personalities of small,
remote groups.36
The Dark Triad
With the exception of neuroticism, the Big Five traits are what we call socially desirable,
meaning we would be glad to score high on them. They also have the most verifiable links
to important organizational outcomes. Researchers have identified three other socially
undesirable traits, which we all have in varying degrees and which are also relevant to
organizational behavior (OB): Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. Owing to
their negative nature, researchers have labeled these the Dark Triad—though they do not
always occur together.37
The Dark Triad may sound sinister, but these traits are not clinical pathologies
hindering everyday functioning. They might be expressed particularly strongly when an
individual is under stress and unable to moderate any inappropriate responses. Sustained
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 69
Dark Triad
A constellation of
negative personality
traits consisting of
Machiavellianism,
narcissism, and
psychopathy.
16/09/16 11:25 AM
70
Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others
high levels of dark personality traits can cause individuals to derail their careers and
personal lives.38
Machiavellianism Hao is a young bank manager in Shanghai. He’s received three
Machiavellianism
The degree to which
an individual is
pragmatic, maintains
emotional distance,
and believes that ends
can justify means.
Narcissism
The tendency to
be arrogant, have a
grandiose sense of selfimportance, require
excessive admiration,
and have a sense of
entitlement.
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 70
promotions in the past four years and makes no apologies for the aggressive tactics he’s
used. “My name means clever, and that’s what I am—I do whatever I have to do to get
ahead,” he says. Hao would be termed Machiavellian.
The personality characteristic of Machiavellianism (often abbreviated Mach) is
named after Niccolo Machiavelli, who wrote in the sixteenth century on how to gain and
use power. An individual high in Machiavellianism is pragmatic, maintains emotional
distance, and believes that ends can justify means. “If it works, use it” is consistent with
a high-Mach perspective. High Machs manipulate more, win more, are persuaded less by
others, but persuade others more than do low Machs.39 They are more likely to act aggressively and engage in CWBs as well. Surprisingly, Machiavellianism does not significantly
predict overall job performance.40 High-Mach employees, by manipulating others to their
advantage, win in the short term at a job, but lose those gains in the long term because
they are not well liked.
Machiavellian tendencies may have ethical implications. One study showed highMach job seekers were less positively affected by the knowledge that an organization
engaged in a high level of corporate social responsibility (CSR; see Chapter 3),41 suggesting that high-Mach people may care less about sustainability issues. Another study found
Machs’ ethical leadership behaviors were less likely to translate into followers’ work
engagement because followers see through these behaviors and realize they are cases of
surface acting.42
Sabrina likes to be the center of attention. She often looks at herself
in the mirror, has extravagant dreams about her future, and considers herself a person
of many talents. Sabrina is a narcissist. The trait is named for the Greek myth of
Narcissus, a youth so vain and proud he fell in love with his own image. In psychology,
narcissism describes a person who has a grandiose sense of self-importance, requires
excessive admiration, and is arrogant. Narcissists often have fantasies of grand
success, a tendency to exploit situations and people, a sense of entitlement, and a lack
of empathy.43 However, narcissists can be hypersensitive and fragile people.44 They
also may experience more anger.45
While narcissism seems to have little relationship to job effectiveness or OCB,46 it
is one of the largest predictors of increased CWB in individualistic cultures—but not in
collectivist cultures that discourage self-promotion.47 Narcissists commonly think they
are overqualified for their positions.48 When they receive feedback about their performance, they often tune out information that conflicts with their positive self-perception,
but they will work harder if rewards are offered.49
On the bright side, narcissists may be more charismatic than others.50 They also
might be found in business more often than in other fields. They are more likely to be
chosen for leadership positions, and medium ratings of narcissism (neither extremely
high nor extremely low) are positively correlated with leadership effectiveness.51 Some
evidence suggests that narcissists are more adaptable and make better business decisions
than others when the issue is complex.52 Furthermore, a study of Norwegian bank employees found those scoring high on narcissism enjoyed their work more.53
Narcissism
16/09/16 11:25 AM
Chapter 5 • Personality and Values
71
Psychopathy Psychopathy is part of the Dark Triad, but in OB, it does not connote
clinical mental illness. In the OB context, psychopathy is defined as a lack of concern for
others, and a lack of guilt or remorse when actions cause harm.54 Measures of psychopathy
attempt to assess motivation to comply with social norms, impulsivity, willingness to use
deceit to obtain desired ends, and disregard, that is, the lack of empathic concern for others.
The literature is not consistent about whether psychopathy is important to work
behavior. One review found little correlation between measures of psychopathy and job
performance or CWB. Another found antisocial personality, which is closely related to
psychopathy, was positively related to advancement in the organization but unrelated to
other aspects of career success and effectiveness.55 Still other research suggests psychopathy is related to the use of hard influence tactics (threats, manipulation) and bullying
work behavior (physical or verbal threatening).56 The cunning displayed by people who
score high on psychopathy may thus help them gain power in an organization but keep
them from using it toward healthy ends for themselves or their organizations.
Psychopathy
The tendency for a
lack of concern for
others and a lack of
guilt or remorse when
actions cause harm.
The Dark Triad is a helpful framework for studying the three dominant
dark-side traits in current personality research, and researchers are exploring other traits
as well. One emerging framework incorporates five additional aberrant compound traits
based on the Big Five. First, antisocial people are indifferent and callous toward others.
They use their extraversion to charm people, but they may be prone to violent CWBs
and risky decision making. Second, borderline people have low self-esteem and high
uncertainty. They are unpredictable in their interactions at work, are inefficient, and may
have low job satisfaction.57 Third, schizotypal individuals are eccentric and disorganized.
In the workplace, they can be highly creative, although they are susceptible to work
stress. Fourth, obsessive-compulsive people are perfectionists and can be stubborn, yet
they attend to details, carry a strong work ethic, and may be motivated by achievement.
Fifth, avoidant individuals feel inadequate and hate criticism. They can function only in
environments requiring little interaction.58
Other Traits
Other Personality Attributes Relevant to OB
As we’ve discussed, studies of traits have much to offer the field of OB. Now we’ll look
at other attributes that are powerful predictors of behavior in organizations: core selfevaluations, self-monitoring, and proactive personality.
Core Self-Evaluation (CSE)
As discussed in Chapter 3, core self-evaluations (CSEs) are bottom-line conclusions individuals have about their capabilities, competence, and worth as a person. People with
positive CSEs like themselves and see themselves as effective and in control of their environment. Those with negative CSEs tend to dislike themselves, question their capabilities,
and view themselves as powerless over their environment.59 Recall that CSEs relate to job
satisfaction, because people who are positive on this trait see more challenge in their jobs
and actually attain more complex jobs.
People with positive CSEs perform better than others because they set more ambitious goals, are more committed to their goals, and persist longer in attempting to reach
them. People who have high CSEs provide better customer service, are more popular
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 71
16/09/16 11:25 AM
72
Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others
coworkers, and may have careers that begin on better footing and ascend more rapidly
over time.60 They perform especially well if they feel their work provides meaning and
is helpful to others.61 Therefore, people with high CSEs may thrive in organizations with
high CSR.
Self-Monitoring
Self-monitoring
A personality trait
that measures an
individual’s ability
to adjust his or her
behavior to external,
situational factors.
Zoe is always in trouble at work. Although she’s competent, hardworking, and productive, she receives average ratings in performance reviews, and seems to have made a
career out of irritating her bosses. Zoe’s problem is that she’s politically inept and unable
to adjust her behavior to fit changing situations. As she says, “I’m true to myself. I don’t
remake myself to please others.” Zoe is a low self-monitor.
Self-monitoring describes an individual’s ability to adjust behavior to external,
situational factors.62 High self-monitors show considerable adaptability in adjusting their
behavior to external situational factors. They are highly sensitive to external cues and can
behave differently in varying situations, sometimes presenting striking contradictions between their public personae and their private selves. Evidence indicates high self-monitors
pay closer attention to the behavior of others and are more capable of conforming than
are low self-monitors.63 Low self-monitors like Zoe can’t disguise themselves in that way.
They tend to display their true dispositions and attitudes in every situation; hence, there is
high behavioral consistency between who they are and what they do.
Proactive Personality
Proactive personality
People who identify
opportunities, show
initiative, take action,
and persevere until
meaningful change
occurs.
Did you ever notice that some people actively take the initiative to improve their current circumstances or create new ones? These are proactive personalities.64 Those with a
proactive personality identify opportunities, show initiative, take action, and persevere
until meaningful change occurs, compared to others who generally react to situations.
Proactive individuals have many desirable behaviors that organizations covet. They have
higher levels of job performance65 and do not need much oversight.66 They are receptive
to changes in job demands and thrive when they can informally tailor their jobs to their
strengths. Proactive individuals often achieve career success.67
Proactive personality may be important for work teams. One study of 95 R&D
teams in 33 Chinese companies revealed that teams with high average levels of proactive personality were more innovative.68 Proactive individuals are also more likely to exchange information with others in a team, which builds trust relationships.69 Like other
traits, proactive personality is affected by the context. One study of bank branch teams in
China found that if a team’s leader was not proactive, the potential benefits of the team’s
proactivity became dormant, or worse, their proactivity was suppressed by the leader.70 In
terms of pitfalls, one study of 231 Flemish unemployed individuals found that proactive
individuals abandoned their job searches sooner. It may be that proactivity includes stepping back in the face of failure.71
Personality and Situations
Earlier we discussed how research shows heredity is more important than the environment in developing our personalities. The environment is not irrelevant, though. Some
personality traits, such as the Big Five, tend to be effective in almost any environment or
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 72
16/09/16 11:25 AM
Chapter 5 • Personality and Values
73
situation. However, we are learning that the effect of particular traits on behavior depends
on the situation. Two theoretical frameworks, situation strength and trait activation, help
explain how this works.
Situation Strength Theory
Imagine you are in a meeting with your department. How likely are you to walk out, shout
at a colleague, or turn your back on everyone? Probably highly unlikely. Now imagine
working from home. You might work in your pajamas, listen to loud music, or take a catnap.
Situation strength theory proposes that the way personality translates into behavior depends on the strength of the situation. By situation strength, we mean the degree to
which norms, cues, or standards dictate appropriate behavior. Strong situations show us
what the right behavior is, pressure us to exhibit it, and discourage the wrong behavior.
In weak situations, conversely, “anything goes,” and thus we are freer to express our
personality in behavior. Personality traits better predict behavior in weak situations than
in strong ones.
Situation strength
theory
A theory indicating
that the way
personality translates
into behavior depends
on the strength of the
situation.
Components of Situation Strength Researchers have analyzed situation strength
in organizations in terms of four elements:72
1. Clarity, or the degree to which cues about work duties and responsibilities are available and clear—jobs high in clarity produce strong situations because individuals
can readily determine what to do. For example, the job of janitor probably provides
higher clarity about each task than the job of nanny.
2. Consistency, or the extent to which cues regarding work duties and responsibilities
are compatible with one another—jobs with high consistency represent strong situations because all the cues point toward the same desired behavior. The job of acute
care nurse, for example, probably has higher consistency than the job of manager.
3. Constraints, or the extent to which individuals’ freedom to decide or act is limited
by forces outside their control—jobs with many constraints represent strong situations because an individual has limited discretion. Bank examiner, for example, is
probably a job with stronger constraints than forest ranger.
4. Consequences, or the degree to which decisions or actions have important implications for the organization or its members, clients, supplies, and so on—jobs with
important consequences represent strong situations because the environment is
probably heavily structured to guard against mistakes. A surgeon’s job, for example, has higher consequences than a foreign-language teacher’s.
Organizational Situations Some researchers have speculated that organizations
are, by definition, strong situations because they impose rules, norms, and standards
that govern behavior. These constraints are usually appropriate. For example, we would
not want an employee to feel free to engage in sexual harassment, follow questionable
accounting procedures, or come to work only when the mood strikes.
The elements of situation strength are often determined by organizational rules and
guidelines, which adds some objectivity to them. However, the perception of these rules influences how the person will respond to the situation’s strength. For instance, a person who is usually self-directed may view step-by-step instructions (high clarity) for a simple task as a lack
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 73
16/09/16 11:25 AM
74
Part 1 • Understanding Yourself and Others
of faith in his ability. Another person who is a rule follower might appreciate the detailed instructions. Their responses (and work attitudes) will reflect their perception of the situation.73
Creating strong rules to govern diverse systems might be not only difficult but also
unwise. In sum, managers need to recognize the role of situation strength in the workplace and find the appropriate balance.
Trait Activation Theory
Trait Activation
Theory (TAT)
A theory that predicts
that some situations,
events, or interventions
“activate” a trait more
than others.
Detail Orientation
Required
Another important theoretical framework toward understanding personality and situations
is Trait Activation Theory (TAT). TAT predicts that some situations, events, or interventions “activate” a trait more than others. Using TAT, we can foresee which jobs suit certain
personalities. For example, a commission-based compensation plan would likely activate
individual differences because extraverts are more reward-sensitive, than, say, open people.
Conversely, in jobs that encourage creativity, differences in openness may better predict
desired behavior than differences in extraversion. See Exhibit 5-2 for specific examples.
TAT also applies to personality tendencies. For example, a recent study found people learning online responded differently when their behavior was electronically monitored. Those who had a high fear of failure had higher apprehension from the monitoring
than others, and consequently learned significantly less. In this case, a feature of the
environment (electronic monitoring) activated a trait (fear of failing), and the combination of the two meant lowered job performance.74 TAT can also work in a positive way.
One study found that, in a supportive environment, everyone behaved prosocially, but in a
harsh environment, only people with prosocial tendencies exhibited them.75
Together, situation strength and trait activation theories show that the debate over
nature versus nurture might best be framed as nature and nurture. Not only do both affect
behavior, but they interact with one another. Put another way, personality and the situation both affect work behavior, but when the situation is right, the power of personality to
predict behavior is even higher.
Social Skills
Required
Competitive
Work
Innovation
Required
Dealing with
Angry People
Time Pressure
(Deadlines)
Jobs scoring high (the traits listed here should predict behavior in these jobs)
Air traffic controller
Clergy
Coach/scout
Actor
Correctional officer
Accountant
Therapist
Financial manager
Systems analyst
Telemarketer
Broadcast news
analyst
Legal secretary
Concierge
Sales representative
Advertising
writer
Flight attendant
Editor
Airline pilot
Jobs scoring low (the traits listed here should not predict behavior in these jobs)
Forester
Software engineer
Postal clerk
Court reporter
Composer
Masseuse
Pump operator
Historian
Archivist
Biologist
Skincare specialist
Mathematician
Model
Broadcast
technician
Nuclear reactor
operator
Medical
technician
Statistician
Fitness trainer
Jobs that score high activate these traits (make them more relevant to predicting behavior)
Conscientiousness (+)
Extraversion (+)
Agreeableness (+)
Extraversion (+)
Agreeableness (–)
Openness (+)
Extraversion (+)
Agreeableness (+)
Neuroticism (–)
Conscientiousness (+)
Neuroticism (–)
Exhibit 5-2
Trait Activation Theory: Jobs in Which Certain Big Five Traits Are More Relevant
Note: A plus (+) sign means individuals who score high on this trait should do better in this job. A minus (−) sign
means individuals who score low on this trait should do better in this job.
M05_ROBB3859_14_SE_C05.indd 74
16/09/16 11:25 AM
Chapter 5 • Personality and Values
75
Values
Having discussed personality traits, we now turn to values. Values are often very specific
and describe belief systems rather than behavioral tendencies. Some beliefs or values
reflect a person’s personality, but we don’t always act consistently with our values. Is
capital punishment right or wrong? Is a desire for power good or bad? The answers to
these questions are value-laden.
Values represent basic convictions that “a specific mode of conduct or end-state of
existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or
end-state of existence.”76 Values contain a judgmental element because they carry an individual’s ideas about what is right, good, or desirable. They have both content and intensity
attributes. The content attribute says a mode of conduct or end-state of existence is important. The intensity attribute specifies how important it is. When we rank values in terms of
intensity, we obtain that person’s value system. We all have a hierarchy of values according
to the relative importance we assign to values such as freedom, pleasure, self-respect, honesty, obedience, and equality. Values tend to be relatively stable and enduring.77
Values lay the foundation for understanding attitudes and motivation, and they influence our perceptions. We enter an organization with preconceived notions of what
“ought” and “ought not” to be. These notions contain our interpretations of right and
wrong and our preferences for certain behaviors or outcomes. Regardless of whether they
clarify or bias our judgment, our values influence our attitudes and behaviors at work.
While values can sometimes augment decision making, at times they can cloud objectivity and rationality.78 Suppose you enter an organization with the view that allocating
pay on the basis of performance is right, while allocating pay on the basis of seniority is
wrong. How will you react if you find the organization you’ve just joined rewards seniority and not performance? You’re likely to be disappointed—this can lead to job dissatisfaction and a decision not to exert a high level of effort because “It’s probably not going
to lead to more money anyway.” Would your attitudes and behavior be different if your
values aligned with the organization’s pay policies? Most likely.
Values
Basic convictions that
a specific mode of
conduct or end-state of
existence is personally
or socially preferable to
an opposite or converse
mode of conduct or
end-state of existence.
Value system
A hierarchy based
on a ranking of an
individual’s values in
terms of their intensity.
Watch It
If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab
.com to complete the video exercise titled Honest Tea: Ethics—Company Mission
and Values.
Terminal versus Instrumental Values
How can we organize values? One researcher—Milton Rokeach—argued that we can
sepa...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment