Models of Organizational Behavior
Every organization develops a particular
model in which behaviour of the people takes
place. This model is developed on the basis of
management’s assumptions about people and
the vision of the management. Since these
assumptions vary to a great extent, these
result into the development of different
organizational behaviour models (OB models).
From the very beginning of the civilized
human society, two alternative approaches
have been adopted for placing trust on people.
One says “trust everyone unless there is a
contrary evidence”: another says “do not trust
anyone unless there is a contrary evidence”.
Naturally, interpersonal interactions take
place differently under these two approaches.
Following description of the organizations is
worth while to note here:
“Most of our originations tend to be arranged
on the assumption that people cannot be
trusted or relied on, even in tiny matters”.
However, this is only one side of the coin. For
example, McGregor has given theories X and Y
and each theory makes assumptions which are
quite contrary to each other; Argyris has given
the concept of immaturity and maturity of
people which also provides two opposite
views about the people. Thus, OB models
developed on the basis of these assumptions
would show great variations. However, OB
models that are in practice show some kind of
continuum between these two opposite poles,
though they tend to lean towards a particular
pole. Davis has described four OB models
which are as follows:
1. autocratic
2. custodial
3. supportive
4. collegial.
Autocratic Model
In the autocratic model, managerial
orientation is towards power. Managers see
authority as the only means to get the things
done, and employees are expected to follow
orders. The result is high dependence on boss.
This dependence is possible because
employees live on the subsistence level. The
organizational process is mostly formalized;
the authority is delegated by right of command
over people to whom it applies. The
management decides what is the best action
for the employees. The model is largely based
on the Theory of X assumptions of McGregor
where the human beings are taken inherently
distasteful to work and try to avid
responsibility. A very strict and close
supervision is required to obtain desirable
performance from them. Likert’s management
system can be compared with the model of
organizational behaviour. His system
(exploitative authoritative) in which
motivation depends on physical security and
some use of desire for start and better
performance is ensured through fear, threats,
punishment, and occasional rewards;
communications is mostly one-way, that is
downward: there is little interaction between
managers and employees.
The autocratic model represents traditional
thinking which is based on the economic
concept of the man. With the changing values
and aspiration levels of people, this model is
yielding place to others. However, this does
not mean that this model is discarded in toto.
In many cases; the autocratic model of
organizational behaviour may be a quite useful
way to accomplish performance, particularly
where the employees can be motivated by
physiological needs. This generally happens at
lower strata of the organization.
Custodial Model
In the custodial model, the managerial
orientation is towards the use of money to play
for employee benefits. The model depends on
the economic resources of the organization
and its ability to pay for the benefits. While the
employees hope to obtain security, at the same
time they become highly dependent on the
organization. An organizational dependence
reduces personal dependence on boss. The
employees are able to satisfy their security
needs or in the context of Herzberg’s theory
only maintenance factors. These employees
working under custodial model feel happy,
their level of performance is not very high.
This resembles again to Herzberg’s satisfier
and dissatisfier. Since employee are getting
adequate regards and organizational security,
they feel happy. However, they are not given
any authority to decide what benefits or
rewards they should get. This approach is
quite similar to partrimonial approach where
the basic assumption is that it is the
prerogative of management to decide what
benefits are best suited to the employees.
Such an approach is still quite common in
many business organizations in India. The
phenomenon is more predominant in family-
managed business organizations where family
characteristics have also been applied to the
organizational settings. The basic ingredient
of the family-managed system is that, parents
decide what is good or bad for their children
and managers decide what is good for their
employees. From this point of view, this model
is not suitable for matured employees.
Supportive Model
The supportive model organizational
behaviour depends on managerial leadership
rather than on the use of power of money. The
aim of managers is to support employees in
their achievement of results. The focus is
primarily on participation and involvement of
employees in managerial decision-making
process. The model is based on principles of
supportive relationship’s of Likert, which is
the basic ingredient of his system 4
(participative). Likert states that, the
leadership and other processes of the
organization must be such as to ensure a
maximum probability that in all interactions
and all relationships with the organizations
each member will, in the light of his
background, values and expectation views the
experience as supportive and one which builds
and maintains, his sense of personal worth and
importance.28 It is quite similar to the
assumptions of McGregor’s Theory Y. The
supportive model is based on the assumptions
that human beings move to the maturity level
and they expect the organizational climate
which supports this expectations. Various
organizational processes-communication,
leadership, decision-making, interaction,
control, and influence-are such that, these help
employees to fulfil their higher order needs
such as esteem and self-actualization.
Likert has shown that, supportive model is
best suited in the conditions when employees
are self-motivated. Thus, this emphasizes not
on the economic resources of the organization
but its human aspect. Manager’s role is to help
employees to achieve their work rather than
supervising them closely. This can be applied
more fruitfully for higher level managers
whose lower order needs are satisfied
reasonably. Organizations with sophisticated
technology and employing professional people
can also apply this model for getting best out
of their human resources. However, this does
not mean that, this model can be applied in all
circumstances. For example Davis observes
that, ‘the supportive model tends to be
specially effective in nations with affluence
and complex technology, because it appeals to
higher order needs and provides intrinsic
motivational factors. It may not be the best
model to apply in less developed nations.
Because their employees need structures who
are often at lower levels and their social
conditions are different’. Morever, this model
can be applied more fruitfully for managerial
levels as compared to operative levels. As
such, the tendency of modern management is
to move towards supportive model, especially
for their management groups.
Collegial Model
Collegial model is an extension of supportive
model. The term collegial refers to a body of
people having common purpose. Collegial
model is based on the team concept in which
each employee develops high degree of
understanding towards others and shares
common goals. The employee response to this
situation is responsibility. Employees need
little direction and control from management.
Control is basically through selfdiscipline by
the team members. The organizational
climate is quite conductive to selffulfillment
and self-actualization. Collegial model tends
to be more useful with unprogrammed work
requiring behavioural flexibility, an
intellectual environment, and considerable job
freedom.
The various models of organizational
behaviour are based on the assumption of the
human characteristics and how they can work
best. Since situational variables are strong
factors in determining the organizational
processes, managers cannot assume that a
particular model is best suitable for all
purposes and for all situations. Rather all the
models will remain in practice and that too
with considerable success. These models are
basically constructed around need hierarchy.
Since need hierarchy is not similar for all the
employees, the same model cannot be used for
all of them. The need hierarchy changes with
the level of a person in the organization, level
of his education, level of maturity, personality
factors and the type of work environment.
Considering these factors, a particular model
can be applied. Organization theorists have
argued that there is a tendency to move
towards the adoption of supportive model
because in this case people may give their best
because in other models they do not find
conditions conducive to give their best
performance. This is why managers are taking
a number of steps to humanize their
organizations, such as participation, morale
building, and so on to make the organizations
more effective.
Theories of Learning
Classical Conditioning
Classical conditioning is the association of one
event with another desired event resulting in
a behaviour. The most well known
experiments on classical conditioning were
conducted by Ivan Pavlov, the Russian
psychologist, who won the Nobel Prize for his
experiments on this subject. Pavlov conducted
an experiment on dogs and tried to establish a
Stimulus-Response (S-R) connection. He tried
to relate the dog’s salivation and the ringing of
the bell. In his experiments, he put some meat
in front of dogs.
The dogs responded to this stimulus by
salivating. This response was instinctive or
unconditioned. Pavlov next began to ring a bell
at the same time as the meat was presented.
Ringing the bell in itself, without the
presentation of meat, was not connected to
any responses. But by ringing the bell at the
same time as presentation of meat, Pavlov
established a relationship between the two
stimuli-the bell and the meat- in the mind of
the dogs. By continuing this process, the
ringing of bell alone was sufficient stimulus to
elicit a response of salivating, even when no
meat was presented. Thus, the bell became a
conditioned stimulus, resulting in conditioned
or learned response.
The above diagram explains that the meat was
an unconditioned stimulus. It caused the dog
to react in a certain way i.e. noticeable increase
in salivation. This reaction is called the
unconditioned response. The bell was an
artificial stimulus or conditioned stimulus. But
when the bell was paired with the meat (an
unconditioned stimulus), it eventually
produced a response. After conditioning, the
dog started salivating in response to the
ringing of the bell alone. Thus, conditioned
stimulus led to conditioned response.
In an organisational setting we can see
classical conditioning operating. For example,
at one manufacturing plant, every time the top
executive from the head office would make a
visit, the plant management would clean up
the administrative offices and wash the
windows. This went on for years.
Eventually, employees would turn on their
best behaviour and look prim and proper
whenever the windows were cleaned even on
those occasions when the cleaning was not
paired with the visit from the top brass. People
had learnt to associate the cleaning of the
windows with the visit from the head office.
Classical conditioning represents only a very
small part of total human learning. So it has a
limited value in the study of organisational
behaviour. Classical conditioning plays only a
passive role. We will react in a particular way
only if something happens. But in reality, the
behaviour of people in organisations is
voluntary rather than being reflexive. Their
behaviour is not elicited in response to a
specific, identifiable event but it is generally
emitted. The learning of complex behaviour
can be better understood by looking at
operant conditioning.
Operant Conditioning:
Operant is defined as behaviour that produces
effect. Operant conditioning is based on the
work of B.F. Skinner who advocated that
individuals emit responses that are rewarded
and will not emit responses that are either not
rewarded or are punished. Operant
conditioning argues that behaviour is a
function of its consequences. Behaviour is
likely to be repeated if the consequences are
favourable. Behaviour is not likely to be
repeated if the consequences are unfavorable.
Thus the relationship between behaviour and
consequences is the essence of the operant
conditioning.
Based upon this direct relationship between
the consequences and the behaviour, the
management can study and identify this
relationship and try to modify and control
behaviour. Hence, certain types of
consequences can be used to increase the
occurrence of a desired behaviour and other
types of consequences can be used to decrease
the occurrence of undesired behaviour.
One can see examples of operant conditioning
in the organisations. For instance, working
hard and getting the promotion will probably
cause the person to keep working hard in the
future. On the other hand, if a boss assures his
subordinate that he would be suitably
compensated in the next performance
appraisal, provided the employee works over
time.
However, when the evaluation time comes, the
boss does not fulfill his assurance to his
subordinate, even though the latter had
worked overtime. Next time, the subordinate
coolly declines to work overtime when the
boss requests him to do so. Thus, it can be
concluded that the behaviour consequences
that are rewarding increase the rate of
response, while the aversive consequences
decrease the rate of response. Operant
conditioning techniques are extensively used
in clinical and educational research, control of
alcoholism and control of deviant children in a
class room.
Cognitive Learning:
The pioneer of cognitive learning theory is
Edward Tolman. He developed and tested this
theory through controlled experiments. Using
rats in his laboratory, he showed that they
learnt to run through a complicated maze
towards their goal of food. It was observed
that rats developed expectations at every
choice point in the maze. Thus, they learnt to
expect that certain cognitive cues related to
the choice point could ultimately lead to food.
The learning took place when the relationship
between the cues and expectancy was
strengthened because the cues led to expected
goals.
The cognitive theory recognizes the role of an
organism in receiving, memorizing, retrieving
and interpreting the stimulus and reacting to
it. The cognitive explanation of learning differs
from classical conditioning (stimulus response
learning) and operant conditioning (response
stimulus learning). According to Tolman,
cognitive approach could be termed as
stimulus approach i.e. one stimulus leads to
another.
Cognitive learning is achieved by thinking
about the perceived relationship between
events and individual goals and expectations.
Cognitive theory of learning assumes that the
organism learns the meaning of various
objects and events and learned responses
depend upon the meaning assigned to stimuli.
Cognitive theorists argue that the learner
forms a cognitive structure in memory, which
preserves and organizes information about
the various events which occur in a learning
situation. When a test is conducted to
determine how much has been learned, the
subject must encode the test stimulus and scan
it against his memory to determine an
appropriate action. What is done will depend
upon the cognitive structure retrieved from
memory.
Today, the cognitive theory is very much alive
and relevant. In organisational behaviour the
cognitive approach has been applied mainly to
motivation theories. Expectations,
attributions and locus of control and goal
setting are all cognitive concepts and
represent the purposefulness of
organisational behaviour. Many researchers
are currently concerned about the
relationship or connection between cognitions
and organisational behaviour.
Social Learning
Individuals can also learn by observing what
happens to other people and just by being told
about something, as well as by direct
experiences. Much of what we have learned
comes from observing and imitating models-
parents, teachers, peers, superiors, film stars
etc. This view that we can learn through both
observation and direct experience has called
social learning theory.
This theory assumes that learning is not a case
of environmental determinism (classical and
operant views) or of individual determinism
(The cognitive view). Rather it is a blending of
both. Thus, social learning theory emphasizes
the interactive nature of cognitive,
behavioural and environmental determinants.
The influence of model is central to the social
learning view point. Four processes have been
found to determine the influence that a model
will have on an individual.
a. Attention Process
People learn from a model only when they
recognize and pay attention to its critical
features. We tend to be most influenced by
models that are attractive, repeatedly
available, important to us or similar to use in
our estimation.
b. Retention Processes
A model’s influence will depend upon how
well the individual remembers the model’s
action after the model is not longer readily
available.
c. Motor Reproduction Processes
After a person has seen a new behaviour by
observing the model, the watching must be
converted to doing. This process then
demonstrates that the individual can perform
the modelled activities.
d. Reinforcement Processes
Individuals will be motivated to exhibit the
modeled behaviour if positive incentives or
rewards are provided. Behaviours that are
positively reinforced will be given more
attention, learned better and performed more
often.
Shaping Behaviour
The learning process of individuals takes place
on the job as well as prior to the job. In any
organisation, managers will be concerned with
how they can teach employees to behave in the
ways that are most beneficial to the
organisation. When an attempt is made by the
managers to mould individuals by guiding
their learning in graduated steps he is shaping
their behaviour.
A manager can shape the behaviour by
systematical reinforcing each successive step
that move the individual closer to the desired
response. For example, an employee who
chronically leaves the office half hour early
starts leaving the office only twenty minutes
early, the manager can reinforce his behaviour
so that it comes more close to the desired
behaviour to leave the office in time. The first
theoretical treatment given to reinforcement
in learning and the framework that still
dominates today is E.L. Thorndike’s classic law
of effect.
The Law of Effect
In Thorndike’s own words, the law of effect
simply states that, “Of several response made
to the same situation, those which are
accompanied or closely followed by
satisfaction (Reinforcement)-will be more
likely to recur, those which are accompanied
or more closely followed by discomfort
(Punishment- will be less likely to recur.” The
operant conditioning or learning approach to
behaviour is based on the law of effect.
It has been demonstrated time after time in
highly controlled learning experiments and is
directly observable in everyday learning
experiences. For example, if employees who
work hard to achieve the ogranisational
objectives are suitably rewarded monetarily
or otherwise, they will tend to repeat their
efforts when new objectives are set.
Types of Reinforcement
The consequences of behavior are called
reinforcement. Managers can use various
kinds of reinforcement to affect employee
behavior. There are four basic forms of
reinforcement—positive reinforcement,
avoidance, extinction, and punishment.
Positive reinforcement is a reward or other
desirable consequence that follows behavior.
Providing positive reinforcement after a
particular behavior motivates employees to
maintain or increase the frequency of that
behavior. A compliment from the boss after an
employee has completed a difficult job and a
salary increase following a worker’s period of
high performance are examples of positive
reinforcement. This type of reinforcement has
been used at Corning’s ceramics factory in
Virginia, where workers receive bonuses for
pulling blemished materials from assembly
lines before they go into more expensive
stages of production. Intuit has started a
program of giving relatively small but
relatively frequent rewards when workers
perform well. So, for example, rather than
getting one large bonus at the end of the year,
a high performer may get several smaller ones
throughout the year.
Avoidance, also known as negative
reinforcement, is another means of increasing
the frequency of desirable behavior. Rather
than receiving a reward following a desirable
behavior, the person is given the opportunity
to avoid an unpleasant consequence. For
example, suppose that a boss habitually
criticizes employees who dress casually. To
avoid criticism, an employee may routinely
dress to suit the supervisor’s tastes. The
employee is thus motivated to engage in
desirable behavior (at least from the
supervisor’s viewpoint) to avoid an
unpleasant, or aversive, consequence.
Extinction decreases the frequency of
behavior, especially behavior that was
previously rewarded. If rewards are
withdrawn for behaviors that were previously
reinforced, the behaviors will probably
become less frequent and eventually die out.
For example, a manager with a small staff may
encourage frequent visits from subordinates
as a way of keeping in touch with what is going
on. Positive reinforcement might include
cordial conversation, attention to
subordinates’ concerns, and encouragement
to come in again soon. As the staff grows,
however, the manager may find that such
unstructured conversations make it difficult to
get her own job done. She then might begin to
brush off casual conversation and reward only
to-the-point “business” conversations.
Withdrawing the rewards for casual chatting
will probably extinguish that behavior. We
should also note that if managers,
inadvertently or otherwise, stop rewarding
valuable behaviors such as good performance,
those behaviors also may become extinct.
Punishment, like extinction, also tends to
decrease the frequency of undesirable
behaviors. Punishment is an unpleasant, or
aversive, consequence of a behavior. Examples
of punishment are verbal or written
reprimands, pay cuts, loss of privileges, layoffs,
and termination. Many experts question the
value of punishment and believe that
managers use it too often and use it
inappropriately. In some situations, however,
punishment may be an appropriate tool for
altering behavior. Many instances of life’s
unpleasantness teach us what to do by means
of punishment. Falling off a bike, drinking too
much, or going out in the rain without an
umbrella all lead to punishing consequences
(getting bruised, suffering a hangover, and
getting wet), and we often learn to change our
behavior as a result. Furthermore, certain
types of undesirable behavior may have far-
reaching negative effects if they go
unpunished. For instance, an employee who
sexually harasses a coworker, a clerk who
steals money from the petty cash account, and
an executive who engages in illegal stock
transactions all deserve punishment.
Terminal and Instrumental Values
Instrumental Values
core values, permanent in nature, comprise
personal characteristics and character traits.
Instrumental Values refer to preferable modes
of behaviour and include values like honesty,
sincerity, ambition, independence, obedience,
imaginativeness, courageousness,
competitiveness, and also some negative traits
too.
Organisations also have Instrumental Values
(which can be ascertained from the
organizational culture) and these are
permanent in nature and difficult to change.
For example, the instrumental values of a PSU
will differ from that of an MNC though both
may be in the same business.
Instrumental Values are difficult to change.
Terminal Values
In our personal lives, Terminal Values are
those things that we can work towards or we
think are most important and we feel are most
desirable – terminal values are desirable
states of existence.
Terminal Values include things like happiness,
self respect, family security, recognition,
freedom, inner harmony, comfortable life,
professional excellence, etc
In a nutshell, Terminal Values signify the
objectives of the life of a person – the ultimate
things the person wants to achieve through his
or her behaviour (the destination he wants to
reach in life) whereas Instrumental Values
indicate the methods an individual would like
to adopt for achieving his life’s aim (the path
he would like to take to reach his destination).
This applies to organisations as well, and
organizations too exhibit Terminal Values.
However, Terminal Values can be changed and
this can be seen when there is a change of top
management or CEO.
Milton Rokeach has identified 2 basic types of
values- terminal and instrumental. A terminal
value is an ultimate goal in a desired status or
outcome. An instrumental value, on the other
hand, is a tool or means for acquiring a
terminal value. For e.g., a person may desire
and strive to achieve happiness, a terminal
value by being ambitious, independent and
responsible (instrumental values). Some of the
terminal values are- Equality, Freedom,
Family Security, Happiness, National security.
Some of the Instrumental values are —
Ambitious, Broad-minded, Capable, Cheerful,
Honest.
The different values an individual has, both
terminal and instrumental, combine to create
an enduring cluster of values, a value system.
Our values and value system then are primary
determinants of who and what we are as
individual.
Dominant Values in Today’s Workforce
Just like different issues or aspects of life
shaped each generation's viewpoint of the
world, it also shaped and molded the values of
each generation. It is not hard to understand
that if you grew up during world war, you
would have a very different set of values than
if you grew up during the digital age and of
cellular phones. Those different values are
what make each generation unique. Some of
the values that we can identify for each
generation are:
 Traditionalists: Adherence to rules,
discipline, family focus, hard work, and
trust in the government
 Baby Boomers: Anti-war, anti-
government, equal rights,
involvement, and personal
gratification
 Generation X: Balance, diversity, lack
of loyalty to an organization, and a
global mindset
 Millennials: Achievement, fun, civic
duty, sociability, and self-confidence
Hofstede’s Five Value Dimensions of
National Culture
The Hofstede model of national culture
consists of six dimensions. The cultural
dimensions represent independent
preferences for one state of affairs over
another that distinguish countries (rather
than individuals) from each other.
The country scores on the dimensions are
relative, in that we are all human and
simultaneously we are all unique. In other
words, culture can only be used meaningfully
by comparison. The model consists of the
following dimensions:
POWER DISTANCE INDEX (PDI)
This dimension expresses the degree to which
the less powerful members of a society accept
and expect that power is distributed
unequally. The fundamental issue here is how
a society handles inequalities among people.
People in societies exhibiting a large degree of
Power Distance accept a hierarchical order in
which everybody has a place and which needs
no further justification. In societies with low
Power Distance, people strive to equalise the
distribution of power and demand
justification for inequalities of power.
INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM
(IDV)
The high side of this dimension, called
Individualism, can be defined as a preference
for a loosely-knit social framework in which
individuals are expected to take care of only
themselves and their immediate families.
Its opposite, Collectivism, represents a
preference for a tightly-knit framework in
society in which individuals can expect their
relatives or members of a particular ingroup to
look after them in exchange for unquestioning
loyalty. A society’s position on this dimension
is reflected in whether people’s self-image is
defined in terms of “I” or “we.”
MASCULINITY VERSUS FEMININITY (MAS)
The Masculinity side of this dimension
represents a preference in society for
achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and
material rewards for success. Society at large
is more competitive. Its opposite, Femininity,
stands for a preference for cooperation,
modesty, caring for the weak and quality of
life. Society at large is more consensus-
oriented.
In the business context Masculinity versus
Femininity is sometimes also related to as
“tough versus tender” cultures.
UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE INDEX (UAI)
The Uncertainty Avoidance dimension
expresses the degree to which the members of
a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty
and ambiguity. The fundamental issue here is
how a society deals with the fact that the
future can never be known: should we try to
control the future or just let it happen?
Countries exhibiting strong UAI maintain rigid
codes of belief and behaviour, and are
intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas.
Weak UAI societies maintain a more relaxed
attitude in which practice counts more than
principles.
LONG TERM ORIENTATION VERSUS SHORT
TERM NORMATIVE ORIENTATION (LTO)
Every society has to maintain some links with
its own past while dealing with the challenges
of the present and the future. Societies
prioritize these two existential goals
differently.
Societies who score low on this dimension, for
example, prefer to maintain time-honoured
traditions and norms while viewing societal
change with suspicion.
Those with a culture which scores high, on the
other hand, take a more pragmatic approach:
they encourage thrift and efforts in modern
education as a way to prepare for the future.
In the business context, this dimension is
referred to as “(short-term) normative versus
(long-term) pragmatic” (PRA). In the academic
environment, the terminology
Monumentalism versus Flexhumility is
sometimes also used.
INDULGENCE VERSUS RESTRAINT (IND)
Indulgence stands for a society that allows
relatively free gratification of basic and
natural human drives related to enjoying life
and having fun. Restraint stands for a society
that suppresses gratification of needs and
regulates it by means of strict social norms.
Three Components of Attitude
Cognition is the knowledge a person presumes
to have about something. You may believe you
like a class because the textbook is excellent,
the class meets at your favorite time, the
instructor is outstanding, and the workload is
light. This “knowledge” may be true, partially
true, or totally false. For example, you may
intend to vote for a particular candidate
because you think you know where the
candidate stands on several issues. In reality,
depending on the candidate’s honesty and
your understanding of his or her statements,
the candidate’s thinking on the issues may be
exactly the same as yours, partly the same, or
totally different. Cognitions are based on
perceptions of truth and reality,
and, as we note later, perceptions agree with
reality to varying degrees.
A person’s affect is his or her feelings toward
something. In many ways, affect is
similar to emotion—it is something over
which we have little or no conscious control.
For example, most people react to words such
as “love,” “hate,” “sex,” and “war” in a manner
that reflects their feelings about what those
words convey. Similarly, you may like one of
your classes, dislike another, and be
indifferent toward a third. If the class you
dislike is an elective, you may not be
particularly concerned. But if it is the first
course in your chosen major, your affective
reaction may cause you considerable anxiety.
Intention guides a person’s behavior. If you
like your instructor, you may intend to take
another class from him or her next semester.
Intentions are not always translated into
actual behavior, however. If the instructor’s
course next semester is scheduled for 8 a.m.,
you may decide that another instructor is just
as good. Some attitudes, and their
corresponding intentions, are much more
central and significant to an individual than
others. You may intend to do one thing (take a
particular class) but later alter your intentions
because of a more significant and central
attitude (fondness for sleeping late).
o Affective component: this involves a
person’s feelings / emotions about the
attitude object. For example: “I am
scared of spiders”.
o Behavioral (or conative) component:
the way the attitude we have
influences how we act or behave. For
example: “I will avoid spiders and
scream if I see one”.
o Cognitive component: this involves a
person’s belief / knowledge about an
attitude object. For example: “I believe
spiders are dangerous”.
Types of Attitudes in Relation to Work
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction refers to one’s feeling towards
one’s job. An individual having satisfaction is
said to posses positive attitude towards the
job. Conversely, a dissatisfied person will have
negative attitude towards his orher job. When
people speak of employee attitudes they
invariably refer to job satisfaction. In fact, the
two terms are used interchangeably, though
subtle difference does exist between the two.
Job Involvement
Job involvement refers to the degree with
which an individual identifies psychologically
with his or her job and perceives his or her
perceived performance level important to self
worth. High degree of job involvement results
in fewer absence and lower resignation rates.
Organizational Commitment
The last job attitude refers to organizational
commitment. It is understood as one’s
identification with his or her organization and
feels proud of being its employee. Job
involvement refers to one’s attachment to a
job whereas organizational commitment
implies an employee’s identification with a
particular organization and its goals. Needless
to say, it is to state that, an individual may be
attached to his or her job but may be
indifferent to the organization and its
objectives. Turnover and absenteeism are low
when employees have organizational
commitment.
Different Responses to Dissatisfaction
Exit
Exit includes leaving the organization,
transferring to another work unit, or at least
trying to get away from the dissatisfying
situation. The traditional theory is that job
dissatisfaction builds over time and is
eventually strong enough to motivate
employees to search for better work
opportunities elsewhere. This is likely true to
some extent, but the most recent opinion is
that specific “shock events” quickly energize
employees to think about and engage in exit
behavior.
decision. In the extreme, some employees
might engage in counterproductive behaviors
to get attention and force changes in the
organization.
Loyalty
In the original version of this model, loyalty
was not an outcome of dissatisfaction. Rather,
it determined whether people chose exit or
voice (i.e., high loyalty resulted in voice; low
loyalty produced exit). More recent writers
describe loyalty as an outcome, but in various
and somewhat unclear ways. Generally, they
suggest that “loyalists” are employees who
respond to dissatisfaction by patiently
waiting—some say they “suffer in silence”—
for the problem to work itself out or be
resolved by others.
Neglect
Neglect includes reducing work effort, paying
less attention to quality, and increasing
absenteeism and lateness. It is generally
considered a passive activity that has negative
consequences for the organization.

For example, the emotional reaction you

experience to an unfair management decision
or a conflict episode with a co-worker
motivates you to look at job ads and speak to
friends about job opportunities where they
work. This begins the process of redefining
your self-concept more in terms of another
company than in terms of your current
employer.

Voice
Voice is any attempt to change, rather than
escape from, the dissatisfying situation. Voice
can be a constructive response, such as
recommending ways for management to
improve the situation, or it can be more
confrontational, such as filing formal
grievances or forming a coalition to oppose a