Organisational Psychology

0. Introduction — Key Words

Organisation: a group of people who come together for a particular purpose — e.g. company, department, institution (profit-making, voluntary or public).

Organisational psychology: the applied study of how people think, feel and behave within organisations — theory + research from across psychology applied to the world of work (how individuals & groups function, influence each other and affect the organisation).

Psychometrics: theory / methods used to test and measure psychological phenomena (e.g. intelligence or personality tests) — used to fit people to roles.

5 topics in the chapter

1. 9.1 Motivation to work — need theories, cognitive theories, motivators
2. 9.2 Leadership & management — theories, styles, leaders & followers
3. 9.3 Group behaviour — development, decision-making, performance, conflict & bullying
4. 9.4 Work conditions — physical (Hawthorne), temporal (shifts), health & safety
5. 9.5 Satisfaction at work — theories, measuring, attitudes (sabotage, absenteeism, commitment)

9.1 Motivation to Work

Why work? Obvious answer = money, but psychologists ask how work fulfils needs, how goals motivate and how internal / external motivation operate.

A. NEED THEORIES

① Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1943)

Key words: needs = things required or wanted by a person; hierarchy = items arranged so some are above/equal/below others in importance.

We must satisfy basic needs before higher needs; move up by fulfilling each level. All human needs fit one hierarchy. Some people never climb the whole thing.

1. Biological / physiological: basic survival — air, shelter, water, food, sleep, sex
2. Safety: security, stable society, legal & justice systems — impossible in civil war / as refugees
3. Love & belongingness (social): friendship, family
4. Esteem: achievement, skills, status, independence — met differently in different people (family role, well-paid job, voluntary work, creating something that gets praise)
5. Transcendence (text list) / self-actualisation (figure): helping others achieve self-actualisation; desire for self-fulfilment

Self-actualisation = desire for self-fulfilment; ways to meet it are individual (e.g. one person through being a parent, another a successful athlete).

Research (Saeednia, 2011): tested Maslow with a scale measuring basic-needs satisfaction — 300 participants rated on physiological, safety, love, esteem and cognitive needs → scale found a valid & reliable measure.

Application: most organisations let employees meet basic needs → break times (meals, rest); clear rules & responsibilities (security); recognising achievement / making people feel part of a team (esteem). Once lower needs met → employees may self-motivate towards self-actualisation.

② McClelland's Theory of Achievement Motivation (1965)

Different needs motivate different people and the differences are measurable; non-hierarchical. Three needs:

Need	Meaning	Motivated by…
achievement (N-Ach)	to get things done, accomplish, succeed	challenges & appraisals
affiliation	to be liked, accepted as part of a group, build social relationships	cooperative tasks; prefer working with others
power	influence & control over others	status, prestige, being looked up to

Measuring N-Ach: Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) — ambiguous images; person says what is happening, what happened just before, what happens next, what the person is thinking. TAT is a projective test (ambiguous stimuli e.g. ink blots/TAT; response reveals hidden emotions/conflicts the person projects onto the image).

Application: match people to roles that suit their need for achievement (measurable personal characteristic). Applies to people regardless of race, gender or age — but ignores culture/individual differences on needs.

B. COGNITIVE THEORIES

Differ from need theories: they examine the thinking processes involved in motivation.

① Locke & Latham's Goal-Setting Theory

Goal = desired result of a person's work or effort. Opposes McClelland's idea that motives are unconscious and only measurable by projective tests → assumes behaviour is affected by conscious planning and intention.

Locke (1981): goal setting = key motivator for working hard & improving performance. Locke & Latham (1984): specific goals → higher performance than vague goals.

The 4C + F principles

Principle	Meaning
Clarity	clear, specific, unambiguous, measurable
Challenge	relevant; stretches the setter so achieving it is a genuine reward
Complexity	must be achievable → break complex goals into separate tasks, each achieved in a specific time period

Commitment	goal must be understood and accepted by the setter; goals set by others are less likely to be committed to
Feedback	on task progress & achievement; positive, constructive, focused on strategies used; allows reflection by the individual (not only feedback from a superior)

SMART goals (developed from the 4C F)

Specific · Measurable · Attainable · Relevant · Timescale

② Vroom's VIE (Expectancy) Theory (1964)

Workers are rational beings; decision-making guided by logical thought. Emphasis = potential costs and rewards. Performance depends on many factors (knowledge, skills, experience, personality, ambitions, goals). Claims all workers can be motivated if:

• there is a clear relationship between effort and performance
• favourable performance is rewarded
• the reward satisfies a need
• the desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile

• Expectancy = perception of how much effort relates to performance + worker's confidence in what they can do. Modified by extra resources, training & supervision (Fig 9.3: training/development opportunities change expectancy).
• Instrumentality = perception of how much effort will be rewarded & whether workers believe they'll actually get the reward. Improves if management always gives rewards as promised.
• Valence = strength/size of the reward and how needed/wanted it is. A small reward ⇒ low motivation whatever the other two values.

C. MOTIVATORS AT WORK

Intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation

	Intrinsic (internal)	Extrinsic (external)
comes from	within — enjoyment, satisfaction, achievement; from the task itself	outside — external rewards: money, promotion, bonuses
example	health & social care worker: sense of helping others, making a difference	finance worker: high earnings + bonuses

Different organisations offer different motivators. (Activity 9.2/9.3: list your reasons for a job and sort them into internal / external.)

Extrinsic: types of reward system

• Pay (salary), bonuses (can be huge in finance), performance-related pay (harder/quicker = more money), profit sharing (% of company profit shared → sense of belonging, ↑ motivation; not available in non-profit orgs e.g. health/education).

Are monetary rewards successful in improving productivity? Evidence on BOTH sides (de Waal & Jansen, 2011):

Supports bonuses ✓	Contradicts ✗
Yao (1997): over half of productivity growth in Chinese State industries attributed to bonuses · Belfield & Marsden (2005): positive effects of performance-related pay · Hollowell (2005): firms paying senior executives high performance-related pay kept strong stock-market presence	Orgs with very high inequalities (highest vs lowest paid) have high staff turnover → productivity gains outweighed by costs of low performers · Fattorusso et al. (2007, UK) & Duffhues & Kabir (2008, Holland): no relationship between bonus size and performance

Intrinsic: non-monetary rewards

Praise, respect, recognition, empowerment, sense of belonging. Unlike money (promised from the start), recognition only happens when a worker is recognised for contributions; acts as positive reinforcement. Achievement → empowerment ("I can achieve anything!").

• Forms: a simple thank-you · formal letter of thanks from manager · award ceremonies · "employee of the month" (public) · extra responsibility (controlling an aspect of the job/environment).
• Rose (1998): ~75% of UK organisations had some non-monetary recognition scheme.
• Reed (large UK recruiter): recognition rated most important factor in job satisfaction; salary rated sixth.
• Brown & Armstrong (1999): positive affective relationships between managers & workers, and showing appreciation → workers more likely to stay (↓ staff turnover) and ↑ satisfaction → develops sense of belonging.

③ Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985)

Motivation & personality theory: human behaviour is motivated by an innate need for growth and improvement. Focuses on intrinsic (not extrinsic) motivation. Term first used in their 1985 book Self-Determination and Intrinsic Motivation in Human Behavior. Self-determined behaviours = intrinsically driven, aimed at feeling good about oneself / enjoying the behaviour.

• Competence: need to effectively deal with surroundings — enough knowledge/skills to complete tasks, interact effectively, achieve goals. Positive feedback/recognition ↑; negative feedback or a too-challenging task ↓.
• Relatedness: need to belong / be close to others; ↑ when feeling wanted in a group; conflict or exclusion ↓.
• Autonomy: ability to feel independent and in control of choices; ↑ with freedom to monitor/manage own behaviour; being controlled/coerced ↓.

Self-determination directly affects motivation to work: believing you can manage your own planning & behaviour → motivation to complete goals. Extrinsic rewards can undermine self-determination — external rewards for already-intrinsic behaviour reduce autonomy, making behaviour dependent on external forces.

★ KEY STUDY: Landry et al. (2019)

Applying self-determination theory to understand the motivational impact of cash rewards: new evidence from lab experiments. International Journal of Psychology, 55(3).

Context: monetary rewards used for productivity & retention (extrinsic) but high cost to employer; research on extrinsic motivation ↔ performance is mixed. Tested whether how a reward is presented (supporting vs controlling a psychological need) affects performance.

Theory: SDT — motivation is primarily intrinsic; rewards should support competence, relatedness, autonomy. Each need can be supported or controlled (threatened) by the nature/meaning of the reward → the same reward, presented two ways, can give different effects.

Aim: effect on motivation & performance when a reward is presented as supporting vs controlling psychological needs.

• H1: autonomy-supportive presentation → better performance than autonomy-controlling.
• H2: supporting rewards support psychological needs ⇒ ↑ intrinsic motivation; controlling rewards frustrate needs ⇒ ↑ extrinsic motivation.

Design (Study 1): lab experiment, independent groups, random allocation. 123 French-speaking students, Canadian university, 60% female, mean age 23, volunteers (informed consent).

IV: reward framing — autonomy-supportive ("reward as a token of appreciation for your contribution") vs autonomy-controlling ("to reinforce the performance standards for the task at hand"). DVs: performance on anagram task; self-report Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction Scale (shortened) — needs fulfilled/frustrated; Situational Motivation Scale — intrinsic & extrinsic motivation.

Controls: participants rated the value of the reward (individual differences in perceived value) · completed an affect (emotion) scale (mood after reading instructions).

Results: need satisfaction (autonomy-supported) ↔ + intrinsic motivation & + performance, − extrinsic motivation. Need frustration (autonomy-controlled) ↔ − intrinsic motivation & − performance, + extrinsic motivation.

Conclusion: rewards that support psychological needs raise intrinsic motivation and performance more than rewards that undermine them. Supporting needs = intrinsic, not extrinsic, motivation.

9.2 Leadership & Management

A. TRADITIONAL & MODERN THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP

① Universalist theories

Look at personal qualities / characteristics shared (universal) by all great leaders.

Theory	Key points
Great Man / Great Person Theory	Thomas Carlyle, 1840. Great leaders are born with certain traits that let them rise to power and lead using instinct → leaders are born, not made (nature side of nature–nurture).
Charismatic leader	has charisma + interpersonal skills to inspire & lead; excellent public speaking, high confidence; "visionaries"; often unconventional, may show unstable behaviours; often challenge legitimate authority and may act illegally.
Transformational leader	e.g. Martin Luther King Jr — inspires followers to achieve big/unexpected change; supports followers to think for themselves to mobilise change; cares about followers, encourages them, upholds moral values.

Key words: charisma = quality of being charming/appealing in a way that inspires devotion · transformational = ability to produce a significant change in a situation.

② Behaviourist theories

Look at the specific behaviours shown by leaders, not their personal qualities.

Ohio State University (Stogdill & Coons, 1957): data from many studies → 100+ behaviours → fall into 2 independent categories (a leader can be high or low on each):

• Initiating structure: allocating tasks, creating groups & defining goals, setting deadlines & making sure they're met, making sure workers work to a set standard.
• Consideration: genuine concern for workers' feelings; rapport, trust & respect; listens more; improves performance by boosting self-confidence.

University of Michigan: similar studies → 2 types very similar to the above:

Michigan	≈ Ohio State	Focus
Task-oriented behaviours	initiating structure	the task: structure, targets & standards, supervise & monitor workers and progress
Relationship-oriented behaviours	consideration	well-being of workforce; understanding interpersonal relationships between workers and managers

③ Adaptive challenges (Heifetz)

As organisations grow bigger & more complex, traditional leadership may no longer suit → need for change / adaptation; old working practices & values may be irrelevant. Heifetz (2009) / Heifetz et al. (1997): leadership = "art of mobilising people (in organisations and communities) to tackle tough issues, adapt and thrive". Leader shifts the responsibility for change to the workforce instead of providing solutions → distressing for some (new roles/skills/values, maybe no place left); role = allow disorientation, conflict and challenge to create a new organisation that can survive.

Heifetz's 6 principles of adaptive leadership

1. "Get on the balcony" — see the whole picture; view the organisation as if observing from above.
2. Identify the adaptive change — identify the need for change AND determine its nature & extent (structure, values, working practices, working relationships).
3. Regulate distress — adaptive change stresses people; pressure must motivate but not overwhelm; tolerate uncertainty & frustration, communicate confidence.
4. Maintain disciplined attention — be open to contrasting views; confront difficult issues directly, don't cover them up.
5. Give the work back to the people — everyone has special information from their role; step back from telling people what to do; they're best placed to find solutions.
6. Protect voices of leadership from below — "giving a voice to all people is the foundation of an organisation willing to experiment and learn"; those who speak up are often silenced; ignoring them can be fatal.

Leader's responsibilities	Technical / routine work	Adaptive work
Direction	define problems & solutions	identify challenges and ask questions
Orientation	establish clear responsibilities for staff	question current roles & responsibilities
Protection	protect organisation from threats	allow organisation to be exposed to some pressure
Managing conflict	resolve disputes & keep order	let conflict & problems emerge
Shaping norms	maintain existing norms	identify & question norms

B. LEADERSHIP STYLE

① Styles of leader behaviour — Muczyk & Reimann (1987)

Earlier research stressed the benefits of the democratic style (shares decision-making, values followers' input, ideal of social equality). Contrast: autocratic (leader controls decision-making, little/no input, rigid distinction between leader and followers).

They separate two dimensions: Participation (low = autocratic, high = democratic/participative) and Direction (low = permissive: little/general supervision; high = directive: close supervision, constant follow-up). Directive behaviour = how the leader deals with what happens after the decision (specifying how tasks are done + follow-up). Key point: making a decision ≠ ensuring it is carried through.

② Levels of leadership — Scouller 3P model (2011)

Leadership presence can be developed; 3 levels of leadership exist for any leader style:

• Public leadership: behaviours to influence groups (e.g. holding a meeting to influence opinions) — "outer" level, externally facing & visible; group building & trust.
• Private leadership: influencing individuals — getting to know individuals in a team, agreeing individual goals that contribute to group aims; coaching, managing, even removing members. Also "outer" level.
• Personal leadership: qualities shown by the individual — psychological & ethical development, technical ability, skills & beliefs, emotions, subconscious behaviours, "presence". Leaders must grow leadership presence, know-how and skill (technical know-how, right attitude to others, psychological self-mastery — the most crucial aspect).

C. LEADERSHIP STYLE AND GENDER

Researchers ask whether males' and females' leadership styles differ, and what effects those styles have.

★ KEY STUDY: Cuadrado, Morales & Recio (2008)

Women's access to managerial positions: an experimental study of leadership styles and gender. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(1).

Context: women under-represented in positions of power (e.g. UK NHS — women ¾ of workforce but only 37% of NHS trust directors are women, Taylor & Hartley 2021). Glass ceiling = invisible barrier preventing a group (here, women) from progressing beyond a certain level in a hierarchy.

Explanation tested: women are stereotyped as cooperative, gentle, passive (democratic, relationship-oriented). If they use male-stereotypical (autocratic, task-oriented) styles they are less popular/face prejudice → less likely to be promoted; or they choose less effective styles.

Aims: (1) effect of leader sex and stereotypical / non-stereotypical style on work evaluations; (2) does the sex of the evaluator affect how female/male leaders are evaluated?

• H1: female leaders get less favourable evaluations than male leaders when using stereotypically masculine behaviours.
• H2: male leaders will not get less favourable evaluations than female leaders when using stereotypically feminine behaviours.
• H3: female leaders get less favourable evaluations from male evaluators than from female evaluators.
• H4: male leaders get similar evaluations from male and female evaluators.

Design: lab experiment, independent groups, random allocation. 136 psychology students (National Open University of Spain): 53% women (mean age 27), 47% men (mean 29). Told they were in a "study on decision-making".

IVs: sex of leader (F/M) · sex of evaluator (F/M) · leadership style (female-stereotypical/democratic vs male-stereotypical/autocratic). DVs: adjective list · leadership capacity · leadership efficacy.

Procedure: evaluated a supervisor ("Carlos" or "Lucía") of an emergency medical service after a trial period. 4 versions of the narrative — only leader sex & leadership style changed. Anonymous questionnaires, 7-point Likert scale (1 = never applicable, 7 = always applicable).

DV	Measure
adjective list	7 positive (intelligent, honest, clever) + 7 negative (forgetful, bossy, discouraging) adjectives rated to judge the image of the leader
leadership capacity	4 items — attitude & knowledge required, e.g. "X is a competent supervisor"
leadership efficacy	5 items — ability to produce desired outcome, e.g. "X does not perform his/her works as a supervisor well enough"

Results: H1 & H2 not supported — expected feminine style to disadvantage supervisors, but the democratic, feminine style was favoured in BOTH female and male leaders (highest on adjective list, capacity, efficacy), for both male and female evaluators. No significant difference by evaluator sex or leader sex (H3 & H4: evaluator's sex had no influence).

Conclusion: autocratic, stereotypically masculine leadership is evaluated less favourably than democratic, stereotypically feminine leadership in both female and male leaders. Researchers suggest the growth in popularity of democratic leadership in organisations in recent years may explain it.

D. LEADERS AND FOLLOWERS

① Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) — Kouzes & Posner (1987)

Leadership = a "measurable, learnable and teachable set of behaviours". LPI measures how much an individual engages in each of 5 practices of exemplary leadership (from research on successful leaders). Six behavioural statements per practice.

5 practices	Example statements
1 Model the way	sets a personal example of what he/she expects of others · clear about personal philosophy of leadership
2 Inspire a shared vision	describes a compelling image of what our future could be like · appeals to others to share an exciting dream
3 Challenge the process	experiments & takes risks even when there's a chance of failure · challenges people to try new & innovative ways
4 Enable others to act	treats others with dignity & respect · supports decisions people make on their own
5 Encourage the heart	praises people for a job well done · lets people know his/her confidence in their abilities

Individual's self-ratings of frequency + a number of observer ratings combined into a final profile → shows areas for personal development. K&P strongly believe leadership is learned, not born; many ways different personalities (introverts / extroverts) can be developed into successful leaders.

② Followership — Kelley (1988)

Without followers there can be no leaders; success/failure of a leader may also depend on how well followers follow. Followership = ability & behaviour of followers to interact with and respond to their leaders; follower = person who supports and takes direction from a leader.

Kelley's 2 dimensions: independent critical thinking (high ↔ dependent, uncritical) and active ↔ passive (passive = step back and wait for others to act; active = act to meet organisational goals if they see the opportunity).

1. Sheep: passive, lack commitment, need external motivation & constant supervision; do a task given, then stop — no initiative / critical thinking.
2. Yes-people: committed to leader & goal; conformist; don't question leader's decisions; defend leader when opposed.
3. Survivors: not trailblazers; won't back controversial/unique ideas until most of the group has; go with the flow, survive organisational change well.
4. Alienated followers: negative & critical, question the leader's decisions/actions but rarely voice it; fairly passive in carrying out their role.
5. Effective followers: positive, active, independent thinkers; don't unquestioningly accept decisions until they've evaluated them; can succeed without a leader.

9.3 Group Behaviour in Organisations

An organisation = one large group; within it are many groups of different sizes (operational teams, same-level employees, project groups). Psychologists study how groups form, establish roles and make decisions.

A. GROUP DEVELOPMENT AND DECISION-MAKING

① Stages of group development — Tuckman (1965)

All groups go through the same stages: forming → storming → norming → performing → adjourning (applied to countless groups).

Stage	What happens
Forming	team acquaints & establishes ground rules; formalities preserved; members treated as strangers
Storming	members start to communicate feelings but still see themselves as individuals rather than a team; resist control by group leaders and show hostility
Norming	people feel part of the team and realise they can achieve work goals if they accept other viewpoints
Performing	team works in an open and trusting atmosphere; flexibility is key; hierarchy of little importance
Adjourning	team assesses the year & implements a plan for transitioning roles and recognising members' contributions

② Team roles — Belbin (1981)

An ideal team contains people who take on different roles (Belbin's 9 roles in 3 groups):

Type	Role	What they do
Action-oriented	Shaper	challenges the team to improve
	Implementer	puts ideas into action
	Completer-finisher	ensures thorough, timely completion

People-oriented	Coordinator	acts as chairperson
	Team worker	encourages cooperation
	Resource investigator	explores outside opportunities

Thought-oriented	Plant	presents new ideas & approaches
	Monitor-evaluator	analyses the options
	Specialist	provides specialised skills

Role	Strengths	Weaknesses
Shaper	dynamic, extrovert, stimulates others, questions views, finds best approaches; sees obstacles as exciting challenges	argumentative, may upset colleagues
Implementer	gets things done; turns ideas into practical plans; systematic, efficient, organised	inflexible, resists change
Completer-finisher	thorough, no mistakes, attention to detail, deadlines	perfectionist, worries unnecessarily, hard to delegate

Coordinator	traditional team-leader; calm, good-natured; listens; delegates well	delegates too much personal responsibility; can be manipulative
Team worker	supports, makes people work together; negotiator, flexible, diplomatic, perceptive; popular; prioritises cohesion	indecisive
Resource investigator	innovative, curious; develops contacts & negotiates for resources; enthusiastic; outgoing; works with external stakeholders	loses enthusiasm quickly

Plant	creative, comes up with new ideas; thrives on praise; often introverted, prefers working alone	struggles with criticism & to commit; impractical ideas; poor communicator
Monitor-evaluator	smart, objective, strategic; weighs pros & cons before deciding	seen as detached / unemotional
Specialist	specialised knowledge; pride in skills & expertise	focuses on technicalities, not the bigger picture

③ Faulty decision-making — Groupthink (Janis, 1971)

Definition: groupthink = a psychological phenomenon in which the desire for harmony or conformity in a group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome — a decision is made that individuals would not have made.

Janis's 8 symptoms

#	Symptom	Meaning
1	Illusions of invulnerability	group believes it can do no wrong → over-optimism, risky decisions
2	Unquestioned beliefs	no questioning (legal / moral) → consequences not considered
3	Rationalising	ignore warning signs; assume everything will be alright
4	Stereotyping	those raising issues are ignored / labelled out-group
5	Self-censorship	don't voice own doubts as no one else seems to have any (like diffusion of responsibility, Piliavin)
6	Mind guards	"self-appointed censors" hide problematic information from the group
7	Illusions of unanimity	group appears to agree because of the behaviours above
8	Direct pressure to conform	dissenters pressured, seen as disloyal/traitors

Causes: group members very similar to each other · an extremely charismatic leader · high stress · morally challenging situations. Benefit: with large groups, groupthink can help decide, complete tasks & finish projects efficiently.

Cognitive limitations & errors — Forsyth (2006): 3 "sins" of bias

bias = systematic errors in thinking when people interpret information · fundamental attribution error = under-use of situational explanations, over-emphasis of dispositional ones.

Sin	Meaning	Sub-types
Commission	misuse of information	belief perseverance (use info already shown inaccurate) · sunken cost bias (stay committed because of time/money already invested) · extra-evidentiary bias (use info after being told to ignore it) · hindsight bias (overestimate importance of past knowledge)
Omission	overlooking key information	base rate bias (ignoring basic relevant info) · fundamental attribution error (inaccurate appraisals of an individual's behaviour)
Imprecision	over-reliance on biases / heuristics that over-simplify	availability heuristic (most easily available info) · conjunctive bias (ignore relationships between events) · representativeness heuristic (misleading factors that seem meaningful)

B. INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP PERFORMANCE

Built on 2 AS social approach assumptions: (1) behaviour, cognitions & emotions are influenced by the actual, implied or imagined presence of others; (2) all can be influenced by social contexts & environments.

① Social facilitation

Triplett (1898): cyclists raced faster training in a group than alone. Allport (1920) labelled it social facilitation = increased performance/effort in the real or imagined presence of others.

• Co-action effect: doing the same task alongside others → improved performance (e.g. runner beats solo best time training with others; virtual co-working since Covid-19: say hello, set task objectives, work quietly for 1 h → accountability).
• Audience effect: passive observers (not doing a similar task) improve performance.

Task type matters: new/difficult tasks → performance may be worsened by others = social inhibition (don't like being watched doing something for the first time). Facilitation is most readily seen with familiar / easy tasks.

Factor	Explanation
Cognitive	others present create a conflict — attention to the audience vs attention to the task; conflict motivates more attention to task → ↑ performance
Affective	evaluation apprehension — worry/anxiety about audience approval/disapproval; can improve performance
Physiological	Zajonc (1966) drive theory — aroused by challenge + audience; rely on dominant responses that reduce arousal: routine task → correct; challenging task → stressful → dominant responses not well matched

Key words: drive theory = increased internal motivation to reach a goal (primary: survival / secondary: learned) · evaluation apprehension = arousal from an audience who may evaluate you.

② Social loafing

Definition: people perform worse on a task in the presence of others than alone — don't work as hard in a group; more likely when behaviour isn't closely watched.

Ringelmann (1913): French engineer studied agricultural workers — groups outperform individuals but not as well as they could if each worked at maximum capacity → "the whole is less than the sum of its parts"; output lost through poor coordination + reduced motivation.

Explanation — Social Impact Theory (Latané, 1981): individuals can be a source and a target of social pressure. When people work together, influence is diffused across group members; if supervision is weak (manager's strength, immediacy, number reduced) → pressure to perform is reduced → social loafing.

Rule & equation	Description	Example
Social Force i = f(SIN)	level of pressure to change behaviour: Strength (power of the influencer) · Immediacy (how close / recent) · Numbers (number of influencers)	Milgram: experimenter (N) in authoritative clothes (S), in the same room (I)
Psycho-social law	first source of influence has biggest effect; subsequent sources less effective	being watched by two people is not twice as bad as by one
Divisions of impact i = f(1/SIN)	social force is diffused across all the people it is directed at; one target = very high pressure, divided if many targets	one learner refusing a teacher faces more pressure than an entire class refusing

③ The role of culture in group performance

Individualistic culture	Collectivistic culture
personal goals > group goals; emphasis on personal achievement & competition (even at expense of group goals); reliance on others discouraged; social loafing more likely in in-groups if contributions not recognised	group goals > individual needs; see themselves as part of a very small number of in-groups; motivated to work hard within groups; distrust out-group members → more competitive vs out-groups; less social loafing in in-groups

④ Performance monitoring

Employers use surveillance to observe behaviours: human observation, software & email monitoring, telephone/video recording — to measure & track performance, check health & safety/security compliance, check employees perform roles correctly & productively.

Tomczak et al. (2018): nearly 80% of US organisations use electronic performance monitoring (EPM) (appraisal, safety, logistical tracking) — but it can have a negative effect: ↓ satisfaction, commitment, perception of fairness. Recommend monitoring be open, transparent, work-related only, used for training & development, not punishment.

★ KEY STUDY: Claypoole & Szalma (2019)

Electronic performance monitoring and sustained attention: social facilitation for modern applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 25–34.

Context: vigilance (sustained attention/concentration over time incl. watching for hazards) is essential in driving, medical testing, security screening; but vigilance "drops off" over time (e.g. missing a security threat). EPM research suggests it improves performance on short tasks. Theory: social facilitation — a camera can act as a social presence; performance ↑ on routine/easy tasks, ↓ on complex/unfamiliar.

Aim: investigate effects of EPM on sustained attention and test whether video-based monitoring is an effective EPM. Exp 1: predicted electronic presence on a vigilance task → improved performance. Exp 2: would different forms of video-based EPM replicate Exp 1?

Design: lab experiment; 106 US university students (65 F, 41 M; mean age 20.57), volunteers; informed consent, anonymised, course credits, debriefed; random allocation. IV (monitoring): electronic presence — webcam on top of screen ("to monitor performance & engagement") + video recorder 1 m behind (told it would record for later evaluation) — vs control (no monitoring). Nobody withdrew.

Task: demographics questionnaire → sustained attention task, 24 minutes: press space bar when a critical signal (any two-digit number with a difference of 1 or 0) appears; critical signals appear randomly 5× in each 6-minute block. DVs: proportion of correct detections, false alarms (mistakes), response time.

Results: as expected vigilance decreased over 24 min (fewer correct detections, fewer false alarms, longer median RT) in both conditions. EPM group: more correct detections (mean 0.69 vs control 0.60), fewer false alarms, faster median RT (767 ms vs 802 ms). Conclusions: electronic monitoring can produce effects similar to a human social presence → vigilance performance facilitated. Exp 2 supported this; using two forms of electronic presence at once could enhance the effect even more.

C. CONFLICT AT WORK

① Group conflict

Conflict distracts employees, ↓ productivity, wastes time/resources/money, distorts goals; affects physical & psychological health, ↑ absenteeism (regular non-attendance without good reason) & turnover, ↓ satisfaction; bullying/harassment harms individuals, the company's functioning and public perception.

All conflict can interfere with goal achievement, so organisations try to keep it to a minimum. Causes of intra-group conflict fall in 2 categories:

Organisational factors	Interpersonal factors
specific to the org context: conflict over status or salary, disagreements over how to achieve a goal, lack of resources/space	personality clash between 2 people; don't work well together; if interpersonal conflict is between leaders of different groups → produces increased conflict very easily

② Conflict handling — Thomas & Kilmann (1974): 5 modes

• Competition: persist until someone wins and someone loses — then conflict is over. Overuse → others reluctant to speak up; but good to manage a crisis.
• Accommodation: one individual sacrifices to reduce conflict; can be very effective in reducing conflict & preventing damage to the relationship.
• Compromise: each side gives something up; effective only if both lose comparable things.
• Collaboration: work together to overcome the conflict. Can creatively combine ideas but may delay work with numerous conversations.
• Avoidance: suppress/withdraw completely — conflict not resolved, still there; can be effective as a cooling-off period.

Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI): test of behaviour in conflict; 30 statements (choose from) → profile from "most used" to "least used" style. Effectiveness of a mode depends on the requirements of the situation and the person's ability to use it; TKI shows over/under-use (each carries risks).

③ Bullying at work

Einarsen (1999) (review article): bullying = "hostile and aggressive behaviour, either physical or non-physical, directed at one or more colleagues or subordinates"; causes humiliation, offence & distress, harms work performance & working environment. Key words: bullying = pattern of behaviour in which one or more people harm and/or embarrass others · stigmatisation = regarding a person as worthy of disapproval.

• Power is key: managers/supervisors are perceived as bullies in most cases; bullying by a superior causes more psychological distress than by a peer. Develops gradually.
• Einarsen's 4 phases: aggressive behaviour → bullying → stigmatisation → severe trauma.

Causes — (i) individual / personality factors of victim & bully; (ii) psycho-social / situational factors. Bjorkqvist et al. (1994, cited): Finnish university survey → perceived reasons = competition over status & job position, envy, aggressor uncertain of own abilities; surprisingly many felt victim's personality was a factor.

Victims vs non-bullied: more sensitive, suspicious, angry, lower self-esteem, more anxious in social settings — but NOT blaming the victim: differences likely a result of bullying (only longitudinal research could establish).

Situational factors that promote/allow bullying: deficiencies in work design · deficiencies in leadership behaviour · socially exposed position of victim · low morale in the department.

Types of bullying (Einarsen): predatory bullying — victim did nothing to trigger it; predator shows power (institutional harassment: culture of bullying throughout org; victim may be a member of a certain group — e.g. first woman in the role). Also bullying when people are highly stressed/frustrated and look for someone to vent on = scapegoating (blaming a person, often inaccurately, for mistakes) — also used as an explanation of prejudice. Org often tolerates bullying by not responding or lacking policies.

9.4 Organisational Work Conditions

Physical conditions (lighting, space, layout, ventilation), hours & patterns of work, and causes of accidents — all affect worker well-being and productivity.

A. PHYSICAL WORK CONDITIONS

① The Hawthorne studies (Mayo, 1933)

Conducted 1924–1927 at the Hawthorne Works, Cicero, Illinois, USA, by managers + MIT + Harvard: effects on productivity of lighting changes and work-structure changes (hours, break times). Works employed ~29,000 people.

Study 1 (lighting): experimental group exposed to decreasing light; control group constant light → productivity increased with almost no change in lighting — both groups steadily improved. Only when light was as dim as moonlight did the experimental group's productivity fall.

= when those being observed change their behaviour purely as a response to their awareness of being observed (term first used by Henry Landsberger, 1958).

Relay study: workers assembled relay switches for telephones — a preferred wage incentive system introduced → output rose; taken away → output dropped. Interviews: from 15 most important work issues "payment" ranked 1st, "supervision" 4th.

② Design of the workplace environment — Oldham & Brass (1979)

Key change in many offices = move to open-plan. Field study / natural experiment in a large US newspaper office.

• Why move? (1) papers had to be trucked to the railway station (office not near railway) = cost & time; (2) old office: practical problems — no air-conditioning, hard to heat, limited storage; (3) management thought open-plan would ↑ communication between individuals & departments and create a more positive environment.
• New office: purpose-built beside a railway line; no internal walls, no partitions/cabinets > 3 ft (1 m); no private offices (2 meeting rooms); departments still grouped together; space roughly equal. Control group: pressroom staff kept their working space (naturally occurring).
• Staff fully informed; most agreed the old building was no longer "fit for purpose". The move was the only change (no change to conditions, contracts, salaries, duties).

Method: questionnaire given out to groups of 2–12; 140 full-time employees invited, 128 took part, 76 completed all 3 stages (most results from these); control group = 5 pressroom staff. Names written (to follow through) but confidentiality assured. Measured: work satisfaction, interpersonal satisfaction, internal work motivation; management & staff also interviewed. Prediction: ↑ supervisor & co-worker feedback, friendship opportunities, intra- & inter-department interaction.

Findings: internal motivation & satisfaction with work and colleagues decreased sharply after the move; control group showed no change. Interviews: felt like a "fishbowl"; hard to concentrate & complete tasks; hard to develop friendships; impossible to e.g. invite someone for a drink without the whole office hearing; supervisor found it hard to give feedback without moving to a private meeting room ⇒ physical space responsible for the changes.

B. TEMPORAL CONDITIONS OF WORK ENVIRONMENTS

① Design of work — shifts

Temporal conditions = relating to time and how working patterns are arranged. Shifts = any working pattern that does not involve the same work pattern every week. Many work at night (24-hour manufacturing, healthcare, leisure & retail). Many orgs run a rotation of 3 shifts/day:

Pheasant (1991): two main approaches to organising shift work:

• Rapid rotation — frequent shift changes. Metropolitan rota: 2 day shifts → 2 afternoon → 2 night → 2 days off (8-day rotation). Continental rota: 2 day, 2 twilight, 3 night, 2 off, 2 day, 3 twilight, 2 night, 3 off, then repeat. (Shifts move a day ahead each week.)
• Slow rotation — infrequent changes (e.g. day shifts for several weeks then night shifts for several weeks). Suggested to allow circadian rhythms to adapt to one shift without being forced to change too rapidly → fewer health problems.

On-call working: employees on stand-by, often at short notice; available outside normal hours (may be at home); health/social care e.g. care home overnight = "sleep-in" (may rest/sleep unless needed).

Flexible working: differs from regular hours (e.g. 9–5, 5 days); helps a work–life balance; within the org's needs (start-time "window"); often must apply & be agreed. Examples:

hours changed for education / care	compressed hours: full-time over fewer, longer days (10 h × 4 days vs 8 h × 5)
flexitime: around agreed core times (10–6 instead of 9–5)	working from home / remotely for all or part of hours

② The effects of shift work — Knutsson (2003) review

No specific evidence that shift work affects longevity (UK study: no significant difference in mortality day vs shift workers; Danish: very tiny increase). Specific disorders:

Condition	Evidence
Gastrointestinal disease	significantly more common in shift workers (constipation, diarrhoea esp. night shifts); peptic ulcers more common (taxi/truck drivers, factory workers, printers, night security); risk of ulcers of small intestine doubled
Cardiovascular disease	work conditions (chemicals, noise, vibration, stress, work schedules) contribute; studies across countries support link with shift work
Cancer	↑ risk of breast cancer in women on night shifts (nurses, flight attendants, radio/telegraph operators) — but other carcinogens not controlled; melatonin discussed; no conclusive evidence
Diabetes & metabolic disturbances	potassium, uric acid, glucose, cholesterol higher during night work; BMI studies inconclusive; evidence for ↑ chance of diabetes
Pregnancy	shift work & night work ↔ low birth weight, premature birth; ↑ risk of miscarriage → pregnant women advised to avoid shift work
Exacerbation of existing disorders	biological processes follow a circadian rhythm → medicines more complex (same dose at different times = different effects); sleep deprivation affects epileptic seizures & asthma attacks

★ Example study: Gold et al. (1992)

Rotating shift work, sleep, and accidents related to sleepiness in hospital nurses. American Journal of Public Health, 82(7).

Method: survey of Massachusetts nurses; self-administered questionnaire to 878 registered nurses (June–Sept 1986); 687 returned; mean age 33.9. Asked about shift pattern (day/evening/night shifts in current week and previous two weeks), sleep & wake times for all shifts and days off, sleep quality, alcohol, prescription/non-prescription medication, sleeping aids, times they "nodded off" at work (past week) and while driving to/from work (past year), accidents, errors and near-misses in past year (driving accidents, medication errors, procedural errors, personal injuries attributable to sleepiness).

Groups: day/evening workers (grouped as the shift from day to evening has not been shown to disrupt circadian rhythms) · night-shift only · rotators (change shift pattern frequently). Anchor sleep = having ≥ 4 hours sleep during the same clock hours every night.

• Sleep: rotators & night workers reported fewer hours of sleep. Regular anchor sleep: 92% of day/evening nurses, 6.3% of night nurses, 0% of rotators. Anchor-sleep disruption: 49% day/eve, 94% rotators, 2.9% night nurses.
• Sleep quality: night nurses 1.8×, rotators 2.8× more likely to report poor sleep than day/eve; night nurses & rotators ~2× as likely to use medication to help sleep.
• Nodding off at work (≥ once a week on the night shift): 35% rotators, 32% night nurses, 20% day/eve who worked occasional night shift. On day/evening shifts only 2.7% (day/eve) & 2.8% (rotators).
• Driving: rotators 3.9×, night nurses 3.6× as likely to nod off driving to/from work.
• Accidents: even allowing for age, hospital time & alcohol, rotators reported twice as many accidents as day/eve nurses.

Conclusion: consistent with lab studies of sleep deprivation & disrupted circadian rhythms (↑ cognitive errors) → applying circadian principles to work schedule design may improve health & safety for nurses and patients.

C. HEALTH AND SAFETY

① Accidents at work — two explanations

Human error theory	Operator–machine (systems) theory (Nagel, 1988)
Person-centred: errors caused by human failings; some individuals more likely to make mistakes → target interventions at those individuals. Criticism: blame-oriented → creates fear of punishment; unfair to always blame the individual; emotionally satisfying and more convenient than addressing the wider system.	Technology replaced human tasks → human = operator of a machine; interaction can be extremely complex & consequences of "human error" catastrophic. Errors caused by systems where humans play a small part; most errors by those doing difficult tasks or where mistakes are most noticeable (cause most damage).

Example: Three Mile Island (USA, 1979)

Relief valve also failed to open; nothing in the system told anyone the pipe was off; no warning system. Fault finding meant scanning over 1,600 gauges; colours used differently in different systems (in one place colour = safe, elsewhere = danger). Not appropriate to simply blame the operator → human errors + design failings & safety-procedure failings.

Type of error	Meaning
Commission	doing something that should not have been done (TMI: shutting off the feedwater pipe)
Omission	not doing something that should have been done
Sequence	actions in wrong order, skipped or repeated
Timing	action performed too late or too early

After TMI: "human factors" experts ensure machine controls & displays reflect knowledge of human cognition and its limits — displays clear & easy to interpret; operators not expected to keep vigilance too long without a break (e.g. air traffic controllers); tried and tested emergency procedures.

② Reducing accidents — Fox et al. (1987): token economy

Token economy = operant conditioning (behaviourist): reward desirable behaviour (also in Ch. 8).

Setting: two open-pit (uranium) mines + processing plants, USA. Before the study: days lost to injury in mine 1 was > 8× national average, mine 2 3×; in previous 5 years 2 people killed + 1 permanent disability. Similar procedures & size; injuries esp. with heavy-equipment use/maintenance. Participants = all employees (office, clerical, managers, engineers, custodial, maintenance, production): mine 1 = 197 (1970) → 606 (1979) → 214 (1983); mine 2 = 450 (1970) → 501 (1983).

Group	Employees	Stamps / month (mine 1)
1	least hazardous — mainly office workers	300
2	foremen, shift supervisors, technicians, engineers, surveyors	400
3	mechanics, labourers, maintenance, operators of bulldozers, loaders, shovels, draglines, trucks	500
4	most hazardous — electricians, scraper operators, fuel & lube workers	700

Procedure: token economy began 1972 (mine 1), 1975 (mine 2). Workers given trading stamps with pay envelope if no lost-time injury / injury needing a doctor that month. Group award: further stamps if the whole group under a supervisor avoided injuries. Extra rewards (500–25,000 stamps) for safety suggestions adopted or acts preventing injury/damage.

Prep: 6 weeks before start workers were given information; 1 month before, anyone with no equipment-damaging accident / lost-time injury got 1,000 stamps. Stamps spendable at local stores on anything (3,000 = spice rack; 7,600 = comforter; 20,400 = gas BBQ; also microwave ovens, cuckoo clocks!). Miners kept data: frequency rate (number of accidents), severity (total days lost), direct costs (compensation insurance, medical care, equipment repair) and cost of stamps → benefit-to-cost ratio.

Results: significant ↓ in days lost in both mines; costs of accidents: mine 1 $294,000 → $29,000; mine 2 $367,696 → $38,972 (≈ 90% fall). Scheme cost: mine 1 never above $13,850; mine 2 $21,940 in first year, then $11,000–$13,000. No deaths or permanent disabilities during the scheme. By the end, days lost ≈ ¼ of national average (mine 1) and 1/12 (mine 2). Workers also benefited from the goods; anecdotal evidence stamps were appreciated (one union asked for it in contracts; spouse complained when stamps left out of pay; another drove 50 miles (80 km) to collect them!).

③ Monitoring accidents

Accidents can occur even with plans in place → useful (sometimes a legal requirement) to monitor and report; orgs have policies & procedures as part of risk management. Accidents / near-misses are useful sources of information about what works & doesn't — can uncover breaches in H&S, show extra measures needed, identify training areas, and make employees feel well-being is a priority.

Dekker (2015): 4 reasons for investigation	Meaning
Epistemological	establish what happened → understanding for individuals & groups involved
Preventive	identify ways to avoid similar accidents in future
Moral	understand errors/breaches to reinforce correct practice & establish accountability
Existential	find an explanation for any injury or loss of life

Dekker: accident monitoring may be more art than science — different investigators reach different conclusions with the same facts; an insurer with a financial interest may interpret differently. Example: aeroplane crash — aviation authority blamed pilot haste/loss of situational awareness; airline's report found the air-traffic controller inattentive & radar coverage poor.

★ KEY STUDY: Swat (1997)

Monitoring of accidents and risk events in industrial plants. Journal of Occupational Health, 39(2).

Context: investigate effective accident monitoring in Poland; methods then seen as ineffective — accidents solved intuitively, no formal analysis; little evidence retained of losses → hard to quantify severity/frequency/lost productivity; no standardisation. Theory: info like number of reported injuries shows accident risk; severity, frequency, causes target resources; go beyond simple human-error to a system-focused approach. Aim: develop a method orgs can use to record risk events to find causes & prevent them.

Design: industrial plants in Lodz — foundry (metalwork), machinery, meat processing, furniture (~3,000 workers). 83 accidents from 1993 reviewed: accident = formally reported case of a sudden, undesired event with negative health effect leading to sick days or death. Frequency = accidents with injuries needing sick leave per 100 employees/year; severity = sick-leave days per accident. Reviewed accident reports (safety supervisors), investigated protocols, interviewed safety supervisors & line managers. Earlier review (1994) of the meat plant included all first-aid cases (minor "incidents") + employee interviews.

Results: frequency highest in foundry, severity highest in machinery plant. Types: falls & slips · manual work · contact with working parts of machinery · contact with sources of energy · other (fall/slip frequency avg 0.7 per 100; meat plant 1.2 vs furniture 0.3).

Swat's 4 faults	Example	Found in
1 Insufficient supervision	manager fails to ensure safe procedures followed	89%
2 Poor workplace organisation	inadequate PPE, working too quickly	40% (part/all)
3 Technical factors	faulty objects/equipment	11%
4 Worker error	individual's unexpected mistake	14%

Housekeeping = managing & maintaining processes, property & equipment — poor housekeeping was the overarching reason, involved in 46% of all accidents (e.g. not reporting faulty equipment = "technical" fault; trips/falls from broken stairs, wet floors without warning signs) → relatively easy to control. Second study: 254 injuries needing first aid/medical treatment — only 23 counted as official accidents (sick leave); employee interviews at meat plant suggest real figure 520 → ~95% of incidents not reported.

9.5 Satisfaction at Work

Psychologists measure employee satisfaction and predict reasons for dissatisfaction & destructive behaviour — important for people's well-being and organisational success.

A. THEORIES OF JOB SATISFACTION

① Two-factor theory — Herzberg (1959)

Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are separate (not opposite ends of one continuum): one group of job characteristics → satisfaction; a completely different group → dissatisfaction. Workers aren't satisfied by jobs that only meet lower-order needs (physiological, safety — usually met by pay) — they also want higher-level needs (relatedness, self-esteem) met by the nature of the work itself.

Method: 200+ interviews with engineers & accountants in the Pittsburgh area: describe periods when "exceedingly happy" / "exceedingly unhappy" with their jobs; give as much detail as possible, focusing on what changed.

Motivational factors (satisfiers)	Hygiene factors (dissatisfiers)
intrinsic elements of the work: recognition, achievement, possibility of personal growth, pleasure of the work itself, responsibility	extrinsic elements of the environment: company policies, pay/salary, working conditions, technical problems, supervision
if present → satisfaction; if lacking → NOT dissatisfaction, just no satisfaction	if poor → dissatisfaction; if good → NOT satisfaction, just no dissatisfaction

② Job characteristics — Hackman & Oldham (1976)

Framework for analysing how job characteristics affect job satisfaction & other work outcomes → can be used to create jobs that appeal to workers and keep them motivated. 5 core job characteristics (features of a job viewed as a dimension, e.g. high/low skill variety):

Core job characteristic	Meaning
Skill variety	job requires different skills & lets workers use a range of them
Task identity	complete a whole piece of work, not a single task in isolation
Task significance	worthwhile impact on others (inside/outside the org)
Autonomy	freedom in planning, scheduling & carrying out work
Feedback (from job)	the job itself (not other people) shows how well you're doing — clear when the task is completed well

• Meaningfulness: work seen as having a purpose that lets you show your value to others · Responsibility: feeling accountable for work performance & outcomes · Knowledge of results: aware of how well you're performing.
• These psychological states (set of thoughts & feelings) mediate between job characteristics and outcomes (motivation, satisfaction, performance) → positive feelings about yourself when you perform well → helps you keep performing well.

③ Techniques of job design — Belias & Skikas (2013)

Literature review: effective job design stimulates interest, ↑ job satisfaction → high performance & productivity; linked to Herzberg. Includes field experiments.

Technique	Meaning	Effect / example
Job enrichment	wider variety of tasks → ↑ skill & responsibility (variety, task importance, use of abilities, feedback)	greater interest & control → ↑ motivation & satisfaction
Job rotation	regularly changing workers' tasks within normal role in a pre-determined way	kitchen workers rotate around preparation areas; supermarket workers across departments/tasks → variety, less boredom, more skills & flexibility for the org
Job enlargement	↑ quantity or type of tasks	Horizontal: more tasks, same challenge level → variety. Vertical: add decision-making / higher-level tasks (Arnold et al., 2005) → more empowerment & status (e.g. more freedom in how to do the job; self-managing teams)

B. MEASURING JOB SATISFACTION

Typically measured through self-report: questionnaires and rating scales (psychometric).

① Job Descriptive Index (JDI) — Smith et al. (1969)

One of the best-known & most widely used measures. Measures 5 aspects: ① experience of the work · ② salary · ③ promotion prospects · ④ experience of supervision · ⑤ experience of co-workers.

• Results compared with standardised norms from a large regularly updated sample (age, gender, job level, education, "community prosperity") → shows whether an individual is more/less satisfied than similar others.
• Advantages: measures specific, objective areas of satisfaction (not general); easy to read, no complex language → suitable for a wide variety of people; one of the most thoroughly tested & validated → high reliability & validity.

② Walton's Quality of Working Life (QWL)

QWL = Heskett et al. (1997): the feelings employees have towards jobs, colleagues & companies → affects an org's growth & profitability; others: a process by which an org responds to employee needs. Broadest sense = job security, reward systems, pay levels, opportunity for growth. Walton (1974) typology: 8 key conditions:

Condition	What an assessment checks
1 Fair & adequate payment	is pay enough to live on? equivalent to what other workers get? ("I am satisfied with the amount of money I earn")
2 Safe & healthy working conditions	health & safety issues — appropriate clothing & safety procedures (employer concern, union action, legislation; varies by culture)
3 Opportunities to use & develop skills	autonomy & independence; scope to develop skills → higher QWL
4 Career growth & security	chance to develop in role + sense of security; move away from permanent contracts to fixed-term / "zero-hours" contracts reduces perceived QWL
5 Positive social relationships / integration	positive relationships ↑ productivity & satisfaction, ↓ stress, absenteeism, turnover
6 Total life space	"work–life balance" (e.g. afternoon off to watch child's school performance ↑ QWL)
7 Constitutionalism	policies & procedures in place (e.g. for bullying); org culture valuable & supportive
8 Social relevance	employees can see what they (or the org) do as important for others in a positive way

Questionnaire: each key condition has 5 sub-criteria → a 35-item self-report scale (e.g. "How satisfied are you with your remuneration?" / "…salubrity conditions in your workplace?"), rated 1 (very dissatisfied) – 5 (very satisfied). Still influential; modified by others for confusing technical language (salubrity = work conditions; remuneration = salary). Highlights the gap between human values (life) and technological/economic growth (work).

C. ATTITUDES TO WORK

① Workplace sabotage

Sabotage = behaviours designed to break laws or organisational rules and deliberately try to stop work taking place (any employee behaviour designed to cause production/profit loss). Mostly from dissatisfaction & powerlessness; consequences: termination, legal action, loss of capital.

Dubois (1980): 3 methods	Examples
1 Destruction of machinery or goods	arson, deliberately breaking machines, sabotaging the product
2 Stopping production	limiting/halting supply of raw materials or components, strike action, preventing final product being delivered
3 Slowing down production	working slowly, work-to-rule, unenthusiastically, absenteeism, labour turnover, refusing to work

Giacalone & Rosenfeld (1987): reasons for sabotage incl. restoration equity (return to balance/fairness — contributions ≠ reward; sabotage restores a fair balance) and retaliation (counter-attack/revenge — behaviour to disrupt or avenge organisational injustice; more like aggression).

★ KEY STUDY: Giacalone & Rosenfeld (1987)

Reasons for employee sabotage in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(4).

Context: sabotage is hard to study — often criminal/covert; employers don't want to discuss; employees don't want to report own acts (fear of job loss/legal action). Anonymous questionnaires and research away from the workplace ↑ reliability/validity. Cost of sabotage was increasing at the time.

Theory: sabotage = employee behaviour to cause production/profit loss; essentially an act of aggression and a chance to display a public image of being tough/strong, competent, back in control (after conflict with management makes them look weak). Reasons minimise severity, justify motive, relieve guilt → maintain self-respect; individuals differ in which reasons they accept as justifiable.

Aim: explore reasons used to justify sabotage within an organisation — the justifiability of 4 general methods and the level of justification given. Hypothesis: participants who accept more reasons for sabotage are more likely to justify it than those who don't, regardless of sabotage type.

Design: 38 unionised labourers in an electrical factory. "Sabotage Methods Questionnaire" built with an ex-employee (5 years' service): 29 sabotage methods (e.g. losing paperwork, pulling the fire alarm, graffiti on bathroom walls) → 4 categories:

11 reasons (text says "ten" but lists 11): ① self defence ② revenge ③ an eye for an eye ④ protect oneself from boss/company ⑤ protect friends/family from boss/company ⑥ protect one's job ⑦ the foreman/company deserved it ⑧ the foreman/company hurt me previously ⑨ no one was hurt by the action ⑩ release of frustrations ⑪ just for fun.

Procedure: each participant rated each method on a scale 1 (not at all justifiable) – 7 (totally justifiable). A median split (group split in two at the mid-point; turns a continuous variable into a categorical one) on the reasons → high-reason acceptors (accepted a wide variety) vs low-reason acceptors (accepted few/none) = quasi-experimental.

Results: high-reason acceptors justified production slowdowns more; destruction more; causing chaos more than low-reason acceptors. Unexpected: did not justify dishonesty more than low-reason acceptors. Conclusion: acceptance of reasons affects justification of sabotage in many forms, but not dishonesty — seen as qualitatively different: slowdowns, destruction & chaos hurt the company but give no monetary gain; dishonesty may seem self-serving, may be justified for very different reasons (poor salaries) & interpreted differently by bosses, and may threaten self-esteem in a way the others don't.

② Absenteeism and organisational commitment

Absenteeism = one of the main costs to employers (CBI, UK: workplace stress = a major cause).

Involuntary absenteeism	Voluntary absenteeism
worker has no choice, usually illness; orgs expect & have policies (e.g. a school's regular supply teacher)	worker chooses not to attend without good reason; can be due to dissatisfaction; difficult to measure

Blau & Boal (1987) — organisational commitment model: combines job involvement (extent to which a person psychologically identifies with their job) and organisational commitment (mental & emotional bond an employee has to the org) — each high or low → 4 categories predicting turnover & absenteeism:

• Stars (high/high): highest identification; if they were absent/left → big impact (hard to replace).
• Lone wolves (high JI / low OC): resentment if others pick up their group tasks; perceived inequities damage group cohesiveness; more willing to violate absence policies when a work goal conflicts with a personal one.
• Corporate citizens (low JI / high OC): their absence has a significant impact on others.
• Apathetic employees (low/low): least valuable.

★ Full Chapter Cheat-Sheet

Topic	Theory / study	Key one-liner
Motivation (needs)	Maslow 1943	5-level hierarchy; lower needs first; hard to test
	McClelland 1965	achievement / affiliation / power; TAT (projective)
Cognitive	Locke & Latham 1984	specific + challenging goals; clarity, challenge, complexity, commitment, feedback; SMART
	Vroom 1964	M = expectancy × instrumentality × valence
Motivators	Deci & Ryan 1985 (SDT)	competence, relatedness, autonomy; extrinsic rewards can undermine
	Landry 2019	autonomy-supportive reward framing → better anagram performance
Leadership	Universalist / behaviourist / adaptive	Great Person · charismatic · transformational · Ohio State & Michigan · Heifetz (6 principles)
	Muczyk & Reimann 1987; Scouller 2011; Cuadrado 2008	participation × direction; 3P public/private/personal; democratic feminine style favoured
	Kouzes & Posner 1987; Kelley 1988	LPI 5 practices; sheep, yes-people, survivors, alienated, effective
Groups	Tuckman 1965; Belbin 1981	5 stages; 9 roles
	Janis 1971; Forsyth 2006	groupthink (8 symptoms); sins of commission / omission / imprecision
	Triplett; Zajonc; Ringelmann; Latané; Earley 1993; Claypoole & Szalma 2019	social facilitation, drive theory, loafing, SIN, culture, EPM

Conflict	Thomas–Kilmann 1974; Einarsen 1999	5 modes (TKI); bullying: Zapf 5 types, 4 phases
Physical conditions	Hawthorne (Mayo; Kompier 2006); Oldham & Brass 1979	Hawthorne effect = myth?; open-plan ↓ satisfaction
Temporal	Pheasant 1991; Knutsson 2003; Gold 1992	rapid vs slow rotation; health effects; rotators most sleep-disrupted, most accidents
Health & safety	Nagel 1988; Fox 1987; Dekker 2015; Swat 1997	human error vs systems; token economy; 4 reasons; supervision 89%, housekeeping 46%, 95% unreported
Job satisfaction	Herzberg 1959; Hackman & Oldham 1976; Belias & Skikas 2013	motivators vs hygiene; 5 core characteristics; enrichment, rotation, enlargement
Measuring	JDI (Smith 1969); Walton 1974	5 aspects, Y/N/?, norms; 8 QWL conditions
Attitudes	Dubois 1980; Giacalone & Rosenfeld 1987; Blau & Boal 1987	3 methods of sabotage; reasons ≠ dishonesty; commitment grid

Evaluation toolkit (use these in every answer!)

Evaluation point	Quick prompts
Validity / ecological validity	lab tasks (anagrams, vigilance, inbox) artificial; field/natural studies (Hawthorne, Oldham & Brass, Fox, Gold) realistic but low control
Reliability	standardised procedures, scales, timings (Landry, Cuadrado, Claypoole); psychometrics (JDI, TKI, LPI)
Generalisability	student volunteers; single university/country; Tuckman small groups; Earley multi-culture
Bias	social desirability, demand characteristics (self-report, psychometrics); observer bias (Runkel)
Ethics	anonymity (Giacalone), consent, causal experiments on shift work unethical, token economy "controlling"?
Quantitative vs qualitative	Likert scales (Cuadrado); interviews (Herzberg, Swat); idiographic (Janis case study) vs nomothetic (Swat, JDI)
Issues & debates	nature–nurture (Great Person vs LPI; shift work) · individual–situational (Janis, Muczyk) · free will–determinism (need theories, Landry, Fox) · reductionism–holism (QWL, cognitive theories)

Exam-style questions (with what to include)