Individual Differences

Intro: traditional studies of individual differences have been treated separately but contemporary theories have integrated approaches to explain behaviour and recent research has developed a more sophisticated concept that both internal (people) and external (situations) are important.

Intelligence

Traditional models of cognitive ability
Idea some people are better at processing information than others: the result of differences in opportunities to learn or due to genetics.
Time into understanding/measuring cognitive ability invested: grown tests to assess cognitive levels that must be run under standardised conditions all of which are evolved through a highly technical process.
The standarisation of tests mean that, in theory, everyone’s given the same opportunity to perform but it also means the approach cannot assess people on their capacity to conduct everyday, real-life tasks.
Early 20th century Binet and Simon developed the first satisfactory test of human intelligence: considered intelligence could be measured by assessing a person’s ability to answer a selected group of questions.
Though modern tests differ from questions used by Binet and Simon the principle of sampling behaviour on a selected set of tasks is still at the core. By sampling there’s a risk of drawing false conclusions about a person and scores alone aren’t enough. So before a decision about a child is taken, other types of assessment should also be made.

Testing
Defining intelligence is difficult: most will settle for the definition by Boring 1923 ‘intelligence is what intelligence tests measure’.

Tests of intelligence designed to examine innate ability of people to carry out mental operations. The various tests (spearman labeled ‘g’) are all interrelated with people obtaining similar scores. Thus g is a quality than can be measured reliably with some precision.
Evidence to indicate g determines performance across different job roles.
A widely used test of g requiring minimal special experience is Ravens progressive matrices. However specific ability tends to predict performance when they are matched to the demands of the job role. Tests have been criticised:
Don’t measure pure underlying intelligence but a mixture of it and taught knowledge (crystallized intelligence)
In the personal selection context they are biased in favour of ethnic groups. The argument of cultural bias asserts that the intellectual development that takes place naturally is dependent on the specific environmental and cultural background in which a person develops.
This means perfectly bright people from certain socio-economic backgrounds will fail to develop the normal qualities assessed in the tests and will be labeled unintelligent.

The criticism intelligence tests are biased is based on the replicated research finding ethnic minority groups obtain lower scores on cognitive tests than whites (Sackett 2008). Despite these subgroup differences, the prevailing view is that it’s not unfair to use such tests for selection decision-making.

Systems model of intelligence
These models expand concepts core to intelligence to include concepts other than cognitive abilities. 3 specific theories have become widespread:

Gardeners multiple intelligences
Argued that there’s more than a single, general factor of intelligence.
Proposed 7 types of intelligence – linguistic, spatial, musical, logical, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal
Each intelligences is derived from gardeners subjective classification of human abilities based on a set of scientific criteria e.g. evidence some individuals perform poorly on IQ tests, yet demonstrate exceptional talent in other domains such as music
Also argues each intelligences rarely operate independently balancing one another as individuals develop skills/solve problems.

Criticised: its subjective, and incompatible with well-established concept of g and likely environmental impacts. Gardner has defended the theory referring to studies for support, arguing researchers should be interested in understanding intellectual processes not explained by g. Where does classification stop? Doesn’t focus on primary mental abilities (mathews et al 2003)

Sternbergs triarchic theory of intelligence
Builds on spearman’s g and the underlying information processing components of intelligence
Consists of 3 parts used to describe and measure intelligence: analytical, creative, and practical.

Analytical – academic problem solving and reflects how an individual relates to their internal world. Sternberg suggests analytical intelligence is based on joint operations of ‘meta components’ (decide what to do), ‘performance components’ (cognitive process to encode information) and ‘knowledge-acquisition components’ (processes used in gaining/storing new knowledge)
Creative – insights people have and ability to synthesize/react to novel situations. Sternberg suggests this observed aspect of intelligence reflects how individuals associate their internal world to the external world.

Practical – involves ability to understand and deal with everyday tasks reflecting how people relate to the external world. People with high levels of this intelligence can adapt to their environment. In contrast to structural models of intelligence, measures of practical intelligence go beyond mental skills and include assessment of emotional factors and in this way one of the most important contributions to intelligence theory has been the redefinition of intelligence to incorporate practical knowledge.

Emotional intelligence
Interest and research in EI has exploded: Since Daniel Golemans book was published in 1995. For practitioners, key questions is whether EI provides incremental validity in predicting job performance over and above measures of cognitive ability.

Early research described 3 main conceptualisations of EI appearing in research literature and though obvious commonality; there exists some significant divergence of thought in these 3 approaches to EI.

Goleman:
Conceptualization critiqued on basis the definition is over inclusive: idea EI is a repackaging of previous literature on personality and intelligence, offering nothing new (Chapman 2000)
Matthews 2003 suggest Golemans conceptualization rests on gathering up aspects of what psychologists today would describe as cognition and motivation however Goleman 1998 has insisted that EI is an ability that differs from other more established abilities.
In later publications Goleman suggests EI theory represents a framework of an individuals potential for mastering skills in 4 key domains: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management.

Reuven Bar-On:
Defines EI as ‘array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies and skills influencing ones ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures’
Produced the first commercially available measure of EI based on self-assessment instrument EQi.
Defines his model in terms of an array of traits related to emotional and social knowledge: these influence our ability to cope effectively with environmental demands. In this way views EI as a model of psychological wellbeing and adaptation. There are several validation studies of the EQi and reasonable evidence that it predicts academic success and diagnosis of some clinical disorders.
Main criticism: centres around whether it captures unique constructs

Mayer and Salovey 1997
Most influential: first to publish account of EI in scientific peer reviewed journal articles. Unlike other approaches they describe EI as extending traditional models of intelligence and suggest they fail to measure individual differences in ability to perceive, process and manage emotions well.
For measurement purposes: produced a MEIS to assess facets of EI with 12 subscales attempting to measure EI as a distinct concept.
Vernon 2008 found evidence to support possible existence of a genetic component of EI however evidence on validity of the MEIS is mixed.

There are some similarities and differences between the approaches.
Bar-On has tried to develop a general measure of social/emotional intelligence linked with psychological wellbeing.
Whilst Mayer attempts to establish validity of a new form of intelligence, Golemans approach is specific to behaviour in orgs based on ability to demonstrate social/emotional competencies.

The idea EI is unique that helps to explain performance has led practitioners to believe it’s useful in decisions about promotion to leadership positions. However Locke 2005 argues EI can’t be strictly classed as a type of intelligence suggesting the number of factors found in definitions renders to broad a concept to be measured and understood in a meaningful way. Conte 2005 presents issues of measures to self report.

Zeidner 2008 has conducted a review of EI literature over last 20 years. It identified what is generally agreed about EI as a concept.
In terms of the conceptualization of EI there is a general agreement it’s a concept of multiple facets though there is still a lack of agreement over which are part of EIL Zieder argues it establishes other aspects of cognition. However there is debate over the extent to which this overlap can be seen. The review concluded it’s still unclear in predicating important outcomes effectively.
Issues of measuring EI, especially in occupational setting, how does it relate to performance. Few measures have comparison groups, what levels are required? Lack of evidence it future performance.

Note: recent increase in research into possible biological correlates of intelligence e.g. McDaniel 2005 conducted a meta-analysis of 37 ppts samples and found a correlation of 0.33 between individuals intelligence and volume of their brain, a finding consistent across genders and age group

* Intro: idea basic elements – traits – represent predispositions to behave in certain ways; using words (tense, try) to describe basic factors of human personality.

Research into the area has produced consistent existence of five (Big Five) major personality factors, the five-factor structure representing an almost universal template for describing basic personality dimensions (Digman 1990). The five dimensions also include facets helping to understand the breadth of each big five (Costa and McCrae):
Extroversion – people reporting high levels describe themselves as outgoing and sociable
Neuroticism - people reporting high levels describe themselves as prone to worry and affected by emotions in stressful situations
Conscientiousness – people reporting high levels describe themselves as highly organised and thorough.
Agreeableness – people reporting high levels are helpful to others and prefer cooperation not competition
Openness to experience – people reporting high levels like working with ideas and possibilities

Evidence of success:
McCrae and Costs 1997 reported results comparing 6 diverse samples showing all to have substantial similarity in a Big Five Structure when compared with a large American sample: not culturally bias. This may be limited however to modern, literature, industrialized cultures.
Its establishment however doesn’t mean other conceptualizations of personality become redundant (Hough and Oswald 2000) with the Big5 giving only a useful view of min factors that must be included when describing personality - not accurate when predicting job performance.
Lee Ashton 2004: may be a sixth factor (honest-humility) a measure of which is found in the hexaco personality questionnaire.
Recent meta-analytic studies have examined stability of personality over lifespan. Roberts 2006 conducted a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies (92 ppts) studying changeability of mean levels of personality traits throughout lives. Findings showed: as people get older social dominance, emotional stability and conscientiousness all increased.

Personality measures:
Number of personality questionnaires available in UK - all need to satisfy well-established criteria before considered acceptable measuring instruments. The criteria is concerned with assessing extent to which the test measures what is it intended to (validity) and precision of measurement (reliability).

The Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI):
Based on different theory from the Big Five: uses Jung’s theory of psychological types, that discusses key differences between people in terms of dichotomies rather than positions on a scale.
Research shows: while MBTI doesn’t have direct measure of N it’s constitute parts do correlate with Big Five e.g. extroversion-introversion correlates with E; sensing-intuiting correlates with O (Costa 1991).
Important to remember qualitative differences though in what the MBTI measures as its based on a different underlying theory.

Stop to consider: social context person is behaving in is important. Most personality measures used in occupational setting are measures of normal personality i.e. not absolute indicator of a problem: people may score high on Big Five N scales without having psychiatric disorder.

Creativity and innovation
Interest in creativity/innovation grown as organisations have recognised its vital for productivity:

Case Study: creativity pays says iPod
Companies (e.g. apple) using design to innovate and differentiate themselves, are growing faster than competitors
Almost half of companies who regard design as integral to operations have increased turnover, compared with on 10% of companies overall
Example is: Clipper Teas who in 2000 re-launched its range by employing Williams Hamm the designers. Results showed the business has improved by 90% with brand awareness going through the roof.

Creativity is concerned with generating new and original ideas. Innovation is broader encompassing application and implementation of new ideas to produce something new and useful. The DBERR offers a concise definition: ‘the successful exploitation of new ideas’.

Innovation in organisations is complex: two main stages: first – the suggestion phase, second – implementation
Innovation not linear: involves several cycles of activities such as initiation, reappraisal and stabilization.
In terms of measurement of innovative potential there are numerous measures - Patterson’s 2002 innovation potential indicator: involves multiple components at the individual level and suggests research literature can be classified into studies of the links between innovation and intelligence, knowledge, personality or motivation.

Research:
Early research claimed creativity was equivalent to high intelligence. Guildford, in his theory of the structure of intellect (SI), published in 1950s, he claimed creative thinking was a mental ability, involving divergent production. However review studies have cast doubt on this conclusion: divergent thinking scores often fail to correlate sig with indices of innovation and there’s doubt whether such tests are actually measuring abilities in creative thinking.

Also lack of evidence to support direct relationship amongst innovation and intelligence: studies show intelligence and innovation are moderately related, but once IQ scores go over 115 the relationship is near zero. This is described as ‘threshold theory’: once intelligence reaches certain point, its relationship to innovation breaks down.

Fink 1992: to understand cognitive abilities we must draw on cognitive psychologies - developed a model proposing creative activities can be described in terms of: initial generation and expansion exploration of them. Also suggest ind differences occur due to variations in use of these 2 generative processes, together with cleverness of an individuals memory and knowledge in the domain they are working in.

Knowledge:
Despite all researchers assuming knowledge is a key variable in innovation: literature highlights that too much expertise in an area can block it within that domain. Simonton 2004 who studied lives of over 300 eminent people to see lifespan development of innovation found that both a lack of, and excess of, familiarity could be detrimental to innovation.

Personality:
Innovative people - imaginative and have high self-confidence. Research suggests: of ‘Big 5’ openness to experience is most sig personality dimension in predicting propensity to innovation. Also low conscientiousness is assoc. with innovation yet people with high scores - more resilient to changes at work

Motivation:
High levels are required for innovation. In 1980s Amabile implied a 3-component model of innovation including intrinsic task motivation, a prerequisite for innovation. The role of extrinsic motivators is less clear with the impact of environmental influences on motivation, and therefore, innovation being important. Evidence also hints constructive evaluation can enhance innovation with Zhou and Shalley 08 finding those receiving positive feedback in an informational style generated the most innovative solutions.

Socio-cognitive approaches to individual differences

Idea behaviour isn’t just because of situational influences. There is some cross-situational consistency in how we behave from one setting to another, particularly in terms of key features of psychological make-up (extroversion). Relative influence of person and situation variables is a topic of controversy: some argue strongly for prevalence of situational influences, suggesting stable ind diff in psychological makeup plays a small role (Mischel 1968)

Situations effect behaviour as we think about how we should respond
Psychologists in some way are guilty of ignoring the processes underlying behaviour e.g. selection research has sought to determine whether various selection methods predict job performance, rather than why they predict e.g. we know personality traits predicts performance but we know less about how personality traits influence behaviour.
Its unlikely there’s a direct relationship with individuals having their own way of appraising the situation and thus decision on response.

Hodkinson 2003 found all senior managers have their own way of explaining organizational events and this way of thinking influences strategic decisions. This is just one example of how individual differences in cognitive style may place a significant role on job performance. Cognitive based personality characteristics have been developed but all relate to motivation – a construct hard to pin as a personality trait explanation.

Kanfer and Ackerman’s 2002 work on motivational traits acknowledges the importance of cognition in motivation: raising the possibility that the impact of personality traits on work performance will be mediated by individual differences in cognitive type.

Evidence can be found by Corr and Gray 1996 who found male insurance agents that attributed positive outcomes to internal, stable causes (personality) were more successful than individual who externalize the cause to more unstable causes (luck).

Intro: attitudes are not neutral. They include elements of emotion and evaluation. Attitudes are linked to behaviour. Attitudes can be changed. Attitudes are more long term.

What is an attitude?
Secord & Backman 1969 – regularities of individuals, feelings, thoughts and predispositions to act toward some aspect of his environment.
Feelings = affective component. Physiological response e.g. blood pressure, what is said.
Thoughts = cognitive component. Perception, what a person believes e.g. computer are unreliable.
Predispositions = behavioral component. Observable behaviour e.g. ignoring someone, furiously clicking mouse etc.
Evaluations is whether it is good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant etc.
Attitudes refer to targets (boss), objects (computer) or concepts (performance related pay).
Depending on individual difference the strength of attitudes differ.
Becker 1984 – there are differences between components.
A person can be positive about their job (affective component) but believe that the job has few attractive elements (cognitive component).
George and Jones 1997 – difference between attitudes and values.
Values are a persons beliefs about what is desirable or good (long term).
A person may have negative attitudes about boss but their values are money therefore will put aside attitudes for values.
In the long run attitudes can change values. A bad attitude towards ones job can lead to a change in values away from the importance of a job in life.
Pratkanis and Turner 1994 – what purpose do attitudes serve? Three general answers:
Help us to make sense of our environment.
Maintains and defines our identity.
Maintain good relations with others.
They also argue that attitudes are stored as a ‘cognitive representation.’ There are three components:
An object label and rules for applying it. What is considered as the object? E.g. who are your bosses
An evaluative summary of the object. Are they good or bad?
Knowledge structure supporting the evaluation. Evidence and arguments for the evaluative statement. E.g. they are bad because they are lazy.
Furnham et al 1994 – difference in attitudes depending on countries and environment e.g. people were more competitive in countries demonstrating economic growth. Not clear whether the attitudes caused the growth, caused by it or whether it was not linked.

How are attitudes measured?
Attitudes measured using self report questionares. Using likert scale e.g. strongly agree, agree, indifferent, disagree, strongly disagree etc.
Issues are that they are linked to social desirability effect - give a response so as to conform with society.
The results of attitude measurement is how extreme a persons attitudes are.
Petty and Krosnik 1992 also included strength in resukts, this includes as aspects such as certainty of attitude, knowledge of attitude etc.
Pratkanis and Turner include salience – attitude relevance. They describe it as how easily comes to mind. This is GOOD as an important attitude is remembered more quickly and completely.
Critique of measuring attitude by Verkuyten 1998 suggests that attitudes cannot be quantitatively measured. Definition of an object is subjective. Trade union for bosses is a hinderance for employees it is an advocate.

Attitudes and Behaiours:
What is the relationship between attitudes and behaviour? In some cases it can affect behaviour but often it does not. Some explanations:
Societal pressures prevent it: laws, societal norms, company policies etc
Bad research which didn’t find the link
Behaviour was only assessed on one instance, multiple instances would be a fairer test.
Pratkanis and Turner 1994 – suggest four factors that will increase the relationship:
Object is well defined and salient.
High attitude strength.
Knowledge is plentiful.
Attitude supports important aspects of self.
Azjen and Madden 1986 – theory of planned. Shows actions are best predicted by intentions and intentions are determined by attitudes and their perception of social pressures. Also includes perceived behavioural control (the extent to which a person can perform behaviours in a situation).
Azjen and Armitage 2001 – used a meta-analysis of the theory to show a correlation of 0.63 between intentions and attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. And correlation between behavioural control and actual behaviour of 0.52.
To note:
What was the intention to pursue action b?
Is behavioural control an effect, self efficacy or is it caused by lack of opportunity?

There is a link between attitudes and behaviour.

Job satisfaction:
Job satisfaction important because it is an indicator of psychological well being and it leads to motivation and performance.
Locke 1976 – job satisfaction is positive emotional state from the appraisal of job or job experiences. Refers to attitudes towards pay, working conditions, colleagues (inc boss), and aspects of job.
Judge and Hulin 1993 – three approaches of job satisfaction:
Attitudes to job satisfaction are dispositional in nature.are stable positive or negative based on experience or genetic inheritance. (more of a personality characteristic).
Social information processing model – attitudes are developed/ constructed out of experiences and info provided by others.
Information-processing model – accumalation of cognitive info about the workplace and ones job.

Measuring job satisfaction:
Job description index, job satisfaction scales (Warr et al 1979) etc.
They ask respondants to indicate what they think/ feel about job as a whole and/or specific aspect such as pay.
Better to ask a lot of question than just one as it increases accuracy.
Taber and Alliger 1995 shows correlation between job enjoyment and satisfaction, no correlation between task importance/supervision/concetration.
Locke points out that job satisfaction depends on how tasks fir long-term purposes, how much self esteem relies on job, what experiences are processed most thoroughly in their memory.
Others suggest that the opinions of others will influence feeling of their job and how they are appraised for various aspects of their job.
Problems: can questionnaires cross cultures? This matters for global organizations trying to measure satisfaction in multiple places.

Causes of job satisfaction:
Hackman and Oldham – intrinsic features of the work.
Skill variety
Task identity
Task significance
Autonomy
Feedback
Griffin and Bateman – correlation between leader behaviour and satisfation. Perceived job charecteristics lead to job satisfaction.
O’Reilly and Caldwell task perception + job satisfaction were influenced by opinions of others in work groups (social info processing model).
Dispositional approach – Arvey et al between 10% and 30% depends on genetic factors.
Bowling et al job satisfaction stable (disposition) until there is job change (situational is important)
Dorman and Zapf reviewed studies and found that peoples job satisfaction in one occasion correlated with satisfaction in another. However correlation left when adjusted for changes in job characteristics in their own study.
Features of a person e.g. gender. Lefkowitz found men more satisfied however differences disappeared when variables such as income taken out.

So… 1. Nature of job matters in satisfaction 2. So does a person disposition 3. Satisfaction has an impact on well-being.

Consequences of job satisfaction:
Effect on performance. Initially there was no correlation however when corrected for unreliability it seems there was even if it was low.
Harrison linked to performance as well as behaviour such as lateness and absence. This makes sense as satisfaction is a non-specific attitude therefore can be linked to behaviour!!!
Ricketa study suggested weaker correlation than Judge et al. No evidence that good performance caused higher job satisfaction. Ricketta also found that correlation strongest in short term.

Does job satisfaction change over life span?
Clarke et al – job satisfation lowest at 36 then rises. i. Older have had longer to find job they enjoy ii. Lowered expectations over the years iii. Bias as people in work at older age are the ones who chose to be because of job enjoyment * * Organizational commitment: * * What is organizational commitment?
It is a managerial agenda. They want totally commited but expendable staff. Hirsh.
Mowday – ‘the relative strength of an individuals identification with involvement in an organisation.’ There are three components: i. A desire to maintain membership in the organisation ii. Belief in and acceptance of the goals/ values of the org iii. A willingness to exert effort on behalf of the org.
If a person is committed they have strong identification they are more likely to remain in the firm and work hard on their behalf. Also leads to organizational citizenship e.g. helping others
Allen and Meyer –
Affective commitment, persons emotional attachment
Continuance commitment, perceptions of cost and risk associated with leaving. Personal sacrifice and lack of alternatives.
Normative commitment, moral dimension. Felt obligations and responsibility to org.
This is muddled as it combines attitude to target (org) and attitude to behaviour (leaving)
There are multiple commitments e.g. location, work group, department Recheirs.
What is the org? a org is not one entity what about parent companies. There is different commitment to different aspects e.g. could be high commitment to the work group but low commitment to top management.

Measuring organizational commitment:
Organisational Commitment Questionnaire by Mowday. E.g. ‘I feel loyal to this organisation’
This was before affective, continuance, normative seperations. Allen and Meyer created their own where each aspect had 8 q’s. This is now widely accepted.
Self report. The people are the best source of determining how committed they are.

Causes of organizational commitment:
Behavioral approach – commitment is created when a person does something publicly of their own free will. If a person joins a firm voluntarily and works long hours voluntarily they feel committed to the firm. Mabey.
Commitment fostered through positive experiences.
Factors intrinsic to job more important i.e. challenge and autonomy that extrinsic e.g. pay
This is especially so in terms of affective component.
Continuance commitment is affected by what a person has done already for the org.
Values such as humanity and fairness correlated to affective, cautiousness values correlated to continuance.
Commitment is part of the person personality. Some are more likely to be committed than others.

Consequences of organizational commitment:
People with high affective commitment had better performance Meyer et al.
The opposite is true for people with high continuance commitment. Probable because of the lack of options elsewhere.
However this could be down to ability, a person may not have the ability to perform a a task but they may be strongly committed.
Harrison et al has shown a correlation between commitment and contextual performance i.e. citizenship behaviours.
Also worth noting commitment to constituencies has affects
Wastie and Can – level of commitment to org predicts turnover, commitment to supervisor predicts citizenship.
Becker et al – commitment to supervisor predicts job performance.
Vendenbergh and Bentein – showed interaction. Low affective commitment to supervisor predicted turnover but when coupled with low affective commitment to org it predicted labour turnover.

A person who is not committed is more likely to want to leave and actually do so than a person who is committed. Intention to leave is the strongest correlation to low organizational commitment. However intention does not necessarily lead to actual leaving.

Employee turnover:

Costs of employee turnover:
Hiring new staff
Training new staff
Disruption to teamwork
Organizing people to cover the work done
Intention to leave provides early warning signs to organization. As stated earlier intentions predict behaviours. Attitudes to the act of leaving would intention to leave.
Does the employee want to leave and doe his colleagues think its is acceptable for him to do so?
Breukelen – employment market state is indicated by actual behavioural control. (turnover is influence by labour market conditions.)
Psychological theories – turnover is relative to the perception of opportunities. This is perceived behavioural control. More opportunities leads to greater intention to leave.
Griffeth et al – significacant but modest links between organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and turnover
Breukelen – no link between org commitment and job satisfaction on actual turnover, however it did affect turnover intention.
Tenure reduces intentions to leaves.
Morrell et al – people have a high degree of inertia for leaving job. Uses image theory to explain: people get into habbits and people see thing in this way e.g. if colleague grumbles about work it has little effect however a big event this may break habitual perception. This could be enough actual turnover.
Negative shocks (e.g. perceived unfairness) lead to people looking for other jobs
Positive shocks (e.g. opportunities elsewere) lead to people actually leaving
Characteristics of jobs affect turnover –
Positive - Challenge Stressors. Interesting tasks, need to work quickly, high demand etc (unrelated to turnover, actual and intentional).
Negative - Hindrance stressors. Hassles, role conflicts, lack of resource etc (linked to turnover, intentional and actual).
Individual differences - Ng and Felman showed link between age and turnover (older = less likely to leave). Less likely to leave depending on educational qualifications.
Age and tenure
Older = less intense emotional experiences
Older = less maneuverable between jobs (lower self efficacy, therefore doubts about ability to adjust).
Older strive for interpersonal relationships which is long term.
Zimmerman – emotional stability and turnover intention. Higher stability = less likely to leave. This was not dependant on intentions which challenge the theory of planned behaviour.

Unemployment:
People who experience unemployment have lower happiness, self-esteem psychological well being than people who are employed even after being employed.
Paul and Moser met analysis shows twice as many people suffer mental health issues when unemployed.
When people move back into employment for a time there is an even greater increase in well being that that which is lost by being unemployed.
Link between poor mental employment however there is a greater link between effect of unemployment on mental health.
Evidnce is emerging between unemployment and mortality.
Live two to three years less than people in employment
Gunnell and colleagues show increase in suicide during a recession.
Depends on coping strategies (doesn’t help during the period of unemployment) –
Problem based coping helps to find a job, Creed et al. Employment then has an positive effect on mental health.
Paul and Moser –
Unemployment affects male blue colla workers the most and peaked of poor mental health around two years and then again in the very long run.
The context is important. High levels of social support and structuring of time affects reduces the impact of unemployment on well being. Therefore has a greater impact in less developed countries.
However not all jobs enriching. Sometime unemployment is considered better than doing the worst jobs.
Warr – psychological affects are about the result of frustrated attempts to create a better future rather than memories and regrets about loss of a more satisfying past.
Paul and Moser – suggest causes are due to value incongruence. People value having a job and the values are incongruent with realities of unemployment.

The psychological contract:
Robinson and Rousseau – “an individuals belief regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal person and another party… a belief that some form of a promise has been made and that the terms and conditions of the contract have been accepted by both parties”
Herriot – this is the glue which links employees and organisation. Incorporates beliefs, values, expectations and aspirations.
Belief that the agreement is mutual.
Contract is about making and keeping promises through exchanges between employee and the employer.
Broken promises = severe negative affects.
Not everyone wants the same thing i.e. some want high pay, some want interesting jobs.
Not all organizations want same thing either i.e. short term workers.
Four types of psychological exchanges: i. Relational contracts – mutual trust and stability. Employee offers loyalty, conformity, commitment to goals. Organization offers security, promotional opps, training flexibility of demands. ii. Transactional contract – based on defined specific performance terms, short term economic exchange. Employee offers long hours, broad skills tolerance of change and increased responsibility. Organization offers high pay, rewards for high performance and a job. iii. Transitional contract – an eroding relationship between employer and employee. E.g. company can no longer offer security. iv. Balanced contract – mutual expectations are flexible and dynamic. Employer will make efforts with employee (i.e. train them) when things change. Employee understand that there is always changing perfomance expectations.
Contracts are formed early on.
Realistic job previews gives an accurate representation for contract formation. Shown to reduce early turnover. Therefore proper induction avoids problems with the psychological contract.
Contact changes just as expectations change over time. Require reassessment and managing.
Breaches are common and mostly concerned a failure to deliver on promises about training and development.
Breaches – ‘Violation process.’
Distinction between breach and violation. Breach is unmet promises, violation is the negative emotional reaction to a breach.
There can be a breach without violation i.e. when the perception of the breach was that it was not deliberate.
Herriot and Pmeberton – three behavioural responses to violation:
To leave
To stay and keep head below the parapet
To stay and get revenge
When there is violation less sense of obligation and less commitment to organisation. (affects – performance, turnover, citizenship. Attitudes such as job satisfactions and org commitment).
The strongest link between psychological contract (PC) and organizational outcomes was when there was a strong emotional response (feeling of violation). Esp in turnover intention, job sat and organizational commitment (no significant link to actual turnover).
Bush et al - Age moderates impact of breach as they are able to better control emotions
Are there variation in breach triggering emotional responses? Can the negatives be avoided?
E.g. one who starts out favorably disposed is less likely to notice breaches than someone who starts out distrustful.
Previous breaches is linked to likelihood of future breaches as the person is already negatively disposed.
Restubog – breaches had a bigger effectfor people who attach high value to tangible benefits (money). They are more likely to try to get revenge than those who attach high values to relationships.
How a breach is handled determines whether it turns into a violation. Lester – if credible, legitimate and consistent reasons given by employer than there are less strong emotional responses to breaches. *
Arguments against PC:
Arnold – too much focus on PC therefore other important variables missed.
Organization is not a person, there cannot be a PC.

Rousseau argue however that it provides a good framework for understanding employee attitudes and behaviours by capturing important aspects of peoples experiences.

Attitude change through persuasion:
Changing in attitudes of employees is an important aspect for managers e.g. why a marketing budget is used or why a PC was justified etc.
What determines success of changing attitudes?
Communicator credibility – based on expertness (how much they know about the subject) and trustworthiness (the communicators record of honesty).
Communicator attractiveness – Tannenbaum shows attitude change directly related to attractiveness of change agent. May depend on how much receiver admire agent. Evidence to suggest helps when message is unpopular.
One sided v two sided arguments – Hovland et al shows two sided is better for changing attitudes of the educated. However one sided better for uneducated as the concentrate more on being delivered a message tan the importance of it.
Use of fear – only effective when the right amount is given: Rodgers and prentice-Dunn show it affective when - The problem is serious the problem may affect the person they can avoid the problem by taking specific action they are capable of performing the behaviour required to avoid the problem.
Social Pressures in persuasion – public commitment is effective, private is ineffective. Group polarization – people become more extreme in attitudes when in groups. Justifying ourselves in public makes us think about our attitudes and therefore become more certain about what they are Wood.
Events before the persuasive message – if a recipient is forewarned and disagrees attitudes are less likely to change if they are forewarned and agree. Could lead to attitude change before hearing reasons.
Overview: Central v peripheral routes – Petty and Cacioppo attitude change through central rote (though and weighing of arguments) is longer lasting than peripheral route (emotion based). Central route though need to be able to stand up to scrutiny. Peripheral is used when little time can be given to the arguments, is more likely to succeed when in a good mood as will not scrutinize. * * Negotiating and conflict at work: * Negotiation is the process of attempting to deal with problems at work through discussion (most common is trade unions).
Negotiation behaviour –
Unilateral concession – lower demands or agrees to damnds of other negotiator
Standing firm or contention – refusal to give what is desired. Can involve strong arguments of postion and even threats.
Collaboration – work with rather than against negotiators to find mutually acceptable solution.
Many treat negotiations as distributive when it is integrative.
There can be win-wins, these depend on complimentary pririties so that concessions and gains can be made.
Negotiating style can be predicted by the extent of their concern over the outcome of the other parties.
More options than conceding and not conceding
Negotiator may not only be concerned with their own outcome (esp if they will negotiate in future)
Compromise is more about concern of other party than oneself.
Pruitt has shown negotiators start contentious and this can lead to concessions initially. However sticking to contention is high risk as no agreement will occur.
Escalating conflict leads to more significance less desire to conede.
Interest based negotiation:
Relationship – good relationship between negotiators
Interests – understanding of concerns of otherside
Options – multiple options to resolve problem
Criteria – use of objective criteria to evaluate possible outcomes.
Alternative – an awareness of alternatives if negotiation fails and their consequences.
Depending on oppositions anxiety to win can depend on approach taken i.e. if one side senses the other really want to win they may be more contentious.
Also depending on willingness to continue relationship problem solving will be used.
People likely to resist concessions in the face of a loss. In line with risk taking to avoid loss.

Employee relations:
Walker ‘the accommodation between the various interests that are involved in the process of getting work done’
Reduction on collective formal employment relationships.
Increase in agreements, management quality, commitment.
Ways of increasing commitment and performance through share ownership, quality circles and empowerment (trusting employees to solve problems without management - autonomy).
People react well to these interventions, however may not change some attitudes e.g. towards managers as belief they could use their control if they wanted to.
Trends in this show growing significance of psychology.
People value themselves and their group more than other groups – as it is a form of self identity. Therefore resolution of goals between groups is hard.
Allen and Stephenson - Accurate perception are necessary to avoid conflict. Overestimation of differences is more likely to lead to industrial action. This shows the importance of perceived difference and not just actual difference.

Intro: In a world of globalization and demographic change workforces are becoming increasingly diverse. It is more important than ever for organization to develop and manage equal opportunities so as to attract and retain talent.

What do we mean by diversity in employment?
Was called opportunity in employment whereby focused on disadvantaged groups, however diversity extends to improve the position of these groups via a broader approach.
Chartered institute of personnel development (CIPD) – “valuing everyone as individuals – as employees, customers, clients and extending diversity beyond what is legislated about to looking at what’s positively valued.”
Suggest a more proactive approach.
By focusing on each individual it removes a focus on minority groups and provides the same opportunities and support to everyone not just those labeled as disadvantaged.
This provides benefit of rich and varied workforce.
Encouraging and managing diversity in employment:
Complying with legislation
Constantly examining practices as discrimination can be subtle e.g. have group meeting at a pub where a Muslim cant go. (lead to discomfort and possibly hinders promotion opps).
Culture is difficult to change but essentially for diversity.

Why is diversity important?
Make organizations more competitive. By valuing all employees they will all be given opp to develop their potential therefore maximizing possible contribution.
CIPD says three benefits: i. Enhances customer relations + market share ii. Enhance employee relations and reduces labour costs iii. Improves workforce quality and performance (diverse skills, creativity, problem solving, flexibility.)
Being diverse avoids:
Curtailing possible talent.
Financial loss of losing staff
Bad organizational image (bad place to work).
Hickes-Clarke and iles – direct link between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. (reduces turnover and absences.) Not connecting with a diverse customer base. Allows to understand need of a diverse customer base.

Implications for line managers:
Was based in HR dpe, but managing diversity is role of the line manager.
Brings challenges:
Personal self awareness – manager needs to internally challenge any assumptions they have. E.g. a single mother and a 58 year old will still want the sam progression as single male in their 30’s or who wants a special project even if involves travel.
Developing self awareness in the team. – manager needs to dicuss diversity and offer coaching so as their team can internally challenge themselves. Also showing there can be equal opps through experimentation of project assignments.
Interplay between diversity and team performance. – have to promote cooperation and high performance within groups. Cannot not accentuate help to minority groups, otherwise it will cause resentment and wil hinder future acceptance of diversity and hinder team performance in the future.

Achieving successful diversity in organizations:

Every organization is different:
Starting point and aims will be different for each organization. This will depend on culture, history, size (big been better than small.
There is no simple formula for achieving diversity.
Success is beyond numbers. It is about getting values and attitudes right to improve performance.

Four approaches to diversity: 1. Avoidance – Typical of firms before legislation and even sometimes a bit after. Is risky as leads to legal penalties. Diff countries will have different stance on diversity and discrimination creating issues for global business. 2. Compliance – covers firms which want to avoid legal consequences and so follow discrimination law. A focus on explicit issues e.g. advertisement and recruitment procedure but neglect implicit. E.g. Deloitte lots of women leaving due to not being awarded interesting projects. Firms will create statistic to check a match of population however rarely act on the findings. 3. Valuing diversity – This covers organizations at a higher level of diversity awareness and value diversity. Organization tackles culture and attitudes. Statistics are more detailed i.e. about minorities getting awarded projects, training . These results will be acted on to create better policies to ensure fairness. This reduces organizational barriers which can be informal, subtle and pervasive. This is prerogative of managers as they are key to changing culture. Avoids institutional discrimination. 4. Sharing the value of diversity – this encompasses firms who are so convinced of the value that they take time to demonstrate this to other organizations.

Above are four idealized approaches. Fundamental to all is appropriate policies, strategies and plans. Fundamental to points 3 and 4 is the importance of culture change.

Equal opportunities and diversity policies, strategies and plans.
Kersey et al – 73% had diversity or equal opps statements in 2006 compared to 64% in 1998. More so in public sector and larger organizations than smaller one. 88% of labour force is in organizations where such a policy exists.
Not all disadvantaged groups are covered. As law changes more disadvanted groups are included. CIPD found that even if there are policies in place not all the people who should be included are.
In WER survey policy was positively associated with processes to avoid discrimination e.g. job evaluation and monitoring, selection, promotion and pay.
However these were still only carried out by a minority.
Hoque and noon – policy may be about projecting the right image. Having equal opps statement made no difference to treatment of speculative applications. Companieswith statements were more likely to discriminate against ethnic minority applicant.
Runnymede trust – difference in views between employees and managers.
Creegan et al - lack of implementation as equality action plan had to be carried out by devolved hr group therefore managers didn’t want to compromise budgets.
Woodham and Lupton – found a disconnection between policy and practice. HR specialist meant more policies but did not necessarily effect implementation.

Changing the culture:
Attitudes and values need to change otherwise there will always be discrimination.
Why wont people join the police force? They would be considered traitors by there own people.
Learn to appreciate differences in other helps to change attitudes.

Managing diversity or emphasizing equality?

There is a difference between managing diversity and equal opportunities. These have been used inconsistently. Equal opportunities supports legislative action. Managing diversity is about attitudes and perceptions and argues legislations will not be enough. There are also different perspective on managing diversity.

The equal opportunities approach:
Seeks to influence behaviour through legislation.
Approach concentrates on equal opportunities over equal outcomes.
The approach is based on the idea that some individuals are discriminated on due to irrelevant criteria often based on stereotypes of social groups. E.g. Family women not willing to work away from home.
Equal opportunities formalizes procedure to focus on aspects such as job description and person specification.
Allows for procedural justice.
Liff – systematic rules can be monitored for compliance and therefore felt as fair.
Rationale is to provide level playing field.
Positive action allowed. i.e. providing support to minorities so as they can better compete. E.g. national rail providing extra coaching to minorities as it was not part of their culture to take tests.
Stresses the need to set targets for group representation as many minorities are underrepresented. Compulsory in the US.
Differences in socially defined groups are not taken into account, all are treated the same way.

Problems with the equal opportunities approach:
There is an assumption that equality of outcome will be achieved through fair procedures and monitoring. i.e. old stereotypes will disappear and attitudes will changes.
This however is naïve and the approach has been regarded as simplistic. Attitudes and beliefs tend to change slowly and so have only changed a little.
Legislation does not protect all minority groups.
Lack of support within organization as equality is not linked to business objectives.
Focus on processes but it is not possible to formalize everything.
Lowers entry standards.
Individual is expected to adjust to organisation therefore assuming that groups have a problem.

Management of diversity approach:
Concentrates on individuals rather than groups and includes the improvement of opportunities for all individuals not just the minority.
Attractive message as it involves and benefits all.
Kandola and Fullerton – it is about harnessing the differences to create a productive environment in which everyone feels valued and talents are utilized to meet organizational goals.
Focus on valuing difference rather than coping fairly with it.
Treats difference as a positive assets. Liff – firm should recognize rather than dilute differences.
Based on economic and business case for recognizing and valuing difference rather than being based on a moral case. Offers competitiveness.
Highlights importance of culture:
Culture is a determinant of the way organization manage diversity and treat individuals as individuals rather than groups. Recognize need to go beyond behaviour to mutual respect.
Different groups have different cultures which need to be managed well.
Masreliez-steen explains how men and women have different perceptions, interpretation and solve problems different which if used properly can be a benefit as they are complimentary.
Women regarded as collectivist and men as individualistic. Rather than the individual being the problem it is known that the original culture was wrong therefore structures looked at afresh to accommodate minorities.
Thomas – ‘requirements as opposed to preferences , conveniences or tradition’
Managing diversity is also considered a more integrated approach to equality. Responsibilities of all managers not just HR dept.

Problems with the managing diversity approach:
Slow to materialize benefits.
Has been seen as a way to retitle equal opportunities.
Kirton and Greene – only a small number of firms are seen as diversity exemplars.
Miller - Two approaches to managing diversity. i. Individuals are celebrated and prejudices challenged. – this values and highlights differences. ii. Develop the capacity of all thus focusing on individuals. – differences seen as random. This approach is inclusive and involves all members of the organization.
Liff concludes that groups cannot be ignored as doing so and holds them back and reduces diversity.
Focus on benefits for all may divert attention away from disadvantaged groups.
May reinforce group based stereotypes when used as an advantage. Therefore maybe be uncomfortable using these stereotypes as a basis for equality.
Business case has been criticized as it will only work in certain contexts. E.g. less pressure on organization to be diverse when skill are easily available.
Kirton and Greene – conclude that business case can be detrimental when cost benefit analysis reveals pursuing equality is not a benefit.
CIPD says little evidence of diversity on performance.
Diversity can also create conflict, therefore reducing communications and creating increased management costs.
Foster and Harris said there were issues in implementation as managers did not know what it is or who to implement it within anti-discrimination law. Also that they were worried about claims of unequal treatment.
Is it transferable between countries? Originated in USA but can it come to UK?
Can be seen as introspective as only deals with people in the organization not getting people into the organization.

Equal opportunities or managing diversity?
Managing diversity is seen as superior by some.
However new support for treating them as mutually supportive.
Dickens suggest that social justice and economic efficiency are complimentary although there is little evidence on how this is to be achieved.
Legislation on its own cannot change attitudes but it is an important symbol and prevents discriminatory behaviour. Sets minimum standards.