Psychological Perspectives in the Workplace

Psychological Perspectives in the WorkplaceIt has been said the goal of psychology is to predict and influence behavior. though very broad, this definition seems to somehow hold scorn the far reaches of psychological inquiries which ranges from the diagnosing and treating various pathologies in people to training animals to perform convoluted tasks to improving relationships between people to pursuance to facilitate the answers to looks questions. It is in regards to these last two that the realm of organizational psychology is concerned about as its aims be to advance both people and profits through the application of psychological principles.Organizations as PeopleThe regularitys of applying the principles of psychology to organizations atomic number 18, in large measure, the identical as applications involving individuals. The reasoning for this is two-fold firstly, an organization is comprised of and achieves results through people secondly, in many an(prenominal) resp ects, an organization is a person. By that, it is non meant to say that there is a softheartedness or brain but that the body politique is recognized by law as a separate bodily, aka corporate, entity that is culpable for its actions and to some extent, possesses the cumulative psyche and go out of the people that employed by its objectives. This being the good example, many of the resembling rules as apply to individuals should be claimed for en masse application to the firm as sensation is merely contending with a group of individuals.Though the case may be well made for the appropriateness of a psychological perspective in the pastureplace, as a field of study, psychology is not without its competing factions, each of which asserts either truth or some portion of it. Three such perspectives that figuratively represent the deuce-ace corners of an equilateral triangle be cognitive, behavi spontaneous and humanist (Purcell 1967, p. 231). Each of these, in its pure form, o ffers a distinct approach, sometimes to the extent to which other approaches are ignored. in spite of this, each makes a significant contribution to issues and actors in the workplace. It is with this idea in mind that each will be sequentially examined for the specific contributions and applications age seeking for reconciliation in reality.The Cognitive ApproachThe cognitive approach is currently a clinically dominant perspective for good reason. It is logical and rational and has many applications. This perspective is grounded on the idea that man is a very clever creature and will seek to make sense of the world around them. As the world presents an vast, literally incalculable come up of information, people are at least somewhat constrained by the concept of bounded rationality which entirely acknowledges this state of affairs and the fact that we fail to process (or process correctly) all of this information. As a result, people employ active and passive strategies to redu ce the amount of information that they feel motifs to be processed by adopting such courses of action as forming pre-conceived notions, assigning stereotypes or labels to people or actions, and adopting patterns of reasoning that are based only on some self-selected information. These simplified constructs or beliefs are then employed as actions to achieve some relief from this processing institutionalise (Hodgkinson 2003, p. 3).This approach is possibly especially relevant as todays workplace is widely characterized by information processing and analysis. The information that is captured in the workplace easily exceeds the capacity of the brain so additional tools are utilized such as computers and information management systems. Even so, given the nature of the work and its scale and scope, people often experience anxiety and difficulty at work imputable to the failure of the person to adapt or implement cognitive information-reducing strategies successfully. Consider the examp le of the pastime workplace scenarioYour executive program assigns a project in which you mustiness demonstrate your ability to manage others efforts against a timeline. whizz employee is carrying their load. You plan your supervisor on this and, as a result, the employee works late and completes the assignment (Daniels, Harris Briner, 2004, p. 344).In this post, you liable(predicate) weighed the potential signal of an inability to manage others by consulting your supervisor against the possibility of failure and the fact that failure would give assurance that you did not have this ability. This example is one in which there is partial information in a situation in which full information would be highly advantageous. It is the cognitive interpretations which lead one conclude the potential of unpleasant personal outcomes that detonate an unpleasant affect of work often manifested as some degree of anxiety (Daniels, Harris, Briner 2004, p. 345).The Behavioral PerspectivePr ior to elaboration of the behaviorist perspective, it merits noting that psychology, as an endeavor, while interesting, compelling and even useful at times, has perennially been dogged by the issue that it is not a verifiable, quantifiable subject of inquiry (Kimble 2000, p. 208). This is likely due to an overexposure to Freuds answer to all issues, sexual conflict, as well as simply to the fact psychology is not something that always lends itself to a classical scientific laboratory. This bias against psychology has been overcome by two key factors statistical rigor and behaviorism.In short, behaviorism posits that all behavior is the consequence of an observable excitant for which an organism is predisposed to or conditioned to respond. These stimuli can be used to shape and mold behavior and belong to one of four categories below honor the application of a positive excitant to increase response judgePunishment the application of a negative stimulus to decrease response rates Time Out the removal of a positive stimulus to decrease response ratesOther Reinforcer the removal of a negative stimulus to increase response rates (Bolles 1979, pp. 121-122).In this paradigm, behaviorism assert that people are rational animals that, for the most part, seek pleasure and avoid pain though, in doing so, frequently consider time horizons in the case that short term pleasures are forsaken. Additionally, beyond the simplified stimulus-response (S-R) paradigm, there exists a scheme of behaviorism labeled response-response (R-R) learning in which the anticipated response is predicted from an early response to a different stimulus (Kimble 2000, p. 208).To illustrate an example of behaviorism in the workplace, consider the following exampleYou have been with a new department or company for a few months with your previous two positions with a supervisor whose chosen method of performance coaching job to belittle someone in department-wide meetings by yelling and other deme aning actions. A department meeting is coming up and you are behind on a project. As the staff meeting approaches you begin to dread it and get a headache and have feelings of worth slightness and incompetence despite being knowing that you can meet or exceeds the projects specifications (Daniels, Harris Briner 2004, p. 344).In this example, it would seem as though you have been conditioned to feel this way. In much that same way that Pavlovs dogs came to salivate at unspoilt the dinner bell as a consequence of learning by the pairing of stimulus and response, your feelings, symptoms and ultimate behavior is a result of the anticipation of a punishment-type reinforcer (Bolles 1979, pp. 24-26).The Humanist ParadigmIn the way that humanism accepts individual differences, it resembles cognitive theory in the way that if focuses almost solely on subjective experiences, it is the arch-enemy of behaviorism (Kimble 2000, p. 9).Within the realm of what might be labeled a humanist approac h are those perspectives advocated by Freud, Erikson, Adler, Maslow, Frankl and others. Each of these theorists focuses on either the occlusion of conflict or the achievement of meaning. Going so far as be labeled industrial theology with regards to the application of this perspective to the work environment, they seek to understand how a person perceives themselves within the situations that work presents. These conflicts often center on values or self-actualization and meaning.As there are several distinct approaches within the broader notion of a humanistic approach, reviewing at least a few major angles is likely to be useful. One such theorist, Erikson, a student of Freud, postulated that individuals develop and progress through various lifestages, each one ideally characterized by the successful resolution of inner conflict of that age. Examples would be the midpoint-age conflict of growth vs. stagnation and a key childhood stage of trust vs. mistrust (Kets de Vries 1995, p. 9 Gleitman 1986, p. 562). In the same way that a parent is an authority figure, so to is the corporation or its representative and it is reasonable to assume that some of these conflict issues will be need to be reworked as they resurface in the work family.Adler is another theorist in the humanist vein whose work emphasizes the social context of the human condition. In a manner analogous to Eriksons lifestages, Adler proposed eight levels of social interest ranging from the mother-child relationship to God with the levels of ones community and society in the middle (Hale 1999, pp. 68-76). By using this methodology, Adler seeks to emphasize that one cannot emphasize the self at the expense of the world and vice-versa, that acceptance and success in life is a achieved by a balance of ego and society and a reconciliation of ones strengths and ones weaknesses (Page 2003, pp. 88, 92).As an example of this, consider the study, though somewhat dated, that a majority of people honor thei r work meaningless (Purcell 1967, p. 232). If it is indeed the cases that what they do is meaningless then, mayhap one can date redeeming value in why they do it to provide for their family, to get ahead or some other deferment of pleasure or perhaps the acceptance of an imposed position in life.As a segue way from the meaningless of work is the perspective of the humanism are the ideas of theorists such as Maslow and Frankl which both seek to address the issue of values and meaningfulness in work and life. Maslows ubiquitous hierarchy of needs positions self-actualization as the highest type of need to be satisfied, being given attention only after lower needs such as food and security are considered (Coles 2001 Hansen 2000, p. 22). In similar vein, Frankl, a concentration camp survivor, indicates that people seek meaning through hardship and that purpose validates the self and your activities (Frankl 1946). Also related to this is Herzbergs theory of motivation in which he postul ate many choices are comprised of two-factors. One kinsfolk of factor is labeled as satisfiers and are factors that drive positive feelings and beliefs while the other category is labeled hygiene factors in that they are necessary but not sufficient (Purcell 1967, p. 238). As an example, consider that salary is a satisfier yet travel less than 25% may be a hygiene factor for a certain individual. By this, it is meant that virtually any reasonable sum of money would not be enough to motivate this individual if they must travel approximately 50% of the time. Similarly, by not traveling at all, this person could be not dissatisfied but their low wage prevents real satisfaction also. All together, these provide a rich view of the aims of the humanist perspective and are very salient to accord behavior and motive in the workplace as in life.Corporate Therapy and organisational InterventionsOne of the initial metaphors utilized earlier is that in some ways, an organization is a person. Complimentary if not a substitute line of reasoning is that organizations are of people. If at first psychology was not relevant, it is now.In favor of the application of each of these approaches, there are number of areas such as selection and hiring practices and performance consulting in which each approach is distinct and fantastic yet still appropriate.Selection ProcessesCognitive Cognitive ability and intelligence is among the most reliable and validated predictors of theorise performance (Hodgkinson 2003, p. 10 Dreher Dougherty 2002, pp. 109-110).Behavioral One method that takes advantage of the R-R learning method the use of behavioral interview techniques that focus on achievement or the ability to do the current job based on the belief of a correlation of past demonstrated ability to the task at hand. This type of interview can be an oral interview, work samples or practices in order to stimulate a response (Dreher Dougherty 2002, pp. 105-107).Humanistic The use of personality profiles to help assess the fit of the person to the team up or company is a frequently utilized humanistic technique (Wasylyshyn 2001, pp. 12, 14-15).Performance ManagementCognitive The distribution, through training, of successful heuristics for handling certain complex tasks can be a means by which new employees are oriented to best methods (Hodgkinson 2003, p. 11). In addition, the use of the Expectancy Theory approach understanding and influencing motivation can be very applicable to creating systems that incentivize performance while Equity theory concerns the rationalization of worker inputs and corresponding outputs. (Dreher Dougherty 2002, pp. 34-35, 42).Behavioral Behavioral theory, if anything, is aboveboard with regards to motivation stating only that one need find the correct reinforcement schedule to achieve the desired results.Humanistic Programs such as job coaching and consulting as well as job enrichment can both motivate and address performance concerns (Page 2003 Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, Wright 2000, p. 367).Three into One Towards an Integrated ApproachIn consideration of each of these approaches, one approach may clearly be the best paradigm to utilize in any specific situation. Despite this, the diversity of experiences to be found in the workplace in conjunction with the diversity of the individuals calls for an approach with a back-up plan if not an outright approach in which all common chord schools are actively utilized. As an example of a complex workplace situation in which many elements are present in such quantities so as to be readily observable, consider the following adapted and condensed version of real-life organizational drama at B.F. Goodrich ( new wavedivier 1972)When presented with the opportunity to get the iron out on a project to build a aircraft brake assemblies as part of a government contract for a company for which Goodrich has utterly failed with a decade earlier, Goodrich bid to win, hoping to restore trust and capture the profits on the back end through subsequent orders and miscellaneous complimentary parts. After winning the bid, the job was assign to rabbit warren, an experienced brake assembly coordinate and graduate of a top engineering program who was notably difficult to approach with anything remotely resembling criticism. Under rabbit warren was Lawson, a young engineer with much less of a pedigree and only one year of work experience. Despite this, he quickly byword the design for this particular project possessed critical flaws that would not only fail to function but in doing so could potentially or perhaps even likely be considered a threat to those in the plane and on the ground.Knowing a flaw to be present and seeking to ransom the company time and money later though unwilling to approach Warren without more data, Lawson began testing the components at the earliest possible opportunity. These tests confirmed his suspicions and, though Warren began to become aware of the issues, he insisted that the problem lay in the material selection rather that the design.Finding Warrne unwilling to consider the root cause, Lawson took his case to plunge, a short, chubby, bald man, who had worked his was up to a position supervising all engineers from a lowly draftsman position. As such, he was not an engineer yet supervised engineers and despite not being formally so trained, as Lawson presented his case, the truth was likely quite obvious. Also obvious was that if Lawson was correct, then by default, Warren was wrong. If this were the case, then this meant that descend made an error in trusting Warren and allowing this to occur. Sinks response was to keep testing itll work just fine.With less than seventy days to flight testing, the mandatory certification of the assembly began to loom. Vandivier, a instrumentation engineer, analyst and technical writer, was called to perform closing faculty testing and then to issue the recommendati on for certification. Upon noting many irregularities Vanivier consulted Gretzinger, the lab supervisor, who indicated that he had been directed to miscalibrate testing instruments by Lawson who reported that Sink had directed him to do so.Vandivier currently spoke with Lawson who informed him that he would soon figure it out that it went even higher than Sink who had been directed by his supervisor, Van Horn, Manager of Design Engineering. Van Horn had indicated, regardless it will be qualified. Eventually, it was qualified and failed miserably in flight tests. This began the chain of events that could be termed the beginning of the end in which the final outcome was a major loss of corporate reputation, the redesign of the assembly, a formal inquiry, court proceedings and other predictable consequences.As one considers this fib, though we may not all design aircraft brake assemblies, be engineers or employees of a huge corporation or have millions of dollars or lives riding on o ur decisions, most of the elements are likely quite familiar. This familiarity comes from the fact that, even though we may not even be employed, the chords that were struck in this tale hark back in our lives. Issues such as trust vs. mistrust, conditioned responses and fear of reprisals (aka punishment) and the questioning of what is the meaning of life and what ethics and values are represented in your head, heart and behaviors. The issues that play in our private lives go with us to work the problem is us, work and home are merely the contexts in which the drama unfolds.In tale of B.F. Goodrich, the issues and conflicts named by each of the three distinct approaches are evident.Cognitive Sink had the opportunity to stop the issue cold by simply going to Warren and directing him to redesign to the part. A frequent initial intervention in cognitive therapy is to being to question ones assumptions (Henry 2002, p. 39). Key to this are Sinks assumptions in which he felt that his di scovery and action would reflect poorly on him. Objectively, this is faulty reasoning yet such as strategy was adopted by Sink in an effort to reduce the cognitive demands placed on him.Behavioral Consider the actions of Gretzinger to miscalibrate the testing instruments in which he is approach with the lesser of two punishments one certain and immediate, the other deferred and potentially avoidable. Perhaps he had witnessed such a test on others and learned by association. In doing so, Gretzingers survival instincts were likely triggered and he simply behaved accordingly.Humanistic This case is ripe with issues of subjective values and ethics interpretations. In addition, from a psychodynamic perspective, it is certainly implied that Sink perhaps had a bit of an inferiority complex which was reinforced by the overall situation and he had adopted the anecdotal strategy of one must go along to get along.While it seems clear, consider the insight achieved by integrated model that adds richness and understanding as to the how and why events occurred as they did. For example, in the Gretzingers instinctual survival behavior, it is quite likely that he also had psychodynamic issues such as inferiority complex in which he felt monstrous guilt were he to disobey his corporate parents (Gleitman 1986, p. 420-421). Also, consider Sinks cognitive assumptions and that his behavior could also be understood in the context of behaviorisms learned helplessness or social learning theorys deferment of responsibility, aptly illustrated by Milgrams classis experiments in which ordinary people carried out what they thought were hurtful experiments on another human under the direction of external authority figure (Gleitman 1986, pp. 114-115, 398-401).By the coinciding consideration of each theoretical perspective, events can be understood with greater clarity but, most importantly, future behavior can be shaped for the value of all involved. In this way, processes and policie s can be enacted that reduce the psychological conflict in the choices that people feel compelled to make. For example, as the case clearly involved honorable issues, one system that is common is todays post-Enron society is the establishment of reprisal-free ethics violations hotlines (Behr 2002). Additionally, from a behaviorist perspective, increasing the severity of punishment for ethical violations likely forces the cognitive questioning of ones payoff matrix. The implementation of modern business process methods ranging from zero-based budgeting to activity-based costing and six-sigma methodology creates a forum in which assumptions are questioned and possible outcomes quantified. Such efforts get at the some of the fruits of cognitive theory intervention strategies as more information is actively considered, roles and processes are delicate and desired outcomes explicitly stated.Thus, the workplace occurs as a factory, an office, a car, a crowded city of a wide open field. P eople occur in all varieties, each shaped by both unique and common elements. With the merger of these diversities, psychological perspectives cannot be applied in isolation. Rather, each must be considered and weighed in light of the situational and temporal context of the moment. Thus, in reality, it is not truly unified theory that is desired but an integrated or multidimensional perspective. Without this, the situation is akin the slightly exaggerated anecdote of the person who went to a psychiatrist only to find out that he has mental issues, a visit to a chiropractor to be informed that therapy was recommended and finally a visit to the dentist only to find that he has dental issues as well. The point is that one often is compelled to find what one is looking for and that unless a multidimensional approach is utilized, the potential outcomes are at least partially mitigated by the failure to consider life in situ.Works ConsultedBehr, P. and A. Witt. (2002, July 28). Enron. Acc essed online at http//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/specials/energy/enron/.Bolles, R. (1979). Learning Theory, 2nd edition. Harcout Brace Jovanovich College Publishers Fort Worth, TX.Coles, S. ( 2001, October). Satisfying Basic Needs. Employee Benefits, 4p.Daniels, K., C. Harris, and R. Briner. (2004). Linking Work Conditions to Unpleasant stir Cognition, Categorization, and Goals. ledger of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (77), pp. 343-363.Dreher, G. and T. Dougherty. (2002). Human Resource Strategy A Behavioral Reference for the General Manager. McGraw-Hill Irwin New York, New York.Frankl, V. (1946). Mans Search for Meaning. cap Square Press New York, New York.Gleitman, H.(1986). Psychology, 2nd Edition. W.W. Norton Company New York, New York.Hale, C. (1999, Fall). Eight Levels of Social Interest Adult Development From an Adlerian Paradigm. AdultSpan Journal (1), 2, pp. 66-78.Hansen, J. (2000, Winter). Psychoanalysis and Humanism A Review and Critical Exami nation of Integrationist Effort With Some Proposed Resolutions. Journal of Consulting Development(78), pp. 21-28.Henry, J. (2002). Cognitive Science and Individual Development in in Pearn, M., ed. (2002). Individual Differences and Development in Organizations. John Wiley Sons West Sussex, UK.Hodgkinson, G. (2003). The Interface of Cognitive and Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (76), pp. 1-25.Kets de Vries, M. (1995). Organizational Paradoxes Clinical Approaches to Management, 2nd edition. Routledge London, UK.Kimble, G. (2000, November December). Behaviorism and Unity in Psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science (9), 6, pp. 208-212.Noe, R., J. Hollenbeck, B. Gerhart, and P. Wright. (2000). Human Resource Management Gaining a warring Advantage, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Irwin Boston, Massachusetts.Page, L. (2003, Spring). Adler and the Profession of Coaching. The Journal of Individual Psychology (5 9), 1, pp. 86-93.Purcell, T. (1967). Work Psychology and Business Values A Triad Theory of Work indigence. Personnel Psychology (20), 3, , pp. 231-257.Vandivier, K. (1972). Why Should My Conscience Bother Me? in Moss Kanter, R. B. Stein, eds. (1978). Life in Organizations Workplaces as People Experience Them. Basic Publishers New York, NY.Wasylyshyn, K. (2001). On the upright Actualization of Psychology in Business. Consulting Psychology Practice and Research (53), 1, pp. 10-21.