Organizational Psychology
Successfully recruiting, hiring, training, and appraising workers matters, but so does employee motivation and morale. Organizational psychologists assist with efforts to motivate and engage employees.
Satisfaction and Engagement at Work
An engaged employee Mohamed Mamow, left, was joined by his employer in saying the Pledge of Allegiance as he became a U.S. citizen. Mamow and his wife met in a Somali refugee camp and have five children, whom he has supported by working as a machine operator. Mindful of his responsibility—“I don’t like to lose my job. I have a responsibility for my children and my family”—he would arrive for work a half hour early and tend to every detail on his shift. “He is an extremely hard-working employee,” noted his employer, and “a reminder to all of us that we are really blessed” (Roelofs, 2010).
I/O psychologists have found that satisfaction with work, and with work-life balance, feeds overall satisfaction with life (Bowling et al., 2010). Married men and women who have supportive spouses often enjoy a healthy balance between work and home life, with success in both arenas (Solomon & Jackson, 2014). Moreover, as health psychologists tell us (and as we saw in Module 29), lower job stress, sometimes supported by telecommuting, feeds better health (Allen et al., 2015).
Satisfied employees also contribute to successful organizations. Positive moods at work enhance creativity, persistence, and helpfulness (Ford et al., 2011; Jeffrey et al., 2014; Shockley et al., 2012). Are engaged, happy workers also less often absent? Less likely to quit? Less prone to theft? More punctual? More productive? Statistical digests of prior research have found a modest positive correlation between individual job satisfaction and performance (Judge et al., 2001; Ng et al., 2009; Parker et al., 2003). In one analysis of 4500 employees at 42 British manufacturing companies, the most productive workers were those who found their work environment satisfying (Patterson et al., 2004).
Some organizations seem to have a knack for cultivating more engaged and productive employees. In the United States, Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” have also produced markedly higher-than-average returns for their investors (Fulmer et al., 2003). And consider a study of more than 198,000 employees in nearly 8000 business units of 36 large companies (including some 1100 bank branches, 1200 stores, and 4200 teams or departments). James Harter, Frank Schmidt, and Theodore Hayes (2002) explored correlations between various measures of organizational success and employee engagement—the extent of workers’ involvement, enthusiasm, and identification with their organizations (Table 82.2). They found that engaged workers (compared with disengaged workers who are just putting in their time) knew what was expected of them, had what they needed to do their work, felt fulfilled in their work, had regular opportunities to do what they do best, perceived that they were part of something significant, and had opportunities to learn and develop. They also found that business units with engaged employees had more loyal customers, lower turnover rates, higher productivity, and greater profits.
| Engaged: working with passion and feeling a profound connection to their company or organization. |
| Not engaged: putting in the time but investing little passion or energy in their work. |
| Actively disengaged: unhappy workers undermining what their colleagues accomplish. |
Information from Gallup via Crabtree, 2005.
Doing well while doing good—“The Great Experiment” At the end of the 1700s, the New Lanark, Scotland, cotton mill had more than 1000 workers. Many were children drawn from Glasgow’s poorhouses. They worked 13-hour days and lived in grim conditions.
On a visit to Glasgow, Welsh-born Robert Owen—an idealistic young cotton-mill manager—chanced to meet and marry the mill owner’s daughter. Owen and some partners purchased the mill and on the first day of the 1800s began what he said was “the most important experiment for the happiness of the human race that had yet been instituted at any time in any part of the world” (Owen, 1814). The exploitation of child and adult labor was, he observed, producing unhappy and inefficient workers. Owen showed transformational leadership when he undertook numerous innovations: a nursery for preschool children, education for older children (with encouragement rather than corporal punishment), Sundays off, health care, paid sick days, unemployment pay for days when the mill could not operate, and a company store selling goods at reduced prices. He also innovated a goals- and worker-assessment program that included detailed records of daily productivity and costs but with “no beating, no abusive language.”
The ensuing commercial success fueled a humanitarian reform movement. By 1816, with decades of profitability still ahead, Owen believed he had demonstrated “that society may be formed so as to exist without crime, without poverty, with health greatly improved, with little if any misery, and with intelligence and happiness increased a hundredfold.” Although his utopian vision has not been fulfilled, Owen’s great experiment laid the groundwork for employment practices that have today become accepted in much of the world.
But what causal arrows explain this correlation between business success and employee morale and engagement? Does success boost morale, or does high morale boost success? In a follow-up longitudinal study of 142,000 workers, researchers found that, over time, employee attitudes predicted future business success (more than the other way around) (Harter et al., 2010). Many other studies confirm that happy workers tend to be good workers (Ford et al., 2011; Seibert et al., 2011; Shockley et al., 2012). One analysis compared companies with top-quartile versus below-average employee engagement levels. Over a three-year period, earnings grew 2.6 times faster for the companies with highly engaged workers (Ott, 2007). It pays to have employees engaged.
Effective Leadership
Great managers support employees’ well-being, articulate goals clearly, and lead in ways that suit the situation and consider the cultural context.
Setting Specific, Challenging Goals
Measurable objectives, such as “finish gathering the history paper information by Friday,” focus our attention and stimulate us to persist and to be creative. Goals motivate achievement, especially when combined with progress reports (Harkin et al., 2016). For many people, a landmark in time—a special birthday, the new year or new school term, graduation, a new job—spurs personal goal setting (Dai et al., 2014). Action plans that break large goals into smaller steps (subgoals) and that specify “implementation intentions”—when, where, and how to achieve those steps—increase the chances of completing a project on time (Fishbach et al., 2006; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). Through a task’s ups and downs, we best sustain our mood and motivation when we focus on immediate goals (such as daily study) rather than distant goals (such as a class grade). Better to have our nose to the grindstone than our eye on the ultimate prize (Houser-Marko & Sheldon, 2008).
“ The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary.”
Former Green Bay Packers football coach Vince Lombardi
Thus, before beginning each new edition of this book, our author-editor-staff team manages by objectives—we agree on target dates for the completion and editing of each unit draft. If we focus on achieving each of these short-term goals, the prize—an on-time book—takes care of itself. So, to motivate high productivity, effective leaders work with people to define explicit goals, subgoals, and implementation plans, and then provide feedback on progress.
“ Good leaders don’t ask more than their constituents can give, but they often ask—and get—more than their constituents intended to give or thought it was possible to give.”
John W. Gardner, Excellence, 1984
Choosing an Appropriate Leadership Style
Effective leaders of laboratory groups, work teams, and large corporations often exude charisma (Goethals & Allison, 2014; House & Singh, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993). People with charisma have the ability to motivate people to cooperate toward a common goal (Grabo & van Vugt, 2016). Although charismatic leaders can inspire, leadership—the ability to motivate and influence people to enable their group’s success—varies, depending both on the leader and the situation. In some situations (think of a commander leading troops into battle), a directive style may be needed (Fiedler, 1981). In other situations—developing a comedy show, for example—a leader might get better results using a democratic style that welcomes team member creativity.
Leaders differ in the personal qualities they bring to the job. Some excel at task leadership—by setting standards, organizing work, and focusing attention on goals. To keep the group centered on its mission, task leaders typically use a directive style, which can work well if the leader gives good directions (Fiedler, 1987).
Other managers excel at social leadership. They explain decisions, help group members solve their conflicts, and build teams that work well together (Evans & Dion, 1991; Pfaff et al., 2013). Social leaders, many of whom are women, often have a democratic style. They share authority and welcome team members’ opinions. Social leadership and team-building increases morale and productivity (Shuffler et al., 2011, 2013). We usually feel more satisfied and motivated, and perform better, when we can participate in decision making (Cawley et al., 1998; Pereira & Osburn, 2007). Moreover, when members are sensitive to one another and participate equally, groups solve problems with greater “collective intelligence” (Woolley et al., 2010).
In one study of 50 Dutch companies, the firms with the highest morale had chief executives who most inspired their colleagues “to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the collective” (de Hoogh et al., 2004). Transformational leadership of this kind motivates others to identify with and commit themselves to the group’s mission. Transformational leaders, many of whom are natural extraverts, articulate high standards, inspire people to share their vision, and offer personal attention (Bono & Judge, 2004). The frequent result is more engaged, trusting, and effective workers (Turner et al., 2002). Women more than men tend to exhibit transformational leadership qualities. Alice Eagly (2007, 2013) believes this helps explain why companies with female top managers have tended to enjoy superior financial results, even after controlling for such variables as company size.
The power of positive coaching Football coach Pete Carroll, who led the University of Southern California to two national championships and the Seattle Seahawks to a Super Bowl championship, has combined positive enthusiasm and fun workouts with “a commitment to a nurturing environment that allows people to be themselves while still being accountable to the team” (Trotter, 2014). “It shows you can win with positivity,” noted Seahawks star defensive player Richard Sherman. “It’s literally all positive reinforcement,” said teammate Jimmy Graham (Belson, 2015).
Studies in India, Taiwan, and Iran suggest that effective managers—whether in coal mines, banks, or government offices—often exhibit a high degree of both task and social leadership (Smith & Tayeb, 1989). As achievement-minded people, effective managers care about how well work is done, yet they are sensitive to their subordinates’ needs. Workers in family-friendly organizations that offer flexible-time hours report feeling greater job satisfaction and loyalty to their employers (Butts et al., 2013; Roehling et al., 2001). Over time, U.S. senators who practice common virtues (humility, wisdom, courage) become more influential in leadership roles than do those who practice manipulation and intimidation (ten Brinke et al., 2016). Social virtues work.
POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
Effective leadership often builds on a basic principle of operant conditioning: To teach a behavior, catch a person doing something right and reinforce it. It sounds simple, but many managers are like parents who, when a child brings home a near-perfect school report card, focus on the one low grade in a troublesome biology class and ignore the rest. “Sixty-five percent of Americans received NO praise or recognition in the workplace last year,” reported the Gallup Organization (2004).
FULFILLING THE NEED TO BELONG
A work environment that satisfies employees’ need to belong is energizing. Employees who enjoy high-quality colleague relationships engage their work with more vigor (Carmeli et al., 2009). Gallup researchers have asked more than 15 million employees worldwide if they have a “best friend at work.” The 30 percent who do “are seven times as likely to be engaged in their jobs” as those who don’t, report Tom Rath and James Harter (2010). And, as we noted earlier, positive, engaged employees are a mark of thriving organizations.
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT
Employee participation in decision making is common in Sweden, Japan, the United States, and elsewhere (Cawley et al., 1998; Sundstrom et al., 1990). Workers given a chance to voice their opinion and be part of the decision-making process have responded more positively to the final decision (van den Bos & Spruijt, 2002). They also feel more empowered and are likely, therefore, to be more creative and committed (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Seibert et al., 2011).
The ultimate in employee participation is the employee-owned company. One such company in my [DM’s] town is the Fleetwood Group—a thriving 165-employee manufacturer of educational furniture and wireless electronic clickers. Every employee owns part of the company, and as a group they own 100 percent. The more years employees work, the more they own, yet no one owns more than 5 percent. Like every corporate president, Fleetwood’s president works for his stockholders—who also just happen to be his employees.
As a company that endorses faith-inspired servant leadership and “respect and care for each team member-owner,” Fleetwood is free to place people above profits. Thus, when orders lagged during a recession, the employee-owners decided that job security meant more to them than profits. So the company paid otherwise idle workers to do community service, such as answering phones at nonprofit agencies and building Habitat for Humanity houses. Employee ownership attracts and retains talented people, which for Fleetwood has meant company success.
Cultural Influences on Leadership Styles
Industrial-organizational psychology sprang from North American roots. So, how well do its leadership principles apply to cultures worldwide?
Investigators worldwide have undertaken Project GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness), to study cultural variations in leadership expectations (House et al., 2001). Some cultures, for example, encourage collective sharing of resources and rewards; others are more individualist. Some cultures minimize and others accentuate traditional gender roles. Some cultures prioritize being friendly, caring, and kind, and others encourage aggressiveness. The program’s first research phase studied 17,300 leaders of 950 organizations in 61 countries (Brodbeck et al., 2008; Dorfman et al., 2012). One finding: Leaders who fulfill expectations, such as by being directive in some cultures or participative in others, tend to be successful. Cultures shape leadership and what makes for leadership success.
Nevertheless, some leader behaviors are universally effective. From its massive study of nearly 50,000 business units in 45 countries, the Gallup Organization observed that thriving companies tend to focus on identifying and enhancing employee strengths (rather than punishing their deficiencies). Doing so predicts increased employee engagement, customer satisfaction, and profitability (Rigoni & Asplund, 2016a,b). “Strengths-based” leadership pays dividends. By caring about their employees and engaging and affirming their strengths, such leaders support happier, more creative, more productive workers with less absenteeism and turnover (Amabile & Kramer, 2011; De Neve et al., 2013). Moreover, the same principles affect college student satisfaction, retention, and future success (Larkin et al., 2013; Ray & Kafka, 2014). Students who feel supported by caring friends and mentors, and engaged in their campus life, tend to persist and ultimately succeed during school and after graduation.
* * *
We have considered personnel psychology (the I/O psychology subfield that focuses on training job seekers and assisting with employee selection, placement, appraisal, and development). And we have considered organizational psychology (the I/O psychology subfield that focuses on worker satisfaction and productivity, and on organizational change). Finally, we turn to human factors psychology, which explores the human-machine interface.