1. qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
REPORT TWO - PERCEPTION
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
10/19/2011
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
GROUP SIX – ZULFADLI, SYAFIQAH AND LINA
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm

2. Question one
An employee does an unsatisfactory job on an assigned project. Explain the attribution
process that this person’s manager will use to form judgments about this employee’s job
performance.
Attribution theory is concerned with how individuals interpret events and how this relates to
their thinking and behavior. Attribution theory assumes that people try to determine why people do
what they do. A person seeking to understand why another person did something may attribute one
or more causes to that behavior.
According to Heider a person can make two attributions: internal attribution, the inference
that a person is behaving in a certain way because of something about the person, such as attitude,
character or personality. Internally caused behaviors are those that are believed to be under the
personal control of the individual and also external attribution, the inference that a person is
behaving a certain way because of something about the situation he or she is in. Externally caused
behavior is seen as resulting from outside causes; that is, the person is seen as having been forced
into the behavior by the situation.
Attribution theory assumes that people try to determine why people do what they do, that
is, interpret causes to an event or behavior. A three-stage process underlies an attribution: behavior
must be observed or perceived; behavior must be determined to be intentional, behavior attributed
to internal or external causes
Using the attribution process, the manager has to observe on this employee’s behavior and
also their problems. This could be useful in determining whether the employee is intent ally or
extent ally caused to be unsatisfactory on his/her assigned project. The Manager’s perception in
using the attribution process could use the three guidelines on judging the employee’s job
performance which are: their distinctiveness, consensus and consistency in doing their project.
Distinctiveness refers to whether an individual displays different behaviors in different
situations. What we want to know is whether the observed behavior is unusual. If it is, the observer
is likely to give the behavior an external attribution. If this action is not unusual, it will probably be
judged as internal.
Consensus occurs if everyone who is faced with a similar situation responds in the same way.
If consensus were high, you would be expected to give an external attribution to the employee
tardiness, whereas if other employees who took the same route made it to work on time, your
conclusion as to causation would be internal that is consistency in person actions. Does the person
respond the same way over time? The more consistent the behavior, the more the observer is
inclined to attribute it to internal causes.

3. Our attributions are also significantly driven by our emotional and motivational drives.
Blaming other people and avoiding personal recrimination are very real self-serving attributions. We
will also make attributions to defend what we perceive as attacks. We will point to injustice in an
unfair world. We will even tend to blame victims (of us and of others) for their fate as we seek to
distance ourselves from thoughts of suffering the same plight. We will also tend to ascribe less
variability to other people than ourselves, seeing ourselves as more multifaceted and less
predictable than others. This may well because we can see more of what is inside ourselves (and
spend more time doing this).
Individuals behave in a given manner based not on the way their external environment
actually is but, rather, on what they see or believe it to be. An organization may spend millions of
dollars to create a pleasant work environment for its employees. However, in spite of these
expenditures, if an employee believes that his or her job is lousy, that employee will behave
accordingly. It is the employee’s perception of a situation that becomes the basis for his or her
behavior.
The evidence suggests that what individuals perceive from their work situation will influence
their productivity more than will the situation itself. Whether or not a job is actually interesting or
challenging is irrelevant. Whether or not a manager successfully plans and organizes the work of his
or her employees and actually helps them to structure their work more efficiently and effectively is
far less important than how employees perceive the manager’s efforts. Similarly, issues like fair pay
for work performed, the validity of performance appraisals, and the adequacy of working conditions
are not judged by employees in a way that assures common perceptions, nor can we be assured
that individuals will interpret conditions about their jobs in a favorable light. Therefore, to be able to
influence productivity, it is necessary to assess how workers perceive their jobs.
Absenteeism, turnover, and job satisfaction are also reactions to the individual’s
perceptions. Dissatisfaction with working conditions or the belief that there is a lack of promotion
opportunities in the organization are judgments based on attempts to make some meaning out of
one’s job. The employee’s conclusion that a job is good or bad is an interpretation. Managers must
spend time understanding how each individual interprets reality and, where there is a significant
difference between what is seen and what exists, try to eliminate the distortions. Failure to deal
with the differences when individuals perceive the job in negative terms will result in increased
absenteeism and turnover and lower job satisfaction.

4. Question 2
How might managers use the grapevine for their benefit?
The formal network, made up of memos, reports, staff meetings, department meetings,
conferences, company newsletters and official notices is highly documented and as such has very
little chance for change. However, nearly all of the information within the grapevine is
undocumented and is thereby open to change and interpretation as it moves through the network.
It often travels faster than formal channels.
The grapevine is very useful in supplementing formal channels. It provides people with an
outlet for their imaginations and apprehensions as well. It also helps satisfy a natural desire to know
what is really going on. The grapevine is flexible and personal and can spread information faster
than the formal communication channels. It is also capable of penetrating even the tightest security
because it cuts across organizational lines and deals directly with people in the know. Bosses who
chose not to pay attention to the grapevine have 50% less credible information than those who do
and it exists because of excessive structuring of formal work flows and the excessive channeling of
information flows. It is fed by personal apprehension, wish fulfillment, retaliation, and gossip.
Surprisingly, most researchers have found that most grapevine information is either true or has
within it a root of truth.
Since the grapevine arises from social interactions, it is as unpredictable, full of life, and
varied as people are. It is the expression of their natural motivation to communicate. It is the
exercise of their freedom of speech and is a natural, normal activity. The grapevine starts early in
the morning in the car pools. Once everyone has arrived at work, grapevine activity takes place
nearly all day long down hallways, around corners, in meetings, and especially by the coffee
machine. The peak time of the days are breaks and lunch hour during which management has little
or no control over the topics of conversation. In the late afternoon the work day has finished but the
grapevine has not.
After a short time interval, some employees meet again. They are on company softball
teams, golf leagues, and bowling teams. The grapevine at that time goes into full swing again and
remains active with one final activity peak at a local bar. The following day, the cycle is repeated. It
is the wide range of locations where the grapevine takes place in mixture with the fact that
grapevine participants come from informal social groups within the organization which points out its
difference from formal management communication.
Structured management uses verbal messages to communicate through the chain of
command, while grapevine communication jumps from one department to another and from any
level of management to another. It moves up, down, horizontally, vertically and diagonally all within
a short span of time. The grapevine, as communication, can be compared to the organizations
formal information network.

5. The management can use grapevine to supplement the formal channels of communication.
Though it carries some degree of error and distortion, efforts can be made to correct it. Ignoring the
grapevine is nothing but to ignore a valuable source of communication and also information, though
grapevine is sort of feedback from employee themselves. The management can eliminate its
negative consequences and, at the same time, it can promote its positive benefits. The managers
have to learn to manage and control it by listening to the grapevine very carefully to find out what
current concerns are. Managers cannot kill the grapevine, but they can prevent it from spreading.
The rumors spread when the situations are unpredictable, unstructured, unplanned and are
beyond the control of a person or the persons who are involved in them. The management can open
up all the channels of organizational communication to present the facts positively before the
employees and thereby can fight the negative messages with the positive weapons of facts and
figures. Therefore, the best way to manage and control it is to provide accurate and substantial
information of the situations to the employees. The managers should pick up the false rumors and
dispel them by providing correct information
Other solution is communicating face to face with employees equally and across the board;
always tell the truth; if you (as a manager) do not know just say so and find out what the problems
really are. Never try to use the grapevine yourself especially when the grapevine carries a lie, correct
it immediately with the facts; make no public comments about race, religion, politics, or personal
matters unrelated to work because you can de-motivate your employee as they take your words to
heart.
The negative consequences of the grapevine can be easily eliminated if the management is
successful in creating trust-relationship with the employees. It also prevents the boredom, idleness
and suspicions among the employees. Better job design and better quality of work life can easily
bring the grapevine under the control of the management.
Before taking any decision or action, the managers must consider its possible effects on the
informal groups and systems in the organization. The management can use the grapevine as a
barometer of the public opinions in the organization or to feel the pulse of the employees in a
particular situation. This will surely help them to take right policy decisions.
In the formal activities of the organization, the management should avoid threatening the
informal groups, which are responsible in spreading the grapevine effectively. The management
should find out the people in the informal groups who are more active on grapevine. These people
should be accurately and adequately informed so that the false rumors causing excitement and
insecurity do not spread among the employees. The management should remember that the
workplace community is maintained not only by the work itself but also by the informal human
relationships. Therefore, the manager should honestly try to integrate their interests with those of
the informal groups.

6. In conclusion, the grapevine in many ways helps keep people honest; it can dissuade people
from engaging on behavior that they don’t want others to know about. This is a two edge sword. On
one hand, people will think twice about taking what they know is a wrong course of action. On the
other hand, they may also think twice about taking a necessary risk and doing the right thing, fearful
those appearances that may give rise to rumors. So the managers should decide whether to be a
good listener, be honest and communicate directly to their employees needs’ to continue to
function efficiently or to ignore others feedback and be the arrogant manager.