/32-3_files/32-300001im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Lesson 3

PERCEPTION

Perception is a process by which individuals give meaning to their environment by organizing and interpreting

their sensory impressions. Research on perception consistently demonstrates that individuals may look at the

same thing yet perceive it differently. One manager, for instance, can interpret the fact that her assistant

regularly takes several days to make important decisions as evidence that the assistant is slow, disorganized, and

afraid to make decisions. Another manager with the same assistant might interpret the same tendency as

evidence that the assistant is thoughtful, thorough, and deliberate. The first manger would probably evaluate

her assistant negatively; the second manager would probably evaluate the person positively. The point is that

none of us sees reality. We interpret what we see and call it reality. And, of course, as the example shows, we

behave according to our perception.

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PERCEPTION

How do we explain the fact that people can perceive the same thing differently? A number of factors act to

shape and sometimes distort perception. These factors can reside in the perceiver; in the object, or target, being

perceived; or in the context of the situation in which perception occurs.

The Perceiver: when an individual looks at a target and attempts to interpret what he or she sees, the

individual personal characteristics will heavily influence the interpretation. These personal characteristics

include attitudes, personality, motives, interests, experiences and expectations.

The Target: the characteristics of the target being observed can also affect what's perceived. Loud people are

more likely than quiet people to be noticed in a group. So, too, are extremely attractive or unattractive

individuals. Because targets aren't looked at in isolation, the relationship of a target to its background also

influences perception, as does our tendency to group close things and similar things together.

The Situation: the context in which we see objects or events is also important. The time at which an object or

event is seen can influence attention, as can location, light, heat, color, and any number of other situational

factors.

Attribution Theory

Much of the research on perception is directed at inanimate objects. Managers, though, are more concerned

with people. Our discussion of perception, therefore, should focus on how we perceive people.

Our perception of people differ from our perceptions of inanimate objects because we make inferences about

the behaviors of people that we don't make about objects. Objects don't have beliefs, motives, or intensions;

people do. The result is that when we observe an individuals behavior, we try to develop explanations of why

they behave in certain ways. Our perception and judgment of a person's action, therefore, will be significantly

influenced by assumptions we make about the person.

Attribution theory was developed to explain how we judge people differently depending on the meaning we

attribute to a given behavior. Basically, the theory suggests that when we observe an individual's behavior, we

attempt to determine whether it was internally or externally caused. Internally caused behaviors are those that

are believed to be under the personal control of the individual. Externally caused behavior results from outside

factors; that is, the person is forced into the behavior by the situation. The determination, however, depends on

three factors: distinctiveness, consensus, and consistency.

Distinctiveness refers to whether an individual displays a behavior in many situations or whether it's particular

to one situation. Is the employee who arrives late today the same person that some employees are complaining

is a `good-off?'

What we want to know is whether this behavior is unusual. If it's unusual, the observer is likely to attribute the

behavior to external forces, something beyond the control of the person. However, if the behavior isn't

unusual, it will probably be judged as internal.

If everyone who's faced with a similar situation responds in the same way, we can say the behavior shows

consensus. A tardy employee's behavior would meet this criterion if all employees who took the same route to

work were also late. From an attribution perspective, if consensus is high, you're likely to give an external

attribution to the employee's tardiness; that is, some outside factor maybe road construction or a traffic

/32-3_files/32-300002im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

accident caused the behavior. However, if other employees who come the same way to work made it on time,

you would conclude that the cause of the late behavior was internal.

Finally, an observer looks for consistency in a person's actions. Does the person engage in the behaviors

regularly and consistently? Does the person respond the same way over time? Coming in 10 minutes late for

work isn't perceived in the same way if, for one employee, it represents an unusual case (she hasn't been late in

months), while for another employee, it's part of a routine pattern (she's late two or three times every week).

The more consistent the behavior, the more the observer is inclined to attribute it to internal causes.

One of the most interesting findings from the attribution theory is that are errors or biases that distort

attribution. For instance, there's substantial evidence to support the fact that when we make judgments about

the behavior of other people, we have a tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and to

overestimate the influence of internal or personal factors. This tendency is called the fundamental attribution

error and can explain why a sales manager may be prone to attribute the poor performance of her sales

representative to laziness rather than to the innovative product line introduced by a competitor. There's also a

tendency for individuals to attribute their own success to internal factors such as ability or effort while putting

the blame for performance failure on external factors such as luck. This tendency is called self-serving bias and

suggests that feedback provided to employees in performance reviews will be predictably distorted by them

depending on whether it's positive or negative.

Shortcuts Frequently Used in Judging Others

We use a number of shortcuts when we judge others. Perceiving and interpreting what others do is a lot of

work. As a result, individuals develop techniques for making the task more manageable. These techniques are

frequently valuable; they let us make accurate perceptions rapidly and provide valid data for making predictions.

However, they aren't perfect. They can and do let us get into trouble. An understanding of these shortcuts can

be helpful for recognizing when they can result in significant distortions.

Individuals cannot assimilate all they observe, so they engage in selectivity. They take in bits and pieces of the

vast amounts of stimuli bombarding their senses. These bits and pieces aren't chosen randomly; they are

selectively chosen depending on the interests, background, experience, and attitudes of the observer. Selective

perception allows us to "speed read" others but not without the risk of being inaccurate.

It's easy to judge others if we assume that they're similar to us. In assumed similarity, or the "like me" effect,

the observer's perception of others is influenced more by the observer's own characteristics than by those of

the person observed. For example, if you want challenges and responsibilities in your job, you'll assume that

others want the same. People who assume that others are like them can, of course, be right, but most of the

time they're wrong.

When we judge someone on the basis of our perception of a group he or she is part of, we're using the

shortcut called stereotyping. For instance, "married people are more stable employees than single persons" and

"union people expect something for nothing" are examples of stereotyping. To a degree that a stereotype is

based on fact, it may produce accurate judgments. However, many stereotypes have no foundation in fact. In

such cases, stereotyping distorts judgment.

When we form a general impression about a person on the basis of a single characteristic, such as intelligence,

sociability, or appearance, we're being influenced by the halo effect. This effect frequently occurs when

students evaluate their classroom instructor. Students may isolate a single trait such as enthusiasm and allow

their entire evaluation to be slanted by the perception of this one trait. An instructor may be quiet, assured,

knowledgeable, and highly qualified, but if his classroom teaching style lacks enthusiasm, he might be rated

lower on a number of other characteristics.