How Personality Affects Employees Behaviors Attitudes And - amazonia.fiocruz.br

How Personality Affects Employees Behaviors Attitudes And - necessary

In psychology , an attribution bias or attributional bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. Rather than operating as objective perceivers, people are prone to perceptual errors that lead to biased interpretations of their social world. For example, when a driver cuts someone off, the person who has been cut off is often more likely to attribute blame to the reckless driver's inherent personality traits e. Additionally, there are many different types of attribution biases, such as the ultimate attribution error , fundamental attribution error , actor-observer bias , and hostile attribution bias. Each of these biases describes a specific tendency that people exhibit when reasoning about the cause of different behaviors. How Personality Affects Employees Behaviors Attitudes And

How Personality Affects Employees Behaviors Attitudes And Video

Introduction to Management - Personality, Attitudes and Work Behaviors - The Big Five

J Sustain Res. This research explores the antecedents and consequences of this web page responsibility for constructive change within the context of corporate social responsibility CSR. A moderated mediation model is proposed wherein proactive personality predicts felt responsibility, which in turn influences three types of individual-level socially responsible behaviors both within and beyond organizational boundaries i. Perceptions of CSR were Perosnality to place a situational boundary condition on the effects of felt responsibility.

Predictions Hoow on an employee sample showed that proactive personality drives socially responsible behaviors via felt responsibility, but that when individuals perceive a high level of CSR, the predictive power of felt responsibility is diminished illustrating the potential power of socially responsible workplace environments. The findings suggest that internal CSR communication strategies may play an important role in encouraging prosocial behaviors of even those employees less predisposed to be socially responsible. It has become increasingly common for organizations to put forth effort Persnality at eliciting positive social change through corporate social responsibility CSR initiatives, defined as discretionary firm activities designed to accomplish social and environmental outcomes alongside traditional economic aims [12].

Many such initiatives e. Drawing from research across psychology and management, we seek to address this issue by proposing that specific aspects of employee personality impacts whether employees will engage in socially responsible behaviors at work and beyond. In doing so, we link the emerging findings on employee CSR perceptions with current knowledge regarding the psychological basis of socially responsible behaviors. Our How Personality Affects Employees Behaviors Attitudes And framework is presented in Figure 1.

The focus on employee individual differences and the CSR context differentiates this study from those more focused on employee experiences of CSR. By placing specific individual differences as possible determinants of socially responsible behaviors, CSR perceptions are repositioned as cues for such CSR-consistent acts. This framing allows our research to How Personality Affects Employees Behaviors Attitudes And from the convention of positioning CSR as a primary force acting upon employees and assumes a person-centric exploration of the socially responsible employee [21]. Furthermore, by measuring How Personality Affects Employees Behaviors Attitudes And behaviors in a way that corresponds to opportunities actually present in the workplace versus intentions toward broad, generic supportive behaviorswe get closer to modeling the psychology of CSR.

In sum, we demonstrate that individual differences in proactive personality and felt responsibility are associated with employee Just click for source behaviors, as well as the refraining from counterproductive workplace behaviors. In the sections that follow, we briefly discuss why we believe an individual difference perspective is key to a complete understanding of CSR behavior; and provide more in-depth theoretical justification for the links in our model.

Argued to be a component of personal initiative [22]proactivity is related to actively taking charge in the professional, personal, and social domains, including non-work prosocial activities e. At work, proactive personality relates to discretionary behaviors, showing a relationship to not only organizational citizenship behaviors [2425]but also to counterproductive behaviors [132326—30]. That is, on the one hand, proactive individuals are more likely to take personal initiative on projects, innovate, and grow in their careers [25]. On the other hand, too much proactive behavior at work can be dysfunctional or counterproductive to organizational aims [132728].

To unpack these tensions, researchers have called for increased focus on the situation-specific demonstrations of proactive tendencies [17]. Our theoretical model represents such a demonstration within an organizational CSR context. It connects prosocial personality to socially responsible behavior via individual differences in felt responsibility for constructive change, which is both a distinct outgrowth of more general responsibility research, and intertwined with the study of prosocial behavior [31].

ABBREVIATIONS

Initial research described a responsibility orientationor a heightened sense of perceived responsibility for prosocial behaviors toward third parties arising from social How Personality Affects Employees Behaviors Attitudes And norms [3233]. These early studies proposed that some individuals may be dispositionally more inclined to render aid to others. Later research sought to determine if and how responsible behavior could be situationally induced. Likewise, Tilker [35] revealed that socially responsible behaviors could be inhibited or induced depending on how individuals internally ascribed responsibility for action in a given situation. Schwartz [36] bridged these two areas article source showing that responsible behaviors can grow from a combination of personality and norms related to responsible behavior.

Mayer, Duval, Holtz, and Bowman [37] showed that felt responsibility was the explanatory link between self-focus and helping behaviors, as moderated by the situational salience of a helping request. Though feelings of responsibility had been studied in a work context before, e. This employee-focused incarnation was markedly different from operationalizations in other responsibility research as it entirely omitted elements of social concern or obligation. One of the three psychological states predicted in the job characteristics model as an antecedent of work motivation, experienced responsibilitywas proposed as a mediator of the effects of work autonomy on beneficial work outcomes.

Navigation menu

Much later, Morrison and Phelps [15] repositioned and re-broadened the study of felt responsibility at work by defining it in a way that reached beyond the ownership of prescribed duties. Combined, they predicted that these preferences would propel such employees to seek out varied opportunities to improve their environments.

Empirically, the study linked felt responsibility to a beneficial proactive tendency toward taking charge and recommended that employers select for initially high levels of employee felt responsibility for constructive change, striving to develop the tendency thereafter. Differing from Morrison and Phelps [15] by arguing that the construct was best represented as a psychological state, Fuller et al.]