MFM 1

Organisational Behaviour :
Perception

Research paper and Case Study
Submitted To:

Ms.Krithika G.K.
Submitted By:

Ankita Swaroop
Deepika
Divyanshi Mehra
Kadambari R
Pinakita Gupta
Srishti Raut
Table of Contents

Research Paper 3
Introduction 4
Organisational Justice 5
Research Problem of the article 5
Key Objective 6
Result 6
Conclusion 7
Suggestions 7
Case Study - A thief is a thief, is a thief. 9
Summary of the Case 11
Core Issues 11
Questions 12
Conclusion 17
Bibliography 18
Page of 2 19














Research Paper

Employees' perceptions of justice in performance appraisals

NURSING MANAGEMENT | May 2010 | Volume 17

Page of 3 19
INTRODUCTION

Perception can be defined as the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.
With regards to employee perception the term performance appraisals (PA) have been transformed
from performance monitoring into performance-development tools with three functions:
To provide adequate feedback to support employee development.
To serve as a basis for modifying or changing behaviours to produce more effective work for
organisations.
To provide useful information to supervisors.
This transformation is necessary as PAs had been perceived as biased and unfair, and it is this
notion of fairness that has been identified as the most important aspect of employees responses to
them.
According to Murphy and Cleveland 1995, personal assessment processes are usually perceived to
be just if they:
Are transparent and explained sufficiently.
Gather evidence rather than express personal bias.
Allow employees to present their own views and point out the elements of Pas they have
perceived to be unfair or unfortunate.
Even perfect rating instruments and accurate assessments can result in negative responses from
employees if the PA processes are not conducted properly or their outcomes are perceived to be
unfavourable.
Page of 4 19

ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE

Organisational justice is the study of peoples perception of fairness in organisation. Literature on
the subject tends to focus on three specific perceptions of justice:
Procedural justice, which concerns the perceived fairness of the application of procedures.
Interactional justice, which concerns the perceived fairness of interpersonal treatment during
procedures.
Distributive justice, which concerns the perceived fairness of the outcomes of procedures.
Procedural justice: Perceptions of procedural justice have a greater effect on management and
organisations. Two types of measures are associated with procedural justice- the PA process itself,
and the other concerns feedback.
Interactional justice: Truthfulness, respect and fairness in interpersonal communication are
important elements of interactional justice. The quality of such communication between supervisors
and employees during PAs is important in ensuring perceptions of fairness. A central assumption of
interactional justice is that tone and volume of voice during feedback should be acceptable by
supervisors and employees. Constructive discussions between supervisors and employees is the
most important variable in PAs, and the supervisor is held responsible for ensuring it.
Distributive justice Favourable perceptions of procedural justice tend to lead to similar perceptions
of the fairness of distributive outcomes.
RESEARCH PROBLEM OF THE ARTICLE

To study the perceptions of justice in performance appraisals by nurses and auxiliary nurses in
Norway's municipal health service

Page of 5 19
KEY OBJECTIVE

To examine how the perception towards the organisational justice affects the behaviour of
employees and their job performance.
Major findings
Out of 371 respondents,
-
37 per cent i.e. 139 respondents did not have PA conversations every year
-
87 per cent i.e. 321 had not taken part in follow-up conversations
-
84 per cent i.e. 310 had not received training in PA procedures.
RESULT

The area of perceived justice in PAs that is of most concern to employees is interactional justice.
Overall, the study found that the most important element in employees' perceptions of procedural
justice in PAs is their own ability to contribute.
The research concludes that
-
Nurses are more satisfied with feedback after performance appraisals (PAs) than auxiliary nurses.
-
Auxiliary nurses receive more thorough feedback during PAs than nurses.
-
Nurses contribute more to PAs than auxiliary nurses. Nurses, unlike auxiliary nurses, often share
the same educational levels as their supervisors, and are better at pointing out errors in PA
processes and at discussing relevant topics, and tend to react more strongly to negative feedback.
-
Constructive discussions during PAs are perceived to be fairer than unstructured and ambiguous
-
The study indicates that some respondents perceive the PA process as unfair as the same PA
processes were used for different employees and follow-up conversations rarely took place.
Page of 6 19
CONCLUSION

We can hence conclude that the managerial implications required would be as follows:
Personal assessment (PA) training is needed for all employees.
Personal intuition and employee experience are insufficient to ensure PAs are fair.
Follow-up conversations are needed.
Changing PA processes, for example so that PAs are held for employees in small groups or
revising guidelines, may make them fairer.

SUGGESTIONS

Discussing Results
The result of the appraisal is communicated and discussed with the employees on one-to-one basis.
The focus of this discussion is on communication and listening. The results, the problems and the
possible solutions are discussed with the aim of problem solving and reaching consensus. The
feedback should be given with a positive attitude as this can have an effect on the employees' future
performance. The purpose of the meeting should be to solve the problems faced and motivate the
employees to perform better.
Equal Participation
Each employee should receive a thoughtful and accurate appraisal. The success of the process
depends on the supervisor's willingness to complete a constructive and objective appraisal and on
the employee's willingness to respond to constructive suggestions and to work with the supervisor
to reach future goals.


Page of 7 19
Proper Interpersonal Treatment
Proper interpersonal treatment is defined as
(a) Being truthful in communication and treating people with courtesy and
(b) Showing respect.
Proper enactment of procedures
(a) Adequate consideration of the employee's input,
(b) Suppression of personal biases,
(c) Consistent application of decision-making criteria
d) Timely feedback, and
(e) Justification for the decision.
These interactional factors play an important role in affecting employees perceptions of fairness,
acceptance of decisions, and organisational attitudes.



Page of 8 19
CASE STUDY - A THIEF IS A THIEF, IS A THIEF.

Kumar had a minor brush with the law when at the age of 18 he stole a camera horn from a camera
shop. He was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison. He came from a good family and
even though he didnt go to college, he had completed high school. In prison, he felt ashamed of
what he had done and vowed to be always truthful and honest in his dealings. He became
determined to work hard and be successful so that he could leave his criminal past behind and be
proud of himself and make his family proud of him. After coming out of jail he was worried if he
would be able to get a job. With no college education and a criminal record, there were many
obstacles in getting one. A friend of the family told Kumar that there was a job available as a lading
handyman at a major company that was a wholesale distributor of automobile tires. The family
friend knew the manager of the distribution centre and has said a few good words about Kumar to
him.
When Kumar went to see the manager Mr. Patel, for an interview, he explained to Mr. Patel his
prison background but asked for a chance and promised to work hard at the job. Only Mr. Patel
knew of his criminal background. Kumar worked very hard, honestly and diligently and completed
his college degree on a part time basis. In twenty years, when Mr. Patel retired, Kumar became the
distribution manager for the company. Kumar had been the manager for one year when Jain came to
him for a job as a loading operator. Ram had also gone to jail for stealing and he told Mr. Kumar
about it but asked for another chance and promised to be an honest worker. Kumar recalling his own
problem with the law 23 years ago, gave him the job. Soon Ram became friendly with everybody
and did his job very well.
Ram had been working for 6 months when another dockworker complained to the manager that his
wallet with money in it was missing. Ram, because of his past, became the first suspect. Kumar
confronted Ram and asked him about the missing wallet. Ram assured him that he had nothing to
Page of 9 19
do with it. Kumar was very upset about the incident but believed Ram. He was considerably
relieved when it was found a few days later. A new clerk in the personnel department, while
updating the personal files, came across the information regarding Rams jail time. It became
common knowledge when the clerks mentioned it to some associates, rather innocently, that it was
very nice of the company to give convicts a second chance.
The following day, some money was found missing from the petty cash in the book keeping area.
Another worker claimed that he had seen Ram in that area on that day. Naturally all eyes were on
Ram. Someone even suggested that ram had stolen the wallet earlier but returned it upon being
questioned. Several employees asked Kumar to fire Ram as he couldnt be trusted. When
confronted, ram denied any knowledge of the missing money from the petty cash.
Kumar had a big dilemma on his hands. If he fires Ram while he is actually innocent, it would be a
burden on his conscience. If he does not fire Ram, he would lose everyones trust and the working
environment would be very tense. The evidence was purely circumstantial, but everyone perceived
Ram to be a thief and believed that he stole the money.
Page of 10 19
SUMMARY OF THE CASE

Mr. Kumar with a criminal background hired as an employee in an automobile tyres company by
Mr. Patel. He worked as loading handyman in the company and completed his college degree as
well. His honesty and hard work paid soon and he became the distribution manager of the company.
Kumar worked as a manager for one year when Mr. Ram with criminal background came to him for
a job. Kumar thinking of his past, gave Ram a second chance and hired him in the company. Ram
had been working for six months when one dock worker complained that his wallet is missing.
Because of Rams criminal background, Kumar confronted him and enquire about the case but Ram
assured that he had done nothing. Kumar believed Ram and soon the missing wallet was also found.
It was one day when one clerk from personnel department discovered about Rams criminal
background while updating the personal files. Soon this information spread like a fire. The next day,
some money from the petty cash in the book keeping area was missing and everyone believes that
Ram is the culprit. Pertaining this fact in their mind, they ask Kumar to fire Ram.
CORE ISSUES

The employees who previously were unaware of Rams criminal past have now created a blanket
perception of him , and have stereotyped him to be a thief at work
Despite Kumar sharing a somewhat similar past, Kumar has formed his perception based on
circumstantial evidence and the perception of his employees and has wrongly accused Ram in the
past
The incident has created very unfavourable circumstances for Ram and Kumar is in dilemma as
to what is the next step to take .
Ram may have to suffer the consequences of the perception which his co-workers have built
about him
Page of 11 19
QUESTIONS
1. Identify as many personal and situational characteristics as possible in terms
of the perceptual processes .

Perception is defined as the process by which individuals organise and interpret their sensory
impressions in order to give meaning to their environment. However what one perceives can be
substantially different from objective reality.
The perceptual process entails 3 main entities namely :

Entites Factors that influence perception
Perceiver
Mr. Kumar
Past experience - He himself has a criminal record , though minor in
nature he was given a second chance and made optimal use of it.
Therefore , he is has better understanding towards the current
situation.
Need - He requires clarity with regards to the Robbery situation and
needs to understand the actual chronology of event before passing a
judgement
Personality - Analytical, Understanding, Practical , ambitious,
Hardworking, Idealistic, diligent
Values - Honest, Unbiased, Fair.
Perceiver
Employees
Past experience - They have built a perception about Mr. Ram Jain
based on their general perception of criminal. Hence one can easily
infer that they have not ever interacted with an ex-convict in a
organisational setting.
Need - As they have not found the culprit for the robbery , they target
the easiest person possible due to the past of Mr.Ram Jain
Personality - Emotional, Biased, Idealistic, Inflexible, Confirming
Values - Responsiveness , dependability, competence
Entites

Based on the above factors , it is easier to understand the variety of characteristics that might have
influenced the Employees to arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Jain , is responsible for the theft.
Where as Mr. Kumar is in a dilemma , due his past experience and learnings from it. Though both
sets of individuals have their respective perceptions with respect to the situation , being in a
managerial position Mr. Kumar needs to base his decision on concrete evidence and not his
perception alone. As the thumb rule of an organisation is that Perception can be starkly different
from the actual reality of the situation.


Situation
Time - Before knowing Mr. Ram Jains , criminal background , he
was not suspected of the robbery by others except by the manager Mr.
Kumar.
Work Setting - It a Factory setting , where most of the employees are
floor workers at the tyre workshop, with jobs that are physically
demanding.
Social Setting - Most of the workers who are engaged in this job
belong to a Labour class of society , while the Management are from
well educated backgrounds. The employees can be influenced and
could base their perception on only partial information , while the
Management gives it a whole hearted approach.
Perceived
Mr. Ram Jain
Background - He too had served sometime in Jail , and was looking
towards being on the correct path by gaining employment.
Similarity - Other Than his criminal background, he is similar to rest
of the employees and was not treated any differently than the rest of
the workers.
Factors that influence perception Entites
2. What more information would Kumar require , if any , before he decides
whether to fire Ram or not ?

Prior to making any decision with regards to the future of Mr. Jain in the organisation , Kumar must
follow the following steps:
Solution:
Kumar has to investigate further into the matter and look for evidence which is substantial and not
circumstantial in nature.The confrontation that has taken place, is based purely on perception and
the circumstances under which the theft took place. Due to this the accusation is baseless , as
Kumar has taken to trusting the other employees more than Ram , due to his criminal background.
His view per say is biased currently , and should be ideally based on evidence. Each employee will
be a suspect as there is an equal chance of either of them being at fault. Though Rams past does
come into play , it cannot be the only factor on which the decision can be made. The employees
have built a perception of Ram due to his past actions and have created a Halo perception making
him an easy target for taking the blame for the incident.
Also being a Manager it is important , that he must create a environment for the investigation
which does not take one individuals opinion into consideration alone , but takes into consideration
other factors that could possibly have cause the theft or could be blamed for it. In the past , when
the wallet went missing , it was found in a few days time. It shows that it is not necessary that Ram
is to be blamed for every theft that takes place within the organisation. There could be a high
possibility that a fellow employee could be taking advantage of Rams past and could be conducting
these minor thefts while letting the perceptions vis a vis Ram take the blow for his actions.The
information gathered must be done in an unbiased manner , so that everyone is scrutinised and not
one person takes a fall for rest of the employees. There should be a justified investigation before
carrying out any decision that affects the future of not just Ram but the organisation on a whole.
3.Why did everyone believe that ram had stolen the money when nobody has seen
him doing so? Is the perception, A thief is a thief, is a thief, Justified? Can a
thief never become an honest man?

Perceiving and interpreting what others do is burdensome as a result, individual develop techniques
for making the task more manageable however they are fool proof. They can and do get us into
trouble.

A. Selective Perception: People selectively interpret what they see on the basis of their interest,
background, experience, and attitudes.When the employees find about Mr. Rams background,
their perception towards him change. Looking at his criminal past, they form a judgment based
on that and ask Mr. Kumar to fire him.
B. Halo Effect: Drawing a general impression about an individual on the basis of a single
characteristic. Relating to the case, the employees ask Mr. Kumar to fire Ram as they were
looking only on one attribute of Ram which is his criminal background. They made an
impression that a criminal can never be an honest person and can never change. Simply because
of his criminal past all other attributes were ignored and a judgment is made based on that fact
alone.
C. Contrast Effects: Evaluations of person"s characteristics that are affected by comparisons with
other people recently encountered who rank higher or lower on the same characteristics. The
employees in their personal experiences have never come across a criminal who came clean and
led an honest life. Thus, they assume the same for Mr. Ram.
D. Projection: Attributing ones own characteristics to other people. Mr. Kumar transformed
himself after his jail time; he expects the same of Mr. Ram. Thus, he is the only one giving Ram
the benefit of the doubt. Hence, he is able to see the situation in an unbiased light.
E. Stereotyping: Judging someone on the basis of ones perception of the group to which that
person belongs. The employees had a certain image in their minds when it came to criminals
and that is how they perceived Mr. Ram. They think that people can never change and once a
thief, always a thief.

Can a thief never become an honest man is not just or a true statement.

Mr. Kumar also transformed into an honest employee. Despite his criminal records, he was given a
second chance and he used it to the fullest and worked hard and diligently. He also completed his
college degree and became the distribution manager for the company. Hence, it can be concluded
from here that past never defines a man, the present and future does. If a person decided to change
himself for good and stick to the principles of transforming into an honest man, it can lead him to a
better and successful life. Remember; A Thief is A thief, but is not always a thief.
So simply assuming that Ram is the culprit based on his criminal past is an unfair and a biased
approach. People change and probably Ram did too. In his 6 month of work period in the
warehouse, he has given the managers no reason to suspect him of any wrong doing.
CONCLUSION

The case is a perfect exhibit of how a persons past can become the bane of all his problems. In this
case Rams past is shadowing his future prospects. Though Kumar , hi boss has been through the
same ordeal , the co workers perception of Ram is affecting Kumars judgement. Being in a
Managerial position , Kumar must taken an unbiased decision , which reflects on him as a good
leader. His decision must not be inline with the perceptions and circumstantial evidence , but with a
correct investigation which leads to the right culprit being held. A discussion and investigation must
conclude the case. At , this point it is important to say that his view must overshadow his decisions
as a manager , may it be in favour of Ram , due to Kumars faith in second chance or against Ram ,
based on other biased perceptions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://xisspm.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/perception-and-learning-in-organizations.pdf
Case studies inn Organisation structure & Behaviour - Saxena
www.hostebsco.com
Organisational Behaviour - Stephen Robins