Behavior (or behaviour, see spelling differences) is the range of actions and mannerisms

made by individuals, organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with themselves

or their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the
(inanimate) physical environment. It is the response of the system or organism to various
stimuli or inputs, whether internal or external, conscious or subconscious, overt or covert, and
voluntary or involuntary.[1]
Taking a behavior informatics perspective, a behavior consists of behavior actor, operation,
interactions, and their properties. A behavior can be represented as a behavior vector.[2]

What is Self-Management?
Self-Management brings organizational structure to an enterprise spontaneously. Individual
Colleagues, directed by their Personal Commercial Mission, are principally responsible for
organizing their relationships. Their Personal Commercial Mission is their "boss." The
managerial functions of planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling are the
personal responsibility of each Colleague.
Self-Management is an alternative to the traditional, hierarchical method of organizing we see
most often in modern organizations. There are a few key ideas that are central to the SelfManagement philosophy, namely that:

People are generally happier when they have control over their own life (and work)

It doesn't make a lot of sense to give the decision-making authority to the person that
furthest (literally) away from the actual work being done

When you give good people more responsibility, they tend to flourish

The traditional hierarchical model of organizations is not scalablein fact, it's a

recipe for a slow painful death

There's an undeniable link between freedom and economic prosperity in nations

around the worldand, further, an undeniable link between lack of freedom and
corruption at the national level. The same is true of human organizations in general.

Some principles practices of Self-Management are reasonably commonplaceself-directed

work teams, employee empowerment, distributed decision making, "flattening" the
organization, elimination of bureaucratic red tape. These concepts are widely accepted as
desirable goals in our respective organizations, and all of these have flavors of SelfManagement.
But true Self-Management is more than just a set of "flavor of the month" business trends; it's
a fundamental mind-shift in the way we view human organizations, management and
organizational strategy. We can talk about freedom in the workplace and we'll be talking
about something that is a part of Self-Management, but we aren't really talking about SelfManagement; we can talk about employee empowerment, and we'll be talking about

something that's fundamental to Self-Management, but employee empowerment alone doesn't

get you Self-Management.
Self-Management, simply stated, is an organizational model wherein the traditional functions
of a manager (planning, coordinating, controlling, staffing and directing) are pushed out to all
participants in the organization instead of just to a select few. Each member of the
organization is personally responsible for forging their own personal relationships, planning
their own work, coordinating their actions with other members, acquiring requisite resources
to accomplish their mission, and for taking corrective action with respect to other members
when needed.
This manifests itself as a total absence of formal hierarchy. Formal hierarchy implies that
there are those within the organization who have authority to direct the actions of others, and
that there are others within the organization who have only limited authority. The principles
of Self-Management acknowledge that those who would traditionally be viewed as the
"employees" are, in fact, the ones who have the greatest insight into the management of their
day-to-day functions and who are, further, in the best position to take immediate action when
circumstances demand a response or a change in course. Those principles extend the rights
and resources required to take action and make decisions out to those who are best suited to
take action and make decisions rather than arbitrarily extending those rights to a select few
individuals who we anoint with the title of "manager".
This, of course, seems somewhat unorthodox and, in a way, revolutionary. We've
encountered many questions about Self-Management; you can review our answers to some of
the more common ones at our FAQ page or ask us your own by contacting us.

Leadership Styles - Important Leadership

Styles
All leaders do not possess same attitude or same perspective. As discussed earlier, few
leaders adopt the carrot approach and a few adopt the stick approach. Thus, all of the leaders
do not get the things done in the same manner. Their style varies. The leadership style varies
with the kind of people the leader interacts and deals with. A perfect/standard leadership style
is one which assists a leader in getting the best out of the people who follow him.
Some of the important leadership styles are as follows:
Autocratic leadership style: In this style of leadership, a leader has complete
command and hold over their employees/team. The team cannot put forward their
views even if they are best for the teams or organizational interests. They cannot
criticize or question the leaders way of getting things done. The leader himself gets
the things done. The advantage of this style is that it leads to speedy decision-making
and greater productivity under leaders supervision. Drawbacks of this leadership
style are that it leads to greater employee absenteeism and turnover. This leadership
style works only when the leader is the best in performing or when the job is
monotonous, unskilled and routine in nature or where the project is short-term and
risky.

The Laissez Faire Leadership Style: Here, the leader totally trusts their
employees/team to perform the job themselves. He just concentrates on the
intellectual/rational aspect of his work and does not focus on the management aspect
of his work. The team/employees are welcomed to share their views and provide
suggestions which are best for organizational interests. This leadership style works
only when the employees are skilled, loyal, experienced and intellectual.
Democrative/Participative leadership style: The leaders invite and encourage the
team members to play an important role in decision-making process, though the
ultimate decision-making power rests with the leader. The leader guides the employees
on what to perform and how to perform, while the employees communicate to the
leader their experience and the suggestions if any. The advantages of this leadership
style are that it leads to satisfied, motivated and more skilled employees. It leads to an
optimistic work environment and also encourages creativity. This leadership style has
the only drawback that it is time-consuming.
Bureaucratic leadership: Here the leaders strictly adhere to the organizational rules
and policies. Also, they make sure that the employees/team also strictly follows the
rules and procedures. Promotions take place on the basis of employees ability to adhere
to organizational rules. This leadership style gradually develops over time. This
leadership style is more suitable when safe work conditions and quality are required.
But this leadership style discourages creativity and does not make employees selfcontented.
Leadership Styles

Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and
motivating people. As seen by the employees, it includes the total pattern of explicit and
implicit actions performed by their leader (Newstrom, Davis, 1993).
The first major study of leadership styles was performed in 1939 by Kurt Lewin who led a
group of researchers to identify different styles of leadership (Lewin, Lippit, White, 1939).
This early study has remained quite influential as it established the three major leadership
styles: (U.S. Army, 1973):

authoritarian or autocratic - the leader tells his or her employees what to do and
how to do it, without getting their advice

participative or democratic - the leader includes one or more employees in the

decision making process, but the leader normally maintains the final decision making
authority

delegative or laissez-fair (free-rein) - the leader allows the employees to make the
decisions, however, the leader is still responsible for the decisions that are made

Authoritarian or Autocratic Leadership

This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want
it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some of the appropriate

conditions to use this style is when you have all the information to solve the problem, you are
short on time, and/or your employees are well motivated.
Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using demeaning language,
and leading by threats. This is not the authoritarian style, rather it is an abusive,
unprofessional style called bossing people around. It has absolutely no place in a leader's
repertoire.
The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If you have the time
and want to gain more commitment and motivation from your employees, then you should
use the participative style.

Participative or Democratic Leadership

This style involves the leader including one or more employees in the decision making
process (determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the final
decision making authority. Using this style is not a sign of weakness, rather it is a sign of
strength that your employees will respect.
This is normally used when you have part of the information, and your employees have other
parts. A leader is not expected to know everythingthis is why you employ knowledgeable
and skilled people. Using this style is of mutual benefit as it allows them to become part of
the team and allows you to make better decisions.
Even if you have all the answers, gaining different perspectives and diversity of opinions
normally provide greater creativity than insularity. As Katherine Phillips wrote,
So as you think about diversity and its effects in organizations during this tough economic
time, recognize that the most robust practical value of diversity is that it challenges everyone
in an organization. We are more thoughtful, and we recognize and utilize more of the
information that we have at our disposal, when diversity is present. That is diversitys true
value.

Delegative or Laissez-faire Leadership

In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions. However, the leader is
still responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to
analyze the situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. You cannot do
everything! You must set priorities and delegate certain tasks.
This is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go wrong, rather this is a
style to be used when you fully trust and have confidence in the people below you. Do not be
afraid to use it, however, use it wisely!
NOTE: Laissez-faire (or laisser faire) is the noninterference in the affairs of others. [French :
laissez, second person pl. imperative of laisser, to let, allow + faire, to do.]

Forces

Using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the job. The
leader is competent and a good coach. The employee is motivated to learn a new skill.
The situation is a new environment for the employee.

Using a participative style with a team of workers who know their jobs. The leader
knows the problem, but does not have all the information. The employees know their
jobs and want to become part of the team.

Using a delegative style with a worker who knows more about the job than you do.
You cannot do and know everything and the employee needs to take ownership of her
job! In addition, this allows you to be more productive.

Using all three styles: Telling your employees that a procedure is not working
correctly and a new one must be established (authoritarian). Asking for their ideas and
input on creating a new procedure (participative). Delegating tasks in order to
implement the new procedure (delegative).

Forces that influence the style to be used include:

Amount of time available

Are relationships based on respect and trust or on disrespect?

Who has the informationyou, the employees, or both?

How well your employees are trained and how well you know the task

Internal conflicts

Stress levels.

Type of task, such as structured, unstructured, complicated, or simple?

Laws or established procedures, such as OSHA or training plans

Continuum of Leader Behavior

In 1958 Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973) expanded on Lewin, Lippit, and White's three
leadership styles by extending them to seven styles and placing them on a continuum as
shown in the diagram below:

Notice that as you go from left to right, it moves from manager-oriented decision making to
team or subordinate oriented decision making, thus the teams freedom increases while the

managers authority decreases. Depending upon the present level of your team's experience
and skills, you select a starting point and as the team grows and develops, you move from on
to the next one:
1. Manager makes decision and announces it The team has no role in the decisionmaking role. Coercion may or may not be used or implied.
2. Manager Sells decision Rather than just tell, the manager needs to sell the
decision, as there is a possibility of some resistance from team members.
3. Manager presents ideas and invites questions This allows the team to get a fuller
explanation so they can gain a better understanding of what the manager is trying to
accomplish.
4. Manager presents a tentative decision that is subject to change This action invites
the team to have some influence regarding the decision; thus, it can be changed based
on the team's input.
5. Manager presents the problem, gets suggestions, and then makes the decision Up to
this point the manager has always presented the decision, although the last style
allows it to change based upon the team's input. Now the team is free to come up with
options, however, the manager still has the final say on those options.
6. Manager defines limits, and requests the team to make a decision The manager
delegates the decision making to the team; but instills specific limits on the team's
solution.
7. Manager allows team to function within limits Now the team does the decision
making, however, the manager's superior may have placed certain limits on the
options they can make. If the manager sits in on the decision making, he or she
attempts to do so with no more authority than the other members do.
Basically, the first two styles or behaviors are similar to the authoritarian style, the next three
are similar to the participative style, while the last two are similar to the delegative style. This
approach gives the leader more options that can be refined to specific situations or
environments.

5+2 Major Behavior Patterns of Leaders

This page describes seven behavior patterns or styles of leaders, to include Social Leadership
as described by Howell and Costley (2001).

Positive and Negative Approaches

Leaders approach their employees in different ways. Positive leaders use rewards, such as
education, new experiences, and independence, to motivate employees, while negative
employers emphasize penalties (Newstrom, Davis, 1993). The negative approach has a place

in a leader's repertoire of tools in certain situations; however, it must be used carefully due to
its high cost on the human spirit.
Negative leaders act domineering and superior with people. They believe the only way to get
things done is through penalties, such as loss of job, days off without pay, reprimanding
employees in front of others, etc. They believe their authority is increased by frightening
everyone into higher levels of productivity. Yet, what normally happens when this approach is
used is that morale falls, which leads to lower productivity.
Most leaders do not strictly use one or another, but are somewhere on a continuum ranging
from extremely positive to extremely negative. People who continuously work out of the
negative are bosses, while those who primarily work out of the positive are considered great
leaders.
A similar theory is McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y.

Use of Consideration and Structure

Two other approaches that leaders use are (Stogdill, 1974):

Consideration (employee orientation) leaders are concerned about the

human needs of their employees. They build teamwork, help employees
with their problems, and provide psychological support.

Structure (task orientation) leaders believe that they get results by

consistently keeping people busy and urging them to produce.

There is evidence that leaders who are considerate in their leadership style are higher
performers and are more satisfied with their job (Schriesheim, 1982).
Also notice that consideration and structure are independent of each other, thus they should
not be viewed on a continuum (Stogdill, 1974). For example, a leader who is more
considerate does not necessarily mean that she is less structured.
Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid is a good example of a leadership model based upon
the concept of consideration and structure.

Paternalism
Paternalism has at times been equated with leadership styles. Most definitions of leadership
normally state or imply that one of the actions within leadership is that of influencing. For
example, the U.S. Army (1983) uses the following definition:
Leadership is influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while
operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.
The Army further goes on by defining influence as:

A means of getting people to do what you want them to do. It is the means or method to
achieve two ends: operating and improving. But there is more to influencing than simply
passing along orders. The example you set is just as important as the words you speak. And
you set an examplegood or badwith every action you take and word you utter, on or off
duty. Through your words and example, you must communicate purpose, direction, and
motivation.
Paternalism is defined as (Webster Dictionary):
A system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those
under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relationships to
authority and to each other.
Thus, paternalism supplies needs for those under its protection or control, while leadership
gets things done. The first is directed inwards, while the latter is directed outwards.
Geert Hofstede (1997) studied culture within organizations. Part of his study was on the
dependence relationship or Power Differencethe extent to which the less powerful
members of an organization expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Hofstede
gave this story to illustrate the concept of Power Difference:
The last revolution in Sweden disposed of King Gustav IV, whom they considered
incompetent, and surprising invited Jean Baptise Bernadotte, a French general who served
under Napoleon, to become their new King. He accepted and became King Charles XIV.
Soon afterward he needed to address the Swedish Parliament. Wanting to be accepted, he
tried to do the speech in their language. His broken language amused the Swedes so much
that they roared with laughter. The Frenchman was so upset that he never tried to speak
Swedish again.
Bernadotte was a victim of culture shocknever in his French upbringing and military career
had he experienced subordinates who laughed at the mistakes of their superior. This story has
a happy ending as he was considered very good and ruled the country as a highly respected
constitutional monarch until 1844. (His descendants still occupy the Swedish throne.)
Sweden differs from France in the way its society handles inequality (those in charge and the
followers). To measure inequality or Power Difference, Hofstede studied three survey
questions from a larger survey that both factored and carried the same weight:

Frequency of employees being afraid to express disagreement with their

managers

Subordinates' perception of their boss's actual decision making style

(paternalistic style was one choice)

Subordinates' preference for their boss's decision-making style (again,

paternalistic style was one choice)

He developed a Power Difference Index (PDI) for the 53 countries that took the survey. Their
scores range from 11 to 104. The higher the number a country received, the more autocratic
and/or paternalistic the leadership, which of course relates to employees being more afraid or
unwilling to disagree with their bosses. While lower numbers mean a more consultative style
of leadership is used, which translates to employees who are not as afraid of their bosses.
For example, Malaysia has the highest PDI score, being 104, while Austria has the lowest
with 11. And of course, as the story above illustrates, Sweden has a relative low score of 31,
while France has a PDI of 68. The United States' score is 40. Note that these scores are
relative, not absolute, in that relativism affirms that one culture has no absolute criteria for
judging activities of another culture as low or noble.

Keeping the above in mind, it seems that some picture paternalistic behavior as almost a
barbaric way of getting things accomplished. Yet, leadership is all about getting things done
for the organization. And in some situations, a paternalistic style of decision-making might be
required; indeed, in some cultures and individuals, it may also be expected by not only those
in charge, but also by the followers.
That is what makes leadership styles quite interestingthey basically run along the same
continuum as Hofstede's PDI, ranging from paternalistic to consultative styles of decision
making. This allows a wide range of individual behaviors to be dealt with, ranging from
beginners to peak performers. In addition, it accounts for the fact that not everyone is the
same.
However, when paternalistic or autocratic styles are relied upon too much and the employees
are ready for a more consultative type of leadership style, then it can becomes quite damaging
to the performance of the organization if change is not advanced.

Intrinsic Rewards for Employees:

Definition, Types & Examples
Definition of Intrinsic Motivations and Rewards
Intrinsic motivators are outside of a manager's control because they are internal to each
individual employee. The motivating influences are based on an employee's actual interest in
his/her work and stems from the sense of purpose or value he/she feels from the work he/she
has done.

Intrinsic rewards are ones that come from within the employee. An employee who is
motivated intrinsically is working for his/her own satisfaction and may value challenging
work he/she perceives to be meaningful to the company. By having regular communication
with an employee, a manager can learn about the employee's motivations and might learn
creative ways to reward him or her.

Examples of Intrinsic Rewards

An example of an intrinsic reward is allowing an employee to take on a task outside of their
normal work duties. This would allow the employee to feel like they have filled a need within
the company, and they will ultimately feel like they are helping the company. When
employees take on a new task, they might want to show management they are capable of
taking on new responsibilities.
Employees who are motivated intrinsically want to have satisfying work. They want to have a
connection between the work they are doing and how it relates to the vision of the
organization. Managers can reward employees by letting them make choices on how they
want to complete their work and allowing them to set short-term and long-term goals for
themselves. Employees will be motivated by the decisions they made as they start to see how
they are meeting the overall goals they set. As employees complete these goals, it is a great
idea for managers to celebrate their milestones.

Conflict Conflict refers to some form of friction, disagreement, or discord arising

within a group when the beliefs or actions of one or more members of the group are either
resisted by or unacceptable to one or more members of another group. Conflict can arise
between members of the same group, known as intragroup conflict, or it can occur between
members of two or more groups, and involve violence, interpersonal discord, and
psychological tension, known as intergroup conflict. Conflict in groups often follows a
specific course. Routine group interaction is first disrupted by an initial conflict, often caused
by differences of opinion, disagreements between members, or scarcity of resources. At this
point, the group is no longer united, and may split into coalitions. This period of conflict
escalation in some cases gives way to a conflict resolution stage, after which the group can
eventually return to routine group interaction once again.

Definitions

M. Afzalur Rakhim notes there is no single universally accepted definition of conflict.[1] He

notes that one issue of contention is whether the conflict is a situation or a type of behavior.[2]
Citing a review of definitions of organizational conflicts in 1990 by Robert A. Baron,[3]
Rakhim notes the following common elements in the definitions of conflict:[2]

there are recognized opposing interests between parties in a zero-sum situation;

there must be a belief by each side that the other one is acting or will act against them;

this belief is likely to be justified by actions taken;

conflict is a process, having developed from their past interactions;

Building on that, the proposed definition of conflict by Rakhim is "an interactive process
manifested in incompatibility, disagreement or dissonance within or between social
entities."[2] Rakhim also notes that a conflict may be limited to one individual, who is
conflicted within himself (the intrapersonal conflict).[2]
To take another definition of conflict, Michael Nicholson defines it as an activity which takes
place when conscious beings (individuals or groups) wish to carry out mutually inconsistent
acts concerning their wants, needs or obligations.[4] Conflict is an escalation of a
disagreement, which is its common prerequisite, and is characterized by the existence of
conflict behavior, in which the beings are actively trying to damage one another.[5] Rakhim
lists some manifestations of conflict behavior, starting with disagreement, and followed by
verbal abuse and interference.[6]
Conflicts can occur between individuals, groups and organizations; examples include quarrels
between individuals, labor strikes, competitive sports, or armed conflicts.[7]

Role of emotion in inter-group relations

A key player in inter-group relations and conflict is the collective sentiment a persons own
group (in-group) feels toward another group (out-group). These intergroup emotions are
usually negative, and range in intensity from feelings of discomfort when interacting with a
member of a certain other group to full on hatred for another group and its members. For
example, in Fischer's organisational research at the University of Oxford, inter-group conflict
was so 'heated' that it became mutually destructive and intractable, resulting in organizational
collapse.[8][9]
Out-group-directed emotions can be expressed both verbally and non-verbally, and according
to the stereotype content model, are dictated by two dimensions: the perceived warmth (How
friendly and sincere is the other group?) and competence of the other group (How skillful is
the other group?). Depending on the perceived degree of warmth and competence, the
stereotype content model predicts four basic emotions that could be directed toward the outgroup (Forsyth, 2006).
1. Envy- Results when the out-group is perceived to have high competence, but low
warmth (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). Envious groups are usually jealous of another

groups symbolic and tangible achievements and view that group as competition
(Forsyth, 2006).
2. Contempt- The out-group is taken to be low in both competence and warmth (Cuddy,
Fiske & Glick, 2007). According to Forsyth, contempt is one of the most frequent
intergroup emotions. In this situation, the out-group is held responsible for its own
failures. In-group members also believe that their conflict with the out-group can
never be resolved (Forsyth, 2006).
3. Pity- Out-groups that are believed by the in-group to be high in warmth but low in
competence are pitied (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). Usually pitied groups are lower
in status than the in-group, and are not believed to be responsible for their failures
(Forsyth, 2006).
4. Admiration- Admiration occurs when an out-group is taken to be high in both
warmth and competence, however admiration is very rare because these two
conditions are seldom met (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). An admired out-group is
thought to be completely deserving of its accomplishments. Admiration is thought to
be most likely to arise when a member of the in-group can take pride in the
accomplishments of the out-group, and when the out-group achieving does not
interfere with the in-group (Forsyth, 2006).

Types
Conflict is rarely seen as constructive; however, in certain contexts (such as competition in
sports), moderate levels of conflict can be seen as being mutually beneficial, facilitating
understanding, tolerance, learning, and effectiveness.[10] Sophia Jowett differentiates between
content conflict, where individuals disagree about how to deal with a certain issue, and
relational conflict, where individuals disagree about one another, noting that the content
conflict can be beneficial, increasing motivation and stimulating discussion, whereas the
relational conflicts decreases performance, loyalty, satisfaction, and commitment, and causes
individuals to be irritable, negative and suspicious.[10] Irving Janis proposed that conflict is
beneficial in groups and committees to avoid the error of "group think".[11]
Jehn and Mannix have proposed a division of conflicts into three types: relationship, task, and
process.[12] Relationship conflict stems from interpersonal incompatibilities; task conflict is
related to disagreements in viewpoints and opinion about a particular task, and process
conflict refers to disagreement over the groups approach to the task, its methods, and its
group process.[12] They note that although relationship conflict and process conflict are
harmful, task conflict is found to be beneficial since it encourages diversity of opinions,
although care should be taken so it does not develop into process or relationship conflict.[12]
Task conflict has been associated with two interrelated and beneficial effects. The first is
group decision quality. Task conflict encourages greater cognitive understanding of the issue
being discussed. This leads to better decision making for the groups that use task conflict.
The goal is to train your team to better solve problems.
The second is affective acceptance of group decisions. Task conflict can lead to increased
satisfaction with the group decision and a desire to stay in the group. Encourage the group

members to respect each other's opinions and to listen carefully. The goal is to train your
team to better work together. [13]
Amason and Sapienza in turn differentiate between affective and cognitive conflict, where
cognitive conflict is task-oriented and arises from differences in perspective or judgment, and
affective conflict is emotional and arises from personal differences and disputes.[14]

Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict

Roy Eidelson and Judy Eidelson (2003) investigated some of the important roles that beliefs
may play in triggering or constraining conflict between groups. On the basis of a review of
relevant literature, five belief domains stand out as especially noteworthy: Superiority,
injustice, vulnerability, distrust and helplessness.[15]
1. Superiority
Individual-level core belief: This core belief revolves around a person's enduring
conviction that he or she is better than other people in important ways. The cluster of
attitudes commonly associated with this belief includes a sense of specialness,
deserving ness, and entitlement.
Group-level worldview: Many of these elements are also present in the superiority
worldview at the group level. This worldview encompasses shared convictions of
moral superiority, chosenness, entitlement and special destiny. Several joint working
committees of the American Psychological Association have identified "belief in the
superiority of one group's cultural heritage (history, values, language, traditions, arts
and crafts, etc.) over another's as a defining characteristic of the phenomenon they
termed ethnocentric monoculturalism.[16]
2. Injustice
Individual-level core belief: The perceived mistreatment by specific others or by the
world at large. This mindset can lead the individual to identify something as unfair
which is merely unfortunate, and thereby to inappropriately engage in retaliatory acts.
Group-level worldview: The injustice worldview reflects the in-groups conviction
that it has significant and legitimate grievances against another group. This mindset
can mobilize powerful and violent collective insurgencies, especially because shared
perceptions of injustice typically heighten the identification and allegiance that
individuals feel towards their group. Further, these assessments of mistreatment are
particularly common across cultural divides because different cultures tend to have
different definitions for what constitutes justice, and different norms for how it should
be achieved.
3. Vulnerability
Individual-level core belief: The vulnerability core belief revolves around a person's
conviction that he or she s perpetually living in harm's way. Vulnerability involves a
person's perception of him or herself as subject to internal or external dangers over
which control is lacking, or is insufficient to afford him or her a sense of safety.

Group-level worldview: Important parallels to this individual-level core belief are

present in a collective vulnerability worldview that again appears to be widespread
among ethnic groups. Fears about the future are the most common cause of ethnic
conflicts and often produce spiralling violence. The vulnerability worldview is
catastrophic thinking in which a group's imagined worst case scenarios take on the
inexorable logic of inevitability.
4. Distrust
Individual-level core belief: This core belief focuses on the presumed hostility and
malign intent of others. The critical role played by issues of trust in individual
psychological development has long been recognized. The expectation that others will
hurt, abuse, humiliate, cheat, lie, or take advantage usually involves the perception
that harm is intentional or the result of unjustified and extreme negligence. People
who consistently assume the worst about the intentions of others prevent truly
collaborative relationships from developing.
Group-level worldview: As an extension of this individual-level core belief to larger
groups. the distrust worldview focuses specifically on perceptions of outgroups and
revolves around beliefs that the other is untrustworthy and harbors malign intentions
toward the in-group.
5. Helplessness
Individual-level core belief: The conviction that even carefully planned and executed
actions will fail to produce desired outcomes. In some cases, the individual may
perceive him or herself as lacking the ability necessary to attain a goal. Regardless of
the extent to which helplessness is a matter of distorted perception or objective reality,
this core belief tends to be self-perpetuating because it diminishes motivation.
Group-level worldview: The helplessness worldview describes a collective mindset
of powerlessness and dependency. The extent to which a group perceives itself as
helpless reflects assessments not only of its capabilities, but also of whether the
environment is rich or poor in opportunities for group advancement.

Intrinsic Rewards for Employees:

Definition, Types & Examples
Definition of Intrinsic Motivations and Rewards
Intrinsic motivators are outside of a manager's control because they are internal to each
individual employee. The motivating influences are based on an employee's actual interest in
his/her work and stems from the sense of purpose or value he/she feels from the work he/she
has done.

Intrinsic rewards are ones that come from within the employee. An employee who is
motivated intrinsically is working for his/her own satisfaction and may value challenging
work he/she perceives to be meaningful to the company. By having regular communication
with an employee, a manager can learn about the employee's motivations and might learn
creative ways to reward him or her.

Examples of Intrinsic Rewards

An example of an intrinsic reward is allowing an employee to take on a task outside of their
normal work duties. This would allow the employee to feel like they have filled a need within
the company, and they will ultimately feel like they are helping the company. When
employees take on a new task, they might want to show management they are capable of
taking on new responsibilities.
Employees who are motivated intrinsically want to have satisfying work. They want to have a
connection between the work they are doing and how it relates to the vision of the
organization. Managers can reward employees by letting them make choices on how they
want to complete their work and allowing them to set short-term and long-term goals for
themselves. Employees will be motivated by the decisions they made as they start to see how
they are meeting the overall goals they set. As employees complete these goals, it is a great
idea for managers to celebrate their milestones.

Conflict Conflict refers to some form of friction, disagreement, or discord arising

within a group when the beliefs or actions of one or more members of the group are either
resisted by or unacceptable to one or more members of another group. Conflict can arise
between members of the same group, known as intragroup conflict, or it can occur between
members of two or more groups, and involve violence, interpersonal discord, and
psychological tension, known as intergroup conflict. Conflict in groups often follows a
specific course. Routine group interaction is first disrupted by an initial conflict, often caused
by differences of opinion, disagreements between members, or scarcity of resources. At this
point, the group is no longer united, and may split into coalitions. This period of conflict
escalation in some cases gives way to a conflict resolution stage, after which the group can
eventually return to routine group interaction once again.

Definitions

M. Afzalur Rakhim notes there is no single universally accepted definition of conflict.[1] He

notes that one issue of contention is whether the conflict is a situation or a type of behavior.[2]
Citing a review of definitions of organizational conflicts in 1990 by Robert A. Baron,[3]
Rakhim notes the following common elements in the definitions of conflict:[2]

there are recognized opposing interests between parties in a zero-sum situation;

there must be a belief by each side that the other one is acting or will act against them;

this belief is likely to be justified by actions taken;

conflict is a process, having developed from their past interactions;

Building on that, the proposed definition of conflict by Rakhim is "an interactive process
manifested in incompatibility, disagreement or dissonance within or between social
entities."[2] Rakhim also notes that a conflict may be limited to one individual, who is
conflicted within himself (the intrapersonal conflict).[2]
To take another definition of conflict, Michael Nicholson defines it as an activity which takes
place when conscious beings (individuals or groups) wish to carry out mutually inconsistent
acts concerning their wants, needs or obligations.[4] Conflict is an escalation of a
disagreement, which is its common prerequisite, and is characterized by the existence of
conflict behavior, in which the beings are actively trying to damage one another.[5] Rakhim
lists some manifestations of conflict behavior, starting with disagreement, and followed by
verbal abuse and interference.[6]
Conflicts can occur between individuals, groups and organizations; examples include quarrels
between individuals, labor strikes, competitive sports, or armed conflicts.[7]

Role of emotion in inter-group relations

A key player in inter-group relations and conflict is the collective sentiment a persons own
group (in-group) feels toward another group (out-group). These intergroup emotions are
usually negative, and range in intensity from feelings of discomfort when interacting with a
member of a certain other group to full on hatred for another group and its members. For
example, in Fischer's organisational research at the University of Oxford, inter-group conflict
was so 'heated' that it became mutually destructive and intractable, resulting in organizational
collapse.[8][9]
Out-group-directed emotions can be expressed both verbally and non-verbally, and according
to the stereotype content model, are dictated by two dimensions: the perceived warmth (How
friendly and sincere is the other group?) and competence of the other group (How skillful is
the other group?). Depending on the perceived degree of warmth and competence, the
stereotype content model predicts four basic emotions that could be directed toward the outgroup (Forsyth, 2006).
5. Envy- Results when the out-group is perceived to have high competence, but low
warmth (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). Envious groups are usually jealous of another

groups symbolic and tangible achievements and view that group as competition
(Forsyth, 2006).
6. Contempt- The out-group is taken to be low in both competence and warmth (Cuddy,
Fiske & Glick, 2007). According to Forsyth, contempt is one of the most frequent
intergroup emotions. In this situation, the out-group is held responsible for its own
failures. In-group members also believe that their conflict with the out-group can
never be resolved (Forsyth, 2006).
7. Pity- Out-groups that are believed by the in-group to be high in warmth but low in
competence are pitied (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). Usually pitied groups are lower
in status than the in-group, and are not believed to be responsible for their failures
(Forsyth, 2006).
8. Admiration- Admiration occurs when an out-group is taken to be high in both
warmth and competence, however admiration is very rare because these two
conditions are seldom met (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). An admired out-group is
thought to be completely deserving of its accomplishments. Admiration is thought to
be most likely to arise when a member of the in-group can take pride in the
accomplishments of the out-group, and when the out-group achieving does not
interfere with the in-group (Forsyth, 2006).

Types
Conflict is rarely seen as constructive; however, in certain contexts (such as competition in
sports), moderate levels of conflict can be seen as being mutually beneficial, facilitating
understanding, tolerance, learning, and effectiveness.[10] Sophia Jowett differentiates between
content conflict, where individuals disagree about how to deal with a certain issue, and
relational conflict, where individuals disagree about one another, noting that the content
conflict can be beneficial, increasing motivation and stimulating discussion, whereas the
relational conflicts decreases performance, loyalty, satisfaction, and commitment, and causes
individuals to be irritable, negative and suspicious.[10] Irving Janis proposed that conflict is
beneficial in groups and committees to avoid the error of "group think".[11]
Jehn and Mannix have proposed a division of conflicts into three types: relationship, task, and
process.[12] Relationship conflict stems from interpersonal incompatibilities; task conflict is
related to disagreements in viewpoints and opinion about a particular task, and process
conflict refers to disagreement over the groups approach to the task, its methods, and its
group process.[12] They note that although relationship conflict and process conflict are
harmful, task conflict is found to be beneficial since it encourages diversity of opinions,
although care should be taken so it does not develop into process or relationship conflict.[12]
Task conflict has been associated with two interrelated and beneficial effects. The first is
group decision quality. Task conflict encourages greater cognitive understanding of the issue
being discussed. This leads to better decision making for the groups that use task conflict.
The goal is to train your team to better solve problems.
The second is affective acceptance of group decisions. Task conflict can lead to increased
satisfaction with the group decision and a desire to stay in the group. Encourage the group

members to respect each other's opinions and to listen carefully. The goal is to train your
team to better work together. [13]
Amason and Sapienza in turn differentiate between affective and cognitive conflict, where
cognitive conflict is task-oriented and arises from differences in perspective or judgment, and
affective conflict is emotional and arises from personal differences and disputes.[14]

Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict

Roy Eidelson and Judy Eidelson (2003) investigated some of the important roles that beliefs
may play in triggering or constraining conflict between groups. On the basis of a review of
relevant literature, five belief domains stand out as especially noteworthy: Superiority,
injustice, vulnerability, distrust and helplessness.[15]
1. Superiority
Individual-level core belief: This core belief revolves around a person's enduring
conviction that he or she is better than other people in important ways. The cluster of
attitudes commonly associated with this belief includes a sense of specialness,
deserving ness, and entitlement.
Group-level worldview: Many of these elements are also present in the superiority
worldview at the group level. This worldview encompasses shared convictions of
moral superiority, chosenness, entitlement and special destiny. Several joint working
committees of the American Psychological Association have identified "belief in the
superiority of one group's cultural heritage (history, values, language, traditions, arts
and crafts, etc.) over another's as a defining characteristic of the phenomenon they
termed ethnocentric monoculturalism.[16]
2. Injustice
Individual-level core belief: The perceived mistreatment by specific others or by the
world at large. This mindset can lead the individual to identify something as unfair
which is merely unfortunate, and thereby to inappropriately engage in retaliatory acts.
Group-level worldview: The injustice worldview reflects the in-groups conviction
that it has significant and legitimate grievances against another group. This mindset
can mobilize powerful and violent collective insurgencies, especially because shared
perceptions of injustice typically heighten the identification and allegiance that
individuals feel towards their group. Further, these assessments of mistreatment are
particularly common across cultural divides because different cultures tend to have
different definitions for what constitutes justice, and different norms for how it should
be achieved.
3. Vulnerability
Individual-level core belief: The vulnerability core belief revolves around a person's
conviction that he or she s perpetually living in harm's way. Vulnerability involves a
person's perception of him or herself as subject to internal or external dangers over
which control is lacking, or is insufficient to afford him or her a sense of safety.

Group-level worldview: Important parallels to this individual-level core belief are

present in a collective vulnerability worldview that again appears to be widespread
among ethnic groups. Fears about the future are the most common cause of ethnic
conflicts and often produce spiralling violence. The vulnerability worldview is
catastrophic thinking in which a group's imagined worst case scenarios take on the
inexorable logic of inevitability.
4. Distrust
Individual-level core belief: This core belief focuses on the presumed hostility and
malign intent of others. The critical role played by issues of trust in individual
psychological development has long been recognized. The expectation that others will
hurt, abuse, humiliate, cheat, lie, or take advantage usually involves the perception
that harm is intentional or the result of unjustified and extreme negligence. People
who consistently assume the worst about the intentions of others prevent truly
collaborative relationships from developing.
Group-level worldview: As an extension of this individual-level core belief to larger
groups. the distrust worldview focuses specifically on perceptions of outgroups and
revolves around beliefs that the other is untrustworthy and harbors malign intentions
toward the in-group.
5. Helplessness
Individual-level core belief: The conviction that even carefully planned and executed
actions will fail to produce desired outcomes. In some cases, the individual may
perceive him or herself as lacking the ability necessary to attain a goal. Regardless of
the extent to which helplessness is a matter of distorted perception or objective reality,
this core belief tends to be self-perpetuating because it diminishes motivation.
Group-level worldview: The helplessness worldview describes a collective mindset
of powerlessness and dependency. The extent to which a group perceives itself as
helpless reflects assessments not only of its capabilities, but also of whether the
environment is rich or poor in opportunities for group advancement.
Aggression is overt, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting damage
or other unpleasantness upon another individual. It may occur either in retaliation or without
provocation. In humans, frustration due to blocked goals can cause aggression. Human
aggression can be classified into direct and indirect aggression, whilst the first is
characterized by physical or verbal behavior intended to cause harm to someone, the second
one is characterized by a behavior intended to harm social relations of an individual or a
group.[1]
In definitions commonly used in the social sciences and behavioral sciences, aggression is a
response by an individual that delivers something unpleasant to another person.[2] Some
definitions include that the individual must intend to harm another person.[3] Predatory or
defensive behavior between members of different species may not be considered aggression
in the same sense.

Aggression can take a variety of forms, which may be expressed physically, or communicated
verbally or non-verbally: including anti-predator aggression, defensive aggression (fearinduced), predatory aggression, dominance aggression, inter-male aggression, residentintruder aggression, maternal aggression, species-specific aggression, sex-related aggression,
territorial aggression, isolation-induced aggression, irritable aggression, and brainstimulation-induced aggression (hypothalamus). There are two subtypes of human
aggression: (1) controlled-instrumental subtype (purposeful or goal-oriented); and (2)
reactive-impulsive subtype (often elicits uncontrollable actions that are inappropriate or
undesirable). Aggression differs from what is commonly called assertiveness, although the
terms are often used interchangeably among laypeople (as in phrases such as "an aggressive
salesperson").[4]

What Is Aggressive Behavior?

Sarah and Misha are two friends playing in the backyard. Sarah reaches over and grabs one of
Misha's toys without asking, which upsets Misha. This is not the first time that Sarah has
taken one of Misha's toys without permission, which angers Misha even more. Misha walks
up to Sarah, pushes Sarah, and takes back her toy. By pushing Sarah, Misha has demonstrated
one type of aggressive behavior.
Aggressive behavior is a type of behavior where people attempt to stand up for themselves
or exert power over others in ways that are hostile and violate the rights of others. People
who are on the receiving end of aggressive behavior, such as Sarah, usually feel dominated,
embarrassed, guilty, or shamed as a result of a situation. Aggressive behaviors differ from
passive aggressive behaviors, which seek to disguise feelings of anger in that they:

Are usually intentional and meant to harm someone, either psychologically or

physically, or destroy someone's belongings

Can be directed toward another person or the self, such as a teenager who likes to
injure herself by cutting her wrists

Are a major violation of the norms or rules of a particular society

Can cause major impairments to academic, social, or workplace life

For example, can you imagine working with a co-worker who liked to break other people's
property every time he or she became upset or stressed? Or, being friends with someone who
attempts to control you with physical violence or threats?

Types of Aggressive Behaviors

Aggressive behaviors can be reactive or proactive. Reactive aggressive behaviors are
unplanned and impulsive, and are usually a response to feelings of anger, fear, or a need to
retaliate against someone. When Misha pushes Sarah she's demonstrating reactive behavior.
By comparison, proactive aggressive behaviors are calculated and planned actions that have
some motive other than harming someone.

Bullying is a form of proactive aggressive behavior. For instance, suppose that Mike is a
seventh grade boy who bullies the other children in his class. Mike's bullying may be
motivated by his need to feel superior to his classmates. Furthermore, Mike's bullying
behaviors are preplanned. He knows exactly whom he is going to bully and when.
Examples of aggressive behaviors include:

Physical violence, such as biting, hitting, and kicking

Verbal hostility, like sending threatening messages through emails, phone calls, or
social media, or making threats against someone's life, shouting, and swearing

Nonverbal intimidation, such as making threatening gestures, sending unwanted

gifts, and sexual harassment

Destruction of property, like breaking someone's computer, destroying someone's

cell phone, or other forms of vandalism.

Polarization (wave polarization)

Polarization, also called wave polarization, is an expression of the orientation of the lines of
electric flux in an electromagnetic field ( EM field ). Polarization can be constant -- that is,
existing in a particular orientation at all times, or it can rotate with each wave cycle.
Polarization is important in wireless communications systems. The physical orientation of a
wireless antenna corresponds to the polarization of the radio waves received or transmitted by
that antenna. Thus, a vertical antenna receives and emits vertically polarized waves, and a
horizontal antenna receives or emits horizontally polarized waves. The best short-range
communications is obtained when the transmitting and receiving (source and destination)
antennas have the same polarization. The least efficient short-range communications usually
takes place when the two antennas are at right angles (for example, one horizontal and one
vertical). Over long distances, the atmosphere can cause the polarization of a radio wave to
fluctuate, so the distinction between horizontal and vertical becomes less significant.
Some wireless antennas transmit and receive EM waves whose polarization rotates 360
degrees with each complete wave cycle. This type of polarization, called elliptical or circular
polarization, can be either clockwise or counterclockwise. The best communications results
are obtained when the transmitting and receiving antennas have the same sense of
polarization (both clockwise or both counterclockwise). The worst communications usually
takes place when the two antennas radiate and receive in the opposite sense (one clockwise
and the other counterclockwise).
Polarization affects the propagation of EM fields at infrared ( IR ), visible, ultraviolet ( UV ),
and even X-ray wavelength s. In ordinary visible light, there are numerous wave components
at random polarization angles. When such light is passed through a special filter, the filter
blocks all light except that having a certain polarization. When two polarizing filters are

placed so a ray of light passes through them both, the amount of light transmitted depends on
the angle of the polarizing filters with respect to each other. The most light is transmitted
when the two filters are oriented so they polarize light in the same direction. The least light is
transmitted when the filters are oriented at right angles to each other.

The effect of polarization on visible light can be striking. Anyone who has worn
polarized sunglasses, or who has used polarizing filters in photography, knows
how a clear sky polarizes sunlight. Polarized sunglasses can reduce glare
reflected from surfaces; this is useful under certain driving conditions and can
also make it easier to see beneath the surface of a body of water. In twisted
nematic display s (TN displays), polarizing filters are used in conjunction with a
special liquid to brighten and darken regions of the display as external voltage s
are applied. This makes it possible to display alphanumeric characters in
wristwatches, cell phones, and various other consumer electronic devices.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS OF PERCEPTION

People in organizations are always judging each other. Managers must appraise their
subordinate's performance. In many cases, these judgements have important consequences for
the organizations. Let us look at the more obvious applications of perceptions in organization.
1. Employment Interview: A major input into who is hired and who is
rejected in any organization is the employment interview. Evidence
indicated that interviewers often make inaccurate perceptual judgements.
Interviews generally draw early impressions that become very quickly
entrenched. If negative information is exposed early in the interview, it
tends to be more heavily weighted than if that same information comes
out later. As a result, information elicited early in the interview carries
greater weight than does information elicited later. A "good applicant" is
probably characterised more by the absence of unfavourable
characteristics than by the presence of favourable characteristics.

The employment interview is an important input into the hiring decision and a
manager must recognize that perceptual factors influence who is hired. Therefore,
eventually the quality of an organization's labour force depends on the perception of
the interviewers.
2. Performance Evaluation: An employee's performance appraisal very
much depends on the perceptual process. The performance appraisal
represents an assessment of an employee's work. While this can be
objective, many jobs are evaluated in subjective terms. Subjective
measures are, by definition, judgemental.

The evaluator forms a general impression of an employee's work. What the evaluator
perceives to be "good" or "bad" employee characteristics will, significantly influences
the appraisal outcome. An employee's future is closely tied to his or her appraisal
-promotions, pay raises and continuation of employment are among the most obvious
outcomes.
3. Performance Expectations: A manager's expectations of an individual
affect both the manager's behaviour towards the individual and the
individual's response. An impressive amount of evidence demonstrates
that people will attempt to validate their perceptions of reality, even when
these perceptions are faulty. This is particularly relevant when we consider
performance expectations on the job.

The term self-fulfilling prophecy or Pygmalion effect have evolved to characterize the
fact that people's expectations determine their behaviour. Managers can harness the
power of the Pygmalion effect to improve productivity in the organization. It appears
that high expectations of individuals come true. Managers can extend these high
expectations of individuals to an entire group. When a manager expects positive
things from a group, the group delivers. Similarly, if a manager expects people to
perform minimally, they will tend to behave so as to meet these low expectations.
Thus, the expectations become reality.
4. Employee Loyalty: Another important judgement that managers make
about employees is whether they are loyal to the organization. Few
organizations appreciate employees, especially those in the managerial
ranks openly disparaging the firm.

The assessment of an employee's loyalty or commitment is highly judgemental.

What is perceived as loyalty by one may be seen as excessive by another. An employee who
questions a top management decision may be seen as disloyal. Some employees called
whistle -blowers who report unethical practices by their employer to authorities inside or
outside the organization, typically act out of loyalty to their organization but are perceived by
management as trouble makers.

Impression Management: Most people want to make favourable impression on others.

Impression management is the process by which individuals try to control the impression
others have of them. This is particularly true in organizations, where individuals compete for
jobs, favourable performance evaluations and salary increases. Some impression management
techniques used in organizations are given below:
1. Name-dropping: is a technique, which involves mentioning an
association with important people in the hopes of improving one's image.
2. Flattery: is a common technique where by compliments are given to an
individual in order to win his or her approval. Favours are also used to gain
the approval of others. Agreement with someone's opinion is a technique
often used to gain a positive impression.
3. Managing one's Appearance: is another technique for impression
management.

Individuals dress carefully for interviews because they want to "look the part" in order to get
the job. Self -descriptions, or statements about one's characteristics, are used to manage
impressions as well.

Attitude; Definition, definition and factors infl uencing

Attitude - There are various opinions expressed by psychologists about
understanding attitude. World of Psychology will be a little review of what's
called attitude? As said by psychologists Thomas WJ (in Ahmadi, 1999), which
imposes limits as a level attitude trends are positive and negative, associated
with the object of psychology. Object psychology here include: symbols, words,
slogans, people, institutions, ideas and so on.
Definition of Attitude
According to Sarnoff (in Sarwono, 2000) identifies the attitude of willingness to
respond (disposition to react) positively (Favorably) or negatively (unfavorably)
to the object - a particular object. D.Krech and RS Crutchfield (in Sears, 1999)
found that the attitude of the organization that is settled from the motivational,
emotional, perceptual, and cognitive aspects of the world of the individual.
While La Pierre (in Anwar, 2003) gives the definition of attitude as a pattern of
behavior, tendencies or anticipatory readiness, predisposition to adapt in social
situations, or simply, the attitude is a response to social stimuli that have been
conditioned. Further Soetarno (1994) gives the definition of attitude is the view
or feelings that accompanied the tendency to act on a particular object. The
attitude is always directed to something means nothing without an attitude.
Attitude is directed to objects, people, peritiwa, views, institutions, norms, and
others.

Although there are some differences in terms of attitudes, but based on the
opinions of the above it can be concluded that the attitude is a state in which
man moves to act or do in social activities with certain feelings in response to a
situation or condition of the objects in the surrounding environment. In addition
it also provides readiness posture to respond to the positive or negative nature
of the object or situation.
Factors Affecting Attitude Formation
Social learning forms of social interaction. In social interaction, individuals form
different patterns of attitudes toward psychological object faces. Among the
various factors that influence the formation of attitudes are:
1. Personal experience. In order to be the basis of attitudes, personal
experiences have left a strong impression. Therefore, the attitude will be
more easily formed when personal experience involves emotional factors.
In situations involving emotions, appreciation will be more in-depth
experience and longer trace.
2. Culture. B.F. Skinner (in, Azwar 2005) emphasized the influence of the
environment (including culture) in shaping one's personality. No other
personality than a consistent pattern of behavior that illustrate the history
of reinforcement (reinforcement, reward) owned. The pattern of
reinforcement from the public to the attitude and behavior, rather than to
the attitudes and behavior of others.
3. Other people are considered important. In general, the individual
being conformist or the direction of the attitude of the people it deems
important. The trend is partly motivated by a desire for affiliation and the
desire to avoid conflict with the people considered important.
4. Media. As a means of communication, the mass media such as television,
radio, has a major influence in shaping people's opinions and beliefs.
There is new information on something that provides the foundation for
the emergence of new cognitive attitudes towards it. Suggestive
messages that carry information, if strong enough, will provide basic
affective in assessing something emepersiapkan and forming attitudes
toward certain.
5. Educational Institutions and Religious. As a system, educational and
religious institutions have a strong influence in shaping attitudes because
they lay the foundation of understanding and moral concepts within the
individual. Understanding the good and the bad, the dividing line between
something that can and can not do, is obtained from the center of the
educational and religious activities and teachings.
6. Emotional factors in themselves. Not all forms of attitude is
determined by environmental circumstances and personal experiences.
Sometimes, a form of attitude is a statement that is based on emotion

which serves as a sort of channeling frustration or transfer form ego

defense mechanisms. Such an attitude is temporary and goes away so
frustrating was lost but could also be more persistent attitude and more
durable. example form attitudes based on emotional factors are prejudice.
Personality psychology

Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that studies personality and its variation
among individuals. Its areas of focus include:

Construction of a coherent picture of the individual and their major

psychological processes

Investigation of individual psychological differences

Investigation of human nature and psychological similarities between

individuals

"Personality" is a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that

uniquely influences their environment, cognitions, emotions, motivations, and behavioral
science in various situations. The word "personality" originates from the Latin persona,
which means mask.
Personality also refers to the pattern of thoughts, feelings, social adjustments, and behaviors
consistently exhibited over time that strongly influences one's expectations, self-perceptions,
values, and attitudes. It also predicts human reactions to other people, problems, and stress.[1]
[2]
There is still no universal consensus on the definition of "personality" in psychology.
Gordon Allport (1937) described two major ways to study personality: the nomothetic and the
idiographic. Nomothetic psychology seeks general laws that can be applied to many different
people, such as the principle of self-actualization or the trait of extraversion. Idiographic
psychology is an attempt to understand the unique aspects of a particular individual.
The study of personality has a broad and varied history in psychology with an abundance of
theoretical traditions. The major theories include dispositional (trait) perspective,
psychodynamic, humanistic, biological, behaviorist, evolutionary, and social learning
perspective. However, many researchers and psychologists do not explicitly identify
themselves with a certain perspective and instead take an eclectic approach. Research in this
area is empirically driven, such as dimensional models, based on multivariate statistics, such
as factor analysis, or emphasizes theory development, such as that of the psychodynamic
theory. There is also a substantial emphasis on the applied field of personality testing. In
psychological education and training, the study of the nature of personality and its
psychological development is usually reviewed as a prerequisite to courses in abnormal
psychology or clinical psychology.

Philosophical assumptions
Many of the ideas developed by historical and modern personality theorists stem from the
basic philosophical assumptions they hold. The study of personality is not a purely empirical
discipline, as it brings in elements of art, science, and philosophy to draw general
conclusions. The following five categories are some of the most fundamental philosophical
assumptions on which theorists disagree:[3]

Freedom versus determinism - This is the question whether humans

have control over their own behavior and understand the motives behind
it or if their behavior is causally determined by forces beyond their control.
Behavior is categorized as being either unconscious, environmental, or
biological by various theories.[3]

Heredity versus environment - Personality is thought to be determined

largely either by genetics and biology, or by environment and experiences.
Contemporary research suggests that most personality traits are based on
the joint influence of genetics and environment. One of the forerunners in
this arena is C. Robert Cloninger, who pioneered the Temperament and
Character model.[3]

Uniqueness versus universality - This question discusses the extent of

each human's individuality (uniqueness) or similarity in nature
(universality). Gordon Allport, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers were all
advocates of the uniqueness of individuals. Behaviorists and cognitive
theorists, in contrast, emphasize the importance of universal principles,
such as reinforcement and self-efficacy. [3]

Active versus reactive - This question explores whether humans

primarily act through individual initiative (active) or through outside
stimuli. Traditional behavioral theorists typically believed that humans are
passively shaped by their environments, whereas humanistic and
cognitive theorists believe that humans are more active in their role. [3]
Most modern theorists agree that both are important, with aggregate
behavior being primarily determined by traits and situational factors being
the primary predictor of behavior in the short term. [4][5][6]

Optimistic versus pessimistic - Personality theories differ with regard to

whether humans are integral in the changing of their own personalities.
Theories that place a great deal of emphasis on learning are often more
optimistic than those that do not.[3]

Personality theories
The study of personality is based on the essential insight that all people are similar in some
ways, yet different in others.[7] There have been many different definitions of personality
proposed. However, many contemporary psychologists agree on the following definition:
Personality is that pattern of characteristic thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that distinguishes
one person from another and that persists over time and situations.[7]

Trait theories
Main article: Trait theory

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association,
personality traits are "enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the
environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts."
Theorists generally assume that a) traits are relatively stable over time, b) traits differ among
individuals, and c) traits influence behavior. They consistently are used in order to help define
people as a whole. Traits are relatively constant; they do not usually change. Traits are also
bipolar; they vary along a continuum between one extreme and the other (e.g., friendly vs.
unfriendly).[8]
The most common models of traits incorporate three to five broad dimensions or factors. All
trait theories incorporate at least two dimensions, extraversion and neuroticism, which
historically featured in Hippocrates' humoral theory.[9]

Gordon Allport delineated different kinds of traits, which he also called

dispositions. Central traits are basic to an individual's personality, while
secondary traits are more peripheral. Common traits are those recognized
within a culture and thus may vary from culture to culture. Cardinal traits
are those by which an individual may be strongly recognized. In his book,
Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, Gordon Allport (1937) both
established personality psychology as a legitimate intellectual discipline
and introduced the first of the modern trait theories. [10]

Raymond Cattell's research propagated a two-tiered personality structure

with sixteen "primary factors" (16 Personality Factors) and five "secondary
factors." In Cattell's lengthy career, he had written 50 books, 500 journals,
and 30 different types of standardized tests. For Cattell, personality itself
was defined in terms of behavioral prediction. He defined personality as
that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given
situation.

John Gittinger's theory and its applications[1][11][12] (the Personality

Assessment System (PAS)) uses the Wechsler intelligence tests, which are
well standardized and objective instruments rather than self-report tests.
PAS factors out personality traits (primitivity) and two additional levels,
Basid and Surface, which are adaptations by environmentally induced
presses and learning. Gittinger's multivariate personality descriptions
exceed 500 data-based outcome descriptions.[13]

Hans Eysenck believed just three traitsextraversion, neuroticism, and

psychoticismwere sufficient to describe human personality. Differences
between Cattell and Eysenck emerged due to preferences for different
forms of factor analysis, with Cattell using oblique, Eysenck orthogonal
rotation to analyze the factors that emerged when personality
questionnaires were subjected to statistical analysis. Today, the Big Five
factors have the weight of a considerable amount of empirical research
behind them, building on the work of Cattell and others. Eysenck, along
with another contemporary in trait psychology named J. P. Guilford (1959),
believed that the resultant trait factors obtained from factor analysis

should be statistically independent of one anotherthat is, the factors

should be arranged (rotated) so that they are uncorrelated or orthogonal
(at right angles) to one another.

Lewis Goldberg proposed a five-dimension personality model, nicknamed

the "Big Five":[14]
1. Openness to Experience: the tendency to be imaginative,
independent, and interested in variety vs. practical, conforming,
and interested in routine.
2. Conscientiousness: the tendency to be organized, careful, and
disciplined vs. disorganized, careless, and impulsive.
3. Extraversion: the tendency to be sociable, fun-loving, and
affectionate vs. retiring, somber, and reserved.
4. Agreeableness: the tendency to be softhearted, trusting, and helpful
vs. ruthless, suspicious, and uncooperative.
5. Neuroticism: the tendency to be anxious, insecure, and self-pitying
vs. calm, secure, and self-satisfied[15]
The Big Five contain important dimensions of personality. However, some
personality researchers argue that this list of major traits is not
exhaustive. Some support has been found for two additional factors:
excellent/ordinary and evil/decent. However, no definitive conclusions
have been established.[15]

Michael Ashton and Kibeom Lee, in 2008, proposed a six-dimensional

HEXACO model of personality structure. The HEXACO personality
traits/factors are: Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X),
Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience
(O). The three dimensions Extraversion, Conscientiousness and
Openness to Experience are considered to be basically the same as their
counterpart dimensions in the Big Five Model. However, in the HEXACO
model, Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, and Agreeableness differ from the
Neuroticism and Agreeableness factors of the Big Five Model. Ashton and
Lee especially emphasize the Honesty-Humility (H) factor as differentiating
the HEXACO model from other personality frameworks. Specifically, the H
factor is described as sincere, honest, faithful/loyal, modest/unassuming,
fair-minded, VERSUS sly, deceitful, greedy, pretentious, hypocritical,
boastful, and pompous. The H factor has been linked to criminal,
materialistic, power-seeking, and unethical tendencies. [16]

Trait models have been criticized as being purely descriptive and offering little explanation of
the underlying causes of personality. Eysenck's theory, however, proposes biological
mechanisms as driving traits, and modern behavior genetics researchers have shown a clear
genetic substrate to them.[vague] Another potential weakness of trait theories is that they may
lead some people to accept oversimplified classificationsor worse, offer advicebased on

a superficial analysis of personality. Finally, trait models often underestimate the effect of
specific situations on people's behavior.

Traits are considered to be statistical generalizations that do not always correspond to an

individual's behavior.
The importance that genetic influences have on personality characteristics can change across
a five-year period. Age differences create more variables even within a family, so the best
comparisons are found using twins. Twins typically share a family environment called a
shared environment because they may share other aspects like teachers, school, and friends. A
non-shared environment means completely different environment for both subjects.
"Biologically related children who are separated after birth and raised in different families
live in non-shared environments." Identical twins separated at birth and raised in different
families constitute the best cases for heredity and personality because similarities between the
two are due only to genetic influences. Vulnerability was a factor in this study that was taken
into consideration regarding the issue of genetic influences on vulnerability. The study
concluded that the monozygotic co-twins would be more similar than dizygotic co-twins in
change over time. The data concluded that there were no significant differences for either
variances between the monozygotic and dizygotic co-twins.[17][18]
Another current open question is whether genetic influences are important for the likeliness
of co-twins to change in the same way over a period of time. A link was found between the
personality trait of neuroticism and a polymorphism called 5-HTTLPR in the serotonin
transporter gene, but this association was not replicated in larger studies.[19] Other candidate
gene studies have provided weak evidence that some personality traits are related to AVPR1A
("ruthlessness gene") and MAOA ("Warrior gene"). Genotypes, or the genetic make up of an
organism, influence but don't fully decide the physical traits of a person. Those are also
influenced by the environment and behaviors they are surrounded by. For example, a person's
height is affected by genetics, but if they are malnourished growth will be stunted no matter
what their genetic coding says. Environment is also not completely responsible for an
outcome in personality. An example from Psychobiology of Personality by Marvin
Zuckerman is alcoholism: Studies suggest that alcoholism is an inherited disease, but if a
subject with a strong biological background of alcoholism in their family tree is never
exposed to alcohol, they will not be so inclined regardless of their genome.[20]
It is also a question open to debate whether there are genetic influences on the tendency of
the co-twins to change, without keeping in mind the direction of the change. Another factor
that can be addressed is biological versus adoptive relatives and can be clearly seen in what is
a real-life experiment: adoption. This creates two groups: genetic relatives (biological parents
and siblings) and environmental relatives (adoptive parents and siblings). After studying
hundreds of adoptive families, researchers discovered that people who grow up together,
whether biologically related or not, do not much resemble one another in personality. In
characteristics such as extroversion and agreeableness, adoptees are more like their biological

parents than their adoptive parents. However, the minute shared-environment effects do not
mean that adoptive parenting is ineffective. Even though genetics may limit the family
environment's influence on personality, parents do influence their children's attitudes, values,
faith, manners, and politics. In adoptive homes, child neglect and abuse and even divorce
between the parents is uncommon. This noted it is not surprising, despite a somewhat greater
risk of psychological disorder, that most adopted children excel, especially when they are
adopted as infants. In fact, seven out of eight have reported feeling a strong connection with
one or even both of their adoptive parents.[21]
Type theories

Personality type refers to the psychological classification of different types of people.

Personality types are distinguished from personality traits, which come in different degrees.
For example, according to type theories, there are two types of people, introverts and
extroverts. According to trait theories, introversion and extroversion are part of a continuous
dimension with many people in the middle. The idea of psychological types originated in the
theoretical work of Carl Jung,[22] specifically in his 1921 book Psychologische Typen
(Psychological Types) and William Marston.[23]
Building on the writings and observations of Jung during World War II, Isabel Briggs Myers
and her mother, Katharine C. Briggs, delineated personality types by constructing the Myers
Briggs Type Indicator.[24] This model was later used by David Keirsey with a different
understanding from Jung, Briggs and Myers.[25] In the former Soviet Union, Lithuanian Aura
Augustinaviit independently derived a model of personality type from Jung's called
Socionics.
The model is an older and more theoretical approach to personality, accepting extroversion
and introversion as basic psychological orientations in connection with two pairs of
psychological functions:

Perceiving functions: sensing and intuition (trust in concrete, sensoryoriented facts vs. trust in abstract concepts and imagined possibilities)

Judging functions: thinking and feeling (basing decisions primarily on logic

vs. considering the effect on people).

Briggs and Myers also added another personality dimension to their type indicator to measure
whether a person prefers to use a judging or perceiving function when interacting with the
external world. Therefore, they included questions designed to indicate whether someone
wishes to come to conclusions (judgment) or to keep options open (perception).[24]
This personality typology has some aspects of a trait theory: it explains people's behavior in
terms of opposite fixed characteristics. In these more traditional models, the sensing/intuition
preference is considered the most basic, dividing people into "N" (intuitive) or "S" (sensing)
personality types. An "N" is further assumed to be guided either by thinking or feeling and
divided into the "NT" (scientist, engineer) or "NF" (author, humanitarian) temperament. An

"S", in contrast, is assumed to be guided more by the judgment/perception axis and thus
divided into the "SJ" (guardian, traditionalist) or "SP" (performer, artisan) temperament.
These four are considered basic, with the other two factors in each case (including always
extraversion/introversion) less important. Critics of this traditional view have observed that
the types can be quite strongly stereotyped by professions (although neither Myers nor
Keirsey engaged in such stereotyping in their type descriptions),[24] and thus may arise more
from the need to categorize people for purposes of guiding their career choice.[26] This among
other objections led to the emergence of the five-factor view, which is less concerned with
behavior under work conditions and more concerned with behavior in personal and emotional
circumstances. (It should be noted, however, that the MBTI is not designed to measure the
"work self", but rather what Myers and McCaulley called the "shoes-off self."[27]) Some
critics have argued for more or fewer dimensions while others have proposed entirely
different theories (often assuming different definitions of "personality").
Type A and Type B personality theory: During the 1950s, Meyer Friedman and his coworkers defined what they called Type A and Type B behavior patterns. They theorized that
intense, hard-driving Type A personalities had a higher risk of coronary disease because they
are "stress junkies." Type B people, on the other hand, tended to be relaxed, less competitive,
and lower in risk. There was also a Type AB mixed profile.
John L. Holland's RIASEC vocational model, commonly referred to as the Holland Codes,
stipulates that six personality types lead people to choose their career paths. In this
circumplex model, the six types are represented as a hexagon, with adjacent types more
closely related than those more distant. The model is widely used in vocational counseling.
Eduard Spranger's personality-model, consisting of six (or, by some revisions, 6 +1) basic
types of value attitudes, described in his book Types of Men (Lebensformen; Halle (Saale):
Niemeyer, 1914; English translation by P. J. W. Pigors - New York: G. E. Stechert Company,
1928).
The Enneagram of Personality, a model of human personality which is principally used as a
typology of nine interconnected personality types. It has been criticized as being subject to
interpretation, making it difficult to test or validate scientifically; however, it is in the
beginning stages of academic research using the same EEG technology that Myers-Briggs
research uses.
Perhaps the most ancient attempt at Personality psychology is the personality typology
outlined by the Indian Buddhist Abhidharma schools. This typology mostly focuses on
negative personal traits (greed, hatred, and delusion) and the corresponding positive
meditation practices used to counter those traits.
Psychoanalytic theories

Psychoanalytic theories explain human behavior in terms of the interaction of various

components of personality. Sigmund Freud was the founder of this school of thought. Freud

drew on the physics of his day (thermodynamics) to coin the term psychodynamics. Based on
the idea of converting heat into mechanical energy, he proposed psychic energy could be
converted into behavior. Freud's theory places central importance on dynamic, unconscious
psychological conflicts.[28]
Freud divides human personality into three significant components: the id, ego and super-ego.
The id acts according to the pleasure principle, demanding immediate gratification of its
needs regardless of external environment; the ego then must emerge in order to realistically
meet the wishes and demands of the id in accordance with the outside world, adhering to the
reality principle. Finally, the superego (conscience) inculcates moral judgment and societal
rules upon the ego, thus forcing the demands of the id to be met not only realistically but
morally. The superego is the last function of the personality to develop, and is the
embodiment of parental/social ideals established during childhood. According to Freud,
personality is based on the dynamic interactions of these three components.[29]
The channeling and release of sexual (libidal) and aggressive energies, which ensues from the
"Eros" (sex; instinctual self-preservation) and "Thanatos" (death; instinctual self-annihilation)
drives respectively, are major components of his theory.[29] It is important to note that Freud's
broad understanding of sexuality included all kinds of pleasurable feelings experienced by the
human body.
Freud proposed five psychosexual stages of personality development. He believed adult
personality is dependent upon early childhood experiences and largely determined by age
five.[29] Fixations that develop during the infantile stage contribute to adult personality and
behavior.
One of Sigmund Freud's earlier associates, Alfred Adler, did agree with Freud that early
childhood experiences are important to development and believed birth order may influence
personality development. Adler believed that the oldest child was the individual who would
set high achievement goals in order to gain attention lost when the younger siblings were
born. He believed the middle children were competitive and ambitious. He reasoned that this
behavior was motivated by the idea of surpassing the firstborn's achievements. He added,
however, that the middle children were often not as concerned about the glory attributed with
their behavior. He also believed the youngest would be more dependent and sociable. Adler
finished by surmising that an only child loves being the center of attention and matures
quickly but in the end fails to become independent.
Heinz Kohut thought similarly to Freud's idea of transference. He used narcissism as a model
of how people develop their sense of self. Narcissism is the exaggerated sense of one self in
which one is believed to exist in order to protect one's low self-esteem and sense of
worthlessness. Kohut had a significant impact on the field by extending Freud's theory of
narcissism and introducing what he called the 'self-object transferences' of mirroring and
idealization. In other words, children need to idealize and emotionally "sink into" and
identify with the idealized competence of admired figures such as parents or older siblings.

They also need to have their self-worth mirrored by these people. These experiences allow
them to thereby learn the self-soothing and other skills that are necessary for the development
of a healthy sense of self.
Another important figure in the world of personality theory is Karen Horney. She is credited
with the development of the "real self" and the "ideal self". She believes all people have these
two views of their own self. The "real self" is how humans act with regard to personality,
values, and morals; but the "ideal self" is a construct individuals implement in order to
conform to social and personal norms.
Behaviorist theories

Behaviorists explain personality in terms of the effects external stimuli have on behavior. The
approaches used to analyze the behavioral aspect of personality are known as behavioral
theories or learning-conditioning theories. These approaches were a radical shift away from
Freudian philosophy. One of the major tenets of this concentration of personality psychology
is a strong emphasis on scientific thinking and experimentation. This school of thought was
developed by B. F. Skinner who put forth a model which emphasized the mutual interaction
of the person or "the organism" with its environment. Skinner believed children do bad things
because the behavior obtains attention that serves as a reinforcer. For example: a child cries
because the child's crying in the past has led to attention. These are the response, and
consequences. The response is the child crying, and the attention that child gets is the
reinforcing consequence. According to this theory, people's behavior is formed by processes
such as operant conditioning. Skinner put forward a "three term contingency model" which
helped promote analysis of behavior based on the "Stimulus - Response - Consequence
Model" in which the critical question is: "Under which circumstances or antecedent 'stimuli'
does the organism engage in a particular behavior or 'response', which in turn produces a
particular 'consequence'?"[30]
Richard Herrnstein extended this theory by accounting for attitudes and traits. An attitude
develops as the response strength (the tendency to respond) in the presences of a group of
stimuli become stable. Rather than describing conditionable traits in non-behavioral
language, response strength in a given situation accounts for the environmental portion.
Herrstein also saw traits as having a large genetic or biological component, as do most
modern behaviorists.[30]
Ivan Pavlov is another notable influence. He is well known for his classical conditioning
experiments involving dogs, which led him to discover the foundation of behaviorism.[30]
Social cognitive theories

In cognitive theory, behavior is explained as guided by cognitions (e.g. expectations) about

the world, especially those about other people. Cognitive theories are theories of personality
that emphasize cognitive processes, such as thinking and judging.
Albert Bandura, a social learning theorist suggested the forces of memory and emotions
worked in conjunction with environmental influences. Bandura was known mostly for his

"Bobo doll experiment". During these experiments, Bandura video taped a college student
kicking and verbally abusing a bobo doll. He then showed this video to a class of
kindergarten children who were getting ready to go out to play. When they entered the play
room, they saw bobo dolls, and some hammers. The people observing these children at play
saw a group of children beating the doll. He called this study and his findings observational
learning, or modeling.
Early examples of approaches to cognitive style are listed by Baron (1982).[31] These include
Witkin's (1965) work on field dependency, Gardner's (1953) discovering people had
consistent preference for the number of categories they used to categorise heterogeneous
objects, and Block and Petersen's (1955) work on confidence in line discrimination
judgments. Baron relates early development of cognitive approaches of personality to ego
psychology. More central to this field have been:

Attributional style theory[32] dealing with different ways in which people

explain events in their lives. This approach builds upon locus of control,
but extends it by stating we also need to consider whether people
attribute to stable causes or variable causes, and to global causes or
specific causes.

Various scales have been developed to assess both attributional style and locus of control.
Locus of control scales include those used by Rotter and later by Duttweiler, the Nowicki and
Strickland (1973) Locus of Control Scale for Children and various locus of control scales
specifically in the health domain, most famously that of Kenneth Wallston and his colleagues,
The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale.[33] Attributional style has been assessed
by the Attributional Style Questionnaire,[34] the Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire,
[35]
the Attributions Questionnaire,[36] the Real Events Attributional Style Questionnaire[37] and
the Attributional Style Assessment Test.[38]

Achievement style theory focuses upon identification of an individual's

Locus of Control tendency, such as by Rotter's evaluations, and was found
by Cassandra Bolyard Whyte to provide valuable information for improving
academic performance of students.[39] Individuals with internal control
tendencies are likely to persist to better academic performance levels,
presenting an achievement personality, according to Cassandra B. Whyte.
[39]

Recognition that the tendency to believe that hard work and persistence often results in
attainment of life and academic goals has influenced formal educational and counseling
efforts with students of various ages and in various settings since the 1970s research about
achievement.[40] Counseling aimed toward encouraging individuals to design ambitious goals
and work toward them, with recognition that there are external factors that may impact, often
results in the incorporation of a more positive achievement style by students and employees,
whatever the setting, to include higher education, workplace, or justice programming.[40][41]
Walter Mischel (1999) has also defended a cognitive approach to personality. His work refers
to "Cognitive Affective Units", and considers factors such as encoding of stimuli, affect, goal-

setting, and self-regulatory beliefs. The term "Cognitive Affective Units" shows how his
approach considers affect as well as cognition.
Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST) is another cognitive personality theory.
Developed by Seymour Epstein, CEST argues that humans operate by way of two
independent information processing systems: experiential system and rational system. The
experiential system is fast and emotion-driven. The rational system is slow and logic-driven.
These two systems interact to determine our goals, thoughts, and behavior.[42]
Personal construct psychology (PCP) is a theory of personality developed by the American
psychologist George Kelly in the 1950s. Kelly's fundamental view of personality was that
people are like naive scientists who see the world through a particular lens, based on their
uniquely organized systems of construction, which they use to anticipate events. But because
people are naive scientists, they sometimes employ systems for construing the world that are
distorted by idiosyncratic experiences not applicable to their current social situation. A
system of construction that chronically fails to characterize and/or predict events, and is not
appropriately revised to comprehend and predict one's changing social world, is considered to
underlie psychopathology (or mental illness.)[citation needed] From the theory, Kelly derived a
psychotherapy approach and also a technique called The Repertory Grid Interview that helped
his patients to uncover their own "constructs" with minimal intervention or interpretation by
the therapist. The repertory grid was later adapted for various uses within organizations,
including decision-making and interpretation of other people's world-views.[43]
Humanistic theories

Humanistic psychology emphasizes that people have free will and that this plays an active
role in determining how they behave. Accordingly, humanistic psychology focuses on
subjective experiences of persons as opposed to forced, definitive factors that determine
behavior. Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers were proponents of this view, which is based on
the "phenomenal field" theory of Combs and Snygg (1949).[44] Rogers and Maslow were
among a group of psychologists that worked together for a decade to produce the Journal of
Humanistic Psychology. This journal was primarily focused on viewing individuals as a
whole, rather than focusing solely on separate traits and processes within the individual.
Robert W. White wrote the book The Abnormal Personality that became a standard text on
abnormal psychology. He also investigated the human need to strive for positive goals like
competence and influence, to counterbalance the emphasis of Freud on the pathological
elements of personality development.[45]
Maslow spent much of his time studying what he called "self-actualizing persons", those who
are "fulfilling themselves and doing the best they are capable of doing". Maslow believes all
who are interested in growth move towards self-actualizing (growth, happiness, satisfaction)
views. Many of these people demonstrate a trend in dimensions of their personalities.
Characteristics of self-actualizers according to Maslow include the four key dimensions:[46]

1. Awareness maintaining constant enjoyment and awe of life. These

individuals often experienced a "peak experience". He defined a peak
experience as an "intensification of any experience to the degree there is
a loss or transcendence of self". A peak experience is one in which an
individual perceives an expansion of themselves, and detects a unity and
meaningfulness in life. Intense concentration on an activity one is involved
in, such as running a marathon, may invoke a peak experience.
2. Reality and problem centered having a tendency to be concerned
with "problems" in surroundings.
3. Acceptance/Spontaneity accepting surroundings and what cannot be
changed.
4. Unhostile sense of humor/democratic do not take kindly to joking
about others, which can be viewed as offensive. They have friends of all
backgrounds and religions and hold very close friendships.

Maslow and Rogers emphasized a view of the person as an active, creative, experiencing
human being who lives in the present and subjectively responds to current perceptions,
relationships, and encounters. They disagree with the dark, pessimistic outlook of those in the
Freudian psychoanalysis ranks, but rather view humanistic theories as positive and optimistic
proposals which stress the tendency of the human personality toward growth and selfactualization. This progressing self will remain the center of its constantly changing world; a
world that will help mold the self but not necessarily confine it. Rather, the self has
opportunity for maturation based on its encounters with this world. This understanding
attempts to reduce the acceptance of hopeless redundancy. Humanistic therapy typically relies
on the client for information of the past and its effect on the present, therefore the client
dictates the type of guidance the therapist may initiate. This allows for an individualized
approach to therapy. Rogers found patients differ in how they respond to other people. Rogers
tried to model a particular approach to therapy- he stressed the reflective or empathetic
response. This response type takes the client's viewpoint and reflects back their feeling and
the context for it. An example of a reflective response would be, "It seems you are feeling
anxious about your upcoming marriage". This response type seeks to clarify the therapist's
understanding while also encouraging the client to think more deeply and seek to fully
understand the feelings they have expressed.
Biopsychological theories

Biology plays a very important role in the development of personality. The study of the
biological level in personality psychology focuses primarily on identifying the role of genetic
determinants and how they mold individual personalities.[47] Some of the earliest thinking
about possible biological bases of personality grew out of the case of Phineas Gage. In an
1848 accident, a large iron rod was driven through Gage's head, and his personality
apparently changed as a result, although descriptions[48] of these psychological changes are
usually exaggerated.[49][50]

In general, patients with brain damage have been difficult to find and study. In the 1990s,
researchers began to use electroencephalography (EEG), positron emission tomography
(PET), and more recently functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which is now the
most widely used imaging technique to help localize personality traits in the brain.
Genetic basis of personality

Ever since the Human Genome Project allowed for a much more in depth understanding of
genetics, there has been an ongoing controversy involving heritability, personality traits, and
environmental vs. genetic influence on personality. The human genome is known to play a
role in the development of personality.
Previously, genetic personality studies focused on specific genes correlating to specific
personality traits. Today's view of the gene-personality relationship focuses primarily on the
activation and expression of genes related to personality and forms part of what is referred to
as behavioural genetics. Genes provide numerous options for varying cells to be expressed;
however, the environment determines which of these are activated. Many studies have noted
this relationship in varying ways in which our bodies can develop, but the interaction
between genes and the shaping of our minds and personality is also relevant to this biological
relationship.[51]
DNA-environment interactions are important in the development of personality because this
relationship determines what part of the DNA code is actually made into proteins that will
become part of an individual. It has been noted that while different choices are made
available by the genome, in the end, the environment is the ultimate determinant of what
becomes activated. Small changes in DNA in individuals are what lead to the uniqueness of
every person as well as differences in looks, abilities, brain functioning, and all the factors
that culminate to develop a cohesive personality.[52]
Cattell and Eysenck have proposed that genetics have a strong influence on personality. A
large part of the evidence collected linking genetics and the environment to personality have
come from twin studies. This "twin method" compares levels of similarity in personality
using genetically identical twins. One of the first of these twin studies measured 800 pairs of
twins, studied numerous personality traits, and determined that identical twins are most
similar in their general abilities. Personality similarities were found to be less related for selfconcepts, goals, and interests.[53]
Twin studies have also been important in the creation of the five factor personality model:
neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Neuroticism and
extraversion are the two most widely studied traits. A person that may fall into the extravert
category can display characteristics such as impulsiveness, sociability, and activeness. A
person falling into the neuroticism category may be more likely to be moody, anxious, or
irritable. Identical twins, however, have higher correlations in personality traits than fraternal
twins. One study measuring genetic influence on twins in five different countries found that
the correlations for identical twins were .50, while for fraternal they were about .20.[53] It is
suggested that heredity and environment interact to determine one's personality.[54][55]

Evolutionary theory

Charles Darwin is the founder of the theory of the evolution of the species. The evolutionary
approach to personality psychology is based on this theory.[56] This theory examines how
individual personality differences are based on natural selection. Through natural selection
organisms change over time through adaptation and selection. Traits are developed and
certain genes come into expression based on an organism's environment and how these traits
aid in an organism's survival and reproduction.
Polymorphisms, such as gender and blood-type, are forms of diversity which evolve to
benefit a species as a whole.[57] The theory of evolution has wide ranging implications on
personality psychology. Personality viewed through the lens of evolutionary psychology
places a great deal of emphasis on specific traits that are most likely to aid in survival and
reproduction, such as conscientiousness, sociability, emotional stability, and dominance.[58]
The social aspects of personality can be seen through an evolutionary perspective. Specific
character traits develop and are selected for because they play an important and complex role
in the social hierarchy of organisms. Such characteristics of this social hierarchy include the
sharing of important resources, family and mating interactions, and the harm or help
organisms can bestow upon one another.[56]

Personality tests
There are two major types of personality tests, projective and objective.
Projective tests assume personality is primarily unconscious and assess individuals by how
they respond to an ambiguous stimulus, such as an ink blot. Projective tests have been in use
for about 60 years and continue to be used today. Examples of such tests include the
Rorschach test and the Thematic Apperception Test.
The Rorschach Test involves showing an individual a series of note cards with ambiguous ink
blots on them. The individual being tested is asked to provide interpretations of the blots on
the cards by stating everything that the ink blot may resemble based on their personal
interpretation. The therapist then analyzes their responses. Rules for scoring the test have
been covered in manuals that cover a wide variety of characteristics such as content,
originality of response, location of "perceived images" and several other factors. Using these
specific scoring methods, the therapist will then attempt to relate test responses to attributes
of the individual's personality and their unique characteristics.[59] The idea is that unconscious
needs will come out in the person's response, e.g. an aggressive person may see images of
destruction.
The Thematic Apperception Test (also known as the TAT) involves presenting individuals
with vague pictures/scenes and asking them to tell a story based on what they see. Common
examples of these "scenes" include images that may suggest family relationships or specific
situations, such as a father and son or a man and a woman in a bedroom.[60] Responses are
analyzed for common themes. Responses unique to an individual are theoretically meant to
indicate underlying thoughts, processes, and potentially conflicts present within the

individual. Responses are believed to be directly linked to unconscious motives. There is very
little empirical evidence available to support these methods.[61]
Objective tests assume personality is consciously accessible and that it can be measured by
self-report questionnaires. Research on psychological assessment has generally found
objective tests to be more valid and reliable than projective tests. Critics have pointed to the
Forer effect to suggest some of these appear to be more accurate and discriminating than they
really are. Issues with these tests include false reporting because there is no way to tell if an
individual is answering a question honestly or accurately.

Inner experience
Psychology has traditionally defined personality through its behavioral patterns, and more
recently with neuroscientific studies of the brain. In recent years, some psychologists have
turned to the study of inner experiences for insight into personality as well as individuality.
Inner experiences are the thoughts and feelings to an immediate phenomenon. Another term
used to define inner experiences is qualia. Being able to understand inner experiences assists
in understanding how humans behave, act, and respond. Defining personality using inner
experiences has been expanding due to the fact that solely relying on behavioral principles to
explain one's character may seem incomplete. Behavioral methods allow the subject to be
observed by an observer, whereas with inner experiences the subject is its own observer.[62][63]
Methods measuring inner experience

Descriptive experience sampling (DES), developed by psychologist Russel Hurlburt. This is

an idiographic method that is used to help examine inner experiences. This method relies on
an introspective technique that allows an individual's inner experiences and characteristics to
be described and measured. A beep notifies the subject to record their experience at that exact
moment and 24 hours later an interview is given based on all the experiences recorded. DES
has been used in subjects that have been diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression. It has
also been crucial to studying the inner experiences of those who have been diagnosed with
common psychiatric diseases.[63][64][65]
Articulated thoughts in stimulated situations (ATSS): ATSS is a paradigm which was
created as an alternative to the TA (think aloud) method. This method assumes that people
have continuous internal dialogues that can be naturally attended to. ATSS also assesses a
persons inner thoughts as they verbalize their cognitions. In this procedure, subjects listen to
a scenario via a video or audio player and are asked to imagine that they are in that specific
situation. Later, they are asked to articulate their thoughts as they occur in reaction to the
playing scenario. This method is useful in studying emotional experience given that the
scenarios used can influence specific emotions. Most importantly, the method has contributed
to the study of personality. In a study conducted by Rayburn and Davison (2002), subjects
thoughts and empathy toward anti-gay hate crimes were evaluated. The researchers found that
participants showed more aggressive intentions towards the offender in scenarios which
mimicked hate crimes.[63]

Experimental method: This method is an experimental paradigm used to study human

experiences involved in the studies of sensation and perception, learning and memory,
motivation, and biological psychology. The experimental psychologist usually deals with
intact organisms although studies are often conducted with organisms modified by surgery,
radiation, drug treatment, or long-standing deprivations of various kinds or with organisms
that naturally present organic abnormalities or emotional disorders. Economists and
psychologists have developed a variety of experimental methodologies to elicit and assess
individual attitudes where each emotion differs for each individual. The results are then
gathered and quantified to conclude if specific experiences have any common factors. This
method is used to seek clarity of the experience and remove any biases to help understand the
meaning behind the experience to see if it can be generalized.[62]

Organizational conflict, or workplace

conflict,
Organizational conflict, or workplace conflict, is a state of discord caused by the actual or
perceived opposition of needs, values and interests between people working together.
Conflict takes many forms in organizations. There is the inevitable clash between formal
authority and power and those individuals and groups affected. There are disputes over how
revenues should be divided, how the work should be done, and how long and hard people
should work. There are jurisdictional disagreements among individuals, departments, and
between unions and management. There are subtler forms of conflict involving rivalries,
jealousies, personality clashes, role definitions, and struggles for power and favor. There is
also conflict within individuals between competing needs and demands to which
individuals respond in different ways.[1]

Conflict Resolution: Strategies to

Manage Workplace Conflict
Conflict in the workplace is inevitable, but it doesn't have to bring down morale or
effect productivity. Here are eight things you can do to handle conflict and restore the
peace.
Conflict in the workplace is a painful reality and a key reason for poor productivity and
frustration. Do you have people in your workplace that cause problems for everyone else? Do
they create additional work for others? One point is clear--conflict does not magically go
away and only gets worse when ignored.
Certain types of workplace conflict are readily identified. Other forms of conflict may not be
so easily detected. Small, irritating events such as negative attitudes occur repeatedly over
time and can cause people to strike out at each other. In many cases, conflict occurs at the
senior level of the organization. In these situations some kind of intervention is needed.

What type of workplace conflict requires intervention? Anything that disrupts the office,
impacts on productivity or poses a threat to other employees needs addressing. The degree to
which you tolerate a situation before intervention may vary. A manager may not feel it
necessary to intervene when a minor exchange of words occurs between employees--unless
such an incident becomes a daily occurrence and expands beyond the employees initially
involved. However, a situation where one employee threatens another requires immediate
action. When handling conflict, some basic guidelines apply.
Understand the situation. Few situations are exactly as they seem or as presented to you by
others. Before you try to settle the conflict insure you have investigated both sides of the
issue.
Acknowledge the problem. I remember an exchange between two board members. One
member was frustrated with the direction the organization was taking. He told the other, Just
dont worry about it. It isnt that important. Keep in mind what appears to be a small issue to
you can be a major issue with another. Acknowledging the frustration and concerns is an
important step in resolving the conflict.
Be patient and take your time. The old adage, Haste makes waste, has more truth in it
than we sometimes realize. Take time to evaluate all information. A too-quick decision does
more harm than good when it turns out to be the wrong decision and further alienating the
individual involved.
Avoid using coercion and intimidation. Emotional outbursts or coercing people may stop
the problem temporarily, but do not fool yourself into thinking it is a long-term solution.
Odds are the problem will resurface. At that point not only will you have the initial problem
to deal with, but also the angry feelings that have festered below the surface during the
interim.
Focus on the problem, not the individual. Most people have known at least one
problematic individual during their work experience. Avoid your own pre-conceived
attitudes about individuals. Person X may not be the most congenial individual or they may
just have a personality conflict with someone on your staff. This does not mean they do not
have a legitimate problem or issue. Focus on identifying and resolving the conflict. If, after
careful and thorough analysis, you determine the individual is the problem, then focus on the
individual at that point.
Establish guidelines. Before conducting a formal meeting between individuals, get both
parties to agree to a few meeting guidelines. Ask them to express themselves calmlyas
unemotionally as possible. Have them agree to attempt to understand each others
perspective. Tell them if they violate the guidelines the meeting will come to an end.
Keep the communication open. The ultimate goal in conflict resolution is for both parties to
resolve the issue between themselves. Allow both parties to express their viewpoint, but also
share your perspective. Attempt to facilitate the meeting and help them pinpoint the real issue
causing conflict.
Act decisively. Once you have taken time to gather information, talked to all the parties
involved, and reviewed all the circumstances, make your decision and act. Dont leave the
issue in limbo. Taking too long to make a decision could damage your credibility and their

perception of you. They may view you as either too weak, too uncaring, or both, to handle the
problem. Not everyone will agree with your decision, but at least they will know where you
stand.

Conflict Management Strategies

In any situation involving more than one person, conflict can arise. The causes of conflict
range from philosophical differences and divergent goals to power imbalances. Unmanaged
or poorly managed conflicts generate a breakdown in trust and lost productivity. For small
businesses, where success often hinges on the cohesion of a few people, loss of trust and
productivity can signal the death of the business. With a basic understanding of the five
conflict management strategies, small business owners can better deal with conflicts before
they escalate beyond repair.

Accommodating
The accommodating strategy essentially entails giving the opposing side what it wants. The
use of accommodation often occurs when one of the parties wishes to keep the peace or
perceives the issue as minor. For example, a business that requires formal dress may institute
a "casual Friday" policy as a low-stakes means of keeping the peace with the rank and file.
Employees who use accommodation as a primary conflict management strategy, however,
may keep track and develop resentment.

Avoiding
The avoidance strategy seeks to put off conflict indefinitely. By delaying or ignoring the
conflict, the avoider hopes the problem resolves itself without a confrontation. Those who
actively avoid conflict frequently have low esteem or hold a position of low power. In some
circumstances, avoiding can serve as a profitable conflict management strategy, such as after
the dismissal of a popular but unproductive employee. The hiring of a more productive
replacement for the position soothes much of the conflict.

Collaborating
Collaboration works by integrating ideas set out by multiple people. The object is to find a
creative solution acceptable to everyone. Collaboration, though useful, calls for a significant
time commitment not appropriate to all conflicts. For example, a business owner should work
collaboratively with the manager to establish policies, but collaborative decision-making
regarding office supplies wastes time better spent on other activities..

Compromising
The compromising strategy typically calls for both sides of a conflict to give up elements of
their position in order to establish an acceptable, if not agreeable, solution. This strategy
prevails most often in conflicts where the parties hold approximately equivalent power.
Business owners frequently employ compromise during contract negotiations with other

businesses when each party stands to lose something valuable, such as a customer or
necessary service.

Competing
Competition operates as a zero-sum game, in which one side wins and other loses. Highly
assertive personalities often fall back on competition as a conflict management strategy. The
competitive strategy works best in a limited number of conflicts, such as emergency
situations. In general, business owners benefit from holding the competitive strategy in
reserve for crisis situations and decisions that generate ill-will, such as pay cuts or layoffs.

Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory of

Motivation
In 1959, Frederick Herzberg, a behavioural scientist proposed a two-factor theory or the
motivator-hygiene theory. According to Herzberg, there are some job factors that result in
satisfaction while there are other job factors that prevent dissatisfaction. According to
Herzberg, the opposite of Satisfaction is No satisfaction and the opposite of
Dissatisfaction is No Dissatisfaction.

FIGURE: Herzbergs view of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

Herzberg classified these job factors into two categoriesa. Hygiene factors- Hygiene factors are those job factors which are essential for
existence of motivation at workplace. These do not lead to positive satisfaction for
long-term. But if these factors are absent / if these factors are non-existant at
workplace, then they lead to dissatisfaction. In other words, hygiene factors are those
factors which when adequate/reasonable in a job, pacify the employees and do not
make them dissatisfied. These factors are extrinsic to work. Hygiene factors are also
called as dissatisfiers or maintenance factors as they are required to avoid
dissatisfaction. These factors describe the job environment/scenario. The hygiene
factors symbolized the physiological needs which the individuals wanted and
expected to be fulfilled. Hygiene factors include:

Pay - The pay or salary structure should

be appropriate and reasonable. It must be equal
and competitive to those in the same industry in
the same domain.

Company Policies and administrative

policies - The company policies should not be
too rigid. They should be fair and clear. It should
include flexible working hours, dress code,
breaks, vacation, etc.

Fringe benefits - The employees should

be offered health care plans (mediclaim),
benefits for the family members, employee help
programmes, etc.

Physical Working conditions - The

working conditions should be safe, clean and
hygienic. The work equipments should be
updated and well-maintained.

Status - The employees status within the

organization should be familiar and retained.

Interpersonal relations - The relationship

of the employees with his peers, superiors and
subordinates should be appropriate and
acceptable. There should be no conflict or
humiliation element present.

Job Security - The organization must

provide job security to the employees.

b. Motivational factors- According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors cannot be regarded

as motivators. The motivational factors yield positive satisfaction. These factors are
inherent to work. These factors motivate the employees for a superior performance.
These factors are called satisfiers. These are factors involved in performing the job.
Employees find these factors intrinsically rewarding. The motivators symbolized the
psychological needs that were perceived as an additional benefit. Motivational factors
include:

Recognition - The employees should be praised and recognized for their

accomplishments by the managers.

Sense of achievement - The employees must have a sense of achievement.

This depends on the job. There must be a fruit of some sort in the job.

Growth and promotional opportunities - There must be growth and

advancement opportunities in an organization to motivate the employees to
perform well.

Responsibility - The employees must hold themselves responsible for the

work. The managers should give them ownership of the work. They should
minimize control but retain accountability.

Meaningfulness of the work - The work itself should be meaningful,

interesting and challenging for the employee to perform and to get motivated.

Limitations of Two-Factor Theory

The two factor theory is not free from limitations:
1. The two-factor theory overlooks situational variables.
2. Herzberg assumed a correlation between satisfaction and productivity. But the
research conducted by Herzberg stressed upon satisfaction and ignored productivity.
3. The theorys reliability is uncertain. Analysis has to be made by the raters. The raters
may spoil the findings by analyzing same response in different manner.
4. No comprehensive measure of satisfaction was used. An employee may find his job
acceptable despite the fact that he may hate/object part of his job.
5. The two factor theory is not free from bias as it is based on the natural reaction of
employees when they are enquired the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction at
work. They will blame dissatisfaction on the external factors such as salary structure,
company policies and peer relationship. Also, the employees will give credit to
themselves for the satisfaction factor at work.
6. The theory ignores blue-collar workers. Despite these limitations, Herzbergs TwoFactor theory is acceptable broadly.

Implications of Two-Factor Theory

The Two-Factor theory implies that the managers must stress upon guaranteeing the
adequacy of the hygiene factors to avoid employee dissatisfaction. Also, the managers
must make sure that the work is stimulating and rewarding so that the employees are
motivated to work and perform harder and better. This theory emphasize upon jobenrichment so as to motivate the employees. The job must utilize the employees skills
and competencies to the maximum. Focusing on the motivational factors can improve
work-quality.

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Abraham Maslow is well renowned for proposing the Hierarchy of Needs Theory in 1943.
This theory is a classical depiction of human motivation. This theory is based on the
assumption that there is a hierarchy of five needs within each individual. The urgency of
these needs varies. These five needs are as follows1. Physiological needs- These are
the basic needs of air, water,
food, clothing and shelter. In
other words, physiological needs
are the needs for basic amenities
of life.
2. Safety needs- Safety needs
include physical, environmental
and emotional safety and
protection. For instance- Job
security, financial security,
protection from animals, family
security, health security, etc.
3. Social needs- Social needs
include the need for love,
affection, care, belongingness,
and friendship.
4. Esteem needs- Esteem needs
are of two types: internal esteem
needs (self- respect, confidence,
competence, achievement and
freedom) and external esteem
needs (recognition, power,
status, attention and admiration).
5. Self-actualization need- This
include the urge to become what
you are capable of becoming /
what you have the potential to
become. It includes the need for
growth and self-contentment. It
also includes desire for gaining
more knowledge, social- service,
creativity and being aesthetic.
The self- actualization needs are
never fully satiable. As an
individual grows
psychologically, opportunities
keep cropping up to continue
growing.

FI
GURE: Maslows Need Hierarchy Model

According to Maslow, individuals are

motivated by unsatisfied needs. As each
of these needs is significantly satisfied,
it drives and forces the next need to
emerge. Maslow grouped the five needs
into two categories - Higher-order
needs and Lower-order needs. The
physiological and the safety needs
constituted the lower-order needs. These
lower-order needs are mainly satisfied
externally. The social, esteem, and selfactualization needs constituted the
higher-order needs. These higher-order
needs are generally satisfied internally,
i.e., within an individual. Thus, we can
conclude that during boom period, the
employees lower-order needs are
significantly met.

Implications of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs Theory for Managers

As far as the physiological needs are concerned, the managers should give employees
appropriate salaries to purchase the basic necessities of life. Breaks and eating
opportunities should be given to employees.
As far as the safety needs are concerned, the managers should provide the employees
job security, safe and hygienic work environment, and retirement benefits so as to retain
them.
As far as social needs are concerned, the management should encourage teamwork and
organize social events.
As far as esteem needs are concerned, the managers can appreciate and reward
employees on accomplishing and exceeding their targets. The management can give the
deserved employee higher job rank / position in the organization.
As far as self-actualization needs are concerned, the managers can give the employees
challenging jobs in which the employees skills and competencies are fully utilized.
Moreover, growth opportunities can be given to them so that they can reach the peak.
The managers must identify the need level at which the employee is existing and then those
needs can be utilized as push for motivation.

Limitations of Maslows Theory

It is essential to note that not all employees are governed by same set of needs.
Different individuals may be driven by different needs at same point of time. It is
always the most powerful unsatisfied need that motivates an individual.

The theory is not empirically supported.

The theory is not applicable in case of starving artist as even if the artists basic needs
are not satisfied, he will still strive for recognition and achievement.

Maslows Need Hierarchy Model

Human behavior is goal-directed. Motivation cause goal-directed behaviour. It is through
motivation that needs can be handled and tackled purposely. This can be understood by
understanding the hierarchy of needs by manager. The needs of individual serves as a
driving force in human behaviour. Therefore, a manager must understand the hierarchy of
needs. Maslow has proposed The Need Hierarchy Model.

The needs have been classified into the following in order:

1. Physiological needs- These are the basic needs of an individual which includes food,
clothing, shelter, air, water, etc. These needs relate to the survival and maintenance of
human life.
2. Safety needs- These needs are also important for human beings. Everybody wants job
security, protection against danger, safety of property, etc.
3. Social needs- These needs emerge from society. Man is a social animal. These needs
become important. For example- love, affection, belongingness, friendship,
conversation, etc.
4. Esteem needs- These needs relate to desire for self-respect, recognition and respect
from others.
5. Self-actualization needs- These are the needs of the highest order and these needs are

found in those person whose previous four needs are satisfied. This will include need
for social service, meditation.