Read the attached article and answer the following quesitons:
- What was new or surprised you?
- What do you agree or disagree on?
- What in your own experience corresponds to what you read?
- What was the main takeaway?
- Should your peers read it or not? Why or why not?
THE PEOPLE MAKE THE PLACE PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 1987 40 THE PEOPLE MAKE THE PLACE BENJAMIN SCHNEIDER University of Maryland A framework for understanding the etiology of organizational behavior is presented. The framework is based on theory and research from interac- tional psychology, vocational psychology, I/ 0 psychology, and organiza- tional theory. The framework proposes that organizations are functions of the kinds of people they contain and, further, that the people there are functions of an attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) cycle. The ASA cycle is proposed as an alternative model for understanding organizations and the causes of the structures, processes, and technology of organizations. First, the ASA framework is developed through a series of propositions. Then some implications of the model are outlined, including (1) the dif- ficulty of bringing about change in organizations, (2) the utility of per- sonality and interest measures for understanding organizational behavior, (3) the genesis of organizational climate and culture, (4) the importance of recruitment, and (5) the need for person-based theories of leadership and job attitudes. It is concluded that contemporary I/O psychology is overly dominated by situationist theories of the behavior of organizations and the people in them. This talk is about people and places: about how the kinds of people in a place-a work organization, for example-come to define the way that place looks, feels, and behaves. My main thesis is that the attributes of people, not the nature of the external environment, or organizational technology, or organizational structure, are the fundamental determinants of organizational behavior. I will try to persuade you that we have been blind to the role of person effects as causes of organizational behavior because the fields of I/ 0 psychology and organizational behavior have been seduced into the belief that situations determine behavior (see also Schneider, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c; Schneider & Reichers, 1983; Staw & Ross, 1985). To convince you of the correctness of my thesis I need to draw on the- ories and findings from different areas of psychology, including personality theory, vocational psychology, and I/ 0 psychology. From personality the- ory some recent debates over whether behavior is situationally, personally, or interactionally caused will be summarized. From vocational psychology, This is a slightly modified form of my Presidential Address to the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, American Psychological Association Convention, Los Angeles, August, 1985. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Benjamin Schneider, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. COPYRIGHT @ 1987 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC 437 438 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY I will review some of the literature on vocational choice, including exten- sions of vocational choice theory and data for understanding organizational choice. Finally, from I/O psychology I will offer some new interpretations about the meaning of biodata prediction studies, the importance of research on turnover, and the importance of understanding the etiology of organi- zational goals for understanding organizational behavior. In following the ideas I present, you will have to think about how whole organizations look, feel and behave-your focus must shift from the individual to the organization as the unit of analysis. You must view organizations as situations containing patterned behaviors, as environments that are characterized by the coordinated activities of interdependent parts, including interdependent people (Barker, 1968; Schein, 1980). My basic thesis is that it is the people behaving in them that make organizations what they are. My thesis suggests that Kurt Lewin may have overstated the case when he hypothesized that behavior is a function of person and environment, that is, B = f(P, E). My thesis is that environments are function of persons behaving in them, that is, E = f ( P , B ) . Interactional Psychology Interactional psychology, a subfield of contemporary personality theory, grew out of debates in the late 1960s and early 1970s between Mischel (e.g., 1968, 1973) and Bowers (e.g., 1973), among others (cf. Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Pervin & Lewis, 1978). In a sense, the debate was long overdue. For almost 100 years more individual- or trait-oriented psychologists-including such diverse people as Freud and Raymond Cattell-had pursued their person-based theories of behavior while the situationists, following in the traditions of Watson and Skinner, focused on environmental determinants of behavior. Each group established itself as a community of scholars, and each camp estab- lished ground rules about issues of importance and the kinds of problems appropriate for investigation. Mischel (1 968) opened the door to overt criticism of one group by the other when he published his book, PersonaliQ and Assessment. The book was a work of clarity and persuasion, supporting the situationist position. The problem for personologists was that the book cast great aspersions on their camp. Mischel’s social behaviorist position argued, for example, that: Although it is evident that persons are the source from which human re- sponses are evoked, it is situational stimuli that evoke them, and it is changes in conditions that alter them. Since the assumption of massive behavioral similarity across diverse situations no longer is tenable, it becomes essential to study the difference in the behaviors of a given person as a function of the conditions in which they occur (1968, p. 295). BENJAMIN SCHNEIDER 439 In other words, situations cause behavior. Most of the criticisms of Mischel that followed were attacks on the extremeness of his social learning perspective. Some of the early critiques were neither as scholarly nor as persuasive as Mischel’s book. The paucity of effective rebuttal was solved by Bowers (1973), who, in one of the most insightful papers of the 1970s, presented the interactionist perspec- tive, My perspective, one influenced both by cognitive psychology and the developmental epistemology of Jean Piaget, argues for the inseparability of person and situation. While Bowers presented many sides of the in- teractionist perspective and many reasons why Mischel’s conclusions were suspect, his most telling argument concerned the data base Mischel drew on for his conclusions. Bowers showed that Mischel’s conclusion that sit- uations dominate traits and cause behavior was based almost exclusively on experimental studies conducted in laboratory settings. Bowers noted that one problem with laboratory experiments as a way of studying the relative contribution of traits and situations to behavior was that experimentalists play with experimental treatment conditions until the different conditions have their desired effects. To set up conditions to have an effect, and to then argue for the dominance of situations over traits, seemed to Bowers an unwarranted inferential leap. The problem here was that precisely when the laboratory study does what it should (i.e., demonstrates an effect) it presents enormous constraints on the display of individual differences, making it appear as if traits were irrelevant for understanding behavior. A second problem with laboratory experiments that Bowers noted was that the major feature of the experiment, random assignment of participants to treatments, violates a basic reality in understanding real-time human behavior-humans, at least in Western societies, are not randomly assigned to settings. Humans select themselves into and out of settings. Finally, Bowers presented some logic to suggest that persons cause hu- man environments at least as much as environments cause persons. What he meant by this was that persons are inseparable from environments be- cause environments only exist through the people behaving in them knowing them. In our own field, Weick (1979) has made a similar point. This logic suggests that it is the kinds of persons in environments who determine the kinds of human environments they are. This point becomes critical in what follows because Bowers’ and subsequent commentaries on the situationist position in personality research (cf. Aronoff & Wilson, 1985; Epstein & O’Brien, 1985) appear to be equally appropriate for ques- tioning the overwhelming tendency in contemporary I/ 0 psychology to assume that situational variables (groups, technology, structure, environ- ment) determine organizational behavior. 440 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY By way of summary, I offer the following propositions for what research and theory in interactional psychology has shown: Proposition 1: Experimental laboratories mask the display of individual dif- ferences. This method, then, is inappropriate for studying the relative con- tributions of traits and situations to understanding behavior. Proposition 2: People are not randomly assigned to real organizations; people select themselves into and out of real organizations. Proposition 3: People and human settings are inseparable; people are the setting because it is they who make the setting. I want to build on these propositions to offer an alternative to the situationist perspective in I/O psychology. My perspective rests on the idea that people are not randomly assigned to settings. It argues that it is the people who are attracted to, are selected by, and remain in a set- ting that determine the setting. As I will show, it follows from what I call the attraction-selection-attrition, or ASA, framework for understanding organizations that technology, structure, and the larger environment of or- ganizations are outcomes of, not the causes of, people and their behavior (Schneider, 1983b). The Attraction-Selection-Attrition Framework The focus, or level of analysis, of what follows is on the organization as a location for human activity; it is not on the individual. Thus, the review of interactional psychology yielded the idea that environments and people are not separable and that the people in an environment make it what it is. We are, then, unconcerned with the individual differences within an organization; our gaze shifts to understanding the differences between organizations through a focus on the attributes of people. I am going to show that it only looks like organizations determine behavior; it looks that way because we typically only study organizations after they have been in existence for a while (cf. Kimberly & Miles, 1980). When an organization has been in existence for a while it looks like the people there are behaving as they do because of its (seemingly) nonpersonal attributes. In reality the way it looks is a result of the people there behaving