ADEKUNLE AJASIN UNIVERSITY AKUNGBA-AKOKO, ONDO

STATE
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF PURE AND APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
COURSE TITLE: PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
COURSE CODE: PSY 403
LEVEL: 400
GROUP 5
QUESTION
A. WHAT IS ATTRIBUTION THEORY?

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR EXPLAINING PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT.
B. WHAT IS THE LINK BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND DECISION MAKING?
AND HOW DOES ONE AFFECT THE OTHER
NAMES MATRIC NUMBER
1. AGBOOLA JOSHUA AYODAMOLA 200504005
2. BABATUNDE HENRY 200504040
3. OGUNWUMI FIYINFOLUWA AYOMIDE 200504016
4. OGUNDARE SADIAT OPEYEMI 200504028

LECTURER IN CHARGE: PROF. O.A AFOLABI

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE i
TABLE OF CONTENT ii
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
 1.0 Definition of Attribution Theory 1
 1.1 Core Aspects of Attribution Theories 3
 1.2 Types of Attribution 4
 1.4 Significance of Attribution Theories 4
 1.5 Criticism of Attribution Theories 5
CHAPTER TWO 6
LITERATURE/THEORETICAL REVIEW 6
 2.0 HEIDER’S ATTRIBUTION THEORY 6
 2.1 KELLEY’S ATTRIBUTION THEORY 7

 2.2 WEINER’S ATTRIBUTIONAL THEORY 7

 2.3 Psychological Implication/Importance of Attribution Theory to Personnel

Management.

 2.4 Key Aspects of Attribution Theory 9

CHAPTER THREE 9
 3.0 LINK BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND DECISION MAKING. 13
 3.1 HOW DOES PERCEPTION AND DECISION-MAKING AFFECTS EACH 15
OTHER
 3.2 LITERATURE/THEORETICAL REVIEW 16

 3.3 Psychological Implications for Personnel Management 18

CHAPTER FOUR 24
CONCLUSION 24

CHAPTER FIVE 25

REFERENCES 25

2
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Definition of Attribution Theory
Attribution theories refer to a collection of psychological frameworks that describe how
individuals interpret and assign causes to events, behaviors, and outcomes. These theories aim to
explain the cognitive processes people use to determine whether the causes of behaviors or
events are internal (related to personal characteristics or traits) or external (related to
environmental or situational factors). Attribution theories help us understand how individuals
make sense of their own actions, the actions of others, and the events occurring around them.
Attribution theories provide a robust framework for understanding how people interpret
the causes of events and behaviors. These theories emphasize the importance of cognitive
processes in shaping human interactions, decision-making, and emotional responses. They are
widely applicable across psychology, education, organizational behavior, and interpersonal
relationships, offering valuable insights into human behavior.
Attribution Theory provides a framework for understanding how people explain the causes of
behavior and events. It helps to decipher whether individuals attribute actions to internal
dispositions or external circumstances. Attributions can be broadly categorized into several
types:
Internal vs. External Attributions:
 Internal Attributions: These are explanations based on an individual’s inherent
characteristics, such as personality traits, abilities, and efforts. For example, if a student
excels in an exam, an internal attribution might be their intelligence or diligent studying
habits.
 External Attributions: These are explanations that ascribe behavior to situational factors
outside the individual’s control, such as luck, other people’s actions, or the environment.
Using the same example, an external attribution for the student’s success might be an
exceptionally easy exam or effective teaching.

Stable vs. Unstable Attributions:

 Stable Attributions: These suggest that the cause of behavior is consistent and
unchanging over time. For instance, attributing a friend’s kindness to their personality
assumes they will always be kind.
 Unstable Attributions: These imply that the cause of behavior can vary over time and is
not consistent. For example, attributing someone’s irritability to a bad day at work
suggests it’s a temporary state rather than a permanent trait.
Controllable vs. Uncontrollable Attributions:
 Controllable Attributions: These imply that the individual had control over the situation
or outcome. For example, attributing a failed project to poor time management suggests
that better planning could have changed the outcome.

3
  Uncontrollable Attributions: These suggest that the individual had no control over the
situation or outcome. For example, if a project fails due to an unexpected power outage,
it’s seen as beyond the individual’s control.

Fritz Heider (1958), Heider's foundational work defines attribution as the process by
which individuals explain the causes of behavior and events, emphasizing that humans are "naïve
psychologists" who strive to understand their environment. According to Heider:
- People seek stability and predictability by attributing causes.
- Causes are categorized as internal (personal traits)
Bernard Weiner (1974, 1985), Weiner extended attribution theory into the domain of
motivation and achievement, defining attributions as the perceived causes of success or failure.
His work emphasizes:
- Attributions based on three dimensions: locus (internal vs. external), stability (changeable vs.
unchangeable), and controllability (within or beyond a person's control).
- These dimensions influence emotions, expectations, and future actions.
Harold Kelley (1967), Kelley introduced the covariation model, explaining that people attribute
causes based on patterns of consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus in behavior:
- Consistency: Does the behavior occur regularly in similar situations?
- Distinctiveness: Is the behavior unique to the situation?
- Consensus: Do others act similarly in the same context?
To grasp the fundamentals of Attribution Theory, it’s crucial to understand its core components
and types of attributions.

1.1 Core Aspects of Attribution Theories

 Causal Inference: Attribution theories explore how people identify the reasons behind
occurrences. For example, if someone is late to work, one might infer they were delayed
by traffic (external) or are generally disorganized (internal).
 Cognitive Processes: These theories focus on the mental processes involved in assigning
causes. People analyze patterns, compare behaviors, and assess situational factors to
make judgments about why something happened.
 Bias and Error: Attribution is not always objective. People's attributions are influenced
by biases, cultural norms, and emotional states, leading to errors such as the fundamental
attribution error or self-serving bias.
 Impact on Behavior and Relationships: Attributions significantly influence emotions,
decision-making, and interactions. For instance, attributing a friend's behavior to
selfishness rather than stress could damage the relationship.
or external (situational factors).

4
1.2 Types of Attribution
 Dispositional Attribution: Assigning the cause of behavior to internal traits or
characteristics (e.g., intelligence, personality).
 Situational Attribution: Attributing behavior to external factors (e.g., luck,
environment, circumstances).
 Fundamental Attribution Error: Overemphasizing internal causes while
underestimating external influences, especially when judging others’ behaviors.

1.3 Characteristics of Attribution Theories

 Human Tendency to Seek Causes: People have a natural inclination to seek explanations
for events and behaviors, driven by curiosity, need for control, and desire for
predictability.
 Influence of Culture: Individualistic cultures focus more on dispositional attributions,
while collectivist cultures emphasize situational factors.
 Emotional and Motivational Influences: Attributions are often influenced by emotional
states (e.g., anger or empathy) and personal motives, such as protecting self-image or
justifying actions.
1.4 Significance of Attribution Theories
 Understanding Behavior: Helps in comprehending why people behave as they do and
how they perceive others’ actions.
 Application in Real Life:
- In education, understanding attributions can motivate students to improve
performance by attributing failures to controllable factors.
- In organizations, managers use attribution theories to assess employee
performance and morale.
 In therapy, attribution theories help clients reframe negative self-perceptions and foster
healthier mindsets.
 Basis for Interpersonal Dynamics: The way we attribute causes to behaviors influences
relationships, trust, and conflict resolution.

1.5 Criticism of Attribution Theories

5
 Overemphasis on Cognition: Critics argue that attribution theories often ignore
emotional and unconscious factors that influence attributions.
 Simplistic Dichotomy: The internal-external distinction oversimplifies the complex
interplay of multiple causes.
 Cultural Bias: Theories, particularly those developed in Western contexts, may not
universally apply to collectivist societies.

CHAPTER TWO
6
 LITERATURE/THEORETICAL REVIEW
In this section, we summarize three theories of attribution. Heider’s ‘common-sense’
psychology is reviewed first because its tenets sowed the seeds for the second and third
variations of attribution theory: Kelley’s work on covariation and Weiner’s attributional theory.
Although there are multiple strands of attribution theory, we focus on these three theories
because they have been influential for organizational scholarship (Martinko, Harvey, &
Dasborough, 2011).

2.0 HEIDER’S ATTRIBUTION THEORY

The conception of attribution approaches is found in the work of Fritz Heider (1958), who
famously stated that individuals concoct common sense explanations of the world in order to
make sense of, predict, and control events. Heider suggested that a layperson’s explanations are
naïve, in that they are not scientifically conceptualized, analyzed, or tested. However, the process
by which individuals arrive at explanations for events is akin to the way in which scientists arrive
at explanations; that is, in a fairly logical and analytical manner. Heider’s most important thesis
is that perceived causality influences the perceiver’s responses and actions. He elaborated this
theory via several propositions, of which we summarize the most influential here. The first key
tenet of Heider’s work is the distinction between actions due to personal causes versus those that
are related to the environment. In other words, the attributions people make are dependent on
whether the locus of causality for the behavior or event is the person (internal), or the
environment (external), or both. Internal locus consists of both motivation and ability. For
instance, an employee might be late for work because he or she is unmotivated or lacks the
ability to arrive on time. However, motivation and ability are often insufficient; situational
(external) factors also influence attributions. For example, if the employee is late on a morning
with a blustery snowstorm, then arriving to work on time is a joint feature of the weather,
motivation and ability. The manager uses information about motivation, ability, and situational
factors to infer the cause of the event.

A second key proposition of Heider’s theory is the identification of certain “errors of

attribution” in how people make causal inferences. For instance, the fundamental attribution
error occurs when individuals focus on internal, rather than external factors to explain another
person’s behavior (Ross, 1977). Another error, called the actor-observer effect, describes the
propensity for actors to attribute their own actions to external causes (“I received a poor
performance appraisal rating because my manager is unfair”), while observers attribute the same
actions to internal features (“She received a poor performance appraisal rating because she is a
poor performer”; Jones & Nisbett, 1972). Finally, Heider described the self-serving bias, which
states that people attribute their own success to dispositional and internal factors, while external
and uncontrollable factors are used to explain the reasons for their failure (Miller & Ross, 1975).

2.1 KELLEY’S ATTRIBUTION THEORY

7
 Heider’s theory was further expanded by Kelley (1967, 1973) who wrote several
theoretical papers that drew attention to how individuals infer causes about a person’s behavior
or events. When a person has access to multiple instances of the same behavior or situation,
Kelley proposed that people employ a covariation principle to infer the causes. To illustrate this
theory, imagine that a manager is irritable. In trying to understand why the manager is irritable,
employees identify any potential causes for the irritability, and attribute the effect to the most
likely cause based on the information available to them. Kelley (1967) outlined three types of
covariation information that influence whether an observer attributes a person’s behavior to
internal or external causes. The first is distinctiveness, which refers to the extent to which a
person behaves in the same way across similar situations. If the manager is irritable at home and
at work (low distinctiveness), then an observer makes an internal attribution (e.g. the manager is
generally an irritable person). Observations of different people allow for judgements to be made
about the second type of covariation information, that is, consensus. If coworkers agree that the
manager is irritable (high consensus), they make an internal attribution. The third is consistency,
which refers to the extent to which a person behaves consistently over time. If the manager has
been frequently irritated in the past, observers make an internal attribution because, regardless of
the environment, the manager becomes irritable on a frequent basis. Different combinations of
information yield meaningful causal inferences about why an event occurred (see Fiske &
Taylor, 1991 for a review of these combinations). Whereas the above example illustrates how the
covariation principle explains attributions of an individual’s behavior, Kelley (1967) stated that
observers attribute an event or behavior to a stimulus or entity (such as HR practices) when
distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus are all high.

2.2 WEINER’S ATTRIBUTIONAL THEORY

The third, and final model of attribution that we review here is the work of Weiner
(1979), who explored attributions within domain-specific contexts, such as helping and
achievement, and is oftentimes termed an attributional theory (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Unlike
Heider and Kelley, who presented somewhat static attribution models, Weiner explained how
causal attributions influence future expectations, emotions, and performance. In his application
to an achievement context, Weiner maintained that people respond emotionally (negatively or
positively) to task success or failure based on the attributions that they make about the reasons
for behavior after an event occurs (Weiner, 2008). Weiner therefore extended Heider and
Kelley’s attribution theories by suggesting a temporal order for attributions, in that individuals
consider the reasons for behavior or actions after the event which brings dynamism to the theory,
in that these attributions can change over time according to the situation.

According to Weiner and colleagues, any task success or failure is followed by a search
for the cause of the outcome along three dimensions: locus of causality (as in Heider’s work),
8
stability, and controllability (Weiner, 1979; Weiner, Heckhausen, & Meyer, 1972). The stability
of the behavior echoes Kelley’s work yet it is more clearly articulated by Weiner to explain how
causal analysis is most informative when stable causes are identified (e.g. dispositions).
Controllability is also important because people do not make causal attributions solely to
understand why something happened, but also to control future events. Different combinations of
locus of causality, stability and controllability in an achievement context are associated with
attributions of ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. For example, an employee is likely to
make an ability attribution (“My pitch wasn’t good enough to make the sale”) when the cause of
the failure is seen as due to stable (“I am not a good salesperson”) and controllable (“I had the
resources necessary to make the sale”) factors (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

Together, Heider, Kelley and Weiner set down the theoretical foundations of attribution
theories. In the remainder of this paper, we draw on the key propositions as a basis to examine
the way the field of HR has leveraged attribution theories. We deliberately eschewed a graphical
illustration of how the different social psychological attribution theories fit together because we
concluded that doing so would blur the nuances of each strand of attribution theory. In his
description of the field, Weiner (2008, p. 154) stated that attribution theory is not a “central
forest fire on which many heap woods and brush” but rather that “the wind scattered the fire to
various locations, giving rise to numerous smaller pockets of flame. There were indeed paths
between these various bonfires, but nonetheless the fires remained separate, extinguished at
different rates, and left separate legacies…there are many attribution-based theories and
attribution is better characterized as a field of study rather than a theory.”

2.3 Psychological Implication/Importance of Attribution Theory to Personnel Management.

Attribution theory, developed by Fritz Heider in 1958 and later expanded by Harold
Kelley and Bernard Weiner, is a psychological framework that explains how individuals infer the
causes of their own and others' behaviours. In the context of personnel management, attribution
theory is important because it influences employees' motivation, performance, job satisfaction,
and interpersonal dynamics in the workplace. Understanding attribution processes can provide
valuable insights for managers in terms of how to assess, motivate, and lead employees
effectively.

Attribution theory has significant psychological implications for personnel management

because it shapes how employees perceive their own and others’ behaviours. By understanding
how attributions affect motivation, performance, and interpersonal dynamics, managers can
tailor their leadership and feedback to foster a more positive and productive work environment.
By being mindful of attribution biases and individual differences in attribution styles, managers
can promote fairness, reduce conflict, and increase employee satisfaction and retention.

9
2.4 Key Aspects of Attribution Theory

Attribution theory focuses on the ways individuals attribute causes to events and behaviours.
The primary distinction within the theory is between internal (dispositional) attributions and
external (situational) attributions:

 Internal Attribution: When an individual attributes an outcome to internal factors, such

as their own abilities, effort, or traits (e.g., "I failed because I am not good at this task").

 External Attribution: When an individual attributes an outcome to external factors, such

as luck, task difficulty, or other people’s behaviour (e.g., "I failed because the task was
too hard" or "I failed because my colleague didn’t help me").

The way that employees make attributions has profound psychological implications, which in
turn affect their behaviour and interaction with managers.

i. Employee Motivation and Performance

Attribution theory is crucial in understanding employee motivation. According to Weiner’s

Attributional Model of Motivation, the way people explain their successes or failures
influences their future motivation. This theory posits that employees' attributions to success or
failure (whether internal or external) can impact their future effort and persistence.

 Internal Attributions: If an employee attributes success to their own efforts or abilities,

they are more likely to feel competent and motivated. For instance, if an employee
believes that their hard work led to the completion of a challenging project, they are
likely to feel empowered and motivated to tackle future challenges (Weiner, 1985). This
attribution fosters an internal locus of control, which is linked to higher intrinsic
motivation and better performance (Rotter, 1966).

 External Attributions: If an employee attributes failure to external factors (such as a

difficult work environment or lack of resources), they are more likely to continue trying.
This is because they do not see the failure as a result of personal incompetence. However,
attributing success to external factors, such as luck, can undermine motivation, as
employees might believe that success is out of their control (Weiner, 1985).

ii. Performance Appraisal and Feedback

10
 Performance appraisals often involve feedback, and attribution theory can help guide how
managers interpret and respond to employee performance. Managers’ attributions about why an
employee succeeded or failed can impact the way feedback is delivered, and thus influence the
employee's future performance.

 Constructive Feedback: When managers attribute an employee's failure to external

factors (e.g., lack of training or poor communication), feedback can be framed as an
opportunity for growth rather than a sign of personal inadequacy. This approach aligns
with Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, which emphasizes self-efficacy and the
importance of believing in one's ability to overcome challenges (Bandura, 1986). For
instance, if an employee fails due to a lack of proper resources, a manager might frame
the feedback as an opportunity to develop new skills, thus maintaining the employee’s
motivation.

 Unconstructive Feedback: On the other hand, if a manager attributes failure to internal

factors, such as laziness or incompetence, this can negatively affect an employee’s self-
esteem and motivation, potentially leading to disengagement and reduced productivity
(DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). Research has shown that negative feedback that is perceived
as personal or unjust can lead to a decrease in job satisfaction and increase turnover
intentions (Feldman, 1993).

iii. Reducing Bias and Stereotyping

Attribution theory highlights the role of biases in interpreting behaviour. Managers may, at
times, make biased attributions about employees based on stereotypes, which can lead to
inaccurate assessments of performance and unfair treatment.

 Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE): One common bias is the fundamental

attribution error, where managers might attribute an employee's poor performance to
internal factors (such as laziness) rather than external factors (such as lack of resources or
insufficient training). This bias can lead to unfair evaluations and a failure to understand
the true causes of an employee's behaviour (Ross, 1977).

 Self-Serving Bias: Employees themselves may engage in self-serving biases, attributing

their successes to internal factors and failures to external factors. This can influence how
they perceive feedback from managers, and managers who are unaware of these biases
may misinterpret feedback or overlook underlying issues (Miller & Ross, 1975).

Training managers to recognize and account for these biases can result in more objective, fair,
and accurate appraisals, which contribute to a healthier work environment (Kelley, 1973).

iv. Employee-Centric Leadership

11
 Understanding attribution styles allows managers to be more empathetic and adaptable in
their leadership. By recognizing whether employees tend to make internal or external
attributions, managers can tailor their leadership approaches to meet individual needs.

 Internal Locus of Control: Employees with an internal locus of control (those who tend
to make internal attributions for success or failure) are more likely to appreciate
autonomy and responsibility. They often respond well to leadership that emphasizes
empowerment and self-direction (Rotter, 1966).

 External Locus of Control: Employees with an external locus of control (those who
attribute outcomes to external factors) might prefer more guidance, structure, and support
from their managers. These employees might benefit from leadership that focuses on
external rewards, clear expectations, and addressing external obstacles that hinder
performance (Spector, 1988).

v. Conflict Resolution and Team Dynamics

Attribution theory can be applied to conflict resolution, especially in team settings where
misunderstandings can arise due to differing attributions. For example, if one team member
attributes a delay to another person’s lack of effort, while the other attributes it to insufficient
resources, there is a risk of conflict.

 Promoting Empathy: By helping employees understand the attributions that others

make, managers can encourage empathy and collaboration. If team members recognize
that different people might interpret the same situation differently (e.g., one person sees a
lack of effort, while another sees a lack of resources), they may be more open to
discussion and compromise (Kelley, 1973).

 Clarifying Expectations: In cases of conflict, encouraging employees to discuss their

attributions openly can help clarify misunderstandings and foster a more collaborative
work environment. Managers can also help by identifying and addressing the root causes
of discrepancies in attributions, leading to more effective resolution (Thomas, 1992).

vi. Employee Retention and Organizational Commitment

Employees' attributions about their work outcomes also influence their commitment to the
organization. If employees attribute their success to their own efforts (internal attribution), they
are more likely to develop higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment
(Luthans, 2002).

12
 Internal Attribution and Retention: Employees who perceive their efforts as leading to
success are more likely to feel a sense of control and satisfaction in their work, which
contributes to a positive organizational commitment. This positive attribution encourages
persistence, reduces turnover, and enhances loyalty to the organization (Feldman, 1993).

 External Attribution and Retention: If employees feel that their success is primarily
due to external factors (e.g., the organization’s support or good luck), they might feel less
connected to their work and more likely to leave if conditions change (Weiner, 1985).

13
 CHAPTER THREE
3.0 LINK BETWEEN PERCEPTION AND DECISION MAKING.
Perception is the process of gathering, organizing, and interpreting of sensory
information in order to represent and understand the presented information or the environment.
Decision making is the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values,
performance, and beliefs of the decision maker.
Perception is also a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory
impressions in order to give meaning to their environment. The three major influences on social
perception are
(1) The person being perceived
(2) The particular situation
(3) The perceiver.
When taken together, these influences are the dimensions of the environment in which we view
other people.
Perception and decision-making are two interconnected psychological processes that play
a crucial role in how individuals interpret and respond to information in both personal and
professional contexts. Perception refers to the process by which individuals interpret and make
sense of sensory data from their environment, while decision-making involves the selection of a
course of action among various alternatives. Perception and decision-making are fundamental
psychological processes that significantly shape behavior, both in personal and professional
contexts. Perception involves the process by which individuals interpret sensory information
from the environment, transforming it into a coherent understanding of the world. In contrast,
decision-making is the cognitive process of selecting a course of action from several alternatives.
These two processes are intricately linked, as the way people perceive their environment directly
influences the decisions they make. Furthermore, the decisions made can alter one's perception
of future situations or experiences. Understanding the relationship between perception and
decision-making is critical for personnel management, where making informed, fair, and
efficient decisions is essential for organizational success. This research will explore the
connection between perception and decision-making, examine the theoretical foundations behind
their relationship, and discuss their psychological implications for personnel management. The
way a person perceives a situation heavily influences their decision-making process, and
conversely, the decisions made can alter one's perceptions of subsequent situations. In
organizational settings, understanding the link between perception and decision-making is
essential for effective personnel management, as it can affect employee performance, job
satisfaction, and organizational outcomes.
Perception and decision-making are foundational psychological processes that influence
human behavior in various contexts. Perception is the process by which individuals interpret
sensory input and make sense of the world around them, while decision-making involves
selecting among various courses of action based on available information. The two processes are
deeply intertwined, as the way individuals perceive a situation directly shapes their decision-
14
making strategies. Understanding the intricate relationship between perception and decision-
making is essential for enhancing practices in fields such as personnel management, where
decisions about hiring, employee development, and conflict resolution directly affect
organizational success.

Decision making occurs as a reaction to a problem. That is, a discrepancy exists between
the current state of affairs and some desired state, requiring us to consider alternative courses of
action. Individuals make decisions, choices from among two or more alternatives. Ideally,
decision making would be an objective process, but the way individuals make decisions and the
quality of their choices are largely influenced by their PERCEPTIONS. Individual decision
making is an important factor of behaviour at all levels of an organization. Decision making
occurs as a reaction to a perceived problem Perception influence: • Awareness that a problem
exists
• The interpretation and evaluation of information
• Bias of analysis and conclusion
Every individual face a point where he expected to make an important decision from
Avast array of alternatives. An individual is required to go through all the alternatives and make
a rational decision. But people cannot process all the information and scrutinize every single
problem. As a result, they make a habit deciding on the basis of perception so we can argue that
there is a link between perception and decision making.

Perception affects our decision-making process because in order to make an accurate

decision, you need to think properly if this one will work or not.
One may also ask; what factors influence our perception? Personal characteristics that affect
perception include a person’s attitudes, personality, motives, interests, past experiences, and
expectations. There are some factors that influence the target such as- novelty, motion, sounds,
size, background, proximity, similarity, etc
Organizational excellence is about accurate decision making. Consequences from decisions can
make or break a company. Perception plays a vital role in the decision-making process.
Therefore, decision makers often use perception to create, evaluate, and choose decision options.
Perception plays a very important role in the choices individuals make. People make decisions
every day, every hour and every minute based on the perceptions they interpret. Perception can
cause several people to make wrong choices based on false information. In an organization
incorrect decisions can cause a great deal of negative effects.
Our perceptions can shape ethical and moral decisions if we first, analyse the situation. Adjust
our decision-making style to the national culture in which one is operating in and to the criteria
of organization evaluates and rewards.

15
3.1 HOW DOES PERCEPTION AND DECISION MAKING AFFECTS EACH OTHER
People’s behaviour is based on their perception of what reality is, not on reality itself, it is
possible that two persons can see the same thing and interpret it differently.
Based on the above, the following are some factors that affect perception and hence, it affects
decision making process:
 Selective Perception: People selectively interpret what they see on the basis of their
interest, background, experience, and attitudes. This factor allow people to speed-read
others but not without the risk of drawing an in accurate picture. Hence, people’s decision
will be impaired by wrong perception.
 Halo (Horns) Effect: People are drawing a general impression about an individual on the
basis of a single characteristic. This will negatively affect their decisions.
 Contrast Effects: It is evaluations of a person’s characteristics that are affected by
comparisons with other people recently encountered who rank higher or lower on the
same characteristics. This factor also affects decisions quality.
 Stereotyping: It is judging someone on the basis of one’s perception of the group to
which that person belongs. People rely on generalizations ever day because they help
them make decisions quickly. They are a means simplifying a complex world. This will
affect decision making process
 Rationality: People are usually content to find an acceptable or reasonable solution to a
problem rather than an optimal one. The process of making decisions using rationality
rather than a defined prescriptive model in not effective enough in taking the best
decision
 Intuitive Decision Making: Intuition is often used when there is a high level of
uncertainty, there is little precedent to go on, when the variable in question are less
predictable, when facts are limited, these facts don’t lead you in one particular direction,
data is of little use, when there are several plausible choices, and there is time pressure. It
may be used in decision making process when all given factors are ambiguous.
 Overconfidence Bias: We tend to be overly optimistic especially when our intellect and
interpersonal abilities are low. This wrong perception will lead to wrong decisions
 Anchoring Bias: It is the tendency to focus on initial information as a starting point. This
occurs because Raour mind appears to a disproportionate amount of emphasis to the first
information it receives. This results in not to take the optimal decisions.
 Confirmation Bias: We tend to selectively seek out information that reaffirms our past
choices and we discount information that contradicts our past judgments. This could
happen even it we are not sure that this is the optimal choice.
 Gender: Women tend to analyse decisions more than men. Women tend to analyse a
decision prior to and after the fact. This difference in length of thinking in problems will
lead to more accuracy in making decisions as well as much time consumed for taking a
decision by women.
3.2 LITERATURE/THEORETICAL REVIEW
16
1. Cognitive Bias and Heuristics in Decision Making

Research on decision-making reveals that people often rely on mental shortcuts, known
as heuristics, to make quick decisions in the face of uncertainty. While heuristics can simplify
decision-making, they can also lead to cognitive biases. Kahneman and Tversky’s Prospect
Theory (1979) suggests that individuals evaluate potential losses and gains asymmetrically,
giving more weight to losses, which can skew decisions. Their work laid the foundation for
understanding how biased perceptions influence economic and personal decision-making. In
addition, the Anchoring Effect (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) shows that individuals anchor their
decisions to initial information, even if it is irrelevant, influencing how they perceive subsequent
data. The Availability Heuristic, another concept developed by Tversky and Kahneman (1973),
refers to the tendency to judge the probability of an event based on how easily examples come to
mind. This can distort perception and influence decisions, especially in high-stress or fast-paced
situations where immediate recall outweighs analytical reasoning.

2. Dual-Process Theory of Decision Making

The Dual-Process Theory (Evans, 2008) posits that decision-making occurs through two
systems: System 1 (intuitive and fast) and System 2 (analytical and slow). Perception heavily
influences System 1, as individuals rely on gut feelings and instincts shaped by previous
experiences. In contrast, System 2 is engaged when more complex, deliberative decisions are
required. These two systems often work together, but the intuitive nature of System 1 makes
decision-making heavily reliant on perceived information rather than objective analysis.

3.Perception and Risk-Taking in Decision-Making

Perception plays a pivotal role in how individuals assess risk. According to the Risk
Perception Theory (Slovic, 1987), people’s perceptions of risk are not always aligned with
objective risk. Emotional factors, such as fear or overconfidence, can influence how risks are
perceived, leading to risk-averse or risk-seeking behaviors. This is crucial in organizational
settings, where managers' perception of risk can affect decision-making about investments,
product launches, or hiring decisions.

4. Social and Cultural Factors in Perception and Decision-Making

17
 Perception is also shaped by social and cultural contexts, which influence how
individuals approach decision-making. Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory (1980)
emphasizes that cultures vary in their perception of authority, risk, and individualism, which
significantly impacts organizational decision-making. For instance, collectivist cultures may
prioritize group harmony in decision-making, whereas individualist cultures may focus more on
individual achievement. These cultural differences affect not only how decisions are made but
also how they are perceived within the organization. Furthermore, Social Identity Theory (Tajfel
& Turner, 1979) shows how group affiliations can affect decision-making by shaping
perceptions of in-group and out-group members. For example, a manager’s perception of an
employee’s competence may be influenced by the employee’s group membership (e.g.,
department, gender, ethnicity), leading to biased decision-making.

5. The Role of Emotional Perception in Decision Making

Emotional perception plays a critical role in decision-making. The Somatic Marker

Hypothesis (Damasio, 1996) proposes that emotions influence decision-making by serving as
internal markers that guide choices based on past experiences. Emotional perceptions of
situations, such as stress or excitement, can alter how individuals process information, leading to
decisions that may not align with logical or optimal outcomes.

6. Perception and Organizational Behavior

In organizational settings, perception significantly influences managerial decision-

making. According to the Attribution Theory (Heider, 1958), managers’ perceptions of employee
behavior can shape their attributions about causes (internal vs. external) and influence decisions
regarding performance reviews, promotions, or disciplinary actions. Misattributions, such as
assuming an employee's poor performance is due to laziness rather than external factors like lack
of resources, can lead to ineffective management decisions.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) demonstrates how a

manager's perception of an employee can influence that employee's actual performance. If a
manager believes an employee is incompetent, they may treat them with less regard, leading the
employee to perform poorly. This reinforces the initial perception, creating a cycle that impacts
decision-making.

3.3 Psychological Implications for Personnel Management

18
 The link between perception and decision-making plays a critical role in personnel
management, as it influences how managers, leaders, and employees view and interpret
situations, which in turn shapes their decisions and actions. Psychological theories and research
suggest that perception — the process by which individuals interpret and make sense of
information from their environment — can significantly affect the decisions made within an
organization, especially in areas like leadership, recruitment, employee relations, performance
evaluations, and conflict resolution.

1. Perception and Decision-Making in Personnel Management

In the context of personnel management, decision-making is often a complex process that

involves analysing multiple sources of information, interpreting them correctly, and using that
information to make informed choices. However, perception is inherently subjective, and it is
shaped by a variety of psychological factors such as cognitive biases, prior experiences,
emotions, and individual differences.

When it comes to decision-making, managers and HR professionals are influenced by their

perceptions of employees’ abilities, motivations, and behaviours. These perceptions can shape
decisions related to hiring, promotions, assignments, and even disciplinary actions.

For example, if a manager has a positive perception of an employee's work ethic, they might be
more inclined to give that person a promotion or a special project. Conversely, if an employee is
perceived negatively due to biases or inaccurate assumptions, this may lead to unjust evaluations
or missed opportunities.

2. Cognitive Biases and Their Impact on Personnel Decisions

Several cognitive biases can affect the perception and decision-making processes in
personnel management. Some of the most common biases include:

 Confirmation Bias: This occurs when individuals focus on information that confirms
their existing beliefs or expectations while ignoring contradictory information. In
personnel management, this could lead to a manager overlooking a high-performing
employee if they have already formed a negative perception of that person based on prior
interactions.

 Halo Effect: When a manager’s perception of an employee is influenced by one positive

attribute or behaviour, it can lead to inflated judgments of their overall performance. For
example, if an employee excels in communication, a manager might assume they are
competent in other areas as well, even without evidence.

19
  Stereotyping: Managers might base their decisions on generalized assumptions about an
individual based on their gender, age, race, or other demographic factors. This can lead to
unfair treatment and missed opportunities for diverse employees.

 Attribution Bias: This happens when people attribute success to internal factors (like
personal abilities) and failures to external factors (like bad luck or circumstances). In
personnel management, this can affect how managers view employee performance,
affecting decisions related to rewards, promotions, or disciplinary actions.

3. Perception and Organizational Culture

The way employees and managers perceive the organizational culture also influences
decision-making. A culture that encourages openness, transparency, and inclusivity often results
in more objective decision-making. In contrast, a culture marked by secrecy or hierarchy may
distort perception, leading to more subjective or biased decisions. For instance, in a culture that
fosters collaboration and inclusivity, managers may be more likely to recognize the contributions
of all team members, leading to fairer decisions regarding promotions or raises. In contrast, in a
culture that values top-down decision-making, employees may feel less valued, and their work
could be overlooked due to misperceptions about their contributions.

4. The Role of Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one's own
emotions as well as the emotions of others. In personnel management, EI is particularly
important because it allows managers to perceive situations more accurately and make better
decisions. For example, a manager with high EI might be more attuned to the emotional needs of
their employees and better able to resolve conflicts, offer support, or make fair decisions that
take into account the feelings and perspectives of others.

Managers with strong EI are also less likely to be swayed by negative emotions or snap
judgments that might cloud their decision-making. Instead, they are more likely to make
decisions based on a rational analysis of the situation, which can lead to more effective personnel
management.

5. Impact on Employee Motivation and Engagement

20
 The way in which decisions are made based on perceptions can also significantly impact
employee motivation and engagement. When employees feel that their contributions are
recognized and their potential is accurately perceived, they are more likely to be motivated and
engaged. On the other hand, when employees feel that their abilities are misunderstood or
unfairly judged, it can lead to demotivation, disengagement, and increased turnover.

For example, if a manager consistently perceives an employee as underperforming despite

evidence to the contrary, that employee may begin to feel undervalued and lose trust in the
organization’s decision-making processes. On the other hand, when employees feel that their
work is seen and appreciated, it fosters a sense of belonging and motivation, ultimately
benefiting organizational success.

6. Effective Training and Awareness

Given the importance of perception in decision-making, organizations should invest in

training programs that help managers become more aware of their biases and improve their
decision-making processes. These programs can teach managers how to identify and mitigate
cognitive biases, develop emotional intelligence, and approach personnel decisions in a more
objective and fair manner. Additionally, personnel managers should be encouraged to seek
diverse perspectives, gather objective performance data, and involve others in decision-making
to reduce the risk of biased perceptions influencing critical personnel decision

7. Key Psychological Theories in Personnel Management

Several psychological theories provide insight into the link between perception and decision-
making in personnel management:

 Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957): This theory suggests that when
individuals perceive a discrepancy between their beliefs and actions, they experience
psychological discomfort (dissonance), which they are motivated to resolve. In personnel
management, cognitive dissonance can occur when a manager’s perceptions of an
employee’s behaviour conflict with their actions (e.g., promoting someone they perceive
as unqualified). Managers may then alter their perception of the employee’s capabilities
to resolve this dissonance.

 Social Perception Theory: This theory focuses on how individuals form impressions of
others, including the attribution of motives and intentions. In personnel management, this
theory helps explain how managers develop impressions of employees, which affect
decisions about promotions, performance evaluations, and career development.

 Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory: This theory emphasizes the importance of job

satisfaction and motivation. It suggests that perceptions of hygiene factors (e.g., salary,
working conditions) and motivators (e.g., recognition, career advancement) influence
21
 employee attitudes and behaviour. Personnel decisions based on these perceptions can
affect employee motivation, satisfaction, and performance.

1. Hiring and Selection

Perceptions of candidates' qualifications, demeanor, and cultural fit often guide hiring
decisions. However, unconscious biases (e.g., gender, race, or age biases) can skew perceptions
and result in discriminatory hiring practices. Research by Banaji, Bazerman, & Chugh (2003) on
implicit bias highlights that even well-intentioned managers may unknowingly favor certain
candidates based on biases embedded in their perceptions, leading to suboptimal decisions.

2. Performance Evaluation and Feedback

Managers' perceptions of employee performance, influenced by factors like recent behavior or

personal relationships, can lead to biased performance evaluations. The Halo Effect (Thorndike,
1920) occurs when a manager’s overall positive or negative impression of an employee distorts
their evaluation of specific job-related behaviors, potentially affecting compensation,
promotions, and development opportunities

3. Conflict Resolution

Perceptions of conflict within an organization can determine how disputes are handled. If a
manager perceives a conflict as a personal attack, they may adopt a confrontational or defensive
stance, worsening the situation. Conversely, if the conflict is seen as an opportunity for growth or
collaboration, the decision-making process will be more constructive. Understanding these
perceptions allows managers to adopt more effective conflict resolution strategies.

4.Employee Motivation and Engagement

Perceptions of fairness and equity in decision-making directly influence employee

motivation and engagement. Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) suggests that employees are
motivated by the perceived fairness of decisions regarding workload distribution, rewards, and
recognition. Perceptions of injustice or favoritism can demotivate employees and lead to higher
turnover rates. Ensuring that decision-making is transparent and based on objective criteria helps
foster trust and commitment among employees. The link between perception and decision-
making is fundamental to understanding human behavior in organizational settings. Cognitive
biases, heuristics, cultural influences, and emotional factors all shape how decisions are made
and how situations are perceived.

CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION

22
 In conclusion, the psychological implications of the link between perception and
decision-making in personnel management are profound. Perception shapes how managers and
employees interpret workplace situations, impacting decisions in recruitment, promotions,
evaluations, and conflict resolution. Managers need to be aware of the biases and perceptual
distortions that can affect their decision-making, and organizations should provide training to
improve decision-making processes. Ultimately, by fostering accurate perceptions and making
informed decisions, organizations can enhance employee satisfaction, motivation, and overall
organizational effectiveness. The balance between perception and decision-making is a delicate
one, and improving it is an ongoing process in effective personnel management. The link
between perception and decision making is complex and bidirectional. Perception influences
decision making by shaping our evaluation of information, options, and outcomes. Conversely,
decision making affects perception by influencing our subsequent thoughts, emotions, and
experiences.
By recognizing the interplay between perception and decision making, we can take steps
to improve our decision-making abilities, become more aware of our biases and assumptions,
and develop more effective strategies for navigating complex situations. The Link Between
Perception and Decision-Making Perception and decision-making are closely interconnected
processes that significantly influence human behavior and outcomes in personal and professional
contexts. Perception refers to the way individuals interpret sensory information and construct
meaning from their environment. Decision-making, on the other hand, involves selecting a
course of action among several alternatives based on available information. The relationship
between the two is cyclical: perception influences decision-making, while decisions, in turn,
shape future perceptions.

Perception and decision-making are deeply intertwined processes that mutually shape one
another. Perception acts as the lens through which individuals interpret their environment,
providing the foundation for decisions. At the same time, decisions validate or challenge these
perceptions, influencing future interpretations and actions. This relationship is dynamic and
subject to the influence of cognitive biases, emotional states, experiences, and social contexts.

Understanding this link is crucial for improving decision-making quality in various

domains. By recognizing the biases and errors inherent in perception, individuals can adopt
strategies to make more informed and objective decisions. Conversely, reflecting on the
outcomes of decisions allows individuals to refine their perceptions over time, fostering growth
and adaptability. In essence, perception and decision-making operate in a feedback loop that
underpins human behavior and interaction, emphasizing the importance of mindfulness and
critical thinking in navigating complex situations. Perception and decision-making are closely
interconnected processes that significantly influence human behavior and outcomes in personal
and professional contexts. Perception refers to the way individuals interpret sensory information
and construct meaning from their environment. Decision-making, on the other hand, involves

23
selecting a course of action among several alternatives based on available information. The
relationship between the two is cyclical: perception influences decision-making, while decisions,
in turn, shape future perceptions.

CHAPTER FIVE

24
 REFERENCES
 Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). Academic Press.
 Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003). How (un) ethical are you? Harvard
Business Review, 81(12), 56-64.
 Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the
prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 351(1346), 1413-1420.
 Evans, J. (2008). Dual-processes in reasoning and judgment: The role of heuristics.
Thinking and Reasoning, 14(4), 457-473.
 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Sage.
 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under
risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
 Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation
and pupil intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
 Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).
Brooks/Cole.
 Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 4(1), 25-29.
 Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley.
 Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, 15, 192-238.
 Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. Springer-Verlag.
 Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the
attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). Academic Press.
 Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of
Social Judgment. Prentice-Hall.
 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
 Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact
or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213-225.
 Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Plenum Press.

25
 Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric
bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 13(3), 279-301.
 Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many
Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
 Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley.
 Kelly, H. H. (1973). The Processes of Causal Attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2),
107–128.
 Weiner, B. (1985). An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.
 Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2002). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.
CPP.
 Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1973). How to Choose a Leadership Pattern.
Harvard Business Review.
 Robinson, D. (2010). Perception and Decision Making in Organizational Settings.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 31(6), 897-915.
 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
 Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
 Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2017). Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. Sage
Publications.
 Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. World Publishing Company.
 Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
 Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and Customer Perceptions of Service
in Banks: Replication and Extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 423-433.
 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
 Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-Efficacy and Work-Related Performance: A
Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.
 Baron, R. A. (2008). Psychology of Organizational Behaviour: A Guide for
Practitioners. Pearson Education.

26
27