Interpersonal Perceptions Within Organizations - An Exploratory Study

An Exploratory Study

Hardeep Anant*

Perceptions play an important role in the process of interpersonalcommunications within organizations. It is postulated that anindividual’s perceptions lead to behavior and that behavior in turn affectsperceptions. Researchers state that perception is an internal process thatresults from the interplay between the perceiver, the target and thesituation. It is also believed that interpersonal perception (when peoplejudge each other during an interaction) happens pretty quickly and istherefore riddled with errors and biases. We undertook an elaborateexploratory study of interpersonal communications within selectedorganizations in India with the aim of investigating the effectiveness ofinterpersonal communications within organizations. The study alsoinvolved a detailed investigation of the interpersonal perceptions ofemployees within the organizations. This paper focuses on the prevalenceof stereotyping and other perceptual biases in interpersonalcommunication within organizations as revealed from the research. Thefindings are intriguing. While some findings are in accordance withestablished theories of interpersonal perception, others provide newinsights and possible themes for further research.

Introduction

The importance of studying interpersonal perceptions had been emphasized bynumerous experts time and again. A lot of research has already been conducted on thesubject and numerous theories have been postulated over the years. Most of the theoriesprovide intriguing insights into the manner in which people perceive each other andbuild interpersonal relationships. However, most of the research has been conductedin the West and there are few Indian endeavors that add to the existing knowledge inthe field. Before accepting Western concepts, it is important to validate them in theIndian context because culture has a significant impact on the process of interpersonalcommunication. The culture of the society as well as that of the organization significantlyimpacts how employees communicate and build relationships. The consequentgeneration of meaning influences the manner in which employees perceive organizational

*Business Lecturer, Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA), Government of Dubai,Dubai, UAE. E-mail: Hardeep.Anant@nive.gov.ae© 2010 IUP34. All Rights Reserved.The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. IV, No. 4, 2010realities and react to them. These perceptions, in turn, impact the organization’s cultureand effectiveness. Therefore, it is imperative that we carefully study interpersonalperceptions within organizations in India so that we can design strategies and tools toenhance the interpersonal effectiveness of our employees. This will help build better andmore effective teams and will also help enhance the overall organizational effectiveness.Consequently, the competitiveness of Indian organizations will be enhanced. Betterinterpersonal relationships will also mean efficient conflict resolution and better jobsatisfaction for employees (Herzberg et al., 1959; and Herzberg, 1987).

Overview

During our study of interpersonal communication we found that many factors, besidesmessage content, affect comprehension (or the generation of meaning). We also foundthat communications within organizations were plagued by semantic errors typical ofa bilingual work force.

It is generally believed that trust and openness enhance the quality of interpersonalrelations; but, surprisingly, we found that though openness had a relation with thequality of interpersonal relationships within organizations, it was not a major predictorof it. Therefore, it seems that more meaning is drawn from factors other than the languageused or the information explicitly provided in the message. We also found that muchimportance is given to the perception of who the other participant in the interactionis. Therefore, it seems that most people are biased in their interpersonal perceptionsand that stereotyping and other perceptual biases are common within organizations.There was another interesting finding of the research: we found a significant relationshipbetween people’s perceptions of their own abilities as communicators and how effectivethey perceive others in the organization to be. Thus, it seems that the perception ofthe ‘self’ is to some extent mirrored in the perception of the ‘other’. In this paper, wereport our findings on perceptual biases that affect interpersonal communication withinorganizations.

Objectives

•To study whether stereotyping is prevalent within organizations.•To study whether self-serving biases are common within organizations.•To study the importance people accord to first impressions.

•To study the importance accorded to rank, physical characteristics andphysical appearance within organizations.•To study whether people’s perceptions of their ‘selves’ affects how theyperceive ‘others’ in the organization.

Data Collection and Methodology

An elaborate questionnaire was prepared to collect data from randomly selectedemployees working across different levels in 10 of India’s top service sector

Interpersonal Perceptions Within Organizations: An Exploratory Study

35

organizations. Being large organizations they provided an excellent opportunity toconduct the said research. The sample size of 368 was randomly drawn from theorganizations. The data collected was tabulated and analyzed using relevant statisticaltests like Chi-square test and Regression analysis.

The findings reported in this paper were reported in Chapter 4 of the doctoral thesis(successfully defended) submitted to the Faculty of Business Management andCommerce, Panjab University, India, in 2007.

Theoretical Background

Perception is defined as the process by which the brain receives sensory inputs fromthe environment and assigns meaning to them(Robbins, 1998, pp. 94-96). Perceptionand cognition are important factors affecting interpersonal communication and warrantsome discussion before we report our findings.

While the Gestaltists emphasized that perception was essentially a result of innateor inborn processes, Humanists viewed it as a result of learning; emphasizing that wewere actually taught to perceive things in particular ways (Jolyon, 2005).

According to Jolyon (2005), perception is, “the process whereby sensory stimulationis translated into organized experience. That experience, or percept, is the joint productof the stimulation and of the process itself”. Thus, if it is the ‘joint product’ of thestimulation (external) and the process (internal) then there can be no accurate perceptionwhich captures the true elements of the object being perceived. Thus, the perceiver’sown characteristics get merged with those of the object, which means that whateverone perceives is at least partially influenced by one’s personality. Further, perceiversare not always in the same state of mind. That is, their moods, feelings and emotionsare constantly changing and can range from extreme negative to extreme positive.Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that nobody would be consistent in theirsubsequent perception of even the same objector person. Research has also establishedthat the perceiver instinctively tries to maintain psychological and physical equilibriumby altering his perceptions (Festinger, 1957).

Perceptions are influenced not only by the perceiver but by the target and the situationtoo (Robbins, 1998, pp. 94-96 and 99-100). Another interesting aspect of perceptionis that our manner of perceiving people is quite different from the way we perceiveobjects. While perceiving objects we do not make qualitative judgments (beyond a certainlevel) about their properties. For example, while perceiving a chair we may just observeits structure, color or other visible properties. If we want to buy it we may also siton it and see how comfortable it feels. However, we will not doubt that it is an officechair, or an arm chair, if it appears to be one. But, while judging people, seldom dowe accept what is presented. We wonder about the internal state of the target’s mind.While forming our opinions, we use a lot of information which does not emanate fromthe target. This means that people are exposed to an elaborate process of judgment whichis not invoked while judging objects. Thus, person perception involves deeper cognitive

36

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. IV, No. 4, 2010

evaluation, but we need to do it pretty quickly so that we can determine appropriateresponses to the person in real time. There are numerous shortcuts that we use toachieve this. Some are discussed in the following paragraph.

Just as we observe and judge others we are continuously involved in observing andjudging ourselves. We may even use our ‘selves’ as a standard against which we compareand evaluate others (Durkhim, 17; and Durkhim Emile, 2005). Our behavior is amanifestation of mental processes and results from who we think we are. But manytimes the behavior precedes the conscious thoughts or feelings. This is when we relyon our perception of the behavior to evaluate ourselves. Thus, we may redefine ourconcept of ‘self’ on the basis of the exhibited behavior. For example, we may have reactednegatively to something or somebody just because others in the environment were doingso. Having reacted thus, we may now conclude that since we expressed our oppositionwe must really hate this person or thing. Similarly, we may falsely define our likes.Thus, our perception may lead to behavior which in turn may affect our perceptionleading to formation or modification of attitudes. We may end up believing the thingswe say rather than saying the things we truly believe.

Attribution Theory

Further, according to attribution theory (Heider, 1958), while judging others, we tryto determine whether their behavior is a result of intrinsic factors or extrinsic. Thereis evidence that when we assign causality to the behavior of other people, weunderestimate the influence of external factors, but when we evaluate our ownbehavior, we overestimate their influence. This is called the ‘fundamental error ofattribution’ (Robbins, 1998, pp. 94-96) and explains why bosses are likely to perceivetheir subordinates as incompetent or callous when they observe poor performance;however, they are likely to assign external causality (like market conditions, incapablesubordinates or competitor activity) to their own poor performance. Further, we allhave a tendency to perceive our ‘selves’ in better light than we do others (self-servingbias). For example, we generally believe that we lie less than others in our societyor that we are better people than others. We assign internal causes to our successesand external causes to our failures. Thus, if we get promoted it is because of ourefforts or capabilities, but if a rival beats us to it, then may be the boss is biased orthe colleague is just plain lucky.

Going back to the Gestalt psychologists (who believed that an entity is more thanthe sum of its parts), it seems that while adopting perceptual shortcuts we reveal thatwe always perceive an entity to be more or less than the sum of its parts. As alreadydiscussed, we are constantly involved in judging others. Which means that we eitheramplify what we see or abridge it in order to suit our needs. Not only may we addor subtract from the target, but we may also alter the qualities to such an extent thatwe end up with a perception which is far removed from the true nature of the target.To sum up, it seems that our perceptions and cognitions are an attempt to fulfill someinternal need rather than an attempt to form an accurate image of reality in our minds.

Interpersonal Perceptions Within Organizations: An Exploratory Study

37

“…each of us learns to perceive the environment in ways that fit our interests andneeds.” (Buskist and Gerbing, 1990).

The following are some other shortcuts that we use while judging others.

Selective Perception

At times our perception is affected by our interests or likes and dislikes. Weunconsciously perceive only the qualities that we want to see in others. For example,if a woman is attracted to a man, then she may perceive only his positive qualities andblock any negative information. In this way, she chooses to accept or reject theinformation received on the basis of her own interests and desires.

Stereotyping

This is another common error of perception when we assign a characteristic ora set of characteristics to an entire class or group of people. Though gender andethnic stereotyping are common, these can have potentially tragic consequences.In a study conducted by Jeffery et al. (1974), parents, especially fathers, showedsex-typing even when describing their newborn babies. This shows that sex-roleidentities and expectations are communicated right from the time of the child’sbirth (Jeffery et al., 1974).

Not only this, girls and boys are treated differently, and in fact the same behaviorof boys and girls is interpreted differently by the parents. “Thus, the chancecharacteristic of an infant’s sex leads to labeling and differential behavior by its parents,and eventually to a child’s own perception of what it means to be a boy or a girl—a perception that the child, when it grows up, will probably transmit to its ownoffspring” (Raven and Rubin, 1976).

If this is the impact of sex-typing in Western societies, then what must be the situationin India where there is a pathological preference for the male child. A predominantlypatriarchal mindset particularly puts women at a disadvantage and we can expect genderstereotyping to be very common. Thus, interpersonal relations between the sexes arelikely to be affected.

Roles and Perception

Within organizations, a person’s role is likely to impact how she is perceived byothers, as seen from the effects of status on perception. Not only this, a person’srole is also likely to influence how she perceives a situation. A role is defined asthe expected behavior from a person of a particular social status or rank within thegroup (Form, 2005).

A target’s status, which is a single factor, can lead us to diminish or exaggerate otherunrelated characteristics. For example, in an experiment conducted by Paul R Wilsonin 1968, a ‘confederate’ was introduced to five different groups of students. He was

38

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. IV, No. 4, 2010

introduced as Professor of Psychology at Cambridge University, to one group. To another,he was introduced as a senior lecturer (lower rank), and to the third, as a lecturer.To the fourth and fifth, he was introduced as a demonstrator and as a studentrespectively. Having met him, the students in each group were asked to estimate hisheight as well as the height of the class lecturer who had been introduced as such toeach of the five groups. Interestingly, the students rated the professor to be 2½ inchestaller than the student (Raven and Rubin, 1976). In another study, in 1936, Irving Lorgepresented the following statement to different groups of American subjects. “I hold itthat a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the politicalworld as storms are in the physical.” He found that when the statement was attributedto Thomas Jefferson, most of his subjects agreed with it, but when it was attributedto Lenin, they tended to disagree (Ravin and Rubin, 1976).

Many later studies corroborated these earlier findings that we carry certain conceptsof status, and even roles in our minds, which tend to influence our perceptions ina significant way.

Halo Effect

This phenomenon occurs when we correctly perceive one trait or when we observebehavior at one instance and make a general opinion about the person on the basis ofthis observation. For example, a boss may observe a new employee come in late to workeveryday during his first week on the job and he may conclude that the employee shirkswork. However, just because the employee is poor in time-management we cannot alsoconclude that he shirks works. Maybe, after reporting for work he tries diligently todo his job. Similarly, there can be another employee who is punctual but goofs at hisdesk. The general impression of a person, therefore, must not be based on a singleobservation (Robbins, 1998, pp. 94-96 and 99-100).

Projection

Sometimes one projects one’s own qualities on another. This means that one perceivesone’s own qualities in the target even though the target doesn’t possess them. Forexample, during an interview, a recruiter may be favorably inclined towards a candidatewho works and studies simultaneously, because she herself did the same. Thus, sheprojects her own qualities on to the target and commits an error (Robbins, 1998,pp. 94-96 and 99-100). Therefore, it seems that whenever we identify with someoneor some group we are likely to commit this error.

Lifestyles and Perceptions

Our perceptions are also affected by some common drugs like caffeine, aspirin andparacetamol which are commonly used across India. In fact, alcohol which isincreasingly being consumed by more and more people and is even served in manycorporate get-togethers is known to be a Central Nervous System (CNS) depressant and

Interpersonal Perceptions Within Organizations: An Exploratory Study

39

can significantly impair perception and cognition long before we become aware of itseffects. The emotional changes that are caused by such factors can wreck havoc withperceptions, cognition and behavior. Thus, people’s individual lifestyles and habits canalso significantly impact the process of interpersonal communication withinorganizations.

Our Findings

From our survey, we found that a significant majority of the respondents (66%) believethat being an effective communicator is a prerequisite for managerial effectiveness. Thisexpectation from managers can also be considered a type of stereotyping prevalentwithin organizations. Further, a significantly higher percentage of people think thatit is more difficult to communicate with bosses than it is with peers and subordinates.The responses show that people find downward communication to be much easierthan upward communication. This too could be an indication of the existence of abias against bosses.

There also seems to be a bias against women within organizations. 70% of therespondents felt that it was ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to communicate with female colleagues,as compared to 83% who felt the same about male colleagues. On the other hand 10%of the respondents felt that it was ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ to communicate with femalecolleagues, while only 4% felt that way about men. Thus, bosses and women seemto be two categories of people who are likely to be perceived in a stereotyped mannerwithin organizations.

Self-Serving Bias

We saw signs of self-biased perceptions when people did not see any connectionbetween their expectations and their subordinates’ performances, yet they felt that theirown performances would improve if their bosses expected them to be better.54% of the respondents reported feeling that their bosses undervalued theirperformance, as opposed to 45% who rarely or never felt that way. 52% of therespondents also felt that they were more honest than most people within theorganization. Thus, they reported strong feelings of the ‘self-serving bias’, while another27% occasionally felt that way.

Not only this, 6% of the respondents said that they ‘always’ feel that they are morehardworking than their colleagues; 41% ‘mostly’ do; 31% sometimes do; 12% ‘rarely’do; and 10% ‘never’.

Further, if the boss were to appraise a rival’s performance better, only 17% of therespondents would feel that ‘the colleague has outperformed them’; 11% would feelthat the boss is unaware of their performance; 22% would feel that the colleague isbetter at politics than they are; 17% would feel that the boss is partial or biased, and31% would feel that the boss has bad judgment.

40

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. IV, No. 4, 2010

Thus, it seems that very few people would be willing to accept that the rival hasactually performed better. This means that a majority of people in organizations do notseem to believe that promotions are based on performance when someone ‘else’ getspromoted. The findings seem to lend credence to the fundamental error of attributionas explained by the attribution theory.

First Impressions as a Factor Causing Bias

First impressions are known to have a lasting impact on people’s minds. Researchindicates that the effects of first impressions are so profound that they may impactsubsequent interactions for years (Carlin, 2007). According to Carlin Flora (and manyresearchers seem to agree), “Just three seconds are sufficient to make a conclusion aboutfresh acquaintances” (Carlin, 2007).

We too tried to study the impact of first impressions on interpersonal communicationwithin organizations. When we asked people how important they felt first impressionswere, we got the following responses.

77% of our respondents felt that ‘first impressions’ play an ‘important’ or ‘veryimportant ‘ role in the process of communication; 15% felt that first impressionswere ‘somewhat important’, while only 5% felt that they were ‘not important’.Thus, a significant 77% of the respondents accord great importance to firstimpressions.

Regarding the time needed to judge someone, 26% of the respondents felt theyneeded only ‘one’ interaction in order to judge a person; 36% felt that they needed‘a few’ interactions’, and 21% felt they needed ‘many interactions’. Only 14% felt that‘a long association’ is needed, while 8% of the respondents felt that ‘no amount of timeis sufficient’. Thus, a significant majority of the respondents feel that a person can bejudged very quickly.

In addition, 45% of the people in organizations ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ feel that theyhave wrongly judged their colleagues. Another 47% say that they generally makeaccurate judgments about the people they meet. Further, only 1% of the respondentssaid that they ‘always’ change their first impressions of others; 12% said they‘mostly’ do; 52% do so ‘sometimes’; 27% ‘rarely’ do, and 9% ‘never’. Generallyspeaking, people seem reluctant to alter their first impressions of others withinorganizations.

These findings seem to indicate that first impressions can leave most people biased,and even over a long association these impressions may impact interpersonalcommunication within organizations.

Further, the reluctance to alter first impressions could also be an indication thatfirst impressions lead to self-fulfilling prophesies (a well-documented phenomenon).A ‘self-fulfilling prophesy’ occurs when a perceiver’s biased perceptions (or earlyimpressions) affect subsequent interactions leading to predictable outcomes.

Interpersonal Perceptions Within Organizations: An Exploratory Study

41

The perceiver’s (usually the dominant party in an interaction, e.g., managers)expectations get communicated to the target through subtle nonverbal cues, leadingto conformity on the part of the target. The prophesy (expected behavior), thus, fulfillsitself, although the expectations were based on inaccurate perceptions and prematurejudgment by the perceiver. These findings indicate that managers play a significantrole (though unconsciously) in influencing the behavior displayed by theirsubordinates.

Tenure and Endurance of First Impressions

Another interesting thing we found was that the length of service seems to affect thelevel of importance accorded to first impressions by an employee.

We saw that as the length of service increases, the percentage of people who accordhigh importance to first impressions also increases. Thus, surprisingly, people withgreater length of service accord greater value to first impressions than youngeremployees. However, we found that this trend continues only for the first 20 years ofservice after which it is reversed.

Number of Promotions and Endurance of First Impressions

We also found an interesting relation between the number of promotions received andthe level of importance accorded to first impressions.

129 of the 255 people who received no promotions believed that first impressionswere moderately important, while 80 believed that they were highly important. On theother hand, a majority of the people who had received one to two promotions accordedlow importance to first impressions. In fact, only two respondents out of 35 who hadreceived three or four promotions believed that first impressions were highly important.Thus people, who do not give too much importance to first impressions seem to getmore promotions than those who do.

Gender and Endurance of First Impressions

It seems that there is some difference in the importance accorded by men and womento first impression. The percentage of men and women who said that firstimpressions were of moderate importance in the communication process was similar,but 27.8% of the men thought that first impressions were highly important, ascompared to 20.4% of the women. Only 15.7% of the men said that first impressionshad a low impact on communication, while almost 25% of the women felt this way.Thus, it seems that men are probably more likely than women to be influenced byfirst impressions.

Educational Qualifications and First Impressions

We found that a significant 63% of the professionally qualified respondents accordedlow importance to first impressions, while 55% of the graduates accorded high

42

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. IV, No. 4, 2010

importance to them. Therefore, it seems that qualifications are negatively related withthe importance accorded to first impression. The higher the qualifications, the lessimportant first impressions become.

Predictors of the Endurance of First Impressions

From stepwise regression analysis, we found that 6.5% of the dependent variable(endurance of first impressions) was explained by the communication effectiveness ofmanagers within the organization; 3.6% by the quality of interpersonal relations; 2.9%by openness in communication; 1.7% by the communication effectiveness ofrespondents; and 1% by the perception of what effective communication means.It is difficult to explain why the perceived effectiveness of managers within theorganization is a predictor (though not strong) of the importance accorded to firstimpressions by an individual. It is also difficult to explain why openness incommunication, the perceived quality of interpersonal relations within the organization,and the respondents’ own perceived effectiveness are three other predictors of thisvariable. However, it is interesting to note that the perception of the ‘self’ and that of‘managers’ within the organization are linked with the importance one accords to firstimpressions. It seems that there is some link between and among these variables at thesubconscious level, which needs to be studied further.

Consistency in Communication

From statistical tests (reliability testing), we found that the average employee seemsto have a consistency of only about 20% in his perception of a question and theconsequent response to the question. Thus, if comprehension and expression aregenerally inconsistent (and people are unaware of it), then the scope formisunderstandings in everyday interpersonal communications within organizationsis huge.

Rank as a Factor Causing Bias

29% of our respondents said that it was very important to consider the interactants’ranks within the organization while communicating; 44% felt that it was ‘important’to do so; 20% felt that it was somewhat important; 6% felt it was unimportant, while1% couldn’t say.

Therefore, it seems that rank is a significant factor that can influence interpersonalcommunication, thereby affecting the outcomes of the interaction. It looks like asignificant majority of the people tend to focus on ‘who’ the speaker is while derivingmeaning from what has been said.

Qualifications and Number of Promotions

We found that qualifications were not linked with the number of promotions thatemployees had received. Probably, when it comes to promotions, the corporate world

Interpersonal Perceptions Within Organizations: An Exploratory Study

43

goes by people’s skills and not just by their qualifications; therefore, companies don’tseem to promote people on the basis of mere qualifications.

Number of Promotions and Gender

We did not find any relation between gender and the number of promotions receivedby an employee within the organizations that we studied.

Physical Characteristics as a Factor Causing Bias

We began with the premise that most people in organizations do not perceive physicalcharacteristics (like height, build, etc.) to be an important factor affecting interpersonalcommunication but found that they did.

7% of the respondents said that physical characteristics (like height, weight andbuild) play a ‘very important’ role in the process of communication; 19% felt that theyplayed an ‘important role’; 25% felt that they played a ‘somewhat important’ role, while45% felt that they were ‘not important’ and 3% couldn’t say. People seem to be dividedover the importance of physical characteristics. Therefore, it is neither possible to acceptnor reject the hypothesis. However, we must note that about half the respondents dogive significant importance to physical characteristics. Further, just because half therespondents say that for them physical characteristics are not important, it does notmean that they are not influenced by them. It is possible that the target’s physicalcharacteristics influence perceptions at the subconscious level and that many peopleare unaware of their impact.

Physical Appearance as a Factor Causing Bias

14% of the respondents said that physical appearance (dress sense) plays a ‘veryimportant’ role in the process of communication; 42% felt that it plays an ‘importantrole’; 25% felt that it was ‘somewhat important’ while 18% felt that it was ‘notimportant’ and 1% ‘couldn’t say’. Therefore, it seems that most people considerphysical appearance to be an important factor affecting interpersonal relations withinorganizations.

The Mirror Effect

One of the most interesting phenomena that we observed was that there was a significantrelation between the respondents’ perception of their effectiveness as communicatorsand their perception of the effectiveness of ‘others’ within the organization. When weapplied the Chi-square test, we found that a significant number of respondents whorated themselves ‘low’ on communication effectiveness had also rated others as ‘low’.Similarly, a significant number of the respondents who rated themselves ‘moderate’ or‘high’ on communication effectiveness also rated others in the same way. Thus, thereseems to be a sort of ‘mirror effect’ prevalent within organizations where a large numberof people tend to perceive in themselves the same levels of effectiveness that they do

44

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. IV, No. 4, 2010

in others. This phenomenon is contrary to the self-serving bias that we observed earlierand is rather difficult to explain. However, it is possible that this ‘mirror effect’ is anattempt by the perceiver to minimize psychological dissonance and achieve mentalequilibrium in order to be at ease with the ‘self’.

Conclusion

Perceptions play an important role in the process of communication withinorganizations. Stereotyping on the basis of gender and role seems to be common withinorganizations. Our findings also seem to validate the attribution theory and theself-serving bias, which too seems to be a common phenomenon within organizations.It seems that many other factors can also lead to biases during the process ofinterpersonal communication within organizations. Some such factors are age, gender,physical characteristics, physical appearance, educational qualifications and rank. Firstimpressions are probably one of the most important factors affecting interpersonalcommunication within organizations.

Our research indicates that few people are consistent in their perceptions andexpressions.

Research has established that there are numerous shortcuts that the brain adoptswhile judging others, like attribution and the self-serving bias. Other common shortcutsare selective perception, stereotyping, projection and the halo effect. Interpersonalperceptions are also affected by drugs and lifestyles.

We found that biases, inconsistencies and dichotomies in people’s perceptions seemto be common within organizations. It also seems that people find horizontal anddownward communication to be much easier than upward communication because thepercentage of respondents who felt it is easy to communicate with bosses and superiorswas significantly less than the percentage of respondents who felt that it is easy tocommunicate with peers and subordinates.

It seems that there are stereotyped expectations pertaining to communication withbosses and women within the organization. A significant majority of the people withinorganizations also seem to be biased towards their ‘selves’ and attribute external causesto their own failures and internal causes to those of others in the organization.A significant majority of the people also do not seem to believe that promotions arebased on performance when someone else gets promoted.

First impressions too influence interpersonal perceptions and most people areunlikely to change them during subsequent interactions.

We found tenure to be positively related with first impressions, as people withgreater length of service seem to accord greater value to first impressions than youngeremployees. However, people who do not give too much importance to first impressionsseem to get more promotions than those who do. It also seems that the higher the

Interpersonal Perceptions Within Organizations: An Exploratory Study

45

respondents’ qualifications the less importance they are likely to accord to firstimpressions.

Age may also be a cause of bias, as it was considered an important factor affectinginterpersonal communication by most of the respondents. The number of promotionsand the number of subordinates one has also seem to be affected by age, and there seemsto be a trend to promote younger employees within the organizations that we studied.It seems that as people climb the corporate ladder, they tend to trust others less andare less open in their interactions. Gender and rank too were perceived to be importantwithin the organizations, while religion was not.

Educational qualifications were not found to be related with promotions, whilephysical appearance (dress sense) seemed to significantly affect the process ofcommunication.

Finally, the respondents’ perception of the communication effectiveness of otherswithin the organization seemed to influence their perception of their own abilities. Thisphenomenon could be called a sort of ‘mirror effect’ and is probably an attempt by theperceiver to minimize psychological dissonance.

To sum up, we found that interpersonal perceptions within organizations are riddledwith errors and biases. The errors range from stereotyping and self-serving biases tothe endurance of first impressions and even the intriguing ‘mirror effect’, where asignificant number of people tend to perceive in themselves the same levels ofeffectiveness that they perceive in others within the organization.

References

1.Buskist William and Gerbing David W (1990), Psychology: Boundaries and Frontiers,Chapter 5, pp. 70-86, Harper Collins, USA.2.Carlin Flora (2007), “The First Impression”, Psychology Today, October, p. 1,available at www.psychologytoday.com3.Durkhim (17), Suicide, Originally Published on 1997, The Free Press.4.Durkhim Emile (2005), Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. CDROM.

5.Festinger L A (1957), Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press,Stanford, CA.6.Form William (2005), “Social Change: Social Structure”, Sociology, EncyclopediaBritannica Inc. CDROM, Ohio State University.7.Heider F (1958), “The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations”, John Wiley & Sons,New York.8.Herzberg F, Mausner B and Snyderman B (1959), The Motivation to Work, JohnWiley, New York.

46

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. IV, No. 4, 2010

9.Herzberg F I (1987), “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 109-120.10.Jeffery Z Rubin, Frank J Provenzano and Zella Luria (1974), “The Eye of the

Beholder: Parents’ Views on Sex of Newborns”, American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 512-519.11.Jolyon West Louis (2005), Gestalt Psychology, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. CDROM.12.Raven and Rubin (1976), Social Psychology, John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 62-,

USA.13.Robbins S P (1998) Organizational Behaviour, New Edition, Perason Education,

Delhi.

Reference # 50J-2010-12-04-01

Interpersonal Perceptions Within Organizations: An Exploratory Study47

Copyright of IUP Journal of Soft Skills is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be copied oremailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.