GROUP IN AN ORGANISATION

TAVISTOCK STUDY

The Tavistock is a study that was carried by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations for British Coal demonstrating not only the important of the Social relationships between individuals within working groups but also the effect of the interdependence of the social and technical systems.
The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations has had a profound effect on the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic policies of the United States of America and Great Britain. It has been in the front line of the attack on the U.S. Constitution and State constitutions. No group did more to propagandize the U.S. to participate in WWI at a time when the majority of the American people were opposed to it.

Much of the same tactics were used by the Social Science scientists at Tavistock to get the United States into WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia and both wars against Iraq. Tavistock began as a propaganda creating and disseminating organization at Wellington House in London in the run-up to WWI, what Toynbee called “that black hole of disinformation, a lie factory.” In 1821, operations that were to shape the destinies of Germany, Russia, Britain and the United States were transferred to the Tavistock Institute. The people of these nations were unaware that they were being “brainwashed.” Tavistock’s “mind control,” “inner directional conditioning” and mass “brainwashing” methods, still very much in use today, are explained in this easy to understand book written with great authority. The fall of dynasties, the Bolshevik Revolution, WWI and WWII saw the destruction of old alliances and boundaries, the convulsions in religion, morals, family life, economic and political conduct and the decadence in music and art that can all be traced back to mass indoctrination (mass brainwashing) practiced by the Tavistock Institute Social Science scientists. Prominent among Tavistock’s faculty was Edward Bernays, the double nephew of Sigmund Freud. It is said that Herr Goebbels, Propaganda Minister in the German Third Reich used methodology devised by Bernays as well as that of Willy Munzenberg.


SOCIAL-TECHNICAL.
Socio-technical systems design was the product of a group of social scientists who came together at the end of the second world war and formed the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. The Tavistock, or Tavi as it is colloquially known, was established in 1946 by this group, many of whom had collaborated in wartime projects and most of whom had been members of the Tavistock Clinic before the war. The Tavistock Clinic is a therapeutic establishment concerned with mental health and individual development and this was also the initial focus of the members of the Tavistock Institute, although they were applying their ideas to workers in industry.
Eric Trist, a founder member of the Institute, became aware of the influence of technology on people when he was working in the jute industry in Scotland in the late 1930's. He was a member of a small interdisciplinary team studying the unemployment that resulted from the jute industry being rationalized. He found that changes in technology were causing unemployment, deskilling and alienation: the technical and social systems were acting on each other in a negative way.
In 1949, the Tavistock Institute made its first major contribution to the theory of socio-technical design with a number of field projects in the British coal industry. These studies have now become classics and are widely taught in business schools throughout the world. The coal industry had recently changed its technology and mechanized its production system and the changes caused great stress among the workers. Morale was low and many miners suffered psychosomatic disorders. As the research progressed, the team recognised that the new technical systems had created and inferior and damaging form of social organisation. This let them to formulate one the the most important principles of socio-technical design:
If a technical system is created at the expense of a social system, the results obtained will be sub-optimal.
They decided that when work is being designed, the goal must always be the joint optimization of the social and technical systems.
This early research, together with many projects in Scandinavia and one in India, led to many of the work design principles which are proving useful and relevant today. By the sixties, the team had developed and published their ideas on:
The concept of socio-technical systems
Definition of organisations as open systems
The principal of organisational choice - the need to optimise and bring together social and technical systems
The importance of self-managing groups
The problems of work alienation
As it developed, socio-technical design came to be associated with a clear ethical principle, which was to increase the ability of the individual to participate in decision taking and through this to exercise a degree of control over the immediate work environment. Managers were advised to tell work groups what to do but not how to do it. The latter would come from the knowledge, experience and skill of each work group. Ways of working might differ as each group decided on the approach that would enable it to produce an optimal high quality result.
ECONOMIC WAY
We find that Tavistock also was much involved with Residential Development and impacts
of GDP..
He said the economic impact assess-
ment, conducted in conjunction with the
Government, had shown that the Albany
Project would generate 700 permanent, full-
time jobs. A further 400 “indirect and
induced” jobs would be generated from
entrepreneurial ventures and other spin-offs.
Mr. Anand said the economics study
had also shown that the Albany Project
would generate $400 million in property
taxes for the Government during its first 12
years in existence, with the $1 billion GDP
impact over the same timeline coming from
both the construction and operational phases.
Assessment
In 2017, the Albany Project is expected
to generate $67 million in annual GDP from
ongoing operations alone, according to the
economic impact assessment.
In an exclusive interview with The
Tribune, Mr Anand said the Albany develop-
ment will include 300 single family homes, a
“cottage component” and apartments locat-
ed around a marina.
The price range for the properties will
lie between $2 million and $20 million, with
the average around $3-$4 million. Mr.
Anand said the total value of the Albany
Project’s “home products” would lie between
$1.2 billion and $1.5 billion.
The three major shareholders and
investors in the Albany Project are the
Tavistock Group, the holding company for
Lyford Cay-based billionaire Joe Lewis’s
worldwide investments, and world-leading
golfers Ernie Els and Tiger Woods.
The development itself will be located
on the Albany House property, which most
Bahamians know as the property behind the
long pink wall on Adelaide Road as they
drive towards South Ocean, and other land-
holdings on the opposite side of the road.
The land is all privately owned by the
Tavistock Group’s Bahamian subsidiary,
New Providence Development Company.
Mr. Anand, who is also a director of the
Tavistock Group, said the Albany Project’s
homes were being marketed to “a pretty
unbelievable group of potential buyers that
included world-famous celebrities, major
sporting stars and wealthy businessmen. The
prospective clients include Bahamians and
non-Bahamians.
The investors and the Government are
in negotiations on a Heads of Agreement for
the development, and Mr. Anand praised the
administration for being “extremely reason-
able” and seeking “to do the right thing.”
He explained that it “would be easy to
see a project like this and give us what we
want,” but the Government was being “dili-
gent” to ensure the Albany Project fits into
its wider economic and social development
plans.
Once a Heads of Agreement is reached,
the investors are hoping to begin construc-
tion of the amenities and initial home sites at
the Albany Project in summer 2006.
That work is expected to take between
18-20 months, and the community itself will
open at some point between Christmas 2007
and spring 2008.
Mr. Anand said the full-time jobs creat-
ed by the Albany Project would run “the full
gamut” from high-income to low-income
professions, including doctors, lawyers, den-
tists, engineers, landscapers, designers, main-
tenance and golf course workers and clean-
ers.
Adding that the investors would be “on
a hell of a hiring spree” once negotiations
with the Government were concluded, Mr.
Anand said the goal was to maximise the use
of Bahamian labour during both the con-
struction and operational phases as this was
the only way “to make it work.”
Apart from committing to training pro-
grammes for Bahamians and equipping them
with high-quality skills, Mr. Anand said
employees would also be sent on “sabbati-
cals” to the Tavistock Group’s existing high-
end residential communities at Lake Nona
and Isleworth, both located near Orlando,
Florida.
“Our goal really is to create the best of
the best,” Mr. Anand said. “It’s really about
building something special and doing some-
thing good for our customers and good for the Bahamas.

Scola,Hassanatu,Jam Barrie

THE HAWTHONE EXPERIMENTS

The Hawthorne Experiments: Management Takes A New Direction

General Electric, the major manufacturer of light bulbs, had preliminary evidence that better lighting of the work place improved worker productivity, but wanted to validate these findings to sell more light bulbs, especially to businesses. GE funded the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an impartial study. AT&T's Western Electric Hawthorne plant located in Cicero, Illinois, was chosen as the laboratory. Beginning with this early test, the “Hawthorne Experiments” were a series of studies into worker productivity performed at the Cicero plant beginning in 1924 and ceasing in 1932.

Illumination Studies, 1924 -1927

The earliest experiment (1924) was conducted by the NRC with engineers from MIT. The study would end in 1927 with the NRC abandoning the project. The group examined the relationship between light intensity and worker efficiency. The hypothesis was that greater illumination would yield higher productivity. Two work groups of female employees were selected for “control” and “experimental” groups. By comparing the changes on worker productivity by manipulating lighting in the experimental group with the production of the control group, the researchers could validate and measure the impact of lighting. The study, however, failed to find any simple relationship as poor lighting and improved lighting seemed in increase productivity. Indeed, in the final stage, when the group pretended to increase lighting the worker group reported higher satisfaction.

The preliminary findings were that behavior is not merely physiological but also psychological. This was a break with the Scientific Management school that saw work productivity as “mechanical”, and led to the decision to learn more about worker behavior. George Pennock, Western Electric’s superintendent of inspection suggested that the reason for increased worker productivity was simply that the researchers interacted with the female employees; and, this was first time any one had shown an interest in the workers. Basically, the workers were trying to please the researchers by continuing to increase their output and report satisfaction in the study, no matter what the intervention was. Later, the phenomenon of a researcher corrupting an experiment simply by his presence would be termed the “Hawthorne effect”.

Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments, 1927-1929

The NRC started an experiment to probe the unexpected findings of the Illumination study but would depart in 1927, at which time Western Electric continued the project drawing on support from Harvard researchers. An experimental group was established of five young women from the Relay Assembly room of the plant. The experiments involved the manipulation of a number of factors, to include pay incentives, length of workday and workweek, and use of rest periods, to measure impact on productivity and fatigue. Again, the relationship between pay, incentives, rest, and working hours seemed to have little effect on productivity, even when the original, more demanding conditions were re-implemented.

Mica-Splitting Test group, 1928 – 1930

Disturbed by the inconclusive evidence that rewards and incentives improved worker performance, a second experiment was conducted to look only at this relationship using workers in the Mica-Splitting Room. In his experiment the workers’ piece wages were held constant while work conditions were varied. Productivity increased by about 15%. The researchers concluded that productivity was affected by non-pay considerations. Members of the research team began to develop the theory that social dynamics were the basis of worker performance.

Plant-wide Interview program, 1928-1931

As early findings indicated that concern for workers and willingness to listen impacted productivity, Western Electric implemented a plant-wide survey of employees to record their concerns and grievances. From 1928 to 1930, 21,000 employees were interviewed. This data would support the research of the Harvard team for years and lead them to conclude that work improved when supervisors began to pay attention to employees, that work takes place in a social context in which work and non-work considerations are important, norms and groups matter to workers.

Bank Wiring Observation group, 1931-1932

The final Hawthorne experiment was conducted studying 14 male workers assigned to the Bank Wiring factory. The objective was to study the dynamics of the group when incentive pay was introduced. The finding was that nothing happened! The work group had established a work “norm” – a shared expectation about how much work should be performed in a day and stuck to it, regardless of pay. The conclusion: informal groups operate in the work environment to manage behavior.

Importance of the Hawthorne Plant Studies

Despite modern criticism that the research was flawed and that incentives played a larger role in improving worker productivity than the Hawthorne plant researchers concluded. These studies changed the landscape of management from Taylor’s engineering approach to a social sciences approach. Worker productivity would, henceforth, be interpreted predominately in the United States in terms of social group dynamics, motivation, leadership, and “human relations”. The practice of management could not be the aloof technician of Taylor’s Scientific Management, designing the job, selecting and training the “right” worker, and rewarding for performance. The manager was an immediate part of the social system in which work is performed, responsible for leading, motivating, communicating, and designing the social milieu in which work takes place.

The studies also developed the scholars that would continue to influence the American way of thinking about management at Harvard Business School and elsewhere. Included among these researchers were:

Elton Mayo came to Harvard from Wharton where as a psychologist he had researched the impact of social and home life on worker performance. At the Harvard University School of Business his reputation led him to consult with the FBI and the movie industry. Mayo’s reporting of the Hawthorne experiments became the most influential in that he laid out a programmatic interpretation, which would be called the “Human Relations” approach that dominated management thinking until the 1950’s. Mayo’s views lead to the construction of manager as a leader supported by knowledge and skills to build social cooperation.

Fritz Roethlisberger and W.J. Dickson were the first to publish comprehensive findings of the Hawthorne experiments in 1937 and authored Management and the Worker in 1939, a comprehensive statement of the research and findings. Roethlisberger, educated as an engineer, started the Harvard Industrial Research Department, was a lead researcher in the Hawthorne project and a leader in the Human Relations movement. Dickson was Chief of Employee Relations Research Department at the Hawthorne plant and an instrumental contributor to the project.

W. Lloyd Warner, an anthropologist who designed the group experiments, pioneered the field of social anthropology at Chicago and Michigan. His work includes classics in the American class system and race.

L.J. Henderson a chemist and physiologist in charge of the Fatigue Laboratory at the Harvard Business School provided a theoretical foundation to the research. He would contribute to the development of “systems theory”, influencing management theorists Chester Barnard and George Homans. He became the first president of the History of Science Society.

This group of scholars permanently influenced the study of management and the development of Organizational Behavior as a disciplines

The “Hawthorne Effect”

What Mayo urged in broad outline has become part of the orthodoxy of modern management.Abraham Zaleznik, Professor of Leadership, Emeritus, Harvard Business School, 1984 Mechanical Laboratory, ca. 1925 -->Completion of Counseling in an Organization, December 6, 1966

In 1966, Roethlisberger and William Dickson published Counseling in an Organization, which revisited lessons gained from the experiments. Roethlisberger described “the Hawthorne effect” as the phenomenon in which subjects in behavioral studies change their performance in response to being observed. Many critics have reexamined the studies from methodological and ideological perspectives; others find the overarching questions and theories of the time have new relevance in light of the current focus on collaborative management. The experiments remain a telling case study of researchers and subsequent scholars who interpret the data through the lens of their own times and particular biases.12

Paul R. Lawrence, ca. 1960

Mayo and Roethlisberger helped define a new curriculum focus, one in alliance with Dean Donham’s desire to address social and industrial issues through field-based empirical research. Harvard’s role in the Hawthorne experiments gave rise to the modern application of social science to organization life and lay the foundation for the human relations movement and the field of organizational behavior (the study of organizations as social systems) pioneered by George Lombard, Paul Lawrence, and others.

“Instead of treating the workers as an appendage to ‘the machine’,” Jeffrey Sonnenfeld notes in his detailed analysis of the studies, the Hawthorne experiments brought to light ideas concerning motivational influences, job satisfaction, resistance to change, group norms, worker participation, and effective leadership.13 These were groundbreaking concepts in the 1930s. From the leadership point of view today, organizations that do not pay sufficient attention to ‘people’ and ‘cultural’ variables are consistently less successful than those that do. From the leadership point of view today, organizations that do not pay sufficient attention to people and the deep sentiments and relationships connecting them are consistently less successful than those that do. “The change which you and your associates are working to effect will not be mechanical but humane.”14

Hawthorne Effect

The Hawthorne effect - an increase in worker productivity produced by the psychological stimulus of being singled out and made to feel important.
Along with Frederick Taylor's work, this study gave rise to the field known as "Industrial Psychology." Social group influences and interpersonal factors must also be considered when performing efficiency research such as time and motion studies.

Individual behaviors may be altered because they know they are being studied was demonstrated in a research project (1927 - 1932) of the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois. This series of research, first led by Harvard Business School professor Elton Mayo along with associates F.J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson started out by examining the physical and environmental influences of the workplace (e.g. brightness of lights, humidity) and later, moved into the psychological aspects (e.g. breaks, group pressure, working hours, managerial leadership). The ideas that this team developed about the social dynamics of groups in the work setting had lasting influence - the collection of data, labor-management relations, and informal interaction among factory employees.

The major finding of the study was that almost regardless of the experimental manipulation employed, the production of the workers seemed to improve. One reasonable conclusion is that the workers were pleased to receive attention from the researchers who expressed an interest in them. The study was only expected to last one year, but because the researchers were set back each time they tried to relate the manipulated physical conditions to the worker's efficiency, the project extended out to five years.

Four general conclusions were drawn from the Hawthorne studies:

1. The aptitudes of individuals are imperfect predictors of job performance. Although they give some indication of the physical and mental potential of the individual, the amount produced is strongly influenced by social factors.

2. Informal organization affects productivity. The Hawthorne researchers discovered a group life among the workers. The studies also showed that the relations that supervisors develop with workers tend to influence the manner in which the workers carry out directives.

3. Work-group norms affect productivity. The Hawthorne researchers were not the first to recognize that work groups tend to arrive at norms of what is "a fair day's work," however, they provided the best systematic description and interpretation of this phenomenon.

4. The workplace is a social system. The Hawthorne researchers came to view the workplace as a social system made up of interdependent parts.
For decades, the Hawthorne studies provided the rationale for human relations within the organization. Then two researchers used a new procedure called "time-series analyses." Using the original variables and including in the Great Depression and the instance of a managerial discipline in which two insubordinate and mediocre workers were replaced by two different productive workers (one who took the role of straw boss - see below). They discovered that production was most affected by the replacement of the two workers due to their greater productivity and the affect of the disciplinary action on the other workers. The occurrence of the Depression also encouraged job productivity, perhaps through the increased importance of jobs and the fear of losing them. Rest periods and a group incentive plan also had a somewhat positive smaller effect on productivity. These variables accounted for almost all the variation in productivity during the experimental period. Social science may have been to readily to embrace the original Hawthorne interpretations since it was looking for theories or work motivation that were more humane and democratic. – Franke, R.H. & Kaul, J.D. "The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation." American Sociological Review, 1978, 43, 623-643.
Note: Hay is dried grass, sometimes with a little alfalfa thrown in, used as feed for horses and cattle. Straw, on the other hand, is the stalks of wheat or other grains left over after harvesting the good parts, and is used primarily for livestock bedding. Since straw is a by-product of the real business of a farm, "straw boss" is not the "big boss" of any job, but rather an assistant or subordinate boss, usually on the level of the foreman of a work crew. It is now a metaphor for any low-level supervisor. And since straw bosses rarely wield any real power aside from the ability to make those under them miserable, "straw boss" today is often a synonym for a petty and vindictive superior.

This writen by Oshodi, Nnaji, Jospeh, Valentine and Reginald, Nanta

PERSONALITY

INTRODUCTION PRESONALITY

Dr. C. George Boeree
Welcome to "Theories of Personality!"
This course and "e-text" will examine a number of theories of personality, from Sigmund Freud's famous psychoanalysis to Viktor Frankl's logotherapy. It will include biographies, basic terms and concepts, assessment methods and therapies, discussions and anecdotes, and references for further reading.
Some of you may find the area a bit confusing. First, many people ask "who's right." Unfortunately, this aspect of psychology is the least amenable to direct research that pits one theory against another. Much of it involves things that are only accessible to the person him- or herself -- your inner thoughts and feelings. Some of it is thought not to be available even to the person -- your instincts and unconscious motivations. In other words, personality is still very much in a "pre-scientific" or philosophical stage, and some aspects may well always remain that way.
Another thing that throws some people about personality theories is that they come into it thinking it's the easiest topic of all, and that everyone -- especially they themselves -- already knows all the answers. Well, it's true that personality theories doesn't involve all the higher math and symbolic systems that physics and chemistry (the famously "tough" courses!) involve. And it's true that we all have pretty direct access to our own thoughts and feelings, and plenty of experience dealing with people. But we are mistaking familiarity with knowledge, and in much of what we think we know turns out to be prejudices and biases we've picked up over the years. In fact, the topic of theories of personality is probably one of the most difficult and most complex we ever deal with.
So, at present, we are stuck with theories (plural) rather than the science of personality. As we go through the various theories, however, there will be ones that fit well with your experiences of self and other -- that tends to be a good sign. And there will be times that several theorists say similar things, even though they are taking very different approaches -- that, too, is a good sign. And once in a blue moon there is a research program that supports certain ideas over others -- that's a very good sign.
What makes personality theories so interesting, I think, is that we can actually participate in the process. You don't need labs and federal funding, just a bit of intelligence, some motivation, and an open mind.

Theory
It might be nice to start off with a definition of theories of personality. First, theory: A theory is a model of reality that helps us to understand, explain, predict, and control that reality. In the study of personality, these models are usually verbal. Every now and then, someone comes up with a graphic model, with symbolic illustrations, or a mathematical model, or even a computer model. But words are the basic form.
Different approaches focus on different aspects of theory. Humanists and Existentialists tend to focus on the understanding part. They believe that much of what we are is way too complex and embedded in history and culture to "predict and control." Besides, they suggest, predicting and controlling people is, to a considerable extent, unethical. Behaviorists and Freudians, on the other hand, prefer to discuss prediction and control. If an idea is useful, if it works, go with it! Understanding, to them, is secondary.

Another definition says that a theory is a guide to action: We figure that the future will be something like the past. We figure that certain sequences and patterns of events that have occurred frequently before are likely to occur again. So we look to the first events of a sequence, or the most vivid parts of a pattern, to serve as our landmarks and warning signals. A theory is a little like a map: It isn't the same as the countryside it describes; it certainly doesn't give you every detail; it may not even be terribly accurate. But it does provide a guide to action -- and gives us something to correct when it fails.

Personality
Usually when we talk about someone's personality, we are talking about what makes that person different from other people, perhaps even unique. This aspect of personality is called individual differences. For some theories, it is the central issue. These theories often spend considerable attention on things like types and traits and tests with which we can categorize or compare people: Some people are neurotic, others are not; some people are more introverted, others more extroverted; and so on.
However, personality theorists are just as interested in the commonalities among people. What, for example, does the neurotic person and the healthy person have in common? Or what is the common structure in people that expresses itself as introversion in some and extroversion in others?
If you place people on some dimension -- such as healthy-neurotic or introversion-extroversion -- you are saying that the dimension is something everyone can be placed on. Whether they are neurotic or not, all people have a capacity for health and ill-health; and whether introverted or extroverted, all are "verted" one way or the other.
Another way of saying this is that personality theorists are interested in the structure of the individual, the psychological structure in particular. How are people "put together;" how do they "work;" how do they "fall apart."
Some theorists go a step further and say they are looking for the essence of being a person. Or they say they are looking for what it means to be an individual human being. The field of personality psychology stretches from a fairly simple empirical search for differences between people to a rather philosophical search for the meaning of life!
Perhaps it is just pride, but personality psychologists like to think of their field as a sort of umbrella for all the rest of psychology. We are, after all, concerned about genetics and physiology, about learning and development, about social interaction and culture, about pathology and therapy. All these things come together in the individual.

Pitfalls
There are quite a few things that can go wrong with a theory, and you should keep your eyes open for them. This applies, of course, even to the theories created by the great minds we'll be looking at. Even Sigmund Freud put his pants on one leg at a time! On the other hand, it is even more important when we develop our own theories about people and their personalities. Here are a few things to look out for:

Ethnocentrism.
Everyone grows up in a culture that existed before their birth. It influences us so subtly and so thoroughly that we grow up thinking "this is the way things are," rather than "this is the ways things are in this particular society." Erich Fromm, one of the people we will look at, calls this the social unconscious, and it is very powerful.
So, for example, Sigmund Freud grew up in Vienna, not New York or Tokyo. He was born in 1856, not 1756, not 1956. There were things that had to have influenced him, and so his theorizing, that would be different for us.
The peculiarities of a culture can sometimes be most easily seen by asking "what does everybody talk about?" and "what does nobody talk about?" In Europe, during the last half of the 1800's, especially in the middle and upper classes, people just didn't talk about sex much. It was, more or less "taboo."
Women weren't supposed to show their ankles, much less their thighs, and even the legs on a piano were referred to as "limbs," so as not to unnecessarily arouse anyone! It was not uncommon for a doctor to make a housecall to a newlywed couple to help revive the bride, who had never been told the nature of the activity they were to engage in on their wedding night, and had fainted dead-away at the prospect! Slightly different from today, wouldn't you say?
Freud has to be commended, by the way, on his ability to rise above his culture in this instance. He saw how strange it was to pretend that people (especially women) were not sexual creatures. Much of our present openness about sex (for better or for worse) derives from Freud's original insights.
Today, most people aren't mortified by their sexual natures. In fact, we have a tendency to talk about our sexuality all the time, to anyone who will listen! Sex is plastered on our billboards, broadcast on our televisions, a part of the lyrics of our favorite songs, in our movies, our magazines, our books, and, of course, here on the internet! This is something peculiar about our culture, and we are so used to it, we hardly notice anymore.
On the other hand, Freud was mislead by his culture into thinking that neurosis always has a sexual root. In our society, we have more problems with feeling useless and fearing aging and death. Freud's society took death for granted, considered aging a sign of maturity, and had a place for nearly everybody.

Egocentrism.
Another potential pitfall in theorizing is the peculiarities of the theorist as an individual. Each of us, beyond our culture, has specific details to his or her life -- genetics, family structure and dynamics, special experiences, education, and so on -- that affect the way we think and feel and, ultimately, the way we interpret personality.
Freud, for example, was the first of seven children (though he had two half brothers who had kids of their own before Sigmund was born). His mother was a strong personality and 20 years younger than his father, and she was particularly attached to her "Siggie." Freud was a genius (we can't all make that claim!). He was Jewish, although neither he nor his father ever practiced their religion. And so on....
It is quite likely that the patriarchal family structure he experienced as well as the close ties he had with his mother directed his attention to those kinds of issues when it came time for him to formulate his theory. His pessimistic nature and atheistic beliefs led him to view human life as rather survivalistic and requiring strong social control. You, too, have your peculiarities, and they will color your interests and understanding, often without your awareness.

Dogmatism.
A third pitfall is dogmatism. We as human beings seem to have a natural conservative tendency: We stick to what has worked in the past. And if we devote our lives to developing a personality theory, if we have poured our heart into it, you can bet we will be very defensive (to use Freud's term) about it.
Dogmatic people don't allow for questions, doubts, new information, and so on. You can tell when you are dealing with dognatic people by looking at how they deal with their critics: They will tend to make use of what is called the circular argument.
A circular argument is one where you "prove" your point by assuming things that would only be true if your point were true in the first place. There are tons of examples of circular arguments because everyone seems to use them. A simple example: "I know everything!" Why should I believe you? "Because I know everything!"
Another example (one I've actually experienced): "You have to believe in God because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God!" Now understand that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with saying that God exists, and neither is there anything intrinsically wrong with believing that the Bible is the word of God. Where this person goes wrong is using the point "the Bible is the word of God" to support the contention that "you have to believe in God," since the non-believer is hardly going to be impressed with the one if he doesn't believe in the other!
Well, this kind of thing happens all the time in psychology, an in personality theories in particular. To pick on Freud again, it is not unusual to hear Freudians argue that people who don't accept Freud's ideas are repressing the evidence they would need to believe in Freud -- when the idea of repression is in fact a Freudian concept to begin with. What you need, they might suggest, is a few years of Freudian analysis to understand that Freud was right -- when, of course, you would hardly spend all that time (and money) on something you don't believe in to begin with!
So if you run into a theory that dismisses your objections or questions, beware!

Misunderstandings.
Another problem, or set of problems, is unintended implications: It seems that every time you say something, you let loose words that are susceptible to 100's of different interpretations. To put it simply, people will often misunderstand you.
There are several things that make misunderstandings more likely.
1. Translation. Freud, Jung, Binswanger, and several others, wrote in German. When they were translated, some of their concepts were "twisted" a little -- something quite natural, since every language has its own idiosyncrasies.
Freud's id, ego, and superego, which you've all heard of, are words used by his translators. The original terms were es, ich, and überich, which are German for it, I, and over-I. They are, in other words, ordinary words, simple words. In translation, they were turned into Latin words, words that sounded vaguely scientific, because the translators felt that American readers would be more accepting of Freud if he sounded a little more scientific, instead of poetic (which is what he sounds like in German!).
Of course that means we "hear" Freud as making scientific statements, cutting up the psyche into clear compartments, when in fact he was speaking more metaphorically, and was suggesting that they shade into each other.
2. Neologisms. Neologisms means new words. When we develop a theory, we may have concepts that have not had names before, and we find or create words to name them. Sometimes we use Greek or Latin, sometimes we use combinations of old words (as in German), sometimes we use phrases (as in French), sometimes we just take an old word and use it in a new way: anticathexis, Gemeinschaftsgefühl, être-en-soi, and self, for examples.
It doesn't take much explaining to see how a word like self or anxiety or ego has hundreds of different meanings, depending on the theorist!
3. Metaphors. Metaphors (or similes, more exactly) are words or phrases that, while not literally true, somehow capture some aspect of the truth. Every theorist uses models of the human personality in one form or another, but it would be a mistake to confuse the model -- the metaphor -- for the real thing!
A good example is the common present-day use of the computer and information-processing in general as a metaphor for human functioning. Do we work something like computers? Yes, in fact, several aspects of our functioning work like that. Are we computers? No, of course not. The metaphor fails in the long run. But it is useful, and that's how we have to view them. It's like a map: It helps you find your way, but you'd hardly confuse it with the territory itself!

Evidence.
Evidence, or rather the lack of evidence, is of course another problem. What kind of support do you have for your theory? Or was it something you dreamed up while on a hallucinogenic? There are several kinds of evidence: Anecdotal, clinical, phenomenological, correlational, and experimental.
1. Anecdotal evidence is the casual kind of evidence, usually given in story form: "I remember when...," and "I heard that...," for example. It is, of course, notoriously inaccurate. It is best to use this kind of evidence only as a motivation for further research.
2. Clinical evidence is evidence gathered from therapy sessions. It is more carefully recorded by people with considerable training. Its major weakness is that it tends to be highly individual and even unusual, because you are describing a person who is almost by definition an unusual individual! Clinical evidence does provide the foundation of most of the theories we will look at, although most follow up with further research.
3. Phenomenological evidence is the result of careful observation of people in various circumstances, as well as introspection involving one's own psychological processes. Many of the theorists we will look at have done phenomenological research, either formally or informally. It requires considerable training as well as a certain natural ability. Its weakness is that we have a hard time telling whether the researcher has done a good job.
4. Correlational research in personality usually involves the creation and use of personality tests. The scores from these tests are compared with other measurable aspects of life, as well as with other tests. So we might create a test for shyness (introversion), and compare it with the scores on intelligence tests or with ratings of job satisfaction. Unfortunately, measuring things doesn't tell you how they work or even if they are real, and many things resist measurement altogether.
5. Experimental research is the most controlled and precise form of research, and, if the issues you are concerned with are amenable to experimentation, it is the preferred method. Experimentation, as you know, involves random selection of subjects, careful control of conditions, great concern to avoid undue influence, and usually measurement and statistics. Its weakness is that it has a hard time getting at many of the issues personality theorists are most interested in. How do you control or measure things like love, anger, or awareness?
Philosophical assumptions
That people -- even famous geniuses -- make mistakes should not have been a big surprise to you. It should also not surprise you that people are limited. There are many questions, ones we need to have answers to in order to build our theories, that have no answer. Some are just beyond us presently; some may never have an answer. But we answer them anyway, because we need to get on with life. We can call these our philosophical assumptions.
1. Free will vs. determinism. Are we and the world completely determined? Is the sense that we make choices just an illusion? Or is it the other way around, that the spirit has the potential to rise above all restraints, that it is determinism which is an illusion?
Most theorists make more moderate assumptions. A moderate determinist position might say that, although we are ultimately determined, we are capable of participating in that determinism. A moderate free-will position might say that freedom is intrinsic to our nature, but we must live out that nature in an otherwise determined world.
2. Uniqueness vs. universality. Is each person unique, or will we eventually discover universal laws which will explain all of human behavior? Again, more moderate positions are available: Perhaps there are broad rules of human nature with room for individual variation within them; Or perhaps or individuality outweighs our commonalities.
I am sure you can see how this assumption relates to the previous one: Determinism suggests the possibility of universal laws, while free will is one possible source of uniqueness. But the relationship is not perfect, and in the moderate versions quite complex.
3. Physiological vs. purposive motivation. Are we more "pushed" by basic physiological needs, such as the need for food, water, and sexual activity? Or are we more "pulled" by our purposes, goals, values, principles, and so on? More moderate possibilities include the idea that purposive behavior is powerful but grows out of physiological needs, or simply that both types of motivation are important, perhaps at different times and places.
A more philosophical version of this contrasts causality and teleology. The first says that your state of mind now is determined by prior events; The second says that it is determined by its orientation to the future. The causality position is by far the more common in psychology generally, but the teleological position is very strong in personality psychology.
4. Conscious vs. unconscious motivation. Is much, most, or even all of our behavior and experience determined by unconscious forces, i.e. forces of which we are not aware? Or is some, little, or even none determined by unconscious forces. Or, to put it another way, how much of what determines our behavior are we conscious of?
This might be an answerable question, but consciousness and unconsciousness are slippery things. For example, if we were aware of something a moment ago, and it has changed us in some way, but we are now unable to bring it to awareness, are we consciously motivated or unconsciously? Or if we deny some truth, keeping it from awareness, must we not have seen it coming in order to take that action to begin with?
5. Nature vs. nurture. This is another question that may someday be answerable: To what degree is what we are due to our genetic inheritance ("nature") or to our upbringing and other experiences ("nurture")? The question is such a difficult one because nature and nurture do not exist independently of each other. Both a body and experience are probably essential to being a person, and it is very difficult to separate their effects.
As you will see, the issue comes up in many forms, including the possible existence of instincts in human beings and the nature of temperament, genetically based personality characteristics. It is also very debatable whether "nature" (as in human nature) even refers to genetics.
6. Stage vs. non-stage theories of development. One aspect of the nature-nurture issue that is very important to personality psychology is whether or not we all pass through predetermined stages of development. We do, after all, go through certain stages of physiological development -- fetal, childhood, puberty, adulthood, senescence -- powerfully controlled by genetics. Shouldn't we expect the same for psychological development?
We will see a full range of positions on this issue, from true stage theories such as Freud's, who saw stages as universal an fairly clearly marked, to behaviorist and humanist theories that consider what appear to be stages to be artifacts created by certain patterns of upbringing and culture.
7. Cultural determinism vs. cultural transcendence. To what extent do our cultures mold us? Totally, or are we capable of "rising above" (transcending) those influences? And if so, how easy or difficult is it? Notice that this is not quite the same as the determinism-free will issue: If we are not determined by culture, our "transcendence" may be nothing more than some other determinism, by physiological needs, for example, or genetics.
Another way to look at the issue is to ask yourself, "How difficult is it to really get to know someone from a different culture?" If it is difficult to step out of our cultures and communicate as human beings, then perhaps culture is terribly determining of who we are. If it is relatively easy, perhaps it is not so powerful.
8. Early or late personality formation. Are our personality characteristics established in early childhood, to remain relatively fixed through the rest of our lives? Or are we every bit as flexible in adulthood? Or is that, although change is always a possibility, it just gets increasingly difficult as time goes on?
This question is intimately tied up with the issues of genetics, stages, and cultural determination, as you can imagine. The biggest hurdle we face before we find a resolution, however, is in specifying what we mean by personality characteristics. If we mean things that never change from the moment of birth -- i.e. temperament -- then of course personality is formed early. If we mean our beliefs, opinions, habits, and so on, these can change rather dramatically up to the moment of death. Since most theorists mean something "in between" these extremes, the answer is likewise to be found "in between."
9. Continuous vs. discontinuous understanding of mental illness. Is mental illness just a matter of degree? Are they just ordinary people that have taken something to an extreme? Are they perhaps eccentrics that disturb themselves or us? Or is there a qualitative difference in the way they experience reality? As with cultures, is it easy to understand the mentally ill, or do we live in separate worlds?
This issue may be resolvable, but it is complicated by the fact that mental illness is hardly a single entity. There are many different kinds. Some would say there are as many as their are people who are mentally ill. What is a mental illness and what is not is even up for debate. It may be that mental health is also not a single thing.
10. Optimism vs. pessimism. Last, we return to an issue that is, I believe, not at all resolvable: Are human beings basically good or basically bad; Should we be hopeful about our prospects, or discouraged; Do we need a lot of help, or would we be better off if left alone?
This is, obviously, a more philosophical, religious, or personal issue. Yet it is perhaps the most influential of all. The attitude determines what you see when you look at humanity; What you see in turn influences the attitude. And it is bound up with other issues: If, for example, mental illness is not so far from health, if personality can be changed later in life, if culture and genetics aren't too powerful, and if our motivations can at least be made conscious, we have more grounds for optimism. The theorists we will look at were at least optimistic enough to make the effort at understanding human nature.

Organization
With all the different pitfalls, assumptions, and methods, you might think that there is very little we can do in terms of organizing "theories of personality." Fortunately, people with like minds tend to be drawn to each other. Three broad orientations tend to stand out:
1. Psychoanalytic or "first force." Although psychoanalytic strictly speaking refers to Freudians, we will use it here to refer to others who have been strongly influenced by Freud and who -- though they may disagree with nearly everything else -- do share attitude: They tend to believe that the answers to the important questions lie somewhere behind the surface, hidden, in the unconscious.
This book will look at three versions of this approach. The first is the Freudian view proper, which includes Sigmund and Anna Freud, of course, and the ego psychologist, of whom Erik Erikson is the best known.
The second might be called the transpersonal perspective, which has a much more spiritual streak, and which will be represented here by Carl Jung.
The third has been called the social psychological view, and includes Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, and Erich Fromm.
2. Behavioristic or "second force." In this perspective, the answers are felt to lie in careful observation of behavior and environment and their relations. Behaviorists, as well as their modern descendants the cognitivist, prefer quantitative and experimental methods.
The behavioristic approach will be represented here by Hans Eysenck, B. F. Skinner, and Albert Bandura.
3. Humanistic or "third force." The humanistic approach, which is usually thought of as including existential psychology, is the most recent of the three. Often based on a reaction to psychoanalytic and behavioristic theories, the common belief is that the answers are to be found in consciousness or experience. Phenomenological methods are preferred by most humanists.
We will examine two "streams" of the humanistic approach. The first is humanism proper, represented by Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and George Kelly.
The second is existentialist psychology, a philosophy-based humanism quite popular in Europe and Latin America. We will look at two existential psychologists, Ludwig Binswanger and Viktor Frankl.

Sigmund Freud

Editor Oshodi Toheeb O.

Am a student of Kolej Gemilang, in Kuala lumpur Malaysia, currently a Business Information System Student in the school. This is a group work of the Students doing Organisational Behaviour as a subject. So you can comments our work if good or not and if will need to put one or two things to make its more presentable.

Thanks and still watch out for more from the groug....

ATTITUDE

INTRODUCTION TO ATTITUDE AND MOTIVATION

Attitude reflects the general attitude toward school and general motivation for
succeeding in school. The clearer the connection between school and future career, the easier it
is to maintain a positive attitude for performing the tasks related to success in college.
• Write out specific and global goals and make sure they meet the criteria of good goals:
(specific, measurable, challenging, realistic, and with a completion date).
• Reassess how school fits into your future. Reflect on why you are in college.
• Work with the Academic Planning & Support Services Office in Moody Hall 155
Motivation to perform SPECIFIC tasks is related to academic achievement. It measures the
degree to which the student accepts responsibility for studying, reading assignments, and
completing homework and papers, etc.
• Practice attributing what happens to you to your own efforts instead of to luck or poor
teachers or lack of ability.
• Reflect on your past successes and the strategies you used.
• Set motivational goals (rewards for timelines and goals accomplished).
• Stay up to date on class assignments; (go to class prepared).

GET MOTIVATED!

So, getting out of bed in the morning has become a serious challenge. Faced with a blank page
that is supposed to become your research paper your mind numbs and you get about as far as the
title page before you give up. You’ve lost all enthusiasm for school work.
Pure, divine motivation is rare. Most of the time it requires constant reinforcement.
• Take a moment to remind yourself why you’re doing what you’re doing. What are you
going to get out of it?
• Reward your accomplishments--no matter how small.
• Get your best friends to give you pep talks when they see you’re down. You might keep
a handy list of your best qualities, talents, and abilities.
• A healthy diet and regular exercise go a long way towards maintaining energy levels and
feeling good in general.
• Be willing to risk failure--remember that you risk success too.
Feel overwhelmed by a difficult task?
• Start early, and have a plan. Break up your task into small parts; allow time for mistakes
and wrong directions. Completing a small part each day helps maintain interest and
forestalls discouragement.
• Working in a comfortable setting helps (comfortable clothes, a few friends around,
familiar surroundings.) Take a break when you get tired.
Easily discouraged?
• Don’t be a perfectionist. Make approaching your goals the source of your satisfaction,
rather than reaching them.
• Don’t worry about or dwell on things that go wrong. Concentrate on your successes.
Remember that little successes build up just as quickly as little failures.
Are you too hard on yourself?
• Who you are is more valuable than what you do. Your worth as a person is not based on
your intelligence, your grades, or how hard you work. It is enough to be you.
• Realize and value the opinions of others--but realize that ultimately you must respect and
satisfy yourself.

SETTING GOALS: GOOD EXAMPLES/POOR EXAMPLES
Adapted from Claire E. Weinstein. Executive Control Process in Learning: Why Knowing About
How to Learn Is Not Enough. NADE Newsletter. Volume 12 No. 2, Fall 1988.
A useful goal contains five key elements. A useful goal is:
d
1) Specific – It describes what you want to accomplish with as much detail as possible.
Poor example – “I want to read better.”
Better example -“I want to increase my reading comprehension score 10% by the end of
this semester.”


2) Measurable – A useful goal is described in terms that can be clearly evaluated.
Poor example – “I want to lose weight this year.”
Better example – “I want to lose 10 pounds by my cousin’s wedding two moths from
now.”
3) Challenging – It takes energy, effort, and discipline to accomplish.
Poor example – “I want to get to all of my classes on Thursday.”
Better example – “I want to complete the assignment and be prepared for my classes on
Thursday.”
4) Realistic – A realistic goal is one you are capable of attaining.
Poor example – “I want to become the editor of the student newspaper in my first
semester.”
Better example – “I want to become the editor of the student paper by my last year in
school.”
5) Timely one with a completion date – For long term goals, it may be important to
identify shorter-term goals that lead to the desired endpoint.
Poor example – “I want to do a lot of professional writing in my lifetime.”
Better example – “I want to complete a short story by the end of the semester.”
4
GOAL SETTING AND DECISION MAKING
THE CASE OF SAM
Sam, a sophomore from Houston, is a pre-med major. He plans to specialize in
neurosurgery.
This semester, Sam was placed on academic probation because he made a D in biology,
an F in zoology, and a D in calculus. When Sam went to talk to his friendly academic counselor,
he said, “I know exactly why I’m on probation. I just don’t like those science classes. They’re
so technical and narrow that they don’t seem relevant to anything. I usually make C’s in my
science classes, but last semester I just didn’t feel motivated.”
Sam really respects his father, who is a corporate attorney. His dad expects a lot from
Sam and is disappointed in his probationary status. Ever since Sam was in junior high, his dad
has told him how important it is to “make something of yourself and to be successful.” Sam
knows that being a surgeon would bring him respect, status, and a high salary. Sam wants to be a
success but he sometimes worries that he will not like the stress and long hours involved in the
medical profession. Sam volunteered at Brackenridge Hospital last summer in the emergency
room and really enjoyed it. He like talking to the patients and asking them questions, and he
liked the fast-paced atmosphere.
Sam’s favorite class at SEU so far has been English (expository writing). He has always
been a good writer and in high school he was editor of the yearbook, an activity that he really
misses now that he’s in college. Sam also enjoyed a history class he took on current affairs. He
reads Time magazine every week and watches as many new programs and specials as he can.
This semester, Sam is really feeling burned out. He looks forward to the day when he can
be through with school and be out in the work world. He just doesn’t know what to do…
1) What decision does Sam need to make?
2) What are the possible consequences of his decision?
3) What goals should he set for himself?
5
REACHING OUR GOALS
Theme: The ability to live our lives in such a way that we reach our goals.
Quotes are from The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck, M.D., New York, Simon and Schuster, 1978.
1. Realize the opportunity
“The more clearly we see the reality of the world, the better equipped we are to deal with the
world. The less clearly we see the reality of the world—the more our minds are befuddled by
falsehood, misperceptions and illusions—the less able we will be to determine correct courses of
action and make wise decisions. Our view of reality is like a map with which to negotiate the
terrain of life. If the map is true and accurate, we will generally know where we are, and if we
have decided where we want to go, we will generally know how to get there. If the map is false
and inaccurate, we generally will be lost.”(p. 44)
“…if our maps are to be accurate we have to continually revise them.”(p.45)
“What does a life of total dedication to the truth mean? It means, first of all, a life of continuous
and never ending stringent self examination.”(p. 51)
“Problems do not go away. They must be worked through or else they remain, forever a barrier
to the growth and development of the spirit.”(p. 30)
2. Accept responsibility for the opportunity
“…we must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.”(p. 32)
“To willingly confront a problem early, before we are forced to confront it by circumstances,
means to put aside something pleasant or less painful for something more painful.”(p. 31)
“Sooner or later,…they must learn that the entirety of one’s adult life is a series of personal
choices, decisions. If they can accept this totally, then they become free people. To the extent
that they do not accept this they will forever feel themselves victims.”(p. 44)
3. Change the behavior
“Delaying gratification is a process of scheduling the pain and pleasure of life in such a way as to
enhance the pleasure by meeting and experiencing the pain first and getting it over with. It is the
only decent way to live.”(p. 19)
“This feeling of being valuable is a cornerstone of self-discipline because when one considers
oneself valuable one will take care of oneself in all ways that are necessary. Self-discipline is
self-caring…If we feel ourselves valuable, then we will feel our time to be valuable, and if we
feel our time to be valuable, then we will want to use it well.”(p. 24)
Shift from external controls over behaviors to internal controls. There are some easy
gratifications to delay; some difficult.

6
About Yourself
Who you are is more valuable than what you do. Your worth as a person is not based on your
intelligence, your grades, or how hard you work. It is enough to be you.
Respect and value the opinions of others—but realize that ultimately you must respect and satisfy
yourself.
Practice impulse control by imagining the consequences of your actions. How will you feel
afterwards? Then, act so that you will be satisfied with yourself.
Write out a plan for yourself. Jot down personal and academic goals and priorities, and reread them
when you’re in a slump.
Don’t worry about or dwell on things that go wrong. Concentrate on your successes. Remember that
little successes build up just as quickly as little failures.
Give yourself time to change. Forgive yourself for backsliding and making mistakes.
Don’t be a perfectionist Make approaching your goals the basis of your self-respect rather than
reaching your goals.
Don’t allow feelings of inadequacy get you down. Think about all the things you do have going for
you.
If you’re feeling down or hopeless, imagine the worst that could happen—exaggerate your
fantasies—and then laugh at them. Do this to put yourself and your current situation in perspective.
When you’re down, go to someone whom you know cares for you and ask him or her to give you a
“pep talk,” reminding you of your good qualities, talents and abilities and/or make a list of your
good qualities and read them when you need to.
Be willing to risk failure for something you really care about. Be willing to risk success too!
If you’re irrationally afraid of something, do it a lot; the fear will wear off.
Learn to recognize, sooner, events which are not turning out as they should—and act to redirect them
to your satisfaction.
About Your Work:
No one else is forcing you to do your work. You’ve decided to take it on. Don’t waste your energy in
hostility toward others. Accept and live with your own decisions.
Start early. The sooner you start, the sooner you’ll be free to do other activities, the less worry you’ll
experience, the more time you’ll have to recover from mistakes and wrong decisions.
Expect a certain amount of tension. Use that tension as energy to get yourself moving.

7
Different people have different styles of working. For example, some people need competition to do
their best, while others work better at their own pace. Respect your work style and arrange
conditions you need to do well.
If you have a long, hard task, make it as comfortable for yourself as possible. Do it in short bits (but
stay with it), do it wearing comfortable clothes, among friends, in familiar surroundings, with
whatever you need to keep your spirits up while you work at it.
Pure, unadulterated motivation is rare (most of the time); you just have to keep plugging away.
If necessary, pause every now and then to remind yourself of why you have chosen to take on certain
work, and what you expect to get out of it. Give yourself a pep talk.
When you’ve done something you feel good about, reward yourself with a treat: You deserve it!
Completed tasks keep interest and motivation at a higher level. Try to complete a task, or accomplish
a sub-goal before you quit for the day.

8
PERSONAL GOAL SHEET
Instructions: Help motivate yourself to study by setting goals that can be measured: these goals should be realistic,
measurable, of value to your plans, and have built-in rewards for attainment.
GOAL
MOTIVATION
ACHIEVABLE
MEASUREABLE
REWARD
AFFIRMATION
Yes
No
Yes
No

9
OVERCOMING PROCRASTINATION
Overcoming procrastination is the procrastinator’s greatest challenge because the behavior you are
trying to change is the very thing that can get in the way of changing your behavior. Sounds like a no win
situation, but take heart. Summon all your determination and will-power and follow these guidelines to a
procrastination-free life.
CLARIFY YOUR PERSONAL GOALS
• Make a list of your personal goals and post it where you’ll see it frequently—your mirror, notebook,
door, etc.
• Outline (on paper) the tasks that will lead to your goal, and be sure a task you think you “should” do is
one that is really important to meeting your goal. If you aren’t sure what tasks will lead to your goal, talk
with your parents, professors, or an APSS counselor.
• Prioritize! Put the most unpleasant tasks at the top of your list, and work your way down to the easier
ones.
MANAGE YOUR TIME EFFECTIVELY
• Time management is a learned skill, and it takes practice to master. If your idea of time management is
remembering to flip the calendar at the end of each month, it’s a good idea to consult an APSS counselor
for help or attend a time management workshop.
• Plan out a schedule for working on the tasks that will lead to your goal. Set deadlines for completing
each step. Blank calendars and weekly schedules are available at Academic Planning & Support
Services in Moody Hall 155.
• Start early. Allow for “blow off” time, and give yourself time to clarify assignments or get help if
necessary.
• Get into a routine. Set aside a particular block of time each day to work on your tasks; if possible, work
during the same time each day.
CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE
• Do you think you’re unable to meet life’s challenges?
• Do you expect perfection from yourself and others?
• Are you convinced that disaster hinges on your actions?
Lighten up! These are the kinds of irrational, self defeating attitudes and beliefs that hold you back. Replace
these ideas with more rational, self-enhancing attitudes and beliefs. (Your APSS counselor can help with
this, too.)
• Whenever you feel the whispering temptation to procrastinate, remember the emotional and physical
consequences it will have. Also remember the rewards of not procrastinating.
• Don’t approach projects with an “all or nothing” attitude. Concentrate on little bits and pieces at a time.

10
• Visualize yourself as a well-organized non-procrastinator. Imagine how you might think and behave.
Then behave and think that way, even if only for a few minutes at a time.
• Value your mistakes; don’t judge them. Find something funny, curious, or interesting about them. Learn
from them.
• Be aware of those tricks you use to avoid or escape tasks—socializing, day-dreaming, running away,
television—Catch yourself indulging in those tactics and get back on track.
CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR
• Use your friends. Make appointments to study with a friend, to get help with a task, or just to talk. “Let’s
do lunch sometime,” is not an appointment. Set specific times and dates, such as “Lunch, Tuesday at
noon.”
• Reward yourself for accomplishing something, and/or penalize yourself for not accomplishing
something.
• Make something you normally do and enjoy contingent upon doing the avoided task: “I’ll work on my
library research half an hour before going to play racquetball.”
• Use impulsiveness to your advantage. Do something (productive) when you think of it, instead of
putting it off. Do instant, tiny things.
• Make your working environment conducive to working. Eliminate distractions (TV, phone, radio, other
people) and have at hand all the tools you’ll need.
ACCEPT YOURSELF
• Give yourself time to change.
• Expect and forgive backsliding.
• Give yourself credit for the things you do.
• Forgive yourself a lot.

11
CAUSES OF PROCRASTINATION
Self Deception—“I can always do it later.” “I work best under pressure anyway.” “Getting started early doesn’t
help me.” Some folks tend to rationalize their unwillingness to start unpleasant tasks.
Perfectionism—It may seem strange at first that a procrastinator is a perfectionist, but this is often the case.
Procrastinators often put unrealistic demands on themselves to be perfect—an all or nothing attitude. Another
perfectionist expectation is that excellence should come with little or no effort. For example, when it becomes
obvious that not every class in college is fun and interesting, some get discouraged and just quit attending class
or completing assignments.
Perfectionists are frequently competitive, although it may seem strange that a student who hands in late
papers would be competitive. In a sense, these folk “choose to lose” so that they never have to truly test
themselves and/or risk failure.
Inappropriate Commitments—This is the person who is active in all parts of campus and community life and
stretches him/herself too thin. When all the energy goes into Greek life or athletics, academics can sometimes
slide. This is a failure to establish priorities.
Tasks That Seem Too Big—Rather than take a major research paper step by step, the procrastinator “awfulizes”
about how terrible it is that students are required to do so much work. Instead of using little bits of time to get
started the procrastinator becomes paralyzed by the thought of how much effort/time the paper will take.
Non-Productive Behaviors—Some students spend too much time “getting ready” to study. They sharpen
pencils, put on background music, feed the cats, clean off the bed (so they will not be distracted)—then notice
that an hour has passed and it “must be about time to take a break from studying.”
Lack of organization contributes to wasting time. Procrastinators often have no idea how to get started,
or what procedures to follow.
Not knowing how to prioritize is another example. Some people spend 3 hours on a project that is fun,
but may be an elective course. Then, they may spend almost no time studying for a comprehensive final—in a
course they do not like—which is worth 1/3 of the course grade.
Finally, an unwillingness to say “NO” to friends contributes to procrastination. If you just can’t turn
down some invitations to socialize, you will be at the mercy to anyone/everyone who interrupts your studying

12
Procrastination Quotient
Directions: Mark an “X” in the column for your response to each of the twelve items. Total the
“X”’s in each column, multiply by the weight at the bottom of the column, and add you products.
Almost
Almost
Always Frequently Occasionally Never
1. I find reasons for not acting imme-
diately on a difficult assignment.
_________ _________ _________ _________
2. I know what I have to do but find
that I have done something else.
_________ _________ _________ _________
3.I carry my books/work assign-
ments with me to various places but
do not open them.
_________ _________ _________ _________
4. I work best at the “last minute”
when the pressure is really on.
_________ _________ _________ _________
5. There are too many interruptions
that interfere with my most important
study goals.
_________ _________ _________ _________
6. I avoid setting priorities for the day
and doing the most important tasks first.
_________ _________ _________ _________
7. I avoid or delay unpleasant deci-
sions.
_________ _________ _________ _________
8. I have been too tired, nervous, or
upset to get started on my assignment
_________ _________ _________ _________
9. I like to get my room in excellent
order before starting a difficult study task. _________ _________ _________ _________
10. I wait for inspirations before
becoming involved in important study/
work tasks.
_________ _________ _________ _________
11. I fear failing at my most important
study tasks.
_________ _________ _________ _________
12. I demand perfection in my work/
study performance.
_________ _________ _________ _________
Total Responses in each column
_________ _________ _________ _________
x4
x3
x2
x1
Procrastination is
_________ + ________ + _________ + ________
P.Q. below 22 - minor concern
P.Q. 23 to 32 - moderate concern
P.Q. above 32 - major concern
Total Score ____________ = P.Q.