AN EVALUATION OF DR.

BARRY STAWS THEORY OF DISPOSITION

An Evaluation of Dr. Barry Staws Theory of Disposition

Shane Molinari, MS, PMP, CISSP, SSMBB BCM Professionals, LLC

Abstract
This article describes Dr. Barry Staws Disposition theories with respect to individualistic versus collective personality or behavioral tendencies, regarding organizational commitment, innovation, and motivation. This paper also illustrates a brief summary of the theorists work, how his theory advanced our understanding of management, and why his theories are still relevant today. Equally, the paper will show how Dr. Staws arguments are increasingly being disregarded and the consequential risks facing the respective U.S. companies that do.

AN EVALUATION OF DR. BARRY STAWS THEORY OF DISPOSITION

Introduction
Disposition

Regarding behavioral studies, disposition looks at nature, character, or outlook. More to the point, disposition deals with an individualistic or collective personality or behavioral tendencies, with respect to: Escalation of commitment to organizational decisions Emotional expression in the workplace Dispositional approaches to job attitudes Creativity and organizational innovation

In the workplace, disposition plays a major role in the organizational approach to creativity and innovation. History has shown discussions on the respective topic, as far back as 1910 (Landy, 1997).

It is no secret that organizations that once leveraged long-term strategies (e.g., five, ten years) are quickly turning to what this author termed dynamic strategies (i.e., 18 months to two-year forecast). Fundamentally, this is due to a technology push, instead of a societal pull for technological innovation. Equally, especially in the small business environment, it is common knowledge that technological and general business successes depend heavily on the creativity of the respective organizations team members, in order to hold fast to or acquire greater market

AN EVALUATION OF DR. BARRY STAWS THEORY OF DISPOSITION

shares. The arguments tend to stem from the fundamental perspectives of the individual versus the team.

Having written multiple documents on the respective subject, Dr. Barry Staw, Professor and Chair at the University of California, Berkley Haas School of Business, believes that organizational cultures that focus on the individual employee and their accomplishments are more likely to achieve innovation and thusly greater success than organizations that utilize a team-based approach. Furthermore, he is not alone.

However, this is not a biography on Dr. Staw. Instead, this paper will illustrate the main thrust of the Dr. Staws theories regarding the social paradigm of individual versus team-based dispositions and their respective affects on the organization. Moreover, this paper will demonstrate how Dr. Staws theory regarding the importance of the individualistic disposition has advanced our understanding of management. Additionally, this article will highlight elements of Dr. Staws theory that contributed to a new understanding about management. Lastly, this paper will show whether his theories are still relevant today.

Discussion
Main Thrust of Dr. Staws Disposition Theories

Although Dr. Staw had been publishing since 1971, his papers did not seem to impact the social psychology arena until his 1975 critique on the Cognitive Evaluation Theory, and the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation (Calder and Staw). Since then, Dr. Staws

AN EVALUATION OF DR. BARRY STAWS THEORY OF DISPOSITION

main thrust has been that organizational cultures that focus on the individual employee and their accomplishments are more likely to achieve innovation and thusly greater success than organizations that utilize a team-based approach. Further, Dr. Staw has recently cautioned that U.S. businesses have been increasingly adopting Asian business practices, which are known for their cooperative team-based methodologies. Consequently, he is openly concerned that the U.S. will lose its historic edge by losing its individualistic culture. Dr. Staw states that this move creates the risk losing creativity (Staw, 2012).

How Dr. Staws Disposition Arguments Differ From Others

Although Dr. Staws claim of importance for individualistic creativity is valid for normal operations, over 20 years of recovering enterprise organizations, this author can attest to the validity of systematic process in order to effect an enterprise change. In a systematic environment that accepts and demands change (i.e., Six Sigma), the collective environment drives systemic refinement of processes to eliminate variations in operations.

This is evident not only as a practitioner, but fundamental best practices (e.g., Project Management Institute, COBiT) that utilize a structured governance process for control and monitorization. Overall, Dr. Staw (2005) acknowledged the relevance of the 20-year organizational behavior argument regarding individualistic versus collective-based cultures, supported by Davis-Blake and Pfeffer.

AN EVALUATION OF DR. BARRY STAWS THEORY OF DISPOSITION

Dr. Staws Theory Elements That Contribute to New Management Understanding

Dr. Staws citation and impact statistics. Dr. Staw has been publishing scholarly
disposition-based articles since 1971 (Notz, Staw, and Cook) with recorded citations of his works starting in 1975 (Staw and Szwajkowski) as many as 258 times in 1981. This is supported by the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) library databases, UMUC Library OneSearch and Business Source Complete. However, it must be noted that a general search on the Business Source Complete database, using the respective authors name and the field AU Author, demonstrated that a downward trend of authors citing Dr. Staws works have occurred since the late 1990s. It would seem the respective trend coincides with the U.S.s increasing acceptance of formal collective-based methodologies (e.g., Six Sigma) (Cobb, 2003).

Dr. Staws individual disposition validated on a global scale. A 1999

international study was executed using registered nurses operating in Hong Kong and Singapore and in Australia and United States. The objective was to study collective influence versus individualistic influence on employee dispositions in negative situations. The findings supported the ideology that individuals in the Western cultures tended to have more positive attitudes than their respective Eastern counterparts. Moreover, as their environments worsened, the individualistic based environments faired better attitudinally than the collective based environments (Chiu and Kosinski).

Challenges to individualism disposition in the workplace. Studies were

conducted in research and development organizations, where an individualistic approach could

AN EVALUATION OF DR. BARRY STAWS THEORY OF DISPOSITION

be viewed as railing against the establishment. Consequently, it was not uncommon for the respective individual(s) to be negatively impacted as a result of being shunned by the collective. For example, Witt (1993) demonstrated that the individual's perceptions of an organizations climate (i.e., psychological climate) might have had some effect on the individual's feelings of alienation.

Witts study showed that the longer the individual differences were realized (short-term yielded 2% variance versus 23% for longer-term delays), the less likely an intervention would be of benefit. Further, Witt was able to show that even though the validity of the respective environmental perceptions could be reduced by individual disposition, the impact could trigger a ripple affect that would negatively impact the individuals colleagues.

Why Staws Theories Are Still Relevant

The outcome of a 2010 survey supported Dr. Staws concerns over the collective approach to operations nulling the creative individualist. Yamkovenko and Holton included structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis to demonstrate when confident individuals are open to new workplace experiences, but are negatively impacted by their collective environment, the collective wins nearly every time. Consequently, the positive and creative disposition of the individual is negatively impacted (2010).

AN EVALUATION OF DR. BARRY STAWS THEORY OF DISPOSITION

Conclusion
This article described Disposition with respect to individualistic and collective tendencies. With the advent of technology pushing society, organizational leadership has changed its philosophy to incorporate formal methodologies and dynamic strategy planning, thus creating an environment of the collective versus the individual. Dr. Staw believes that U.S. companies should focus on the individual creative employee to drive innovation and success. Equally, he feels that since U.S. companies have taken a more collective approach, our companies are at risk of losing the innovative edge that made this country an economic force to be reckoned with. This article highlighted Dr. Staws theoretical contribution to management on a global scale, but equally illustrated his seemingly fading impact on management. The fear of Dr. Staw, and this author, is that if the U.S. continues down this apparent slippery slope, we will forget our business history but not be destined to repeat it.

AN EVALUATION OF DR. BARRY STAWS THEORY OF DISPOSITION

References
Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975). Interaction of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: Some Methodological Notes. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 31(1), 76-80.

Chiu, R. & Kosinski, F., Jr. (1999). The Role of Affective Dispositions in Job Satisfaction and Work Strain: Comparing Collectivist and Individualist Societies. International Journal of Psychology, 34 (1), 19-28.

Cobb, C. (2003). From Quality to Business Excellence: A Systems Approach to Management. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press.

Landy, F. J. (1997). Early Influences on the Development of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 467-477.

Notz, W. W., Staw, B. M., & Cook, T. D. (1971). Attitude Toward Troop Withdrawal from Indochina As A Function of Draft Number. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 20(1), 118-126.

Staw, B. M., & Szwajkowski, E. (1975). The Scarcity-Munificence Component of Organizational Environments and the Commission of Illegal Acts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(3), 345-354.

AN EVALUATION OF DR. BARRY STAWS THEORY OF DISPOSITION

Staw, B. M. (1981). The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action. Academy Of Management Review, 6(4), 577-587. doi:10.5465/AMR.1981.4285694.

Staw, B. (2012). Individualistic Culture Trumps Teamwork in Quest for Creativity. Retrieved from http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/innovation/innovation9.html.

Staw, B. M., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2005). The dispositional approach to job satisfaction: more than a mirage, but not yet an oasis. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 26(1), 59-78. doi:10.1002/job.299.

Witt, L. (1993). Alienation Among Research Scientists. Journal Of Social Psychology, 133(2), 133.

Yamkovenko, B., & Holton, E. (2010). Toward a theoretical model of dispositional influences on transfer of learning: A test of a structural model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(4), 381-410. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20054.