The sciences are based on underlying assumptions that define acceptable approaches, methods and questions, referred to as paradigms. The organizational sciences are no different. Our dominant paradigm in industrial-organizational psychology and business management is the Environment-Perception-Outcome or E-P-O Paradigm. The paradigm provides a general framework that can be seen across many topic areas, and it dominates the research that is done and the methods that are used. E-P-O provides a useful framework, but it also can stifle advancement by leading people to overlook alternative possibilities.
The Environment Perception Outcome Paradigm
The E-P-O paradigm assumes a particular sequence of events that unfolds over time. People are exposed to the work environment and its many features that involve the nature of their tasks, the interactions with other people, and the physical environment. They perceive and evaluate those features, giving them an interpretation that might be benign or might be threatening. Those perceptions lead to various behavioral, physical, and psychological outcomes. For example, an employee might have an abusive boss who periodically belittles and yells. That employee might perceive the behavior as degrading and threatening. Those perceptions can lead to behavioral (avoiding work), physical (stomach distress), and psychological (anxiety) outcomes.
This framework assumes that the environment is the driving force that leads to outcomes. It implicitly considers people as passive actors who react to their experiences. I have a heavy workload so I respond in a certain way. There can be a role for differences among people, and many models based on the E-P-O framework include a role for personality, but personality is generally treated as a fixed feature of a person that might affect their perception. For example, individuals who are high in neuroticism will perceive an abusive supervisor as being more threatening than people who are low in neuroticism. But the flow is still from E to P to O. Again, the person is treated as a passive actor, reacting to the environment according to their personality characteristics.
Where Do We See the E-P-O Framework?
The organizational sciences are dominated by arrow and box models like the image at the top of this article that describe a causal process of one thing leading to another to another, and most adopt an E-P-O framework. Examples include.
- Job Characteristics: Job characteristics theory explains how the nature of the tasks people do affects them. The most well known was introduced by Richard Hackman and Gregg Oldham in the 1970s that links the complexity of the tasks required (E), the psychological states that result from the tasks (P) and motivation, satisfaction, and performance (O). For example, autonomy on the job (freedom to chose how, when and where to perform tasks) leads to felt responsibility that leads to the outcomes.
- Leadership: Almost any leadership model describes how the behavior or style of the leader results in direct report outcomes.
- Organizational climate: These models describe the impact of organizational policies and procedures on employee motivation, behavior, and broader outcomes. For example, a safety climate where safe behavior is emphasized drives safety behavior by employees that leads to fewer accidents.
- Stress: The Lazarus transactional stress model that is the basis for much job stress research talks about how the environment is perceived/appraised and how that leads to strains such as anxiety or avoidance of the situation.
Breaking the Mold
It is not unusual for authors to comment about how the E-P-O framework might be incorrect and that the flow might be reversed. For example, it might be the behavior of direct reports that drive leader behavior. Designing studies to investigate such cases is far less common than E-P-O studies. There are some notable examples.
- Job Crafting: A new line of research investigates how employees create their own job characteristics. If my job as designed is repetitive and monotonous, I might find ways to expand the things I do that make it more interesting, e.g., I ask to be allowed to mentor new hires.
- Leadership: There is an old line of research on “vertical dyad linkages” that shows how leader style is affected by direct report behavior. Top performers are treated differently than mediocre performers.
- Organizational Climate: Although not common, it has been noted that climate can be a by-product of outcomes. A serious workplace accident can motivate management and employees to create a safer climate.
- Strain-Stressor Studies: I have been involved in studies that investigated the possibility that strains lead to stressors rather than the opposite. For example, we found that rather than stressful conditions leading to the bad behavior of employees, it can be the bad behavior of employees that leads to stressors.
Organizations are extremely complex and dynamic, and individual research studies can only isolate small elements for practical reasons. The Environment Perception Outcome Paradigm has served us well in showing connections among important workplace features. More complex models will be needed to better capture the complex interplay among people and their organizations, recognizing that not every flow is E to P to O.
Image generated the old fashioned way with PowerPoint.
SUBSCRIBE TO PAUL’S BLOG: Enter your e-mail and click SUBSCRIBE