Free Practice Questions for WGU Organizational-Behavior Exam

In Organizational Behavior, values are often classified using the Rokeach Value Survey, which distinguishes betweenTerminal ValuesandInstrumental Values. Terminal values represent the ultimate goals or "end-states" an individual hopes to achieve, such as prosperity (economic success), well-being, and world peace. These are the destinations toward which a person works. In contrast, instrumental values are the "modes of conduct" or the means by which one achieves those terminal goals.

In this specific scenario, "autonomy and self-reliance" are categorized as instrumental values because they describe the behavioral methods an employee uses to navigate the workplace and eventually reach their terminal goals, such as economic success or personal well-being. For example, an employee might use autonomy (an instrumental value) as a tool to gain the efficiency required to achieve prosperity (a terminal value). Understanding this distinction is vital for managers because while terminal values tell us what the employee wants to achieve, instrumental values tell us how they prefer to behave in order to get there. Autonomy and self-reliance are practical approaches to work life rather than the final life-goals themselves, thus fitting the definition of instrumental values perfectly.

Once a culture is in place, certain practices within the organization act to maintain it by exposing employees to a set of similar experiences. Three forces play a particularly important role in sustaining a culture: selection practices, theactions of top management, and thesocialization process.

Theactions of top managementare crucial because through what they say and how they behave, senior executives establish norms that filter down through the organization. For example, their reactions to crises or how they reward performance send clear signals about what is truly valued. Thesocialization processis the method by which the organization helps new employees adapt to its culture. Even if an organization hires the "right" people during selection, they must still be taught the specific values and customs of the firm. Socialization ensures that the culture is transmitted consistently from one generation of employees to the next, maintaining the organization's unique identity over time.

Cohesiveness is generally viewed as a desirable trait in organizational groups because of its potential toimprove group productivity. In a highly cohesive group, members are more likely to communicate effectively, experience less internal friction, and display higher levels of commitment to group goals. This internal synergy typically leads to a more efficient work process and higher quality output.

However, the relationship between cohesiveness and productivity is moderated byperformance-related norms. If a cohesive group has high performance norms (standards for hard work and quality), productivity will be significantly higher than in a group with low cohesiveness. Conversely, if a highly cohesive group has low performance norms, their productivity may actually decrease because they are united in their desire to work less. Despite this nuance, the fundamental positive organizational outcome associated with fostering cohesion is the enhancement of the group's ability to produce results.

Culture is transmitted to employees in several ways, most notably through stories, rituals, material symbols, and language.Ritualsare repetitive sequences of activities that express and reinforce the key values of the organization—what goals are most important, which people are important, and which are expendable. For example, a company might hold an annual awards ceremony that celebrates "risk-taking," thereby reinforcing a culture of innovation more effectively than a written document could.

These ritualistic activities serve as a physical manifestation of the organization's underlying values. While mission statements (Option A) provide a formal overview, they often fail to capture the "lived experience" of the culture. Similarly, while the selection process influences who enters the organization, the transmission of culture happens after hiring through consistent, repeated social practices. By engaging in these rituals, employees internalize the organization's norms and expectations, transforming them from "outsiders" to "insiders" who understand the shared organizational meaning.

In the study of Organizational Behavior, the "nature vs. nurture" debate examines how much of an individual's personality is inherited (heredity) versus influenced by their surroundings (environment). While heredity sets the outer parameters or "potential" of an individual's personality, environmental factors—such as culture, family, and social groups—dictate how that potential is realized or constrained. This specific individual exhibits traits like competitiveness and independence, which are often reinforced by a business environment that rewards such behaviors.

However, personality is not a static result of environment alone (refuting option A and D), nor is the environment irrelevant to personality development (refuting option C). Instead, the interactionist perspective suggests that behavior is a function of the person and their environment. The "potential" of a person's personality traits is often activated or suppressed by environmental demands. For example, a person with a natural inclination for leadership may only see that trait flourish if the environment provides opportunities and requirements for leadership. Consequently, the individual’s success is a result of how effectively they adjust their internal traits to meet external environmental requirements. This adjustment process is a key component of "person-environment fit," where high levels of fit lead to better performance and job satisfaction.

The interaction between cohesiveness and performance norms is a critical concept in Organizational Behavior. As shown in the research regarding group dynamics,the productivity of the team will improve significantlywhen both cohesiveness and performance norms are high. Cohesiveness provides the social "glue" that keeps the team together, while performance norms provide the "direction" by establishing clear expectations for effort, output, and quality.

When these two factors coincide, the group becomes a powerful force; members motivate one another to meet the high standards they have collectively accepted. This is the "ideal" state for any work team. If cohesiveness is high but performance norms are low, the group is unified but unproductive. If cohesiveness is low but norms are high, productivity improves only slightly because members lack the social bond to sustain high-level collaboration. Therefore, the combination of a strong bond and high standards yields the most significant productivity gains.

Groupshift is a phenomenon related to groupthink, specifically describing the way group members tend to exaggerate their initial positions when discussing a given set of alternatives. In a group setting, the collective decision often shows a shift toward a more extreme version of the position held by members before the discussion began. While many people assume groups always lead to more conservative decisions, groupshift demonstrates that the shift can move in either direction: toward greater caution or toward greater risk.

The shift toward risk is more common in many organizational settings. This occurs for several reasons: first, the shared responsibility of a group diffuses the accountability for any single individual, making them feel bolder. Second, members who are more willing to take risks may be perceived as more confident and thus exert more influence over the group's final decision. Conversely, if the initial atmosphere of the group is conservative, the discussion tends to reinforce that caution, leading to a "shift" toward even more extreme avoidance of risk. Understanding groupshift is vital for managers because it highlights that group decisions are not necessarily "average" or "moderate" versions of individual opinions; rather, the social dynamics within a group can drive the collective toward extremes that no single member might have chosen independently. Recognizing this allows leaders to implement checks and balances, such as appointing a devil’s advocate, to ensure that the group does not drift into a dangerous or overly timid position due to the social reinforcement of the shift phenomenon.

Designing an effective reward system for teams requires a delicate balance between individual and collective incentives. If the reward system focuses solely on individual achievement, it can foster internal competition and discourage the very collaboration the team is lacking. Conversely, if it focuses only on the group, "social loafing" may occur where some members coast on the efforts of others.

To improve effectiveness and collaboration, the organization should implementa system that emphasizes rewards for individual contributions as well as for selfless contributions. This means that while members are recognized for their technical proficiency, they are also evaluated and rewarded for being "good team players"—sharing information, helping colleagues, and resolving conflicts. Rewarding "selfless contributions" directly addresses the concern that members need to be more collaborative. This dual-focus approach ensures that individuals are motivated to perform their specific tasks at a high level while simultaneously being incentivized to support the team’s overall synergy.

Group Cohesivenessis the degree to which members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group. When a group is "working in different directions," it lacks the unity and shared purpose characteristic of cohesive teams. To increase cohesiveness, Organizational Behavior literature suggests several specific strategies.

One effective method is toPhysically isolate the group. By providing the group with its own workspace or isolating them from other units, the members are forced to interact more frequently with one another rather than with outsiders. This increased interaction often leads to a stronger shared identity and a "we-feeling" that helps align their efforts. Other common ways to increase cohesiveness include making the group smaller (not larger, which refutes option C), increasing the time members spend together, and increasing the status of the group or the difficulty of gaining admission. While option A (increasing difficulty of membership) is a valid way to increase cohesiveness, the provided source materials and the context of members "working in different directions" prioritize physical isolation as a primary structural intervention to foster unity. Creating more rigid roles (Option D) might help with clarity but does not necessarily increase the emotional and social attraction (cohesion) between members.