EMPLOYEE LOCUS OF CONTROL (2)

EMPLOYEE LOCUS OF CONTROL (INTERNAL & EXTERNAL)

AT

Submitted by

MRIDULA KHANNA

PGDM (2007-09)

BUSINESS SCHOOL OF DELHI Year of Submission 2009

CERTIFICATE

1 | P a g e

This is to certify that Ms. MRIDULA KHANNA of BUSINESS SCHOOL OF DELHI

(2007-09) batch has satisfactorily completed the thesis entitled, “Employee Locus of

Control (Internal & external) at Syrex Info Services (I) Pvt Ltd”, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the award of Program in Post Graduate Diploma in Management

with specialization in HUMAN RESOURCES of this Institute.

Name and Signature of Name and signature

Director of the internal guide

Date

Place

2 | P a g e

THESIS APPROVAL SHEET

Thesis entitled, “Employee Locus Of Control(Internal & External) at Syrex”, by

MRIDULA KHANNA is approved for Post Graduate Diploma in Management at

BUSINESS SCHOOL OF DELHI, GREATER NOIDA..

Date Examiners

Place

3 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this thesis should be attributed to everyone who assisted me with this

research endeavor. My Benevolent Sadguru, without whom I would never have had the

ability to complete my report.

My corporate mentor Mrs. Rashmi Dureja- HR Manager, Syrex Info Services (I) Pvt

Ltd, for her enduring guidance, support and encouragement during the period of my

thesis completion.

Then, I would like to thank my internal mentor Mrs. Prerna Mishra, for teaching me the

subtleties of formatting project report. I would also like to thank the employees at Syrex

who always offered their help and support.

I, finally would like to thank my family for their continuous support and for putting up

with me throughout the study process.

Date: Mridula Khanna

Place: PGDM (2007-09)

ABSTRACT

4 | P a g e

This study examines that internals are people with a high level of internality and externals represent individuals with high level of externality. Some individuals believe to own control on their life (internal locus of control), some individuals consider that the other powers such as luck, fate, or chance are effective on their life events (external locus of control).

Those with an internal locus of control feel that they have choice in their lives and control over their circumstances; conversely, those with an external locus of control feel more at the mercy of external events. As you may have guessed, those with a more internal locus of control tend to feel happier, more free, and less stress. They also enjoy better health (likely because they experience less of the damaging chronic stress that can come from feeling powerless), and are more satisfied with life in general. Perhaps not surprisingly, those with an external locus of control are more susceptible to depression as well as other health problems, and tend to keep themselves in situations where they will experience additional stress, feeling powerless to change their own circumstances, which just adds to their stress load.

The level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction is also determined by the employees’ belief in how much influence/bearing external factors like superiors, peers, subordinates and luck, fate and/or chance have on their success/failure in the organization. If employees feel that they can determine the path of their careers in the organization, the degree of satisfaction is bound to be higher.

Job dissatisfaction poses a threat to the performance of workers and, in turn, to the performance of an organization as a whole. Therefore, though this report might not give an exact figure in terms of value addition, it surely seeks to add value in terms of determining satisfaction/dissatisfaction levels of the employees. And after analyzing the satisfaction/dissatisfaction levels, the process-based organization can save costs in terms of undertaking training/retraining programs, counseling sessions, additions/deletions in the benefits package, changes in the system of appraisal etc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

5 | P a g e

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Chapter 1-

1.1 Outline of the thesis

Chapter 2-

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Syrex Info Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Company Profile)

2.1.1Projects at hand

2.1.2Organization Structure

2.2 History of Concept - Locus of Control

2.3 Overview on Locus of Control

2.4 Types of Locus of Control

2.5 Characteristics of locus of control orientations

Chapter-3

OBJECTIVES & HYPOTHESIS

3.1 Problem statement

3.2 Research objectives

3.3 Hypothesis

3.4 Limitations

Chapter- 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Research Design

4.2 Data Collection Tools

6 | P a g e

4.3 A Quantitative Research

4.3.1 Locus of Control Survey & Job Satisfaction Survey

4.3.2Target Respondents

4.4 Sources of Data

4.4.1Secondary Data

4.4.2Primary Data

4.4.3 Sources of Data used in the Thesis

Chapter 5 -

DATA ANALYSIS

5.1 Models of Locus of Control

5.2 Locus of control in organizations

5.3 Loco inventory

5.4 Distribution of Items in Locus of Control Inventory

5.5 Scoring for LOC

5.6 Interpretation of scores for LOC

5.7 Analysis of LOCO Inventory scores

5.8 Tabulated score of LOCO inventory

5.9 Analysis of LOCO inventory scores using pie charts

5.9.1 Analysis of scores of internal

5.9.2 Analysis of scores of external sources (others)

5.9.3 Analysis of scores of external (luck)

5.10 Analysis of LOCO inventory using Ratio Analysis

5.10.1 Ratio analysis between internal scores and external (others) scores

5.10.2 Ratio analysis between internal scores and external (luck) scores

5.10.3 Ratio analysis between internal scores and external (others)& external (luck) scores

5.11 Analysis of LOCO Inventory scores using mean score & standard deviation scores

5.11.2 Analysis of external (others) scores

7 | P a g e

Chapter 6 -

CONCLUSION

6.1 Conclusion- inference

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: The Outline of the Thesis.

FIGURE 2: Organization Structure.

8 | P a g e

FIGURE 3: Locus of control.

FIGURE 4: Research design.

FIGURE 5: Rotter’s model.

FIGURE 6: Levenson’s model.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1: Locus of control Questionnaire.

EXHIBIT 2: Distribution of Items in Locus of Control Inventory.

EXHIBIT 3: Scoring of LOC.

9 | P a g e

EXHIBIT 4: Loco inventory norms.

EXHIBIT 5: Tabulated score of loco inventory.

EXHIBIT 6: Internality range.

EXHIBIT 7: Externality range.

EXHIBIT 8: Externality (luck) range.

EXHIBIT 9: Calculation of I/EO.

EXHIBIT 10: Calculation of I/EL.

EXHIBIT 11: Calculation of I/EO+EL.

10 | P a g e

Chapter - 1

INTRODUCTION

The first chapter introduces the thesis. In this chapter, the outline of the thesis is presented.

1.1 Outline of the thesis

1.1 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS

Fig.1.The outline of the thesis will be –

11 | P a g e

12 | P a g e

Chapter -2

LITERATURE REVIEWThe literature review consists of five main parts. The first part is about the company profile, new

projects with the company, and organization structure. The second part is concerned with the

history of Locus of Control. The third part gives an overview of Locus of Control and some

definitions. The fourth part discusses the difference between Internal & External Locus of

Control. The fifth and sixth part throws light on characteristics of locus orientations &, locus of

control in organizations.

2.1 Syrex Info Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Company Profile)

2.1.1Projects at hand

2.1.2Organization Structure

2.2 History of Concept - Locus of Control

2.3 Overview on Locus of Control

2.4 Types of Locus of Control

2.5 Characteristics of locus of control orientations

2.1 COMPANY PROFILE

13 | P a g e

Syrex Info Services, one of the leading domestic BPO was incepted in the year October 2002 under the ownership of Directors of the company Mr. Naresh Kakkar and Mr. Love Kakkar who have excelled considerably in this industry. We have earned indelible goodwill in entire domestic sphere as one of the leading domestic BPO that renders its reliable services to reputed clients.

Syrex Info Services is a domestic BPO that is closely associated with some of the world's leading NGOs and contributing its share by collecting ample amount of donation that will be directly used for the improvisation of the lives of underprivileged children of India. Our company is basically working with the reliable NGOs viz. CRY, UNICEF, PLAN India, these are some of the big names added in our clientele. We are primarily collecting funds for these NGOs. We are specialized in resource mobilization, working for the best of NGO's in India.

Infrastructure

Backed with the ultra modern infrastructural facilities, the company has efficiently attaining its preset targets. With the strong infrastructure, the company is able to handle its clients' requirements and render best possible solutions to their problems.

Strength

The strength lies in the staff of dedicated employees; the company has achieved a level of recognition in the entire BPO industry. Syrex’s strength of employees enables them in acknowledging the needs of their prestigious clients in a best possible way.

Vision

To set up a benchmark in the areas of generating new donors for renowned NGOs, that are working to create a new milieu for underprivileged children this ensures over all development of each child.

Mission

To constantly strive towards excellence in providing one-to-one tailor made solutions to organizations, communities or clients by bridging the gap between clients' expectations and our services.

Clientele

14 | P a g e

Syrex is continued to add some of the brand names of the market. UNICEF, CRY, PLAN INDIA& OXFAM are some of their clients. Syrex is proactively providing its services almost in every region of India, such as all parts north, west east and south, covering states like Punjab Delhi & NCR, Maharashtra , Haryana, Bengal, and cities like Hyderabad and Jaipur where they have their operational offices. They are planning to spread their wings by gearing up themselves into various international business projects."

Values

Syrex adheres to dedication, discipline and determination while working for the clients and endeared them with the reliable services that may best satisfy their requirements.

Syrex Info Services has in depth knowledge of different process areas that are utilized in a best possible way for generating new worldwide donors for multiple NGOs, serving for various social causes. Apart from this, we are also in a process of business expansion right from the India to foreign countries. In the service portfolio, Syrex provides reliable fund collection services to Indian as well as international clients. They believe in building long term relationship with their clients based on virtues and fair business ethics.

The company follows certain methodologies and strategies that facilitate them in acknowledging clients business and process profoundly. They have a wide spread business network that provide them keen insight to identify global issues and dynamic marketing needs. Business solutions offered by Syrex to their esteemed clients are mostly accepted worldwide.

15 | P a g e

Syrex is engaged in collecting amount of donation for underprivileged children that are linked with CRY, 'Child Rights and You', a leading NGO of today's time geared in improving lives of millions of Indian children that are deprived from basic living facilities. CRY is amongst the NGOs who do not ask for cash donations even ask you to come forward for this social cause to contribute your share towards society. By donating a small amount to CRY, one gets 100% tax rebate under section 35AC & 80GGA and 50% under section 80G as per the Income Tax Act. We actively participate in various exhibitions, projects organized by CRY.

UNICEF is world's preeminent social welfare organization that is committed to change the present situation of poor children by furnishing them with basic as well as additional amenities and facilities. We act as an effective link between you and UNICEF. Syrex welcomes its clients associated with UNICEF and willing to hire fund raising their fund raising process.

16 | P a g e

Since 1979, Plan India has been primarily focusing on vital issues that are highly concerned with the lives of Indian children who are still not getting basic facilities to survive in society. Plan is actively working in 13 states of India with the aim of improving the present living standards of Indian children to make their lives livable. Moreover Plan India is considerably focusing on momentous issues such as child participation and child protection, health, education, HIV AIDS awareness as well as proving aid to children living in difficult circumstances.

Ox form, Oxford and Fam from Famine , the name Oxfam comes the oxford committee for famine relief, founded in U.K during world war – II in 1942 . The main aim is to eradicate poverty and injustice without any distinction of caste, creed or religion.

HR AT SYREX

"At Syrex, they believe that their employees are their key asset and the catalyst for the business. Our value driven culture ensures that the work environment at Syrex is open, transparent and oriented towards delivering value and excellence to clients.

17 | P a g e

The key to an open and employee- centric work culture is 'employee listening'. Syrex implements a number of formal and non-formal employee listening initiatives such as their Annual Employee Satisfaction Survey (ESAT), Open door policy, skip sessions and open forums to share important organizational and industry developments.

We endeavor hard for developing congenial ambience for our employees and endowing them with the massive carrier opportunities. With us, one can find its carrier touching to the news pinnacles of success as we have thousands of carrier opportunities for young blood."

ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE Fig-2

18 | P a g e

2.2 HISTORY OF CONCEPT

Locus of control is the framework of Rotter's (1954) social learning theory of personality. Lefcourt (1976) defined perceived locus of control as follows: "Perceived control is defined as a generalised expectancy for internal as opposed to external control of reinforcements" (Lefcourt 1976, p27). Early work on the topic of expectancies about control of reinforcement had, as Lefcourt explains, been performed in the 1950s by James and Phares prepared for unpublished doctoral dissertations supervised by Rotter at The Ohio State University. Attempts have been made to trace the genesis of the concept to the work of Alfred Adler, but its immediate background lies in the work of Rotter students, such as William H. James (not to be confused with William James), who studied two types of expectancy shifts:

Typical expectancy shifts, believing that a success or failure would be followed by a similar outcome; and

Atypical expectancy shifts, believing that a success or failure would be followed by a dissimilar outcome.

Work in this field led psychologists to suppose that people who were more likely to display typical expectancy shifts were those who more likely to attribute their outcomes to ability, whereas those who displayed atypical expectancy would be more likely to attribute their outcomes to chance. This was interpreted as saying that people could be divided into those who attribute to ability (an internal cause) versus those who attribute to luck (an external cause). However, after 1970, Bernard Weiner pointed out that attributions to ability versus luck also differ in that the former are an attribution to a stable cause, the latter an attribution to an unstable cause.

A revolutionary paper in this field was published in 1966, in the journal Psychological Monographs, by Rotter. In it, Rotter summarized over ten years of research by himself and his students, much of it previously unpublished. Early history of the concept can be found in Lefcourt (1976), who, early in his treatise on the topic, relates the concept to learned helplessness. Rotter (1975, 1989) has discussed problems and misconceptions in others' use of the internal versus external control of reinforcement construct.

19 | P a g e

2.3 LOCUS OF CONTROL

Locus of control is something studied by psychologists to determine how people perceive their ability to change events. Someone with an internal locus of control believes that they have a strong ability to influence the events around them. Someone with an external locus of control believes that external forces (people, fate, luck, etc.) control events in their environment.

Fig-3. Locus of control

People determine rewards and outcomes in two contrasting attitudes. The first sets of people are of the belief that they cannot predict and influence important events. The second set believes that they can predict and influence significant happenings. One of the most popular terminologies developed to discuss issues related to prediction and causation of social and personal matters is ‘Locus of Control’, suggested by Julian Rotter (1954).

Rotter’s concept stems from the extent to which a person perceives uncertainties to affect results. People with a high level of internal locus of control are more likely to have a low perception of such uncertainties. These are the individuals who believe that one’s own actions lead to an external locus of control. On the contrary, he also suggests that apart from an individual’s own actions; outcomes are also greatly affected by chance, fate and/or luck. The terms ‘Internality’ and ‘Externality’ stand for internal and external loci of control, respectively. Internals are people with a high level of internality and externals represent individuals with high level of externality.

20 | P a g e

The locus of control orientations can be observed in the way individuals feel about the day-to-day happenings in an organization, and the amount of control they, other significant others and chance, fate and/or luck have in critical matters of the organization. After Rotter suggested the term ‘locus of control’, philosophers, behavioral scientists and psychologists in this area have done a great deal of subsequent research.

2.4 TYPES OF LOCUS OF CONTROL

21 | P a g e

There are two types of locus of control, internal and external.

Internal Locus of Control

Individual believes that his/her actions are a

result of his/her preparation, belief, decisions,

efforts, …

External Locus of Control

Individual believes that his/her actions tend to

be a result of some external circumstances,

efforts of others, fate, luck, …

People with internal locus of control tend to be happier in their lives, more successful, they tend to be higher in the organizational structures and are capable of doing more risky decisions, have lower absenteeism rates, are less alienated from the work setting and are more involved on their jobs than are externals. Internals believe that health is substantially under their own control through proper and responsible habits and this is reflected in lower absenteeism. On the other side, people with external locus of control tend not to do well in their lives, they do not believe that an achievement in their lives was their success, but a matter of circumstances and luck.

In reality, internal locus of control is generally seen as desirable amongst managers. A research has found the following trends:

Males tend to be more internal than females As people get older, they tend to become more internal

2.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCUS OF CONTROL

ORIENTATIONS

22 | P a g e

Empirical research findings have implied the following differences between internals and externals:

1. Internals are more likely to work for achievements, to tolerate delays in rewards and to plan for long-term goals, whereas externals are more likely to lower their goals. After failing a task, internals re-evaluate future performances and lower their expectations of success, whereas externals may raise their expectations. These differences relate to differences in achievement motivation (as noted above, Rotter (1966) believed that internals tend to be higher in achievement motivation than externals). However, empirical findings have been ambiguous here. There is some evidence that sex-based differences may complicate these findings, with females being more responsive to failures, males to successes (Weiner, 1980).

2. Going back to Bialer's (1961), considerable data suggest that internal locus of control is associated with increased ability to delay gratification (Lefcourt, 1976). However, at least one study has found this effect does not apply to all samples. Walls and Miller (cited in Lefcourt, 1976) found an association between internal locus and delay of gratification in second and third grade children, but not in adults who were vocational rehabilitation clients.

3. Internals are better able to resist coercion. This relates to higher outer-directedness of externals, another factor which Rotter (1966) believed distinguished the two orientations.

4. Internals are better at tolerating ambiguous situations. There is also a lot of evidence in clinical research that internality correlates negatively with anxiety, and that internals may be less prone to depression than externals, as well as being less prone to learned helplessness. However, this does not mean that the emotional life of the internal is always more positive than that of the external, as internals are known to be more guilt-prone than externals.

5. Internals are less willing to take risks, to work on self-improvement and to to better themselves through remedial work than externals.

23 | P a g e

6. Internals derive greater benefits from social supports.

7. Internals make better mental health recovery in the long-term adjustment to physical disability.

8. Internals are more likely to prefer games based on skill, while externals prefer games based on chance or luck.

24 | P a g e

Chapter -3

OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESISThis chapter is followed by a discussion of the research issue. Then the research questions, the objectives, and hypothesis of the study are presented. The chapter is concluded with the delimitations of the research.

3.1 Problem statement

3.2 Research objectives

3.3 Hypothesis

3.4 Limitations

3.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

To determine the relationship between Locus of Control [Internal, External (Luck) and External (Powerful Others)] and Job Satisfaction, of a randomly selected sample size (25 respondents) in a process-based organization, using mathematical tools like scatter diagrams.

3.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

25 | P a g e

To undertake analysis of Locus of Control [Internal, External (Luck) and External (Powerful Others)] scores obtained from 25 respondents, using mathematical tools like Pie Charts, Ratio Analysis, Mean and Standard Deviation, to understand their levels of internality, externality (luck and powerful others).

.

3.3 HYPOTHESIS

H1: Internals are people with a high level of internality.

H2: Externals represent individuals with high level of externality.

3.4 LIMITATIONSThe primary instrument of data collection was the Locus of Control sent to respondents. Two of

the most important weaknesses is the low response rate and hence the limited inferential power

of the conclusions drawn from the result. In depth interviews was even one of the data collection

tool, the limitations could be due to certain biases, which exist in individual’s mind towards a

particular aspect of an industry or a company based on his/her experiences. The research was

conducted within a limited duration. So a detailed and comprehensive study could not be made.

26 | P a g e

Chapter-4

METHODOLOGY

The term methodology refers to the way in which we approach problems and seek answers

(Taylor and Bodgan, 1998); it applies to how research is conducted. Our assumptions, interests,

27 | P a g e

and purposes shape which methodology we choose. This chapter covers the process through

which this research was carried out. It describes and discusses steps taken and methods used in

my thesis. The research conducted was based on the objectives stated in chapter 3.

4.1 Research Design

4.2 Data Collection Tools

4.3 A Quantitative Research

4.3.1 Locus of Control Survey & Job Satisfaction Survey

4.3.2Target Respondents

4.4 Sources of Data

4.4.1Secondary Data

4.4.2Primary Data

4.4.3 Sources of Data used in the Thesis

4.1 RESEARCH DESIGNFigure: 4, depicts the research design adopted for undertaking the report.

28 | P a g e

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

QUANTITATIVE

RESEARCH

QUESTIONNAIRES

(LOCUS OF CONTROL)

ANALYSIS &

CONCLUSION

2 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUESData collection is generally split into two different methodological approaches- quantitative and

qualitative methodology. In my thesis I have used Quantitative technique.

4.3 QUANTITATIVE STUDY29 | P a g e

The emphasis of Quantitative research is on collecting and analyzing numerical data; it

concentrates on measuring the scale, range, frequency etc. of phenomena. This type of research,

although harder to design initially, is usually highly detailed and structured and results can be

easily collated and presented statistically. Quantitative data collection techniques are formalized

and structured. However, quantitative data can only tell us where we are, not why, because

feelings and attitudes cannot be expressed.

4.4.1 LOCUS OF CONTROL SURVEY

To carry out the quantitative or conclusive research a statistical analysis method has been

adopted. A statistical method is a method usually referred to when a survey is conducted. For this

research Locus of Control Survey has been used to collect data.

4.4.2TARGET RESPONDENTSThe target respondents comprise of 25 respondents who have been chosen randomly from the

Executive and Managerial level at Syrex Info Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. The respondents were asked

to fill the Locus of control survey.

4.5 SOURCES OF DATAThere are two fundamental categories of data available: primary data and secondary data.

30 | P a g e

4.5.1 SECONDARY DATASecondary data has been collected prior to the specific research by someone else for some other

purpose. Examples of secondary data are books, research reports, and articles. Secondary data

can be divided into external data and internal data. Internal data originates from inside an

organization, e.g. HR manuals, leaflets, annual reports etc. External data is the information

gathered from outside the organization like- articles, books etc.

4.5.2 PRIMARY DATAPrimary data is the information gained from original sources that have been collected for a

specific research question and that is used for the first time. Consequently primary data is

collected by the researchers and has not been gathered for some other purpose. Examples of such

sources can be interviews or observations.

Chapter-5

DATA ANALYSIS

This chapter will analyze and discuss the findings that are presented earlier in the Literature

Review chapter and connect them to the theory and opinions. The conclusions that have been

drawn by the interpretation of the Locus of Control Survey scores of 25 respondents, in terms of

Internal/External factors, using mathematical tools like Mean and Standard Deviation will

be presented in accordance with the purpose of the thesis.

31 | P a g e

5.1 Models of Locus of Control

5.2 Locus of control in organizations

5.3 Loco inventory

5.4 Distribution of Items in Locus of Control Inventory

5.5 Scoring for LOC

5.6 Interpretation of scores for LOC

5.7 Analysis of LOCO Inventory scores

5.8 Tabulated score of LOCO inventory

5.9 Analysis of LOCO inventory scores using pie charts

5.9.1 Analysis of scores of internal

5.9.2 Analysis of scores of external sources (others)

5.9.3 Analysis of scores of external (luck)

5.10 Analysis of LOCO inventory using Ratio Analysis




5.11 Analysis of LOCO Inventory scores using mean score & standard deviation scores


32 | P a g e

5.1 MODELS OF LOCUS OF CONTROL

Rotter’s Theory

Rotter's (1966) locus of control theory has its roots in social learning theory. Social learning theory (Rotter, 1954) purports that reinforcements act to strengthen the expectancy that a particular behavior or event will be followed by that same reinforcement in the future.

Locus of control (Rotter, 1966) refers to one's belief in his or her abilities to control life events. The term locus of control is often used interchangeably with self-efficacy. However, the terms are not equivalent.

Fig-5

33 | P a g e

CONTROL MODEL (SPECTOR 1988)

Spector (1988) developed the Work Locus of Control Scale as a measure of generalized control in work settings. The model emphasizes a person’s generalized locus of control & actual control, which together determine perceived control. It directly predicts stress & strain; high perceived controls, low stress & vice versa.

5.2 LOCUS OF CONTROL IN ORGANIZATIONS- LOCO INVENTORY

A step further was the instrument developed by Levenson (1972, 1973) who altogether challenged the clubbing of luck, chance and/or fate and powerful others into external locus of control. He came up with an altogether new scale to measure internality and externality, which superseded the one developed by Rotter (1966), scoring better on the continuum aspect. He went on to suggest two sub-scales to measure two different aspects under externality, namely, perceived influence of luck (EL) and perceived influence of powerful others (EO). Levenson (1972, 1973) has basically used the concept of locus of control to develop Locus of Control in Organizations Inventory or popularly known as Loco Inventory. According to Levenson (1972,

34 | P a g e

1973), Loco Inventory tries to establish a relationship between locus of control and seven areas – general, success or effectiveness, influence, acceptability, career, advancement, and rewards. All the 30 Loco Inventory items are represented by these seven areas, divided according to internality, externality (others) and externality (luck). Exhibit . depicts the Loco Inventory developed by Levenson (1972).

Fig 6. depicts the Levenson’s Model

5.3 LOCO INVENTORY

Given below are some statements that show how people experience in their organizations. There is no right or wrong answer/s. Read each statement and indicate the extent to which you feel in a particular way, based on your experience in the organization. Use the following key while indicating your rating. Mark your response in the space provided on the right-hand side of each statement.

35 | P a g e

Write 4 if you strongly feel this way.Write 3 if you generally feel this way.Write 2 if you somewhat feel this way (and somewhat not).Write 1 if you slightly feel this way.Write 0 if you hardly or never feel this way.

Exhibit 1.1. I can largely determine what matters to me in the organization.

2. The course of my career largely depends on me.

3. My success or failure depends mostly on the amount of effort I put in.

4. The persons who are important control most matters here.

5. To a large extent, my career depends on my seniors.

6. My effectiveness in this organization is mostly determined by senior people.

7. The organization one joins or the job one gets is to a large extent, accidental happenings.

8. One’s career is to a great extent, a matter of chance.

9. Success of a person depends on the breaks or chances s(he) gets.

10. Successful completion of assignments is mainly due to my detailed planning and hard work.

11. Being liked by seniors or making a good impression usually influence promotion decisions.

12. Getting rewards in the organization is a matter of luck.

13. Success of one’s plans is, to a large extent, a matter of luck.

14. Getting promotion largely depends on my being in the right place at the right time.

15. Senior person’s preference determines who would be rewarded in the organization.

36 | P a g e

16. My success, to a large extent, depends on my competence and hard work.

17. How much I am liked in the organization depends on my seniors.

18. It is a matter of luck that people listen to you.

19. If my seniors do not like me, I probably would not succeed in this organization.

20. Usually I am responsible for getting, or not getting, rewards.

21. My success or failure is mostly a matter of luck.

22. My success or failure depends mostly on those who work with me.

23. My promotion in the organization depends mostly on my ability and effort.

24. My experience is that most things in the organization are beyond one’s control.

25. I can work hard enough to get my suggestions accepted in the organization

26. I am acceptable to others in my organization because I am lucky.

27. Generally, I determine what happens to me in the organization.

28. My acceptability to others will depend on my behavior with them.

29. My ideas get accepted if I make them fit with the desires of my seniors.

30. Pressure groups are more powerful (and control things) in the organization than individual employees.

5.4 DISTRIBUTION OF ITEMS IN LOCO INVENTORY

As discussed earlier, loco inventory tries to establish a relationship between locus of control and seven areas – general, success or effectiveness, influence, acceptability, career, advancement, 37 | P a g e

and rewards. All the thirty items included in the Loco Inventory, are categorized into one of these seven categories, as depicted in Exhibit 2 .

Distribution of Items in Locus of Control Inventory

5.5SCORING FOR LOC

1. The respondents are asked to fill in their responses on the basis of a five point scale, as given below –

Write 4 if you strongly feel this way.Write 3 if you generally feel this way.

38 | P a g e

Write 2 if you somewhat feel this way (and somewhat not).Write 1 if you slightly feel this way.Write 0 if you hardly or never feel this way.

2. After the respondents have filled in their responses, the scores are transferred to the Loco Inventory Scoring Sheet, to get the total scores on Internality (I), Externality Others (EO) and Externality Luck (EL), as depicted in Exhibit 3 .

Exhibit 3

3. It will be observed that the total scores on each of the three dimensions of locus of control viz., I, EO, and EL will range from 0 to 40.

4. The total of each of the three dimensions are then multiplied by 2.5, to convert them into a 100-point scale. Exhibit . depicts the tabulated scores of loco inventory, obtained from the responses of 25 respondents.

39 | P a g e

5.6 INTERPRETATION OF SCORES

1.In case of internality, individuals with a score of 33 or above, imply that they are very confident of themselves. They believe in their abilities, but sometimes may not be able to assess the contingencies and difficulties that might come in their way of achieving goals. They can be unrealistic and may blame themselves for any failure.

40 | P a g e

Individuals, who get an internal score of 17 or less, fail to put to use their full potential and do not rely on their efforts to achieve goals. An internal score of 29 to 32 shows that the individual has high trust in her/his abilities and will mostly put them to effective use to achieve goals. An individual, who gets an internal score of 18 to 21, does not believe in herself/himself and needs to take feedback from others, to evaluate her/his strengths. Individuals, who get an internal score between 22 to 28, are somewhere in between, with moderate trust in themselves and their abilities, at the same time not taking the blame of failure totally on themselves, but attributing it to contingencies and luck.

2. Externality Others (EO) means the degree to which an individual relies on significant others (boss, peers and subordinates), for her/his success/failure in the organization. If an individual scores an EO score of 30 or above, it shows her/his dysfunctional dependence on significant others. An EO score of 21 to 29 shows a realistic dependence on significant others. An individual would exhibit independent orientation, if s(he) gets an EO score of 17 to 20. Individuals would exhibit a counter-dependent orientation with an EO score of 16 or below.

3. As far as interpretation of scores on Externality Luck (EL) is concerned, the simple rule is ‘the lower, the better’. However, individuals with an EL score of 10 or below may not be able to tackle frustration when unforeseen contingencies or situations come their way. This might affect them in the achievement of goals. Individuals with an EL score of 11 to 20 are more likely to tackle such frustration, as they do not completely believe in the power of luck, fate, and/or chance. As such individuals exhibit a moderate level of externality luck, they are able to handle such unforeseen situations better than individuals with an EL score of 10 or below. Individuals with an EL score of 21 to 30 are likely to attribute failure/success to luck, fate, and/or chance, and mostly handle unforeseen situations with a “not my fault” attitude.

4. Pie charts are then drawn for each of the three levels of loco inventory, in accordance with the ranges in each of the three levels and analysis of the same follows thereafter.

5. Scores can also be interpreted on the basis of ratio calculation. Three types of ratios can be calculated, viz., I/EO, I/EL and I/(EO+EL). Let’s say for instance, I/EO > 1, this shows that the individual exhibits a high level of internal orientation. In the same manner, if I/EO < 1, the individual exhibits a low level of internal orientation. This implies, that ‘higher the ratio, the better’.

6. The total of each of the three dimensions can also be used to calculate Mean. Levenson (1972, 1973) has suggested separate set of norms for each of these three dimensions, for a group of managers. The loco inventory norms are depicted in Exhibit 4.

41 | P a g e

The Mean calculated from the responses is then compared with the given norms, to find out the deviation of the sample size from the norm. A deviation of –2.5 to +2.5 from the Mean is acceptable. For instance, if the Mean of internal scores of 25 respondents exceeds Mean plus ½SD, then the respondents exhibit an extremely high degree of internality, which is not acceptable. The same logic holds true for the other two variables of loco inventory, viz. external (others) and external (luck).

The Mean of the sample size of 25 respondents has been calculated using the following formula

Mean = X = X1 + X2 + X3 + … + XN N

Where, N = 25 and X is the observation.

42 | P a g e

5.7ANALYSIS OF LOCO INVENTORY SCORES

Scores on internality and externality (others and luck) can be interpreted in the following manner–

Using pie charts – Pie charts are drawn for each of the three levels of loco inventory, in accordance with the ranges in each of the three levels and analysis of the same follows thereafter.

Using ratio analysis – Three types of ratios are calculated, viz., I/EO, I/EL and I/(EO+EL). Here the rule is ‘higher the ratio, the better’.

Using Mean scores and Standard Deviation – The Mean scores of the three levels of loco inventory are calculated and then compared with the norms, suggested by Levenson (1972).

5.8 TABULATED SCORE OF LOCO INVENTORY

Exhibit 5. on next page

43 | P a g e

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

(Others)

EXTERNAL(Luck)

S.NO. Grade Total score

100 Pt scale=score*2.5

Total score


Total score


1. E-1 29 72.5 23 57.5 10 25

2. E-4 33 82.5 15 37.5 2 5

3. E-7 10 25 34 85 20 50

4. E-8 29 72.5 33 83.5 11 27.5

5. E-9 22 55 35 87.5 20 50

6. E-5 36 90 26 65 17 42.5

7. E-2 38 95 32 80 14 35

8. E-8 37 92.5 26 65 10 25

9. E-10 34 85 24 60 10 25

44 | P a g e

10. E-3 20 50 31 77.5 25 62.5

11. E-6 35 87.5 29 72.5 20 50

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

(Others)

EXTERNAL(Luck)



Total score


Total score


12. E-1 20 50 30 75 23 57.5

13. E-7 33 82.5 15 37.5 2 5

14. E-7 34 85 26 65 14 35

15. E-1 38 95 11 27.5 9 22.5

16. E-6 25 62.5 10 25 8 20

17. E-9 29 72.5 19 47.5 10 25

18. E-2 36 90 26 65 14 35

19. E-4 27 67.5 19 47.5 11 27.5

20. E-10 35 87.5 29 72.5 20 50

21. E-5 11 27.5 32 80 21 52.5

45 | P a g e

22. E-6 35 87.5 29 72.5 20 50

23. E-9 27 67.5 19 47.5 11 27.5

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

(Others)

EXTERNAL(Luck)



Total score


Total score


24. E-1 15 37.5 31 77.5 24 60

25. E-6 24 60 19 47.5 23 57.5

TOTAL(I) = 712 (E) Others= 623 (E)Luck=369

MEAN 28.48 24.92 14.76

46 | P a g e

5.9 ANALYSIS OF LOCO INVENTORY SCORES USING PIE CHARTS

5.9.1 Analysis of internal scores

Exhibit 6 . depicts the internality range and the corresponding number of respondents in a particular range.

Exhibit 6 . Internality Range

DIVISION OF INTERNAL SCORES

NO. OF RESPONDENTS

≥17 2

18-21 2

22-28 5

29-32 3

33-40 11

47 | P a g e

Graph- 1

Interpretation –

As is evident from Graph 1, in case of internality, 11 respondents (out of the sample size of 25 respondents) have scored a score of 33 or above. This implies that 44% of the respondents are very confident of themselves. They believe in their abilities, but sometimes might not be able to assess the contingencies and difficulties that might come in their way of achieving goals. They can be unrealistic and blame themselves for any failure.

Only 2 respondents have scored an internal score of 17 or less. This implies that 8 % employees fail to put to use their full potential and do not rely on their efforts to achieve goals.

48 | P a g e

3 respondents have scored an internal score of 29 to 32. This shows that 12% employees have high trust in their abilities and will mostly put them to effective use to achieve their goals.

Only 2 respondents have scored an internal score of 18 to 21. This means that 8% employees do not believe in themselves and need to take feedback from others to evaluate their strengths.

5 employees have scored an internal score between 22 to 28. This implies that 20% employees are somewhere in between, with moderate trust in themselves and their abilities, at the same time not taking the blame of failure totally on themselves, but attributing it to contingencies and luck.

5.9.2 Analysis of external scores (others)

Exhibit 2. Depicts the externality (others) range and the corresponding number of respondents in a particular range.

Exhibit 7. Externality (Others) Range

DIVISION OF EXTERNAL SCORES(OTHERS)

NO. OF RESPONDENTS

≥16 4

17-20 4

21-29

30-40

9

8

49 | P a g e

Graph- 2

Interpretation –

Externality Others (EO) means the degree to which an individual relies on significant others (boss, peers and subordinates), to achieve success/failure in the organization. As is evident from Graph 2, 8 respondents (out of the sample size of 25 respondents) in the organization have scored an EO score of 30 to 40. This means that 36% employees exhibit dysfunctional dependence on significant others.

9 respondents have scored an EO score of 21 to 29. This shows that 36% employees exhibit a realistic dependence on significant others.

4 respondents have scored an EO score of 17 to 20. This shows that 16% respondents exhibit an independent orientation.

Only 4 respondents have scored an EO score of 16 or below. This shows that 16% employees exhibit a counter-dependent orientation with significant others.

50 | P a g e

5.9.3 Analysis of external scores (luck)

Exhibit 8. Depicts the externality (luck) range and the corresponding number of respondents in a particular range.

Exhibit 8. Externality (Luck) Range

DIVISION OF EXTERNAL SCORES(LUCK)

NO. OF RESPONDENTS

≥10 8

11-20 12

21-30 5

Interpretation –

As far as interpretation of scores on Externality Luck (EL) is concerned, the simple rule is ‘the lower, the better’. As is evident from Graph 3, 8 respondents (out of the sample size of 25 respondents) have scored an EL score of 10 or below. This implies that 32% employees may not be able to tackle frustration when unforeseen contingencies or situations come up. This might affect them in the achievement of a goal.

51 | P a g e

12 respondents have scored an EL score of 11 to 20. This means that 48% employees are more likely to tackle such frustration, as they do not completely believe in the power of luck, fate, and/or chance. As they exhibit a moderate level of externality luck, they are able to handle such unforeseen situations better than individuals with an EL score of 10 or below.

5 respondents have scored an EL score of 21 to 30. This implies that 20% employees are more likely to attribute failure/success to luck, fate, and/or chance, and are more likely to handle unforeseen situations with a ‘not my fault’ attitude.

Graph- 3

52 | P a g e

5.10 ANALYSIS OF LOCO INVENTORY USING RATIO ANALYSIS


Exhibit 9. depicts the calculation of the ratio between internal scores and external (others) scores.

Exhibit 9. Calculation of I/EO Ratio

INTERNAL SCORES(I)

712

EXTERNAL SCORES (EO)

623

I/EO 1.1

Interpretation –

53 | P a g e

Since I/EO calculated for 25 respondents in the organization is 1.1, which is greater than 1, the respondents exhibit a higher level of internality than externality (others). This means that they believe in their inner abilities and attribute their success/failure to their own capabilities, rather than the influence of their boss, peers and subordinates. The employees can largely determine what matters to them in the organization and believe that most of the times, they alone are responsible for getting, or not getting rewards and promotions. Believing in the power of ‘self’ to achieve success in the organization.


Exhibit 10 . Calculation of I/EL Ratio

INTERNAL SCORES(I)

712

EXTERNAL SCORES (Luck)

369

I/EL 1.92

Interpretation –

Since I/EL calculated for 25 respondents in the organization is 1.92, which is greater than 1, the respondents yet again exhibit a higher level of internality than externality (luck). This means that they believe in their inner abilities and attribute their success/failure to their own capabilities,

54 | P a g e

rather than luck, chance and/or fate. The employees can largely determine what matters to them in the organization and believe that most of the times, they alone are responsible for getting, or not getting rewards and promotions.

This shows a ‘never-say-die’ attitude of employees towards difficult and tenuous asks and also their readiness to defer gratification.


Exhibit 11. Calculation of I/(EO+EL) Ratio

INTERNAL SCORES(I)

712

EXTERNAL SCORES

369

EXTERNAL SCORES (EO)

623

I/(EO+EL) 0.71

Interpretation –

55 | P a g e

I/(EO + EL) calculated for 25 respondents in the organization is 0.71, which is less than 1. Contrary to the observation in the first and second ratios, where respondents exhibited a higher level of internality than externality (others) and externality (luck), this ratio brings to the fore a higher level of externality (others & luck) than internality. But the question arises that how can the two measures of externality, viz., be taken together for analysis? Rotter was the first to develop an instrument for measuring internality and externality along a continuum. A step further was the instrument developed by Levenson (1972, 1973) who altogether challenged the clubbing of chance, fate and powerful others into externality. He also came up with an altogether new scale to measure internality and externality, which superseded the one developed by Rotter (1966), scoring better on the continuum aspect. He also went on to suggest two sub-scales to measure two different aspects of externality, namely, perceived influence of luck (EL) and perceived influence of powerful others (EO).

5.11 ANALYSIS OF LOCO INVENTORY SCORES USING MEAN SCORES & STANDARD DEVIATION

5.11.1 Analysis of internal scores56 | P a g e

According to Levenson (1972), the norms for internality are as follows –

Mean = 28Standard Deviation = 5

The Mean of internal scores of 25 respondents has been calculated as 28.48.Since a deviation of –2.5 to +2.5 is acceptable, therefore the sample size exhibits an acceptable level of internality. This means that they believe in their inner abilities and attribute their success/failure to their own capabilities and can largely determine what matters to them in the organization and believe that most of the times; they themselves are responsible for getting, or not getting rewards and promotions.


According to Levenson (1972), the norms for externality (others) are as follows –

Mean = 24Standard Deviation = 5

The Mean of external (others) scores of 25 respondents has been calculated as 24.92. 8.). Since a deviation of –2.5 to +2.5 is acceptable, therefore the sample size exhibits an acceptable level of externality (others).

This means that the respondents believe in the influencing power of their superiors, peers and subordinates. Instead of being unrealistic and unreasonable about achieving a goal, they at times, leave the bearing of an outcome to external others.

57 | P a g e

Chapter – 6

CONCLUSIONIn this final chapter, I have concluded the findings of the study, and formulated the findings in generalized terms.

6.1 Conclusion- inference

6.1CONCLUSION & FINDINGS

The research hypothesis, “H1: Internals are people with a high level of internality, andH2: Externals represent individuals with high level of externality” has been proved.This report has been undertaken in a process-based organization. This report revolves around the human resource element responsible for efficiency in the process. And since locus of control is common to every organization therefore it is commercially viable for all organizations in the process-based industry.

58 | P a g e

The report also seeks to address a common problem across industries, which is belief on fate, luck, chance or oneself. It not only affects the output of employees, but also has a direct bearing on the productivity of the organization. Therefore, as working environments become more competitive and expectations of managements rise, it is commercially viable for managements to understand the bearing of locus of control on job satisfaction/dissatisfaction levels in the organization.As per research done by Lefcourt & Wine, there is also a high possibility of employees looking out for cues that can help resolve contingencies. Simply stated, they do not totally blame themselves for failures but acknowledge the fact that some external factors like luck, fate and/or chance are beyond their control.

“Luck relies on chance, labor on character “

Richard Cobden

Findings

Employees at Syrex have high trust in their abilities and will mostly put them to effective use to achieve their goals.

There is a small percentage of employees who are more likely to attribute failure/success to luck, fate, and/or chance, and are more likely to handle unforeseen situations with a ‘not my fault’ attitude.

The employees can largely determine what matters to them in the organization and believe that most of the times, they alone are responsible for getting, or not getting reward and promotions.

The employees here believe in the power of ‘self’ to achieve success in the organization is their MANTRA. Their competence and hard work are the two primary determinants of their performance in any endeavor.

BIBLIOGRAPHY & WEBLIOGRAPHY

59 | P a g e

http://www.dictionary-quotes.com/luck-relies-on-chance-labor-on-character-richard-cobden/

http://www.dictionary-quotes.com/luck-relies-on-chance-labor-on-character-richard-cobden/

Multi-dimensionality in terms of control ideology, personal control, system modifiability, and race ideology (Guirn et al, 1969; Guttentag, 1972; McDonald and Tseng, 1971; Minton, 1972; Mirels, 1970)

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control"

Lefcourt, H.M. (1966). "Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A review", Psychological Bulletin, 65, 206-20.

Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational behavior. Eighth edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p.56-5

Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational behavior. Eighth edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p.58

Neill, James (2004). Locus of Control - A Class Tutorial. Retrieved November, 7, 2005, from http://www.wilderdom.com/games/descriptions/LocusOfControlExercise.html

http://www.metlife.com/about/press-room/us-press-releases/2008/index.html?compID=591

60 | P a g e

http://www.wilderdom.com/games/descriptions/LocusOfControlExercise.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control

61 | P a g e

EMPLOYEE LOCUS OF CONTROL (2)

Documents

Transcript of EMPLOYEE LOCUS OF CONTROL (2)