Dear professional colleagues,
I have pleasure to share with you a questionnaire to survey ethical practices of management to measure their effectiveness. You may use this in your respective organizations. I shall be obliged to have your feedback on your survey result.

May I also request my colleagues, friends and seniors in citehr to please participate in a research project that I am conducting? You may please share your opinions in a short survey about the ethical scenario in Industrial relations and help me to compile the report.

Once the report is complete, I will send you the results of the data gathered and I assure you that each answer will remain confidential.
You may please take the Survey as below:

Given below are some statements on the IR practices in companies. Kindly respond each question in relation to your company by rounding off appropriate number ,AS YOUR OPINION).
5:Very strongly agree;4:Strongly agree;3:To some extent agree;2:Rarely agree ;1:Never

1All managers in your company are ethical in IR practices. 5 4 3 2 1

2 . Salary and perks in your company is higher than the prevailing rate outside.5 4 3 2 1

3.Ethical practices of a person is given appropriate weightage in performance appraisal. 5 4 3 2 1

4.All managers are given training on Ethical practices in I R . 5 4 3 2 1

5.Managers here follow due process of law in all I R practices. 5 4 3 2 1

6. Health and safety provisions are considered important by managers due to intrinsic value of I R.
5 4 3 2 1

7.Managers consider employees’ interests as prime important even during economic recession. 5 4 3 2 1

8. Managers consider company interests more important than personal interests.
5 4 3 2 1

9. Managers consider customer interests more important than company interests. 5 4 3 21

10. Performance(productivity, profitability etc.) in this company are very satisfactory.
5 4 3 2 1


From India, Mumbai
Dear Snisonko,
in order to help people decide whether they would like to particpate, you need to give more information about yourself, whom you represent and what's the purpose of the survey. Also, it is a bit much to expect us to cut and paste your survey questions and then save it and send it to you. Instead of typing the questionnaire, had you posted the same as an attachment it would have helped.
Have a nice day.
A retired academic in UK

From United Kingdom
Dear sir,
Thank you for your very useful suggestion.
Let me first introduce myself.I am a Ph.D with 35 years of industrial experience.I am now a Professor in an MBA college at PUNE.
The purpose of this survey is to write a research paper on the subject.
For your kind perusal I am enclosing the questionnaire as an attachment
You may write to me at my e-mail address:[email protected]

From India, Mumbai

Attached Files
File Type: doc ETHICS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.doc (22.5 KB, 1399 views)




To what extent management is aware of the ethical practices in Industrial Relations (I.R.)? 5 4 3 2 1

To what extent the Trade Union in your company is aware of the ethical practices in IR?

5 4 3 2 1

To what extent management follows the following ethical practices in IR :-----

5 4 3 2 1

Management communicates to all managers the ethical practices to be followed by them?

5 4 3 2 1

Managers are trained to improve competencies in ethical practices? 5 4 3 2 1

Managers deal with conflicts and discipline matters ethically? 5 4 3 2 1

Management does not interfere in trade union matters ?.

5 4 3 2 1

Management victimizes workers on the basis of membership of a trade union?.

5 4 3 2 1

Management takes biased decision on the basis of trade union membership in HR matters?.

5 4 3 2 1

Management has failed in implementing awards and settlements with trade unions?.

5 4 3 2 1

Management follows violent methods in strikes of workers?.

5 4 3 2 1

Trade unions communicate to their members the ethical practices to be followed by workers?.

5 4 3 2 1

Trade unions are committed to achieve company goals at the cost their own interests.

5 4 3 2 1

Trade unions give more priority to company interests than towards political interests

5 4 3 2 1


From India, Delhi
An important part of the Organizational Behaviour..... Please read.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Cognitive Dissonance Theory - Overview

Dissonance After Decision-Making

Selective Exposure To Information

Induced Compliance

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dissonance Theory

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Another form of consistency theory is Cognitive Dissonance Theory, developed by Leon Festinger (1957). Festinger argues that there are three possible relationships among cognitions (thoughts, ideas): consonance, dissonance, and irrelevance. Two ideas that are consistent, like “I like Michael Jordan” and “Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever,” are consonant. Two thoughts that are inconsistent, like “I smoke cigarettes,” and “Cigarettes can kill smokers,” are dissonant. Two cognitions that are unconnected, like “Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever” and “Cigarettes can kill smokers,” are irrelevant. Dissonance Theory declares that dissonance is an unpleasant motivating state (a feeling) that encourages attitude change to achieve or restore consonance. So far, Dissonance Theory is similar to Balance Theory. It is somewhat like the assumptions of Congruity Theory, except that Dissonance is not limited to situations in which a Source makes an Assertion about an attitude Object. Dissonance theory has been refined in later work (Aronson, 1969; Brehm & Cohen, 1962; Festinger, 1964; Wicklund & Brehm, 1976).

One of the advantages of Dissonance Theory is that it can consider more than two cognitions at a time. Another advantage is that it acknowledges that some cognitions are more important than others, and that the importance of cognitions influences the amount of dissonance. Specifically, Dissonance Theory predicts that the amount of dissonance is influenced by two factors: (1) the proportion of dissonant and consonant cognitions and (2) the importance of the cognitions.

For example, if I know four bad things and six good things about my friend Bob, I should experience more dissonance than if I know one bad thing and six good things. In the example below, think about how much dissonance would exist if I had all four of the dissonant thoughts versus if I only had one of these cognitions. It makes sense that the more inconsistent thoughts I have, the more dissonance I should experience.


Cognitions about Bob

Consonant Thoughts:

C1 Bob is funny.

C2 Bob likes basketball (like me).

C3 Bob likes rock and roll music (like me).

C4 Bob is a loyal friend.

C5 Bob likes the action/adventure movies (like me).

C6 Bob helped me with algebra in High School.

Dissonant Thoughts:

D1 Bob doesn’t like my brother.

D2 Bob likes those stupid horror movies (unlike me).

D3 Bob is really messy.

D4 Bob sometimes goes too far in making fun of people.


Furthermore, the importance of these good and bad thoughts makes a difference. If my brother is really important to me, the first dissonant thought, that Bob doesn’t like my brother (D1), could create a lot of dissonance. On the other hand, if I am not close to my brother, this cognition won’t bother me as much. Thus, dissonance theory considers all of the relevant thoughts at once, considering both the proportion of consistent (consonant) and inconsistent (dissonant) thoughts and the importance of those thoughts. Balance Theory and Congruity Theory can consider only one idea and neither theory accounts for the importance of ideas.

Dissonance theory suggests that there are three ways to restore consonance. First, one may change a cognition to reduce dissonance. If I had new information which suggested that Bob really liked my brother, then my idea that Bob doesn’t like my brother (D1) could change (into C7, Bob likes my brother). This should reduce my dissonance about Bob. Second, a person who experiences dissonance can add a new cognition. For example, I could decide that Bob just doesn’t know my brother very well, and that if Bob got to know him, Bob’s feeling toward my brother would almost certainly change. The third way to reduce dissonance is to change the importance of cognitions. I could decide that because Bob hardly ever sees my brother, I could reduce the importance of Bob’s feeling toward my brother, which would reduce my dissonance. One important limitation of Dissonance Theory (unlike Congruity Theory, for example) is that Cognitive Dissonance does not predict how dissonance will be reduced in any situation.

An obvious implication of Cognitive Dissonance Theory is that if you want to change someone’s attitude, you could try to create dissonance concerning that person’s attitude and hope that desired attitude change would result. However, there are other implications of Cognitive Dissonance as well. Much of the research on dissonance has focused on decision-making, counter-attitudinal advocacy, forced compliance, and selective exposure to information.

Dissonance After Decision-Making

Life is full of choices. Should I go to college? If so, where should I go to college? What major shall I choose? Should I join a fraternity or sorority, and, if so, which one? Should I study for tomorrow’s test or go to a movie tonight? Who should I ask to the dance on Friday? Do I want to buy a paperback? If so, should it be a new book by Stephen King (or by someone else)? Rarely do we face a situation in which one option is without a doubt the only reasonable choice. Most choices have both pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, benefits as well as costs. Once we make a choice, however, we accept the disadvantages of that option and give up the advantages of other, unchosen, options. Realization of these consequences leads to dissonance that arises after we make a decision: I chose option A, which has drawbacks; I rejected Option B, which had its own benefits. Thus, post-decisional dissonance is a form of regret, a worry that perhaps we didn’t make the best choice.

Cognitive Dissonance theory predicts that the dissonance will be related to (1) the net desirability of the chosen and unchosen options and (2) the importance of the decision (Festinger, 1964). Specifically, the closer the choices are in their attractiveness (if the unchosen option is almost as good as the chosen option), the more the dissonance. If two Universities look equally attractive (good reputation, affordable, etc.), choosing to attend one instead of the other should create dissonance. On the other hand, if the College we picked is clearly better than the one we rejected, we should experience little dissonance. If the choice is between staying home and watching a boring television show and going out to hear a concert featuring a great band, there will be little dissonance from the decision to attend the concert.

Second, the more important the decision, the more dissonance we should experience. Important decisions usually have more serious consequences than trivial decisions. This means we should experience more dissonance after an important decision, like which college to attend, than after a minor decision, like deciding whether to stay home or go to a concert tonight.

There are four ways to reduce the dissonance that comes from making a decision: revoke the decision, increase the attractiveness of the chosen alternative, decrease the attractiveness of the unchosen option, or reduce the importance of the decision. One common way to reduce the dissonance is do both the second and third options: make the chosen alternative look better and the unchosen option look worse (White & Gerard, 1981): “I am so glad I decided to attend this College; it is even better than I thought it would be” and “I’m really glad I didn’t go to school there, it’s not a very good college.” This is called the “spreading effect,” because after the dissonance and the attitude change occur, the two alternatives appear further apart (less similar) than before. If the chosen alternate looks much better than the unchosen alternative, there should be little dissonance.

In the automobile industry, some customers who order new cars that are not in stock change their minds between the time they order a new car and the time it is delivered to them. This is an example of how post-decisional dissonance (regret) can change attitudes. Donnelly and Ivancevish (1980) found that when buyers were given information that is consistent (consonant) with their decision (reasons why the decision to buy that car was a good choice), fewer customers backed out of their purchase decision.

Thus, making a decision can cause dissonance, especially if the chosen and unchosen alternates have similar net benefits and if the decision is important. Dissonance can be reduced by revoking the decision, dwelling on the benefits of the chosen alternative, stressing the drawbacks of the unchosen option (frequently people do both of the last two possibilities), or reducing the importance of the decision. It is possible to influence a decision by providing consonant (or dissonant) information.

Selective Exposure To Information

Festinger declares that dissonance is unpleasant, and that it will encourages us to change our cognitions in order to reduce it. Another implication is that people may attempt to avoid situations that are likely to create dissonance. Thus, Dissonance Theory predicts that people will try to avoid exposure to information that they suspect may arose dissonance -- and they may seek out information that is consonant, or consistent, with their attitudes. Research has found that at times people seem to avoid potentially dissonant information (Cotton & Hieser, 1980; Olson & Zanna, 1979). That is, we are selective about the information to which we expose ourselves. We have a tendency to seek out consonant information and avoid dissonant information.

However, dissonance is only one factor among many that influences our exposure to information. For example, curiosity may lead some people to seek out information that disagrees with their current beliefs and attitudes. Second, if we believe that certain information is likely to be useful to us, we may decide to acquire it rather than avoid it (Freedman, 1965). Third, there may be a fairness norm that operates in some situations (like trials), encouraging us to seek out relevant information regardless of whether it is consistent with our current beliefs. Thus, a desire to avoid dissonance may sometimes encourage us to be selective about the information we seek, but other factors mean that in other situations we may not try to avoid dissonant information.

Induced Compliance

Another area of dissonance concerns what happens when we engage in behavior that is inconsistent with our attitudes or beliefs. If I do not like someone but agree to do a favor for that person, the potential for cognitive dissonance exists: I do not like Fred; I agreed to give him a ride to a job interview. A very early classic study was conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959). They asked a subject to perform a very boring and repetitive task, pretending that the researchers were studying that task. Actually, they wanted to know whether attitudes would change when subjects experienced dissonance. After performing the boring task (turning spools on pegs; removing spools from pegs and then putting them back), subjects were asked to help the experimenter to convince another subject to participate in the study they just completed. Some of these subjects were given $1 to convince the next subject (who was really a confederate helping the experimenter) to agree to work at the task; others were given $20 to talk the other “subject” into participating. Basically, they were asked to lie and say the task was interesting or fun when they really believed it was boring. Afterwards, they were supposed to report how interesting they thought the task was.

When the subjects tried to convince the “next subject” that the task was exciting and fun, dissonance was likely to occur: I believe the task I just did was boring; I told someone else that task was exciting and fun. Because they were paid different amounts of money for their behavior, they were predicted to, and did, resolve the dissonance in different ways. The subjects who were paid $20 could easily rationalize their action: “I didn’t say the task was exciting because I really believed it was fun; I said it was exciting because I was paid $20.” The subjects who were paid only $1 couldn’t rationalize their behavior that way: “I didn’t lie and say it was fun for $1; I did it because the task really was fun,” changing their attitude. In other words, the greater the justification ($20 payment) for their counter-attitudinal behavior, the easier that behavior was to rationalize. When the behavior couldn’t be rationalized by the justification (payment of only $1), the subjects were more likely to change their attitudes toward the task. So, the key principle of induced compliance is that the less justification provided for performing the counter-attitudinal behavior, the more attitude change.

If you are doing a favor someone a favor, like driving them to a job interview when you really don’t want to, you could experience dissonance and might change your attitudes. If there was a really good reason (justification) for doing the favor -- say he is your boss -- it is easy to rationalize your behavior: “I don’t like Fred; I’m only doing him a favor because he’s my boss.” If there isn’t a good reason for doing the favor, you might experience dissonance and then like Fred more than before you did the favor: “There’s no reason why I have to give him a ride; maybe I like Fred better than I thought.” On the other hand, if you can get someone who doesn’t like you to do you a favor -- without providing a strong justification -- they might like you a little more.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dissonance Theory

This theory has stimulated a great deal of discussion: It has implications for a variety of situations. It makes predictions about whether people will seek information (selective exposure). It makes predictions about human thought and behavior after making a decision (post-decisional dissonance). It has implications for persuasion as well as the specific form of persuasion called induced compliance. Cognitive Dissonance Theory is a very wide-ranging theory.

Second, Dissonance theory has generated literally hundreds of studies. Although it is not always supported (for example, curiosity might interfere with the selective exposure effect), there is no question that this theory has strong research support.

One important limitation is that dissonance theory makes no predictions about how dissonance will be reduced. It lists several options for reducing cognitive dissonance (add consonant cognitions, change dissonant cognitions, alter the importance of cognitions), but surely persuaders want dissonance to be resolved in a way that furthers their goals. If I try to induce dissonance in my girlfriend to get her to go to a movie with me, I don’t want her to change her attitude toward me (like me less) to reduce that dissonance! The fact that it does not make specific predictions, like Social Judgment Theory, means that we should qualify the statement on experimental support for this theory. A theory that makes specific predictions can be subjected to stronger tests than vague theories. If the research on Dissonance Theory had been able to test specific predictions, the empirical support for this theory might be stronger than it is.

It seems likely that some people can tolerate dissonance more than others. Some individuals may be more mentally “tidy,” while others may be willing to put up with some inconsistency in their thoughts. Dissonance theory does not take into account such possible individual differences (actually, this limitation applies to all consistency theories).

Another limitation common to all consistency theories is that Dissonance Theory does not consider the nature of the persuasive message. Surely some messages (those with evidence, for example, or with arguments that are more relevant to the audience) are capable of creating more dissonance; other, weaker messages probably evoke less dissonance. However, Dissonance theory ignores the effects of message variables on cognitive dissonance and persuasion.

From India, Delhi

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2021 Cite.Co™