A STUDY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AMONG EXECUTIVES IN PUBLIC SECTOR

UNDERTAKING ,

DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of

Mnittx of ^IjilogopI)? IN

PSYCHOLOGY

BY /^ - f

SAYEEDUZZAFAR

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

DR. MAHMOOD S. KHAN READER

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

ALIGARH (INDIA)

1995

DS2859

* . .\(,;C I MO-

^/^,.

.:;':•; '-'• !> • - • . * ' .^ ' i - < ^

t>i.:^l5j*^'^ ««r-

Bah. 3S^'. Jl.

CONTENTS

Page Nc

CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

CHAPTERS :

1. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE 1-32

2. I IETHODOLOGY 33-40

3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION 41-59

REFERENCES 60-68

APFENDIX

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOG AUGARH MUSUM UNIVERSITY

AUOARH-202001

Supervisor's Certificate

This is to certify tl at M.Phil, dissertation

entitled "A STUDY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AMONG

EXECUTIVES IN PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING" submitted by

Mr. Sayeeduzzafar for the degree of M.Phil. in

Psychology, has been carried out under my supervision.

The dissertation is suitable for submission to the

examiner for evaluation.

(DR. MAHMOOD 5. KHAN) READER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am extremely thankful to my supervisor Dr. Mahmood S. Khan, Reader, Deptt. of Psychology, A.M.U., Aligarh, for his invaluable suggestions and timely guidance. This dissertation would never have been completed without his stimulating guidance.

I also express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Qamar Hasan, Prof, and chairman Deptt. of Psychology for his selfless help and sustained inspiration.

Prof. Afzal Kureshi, my teacher who is no more now with us, encouraged and had supported me at all levels of my present work. May Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace.

I am also thankful to Prof. Mrs. Hamida Ahmad, Or. Saeeduzzafar, Dr. S.A. Ansari, Dr. A.Sufian Zilli, Dr. Akbar Husain, Dr. Rahat. A. Khan, Dr. Asia Ejaz for their continuous help and moral support.

At the outset, a very special thanks is also due to rof.D.M.Pestonjee of IIM, Ahmedabad, whose critical and valuable suggestions contributed significantly to the refinement of this dissertation, despite his own temporal professional pressures. I also wish to thanks Mrs. Roslmi D. Pestonjee Danish D. Pestonjee and Vijay for their homely treatment.

I am also indebted to my research colleagues, Dr. Intekhab Alam, Dr.Shah Alam, Miss. Anisa W. , Miss. Rehana Ahmad, Miss. Rizwana, Miss. Meena Arya, Mr. Bilal A. Khan, Mr. Ishtiaq, Mr. Jawed Ahmed, Mr. Nasir Al l Mr. Abdullah K. Charbidar, Miss Arshi, Humaira, Hina Zaki, and Mr. Rashidul Hague

My very special thanks are due to my research colleague Miss. Saba Shaheen for her continuous morale and intellectual support, particularly during data collection at BHEL, Bhopal.

A special thanks is also due to Prof. Martin E.P. Seligman and Dr. Ahmadullah Siddiqui of U.S.A. for their encouragement and research help.

The help and support of my IIMA colleagues and friends Mr. Mallikarjun, Prof. V.Padmanand(Anand), Anang, Debashish, Rajeev Bhagwat, Sudhir Jain, R. Panda, Babu v., Mufeed Ahmad, Mujtaba has made the going easier.

I am duty bound to record with deep emotions and nostalgia, the benevolence and inspiration received from my Papa, Ammy, sister Nasreen, brothers, Mahmood, Obaid,

Junaid, and cousins HaBhim, Mudaasir and Rehan. Thanks are also due to my Nani, Mama, Chacha and aunt ies MB. Qamar, Fahmeeda, KhurBheeda, Afrida, Shakeela, Afroz Shamim and Foof ie s .

I aw deeply indebted to a number of people at BHEL Bhopal for my dissertation. Spatial limitations precludes my mentioning each one of them individually in this note of acknowledgement. However, I especially wish to place on record my thanks Mr. Mehta, Senior Manager (TCCB), R.K. Agrawal, DGM (Quality control) and Mr. R.K. Pandey, Senior Manager (HRD) and Mr. QaiBer Abbas, Miaa. Daiay, Miaa. Shaiata, Dr. Raza, Sultana aunty and Saud.

I am also grateful to Mr. Muqimuddin, Co-ordinator, and Mr. Siraj Ahmad, Astt. Co-ordinator, lOS, Aligarh Chapter for their financial assistance during my research work.

( SAYEED-UZ

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

LH - LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

LHl - INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS

LH2 - INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS

LH3 - INTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS

LH4 - EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS

LH5 - INTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS

LH6 - EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS

LH7 - EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS

LH8 - EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS

LHT - TOTAL LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

EXl - EXECUTIVE GROUP 1

EX2 - EXECUTIVE GROUP 2

EX3 - EXECUTIVE GROUP 3

EX4 - EXECUTIVE .GROUP 4

CHAPTER - 1

INIRODLCTICN AND REviEv/ OF L;TERATURE

MEANING AND CONCEPT OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

The term 'Learned Helplessness' also known as

LH is of recent origin in the literature of Psychology. LH

means, uncontrollability of all those environmental

conditions where an individual feels that the situations

existing in the environment may not be altered, eliminated or

changed. According to Pestonjee and Reddy (1988), "learned

helplessness is a cognitive state of being (an individual or

an animal) which believes that whatever it does is not going

to alter the outcome of en event". In other words, it comes

to believe in response-outcome non contingency. The concept

of LH can be better understood from the statements of the

people that they often do not like many things prevailing in

the society, their neighbourhood, organizations and on their

jobs. And they are unable to alter or eliminate all those

undesirable things. Undoubtedly these statements explicitly

reveal their feelings of uneasiness with existing

environmental conditions. They express their inability to do

any thing to change them for the betterment. Now, it is

obvious from such statements that LH is the outcome of the

feeling of uneasiness with the existing environmental

conditions and the inability to change them for tl"e better.

Therefore, LH has been viewed as the cognitive state of

beings (animals/humans) who believe that whatever they do

will not alter the outcome of an event.

This concept of LH was accidently discovered

by Overmier and Seligman (1967) when they were conducting an

experiment on mongrel dogs to determine the relationship of

fear conditioning to instrumental learning by inducing

inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance

conditioning. In his series of experiments dogs were

subjected to inescapable electric shock with variation in

duration, degree and frequency. Initially the dogs struggled

very hard to escape shock. After repeated failure to escape,

the dogs passively endured the shocks by discontinuing their

efforts to escape. At this time they made escape possible.

But, in spite of escape being possible, the dogs made no

attempt to escape. Whereas, the other group of dogs who did

not received any shock earlier did escape well. On the basis

of this finding they stated that the dogs learned that shocks

were independent of their behaviour and this learning was

transferred to new situation inhibiting escape response in

that altered situation. Overmier and Seligman (1967) termed

this state of dogs as a Learned Helplessness (LH).

The subsequent research on LH was carried out

by Seligman and Maier (1967) , in which they probed that the

LH effect was caused by the uncontrollability of the original

shock. According to them the phenomenon of LH results from

experience with uncotrollability. They define

uncontrollability as the response - outcome independence^

means subject has no control over the outcome of the event.

To support his argument that LH results from the experience

of uncontrollable outcomes. Maier and Seligman used a

'triadic design' in which three groups of eight mongrel dogs

were used as a subject. The escape group was trained in a

hammock to turn off the shock by pressing a panel with their

nose. The yoked group received shocks identical in numbers,

durations, and pattern similar to that of the escape group.

The yoked group differed from the escape group only in terms

of the instrumental control in which the subjects received

over-shock while pressing the panel. This pressing of the

panel did not affect the progranuned shocks given to the yoked

group. The third group named as the naive group received no

shock in the hammock. After 24 hours of the hammock

treatments, all the three groups received escape-avoidance

training in a shuttle box. The escape and naive group

performed well in the shuttle box, they jumped the barriers

readily to avoid shocks. In contrast the yoked group was

found significantly slower to respond than the other two

groups. On the basis of their findings they stated that it is

not shock itself but inability to control the shock produced

and the failure to respond, this they termed as learned

helplessness (LH). The occurrence of the LH phenomenon was

also observed and reported by Thomas and Batler (1969), on

cats; Padilla and Padilla (1970), on cats and fish and Braud

et al (1969) , on rats using more or less the same triadic

design. This supported the findings of Overmier and Seligman

(1967) and Seliginan and Maier (1967) .

Inspired by the research finding and

conceptual development of the phenomenon of LH based on

animal studies, the later researchers planned to conduct

research/experiments on human subjects and tried to probe

further regarding the concept and causal factors of LH.

Perhaps the first study conducted on human subject was

carried out in two phases by Thorton and Jacobs (1970, 1971).

In animal studies to develop XJH phenomenon mere traumatic

shock were used. But it was not possible in human subjects

due to ethical considerations.

Thus, Thorton and Jacobs used typical stress

set instructions which involved subjective setting of the

stress level, according to subject perception of having

unpleasant but not painful. The shock used were of such

level that the subject could perceive it as unpleasant but

not painful. They conducted a series of experiments and

observed the LH phenomenon in humans as perceived by Seligman

et al in animals.

A number of studies have been done after

Thorton and Jacobs (1971) , but according to Seligman,

Hiroto's (1974) study is the representative. This stv dy mat,

conducted on college students and finds the same results as

observed by Seligman et al. on mongrel dogs. Hiroto used the

same design as used by Seligman and others. He divided their

subjects into three groups. The first group of subjects

called the escape group received a loud noise which they

learned to turn off by pressing a button. The subjects in the

inescapable group received the same noise, but the noise were

independent of their responding. A third group received no

noise. All the three group then taken to a hand shuttle box,

in order to escape noise, the subjects had to move his hand

from one side to other. Both the no noise and escape groups

learned readily in the shuttle box with their hands. Like

other species, however, the human inescapable group failed to

escape and avoid rather most sat passively and took the

aversive noise, means a phenomenon like LH were noticed in

the subjects. Apart from this study, other investigators

like (Fosco and Geer, 1971; Racinscas, 1971; Glass and

Singer, 1972; Roth, 1973; Krantz, Glass and Snyder, 1974;

Roth and Bootzin, 1974; Hiroto and Seligman, 1975; Rodin,

1975; Miller and Seligman, 1975a; Roth and Kubal, 1975;) used

humans as subject and supported the findings of the

phenomenon of LH as observed by Seligman, Overmier and Maier

(1967, 1967) on mongrel dogs.

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS MODELS ;

ELEMENTARY MODEL OF L.H.

The term LH was first used by Seligman, and

Overmier (1967) to describe the impaired performance of dogs

in an instrumental training situation produced by prior

exposure to uncontrollable aversive stimuli. According to

Susan Roth, "LH refers to an interference in learning

occurring due to experience with noncontingent rewards, and

to underlying processes hypothesized to be responsible for

this interference: the learning of response-reinforcement

independence and its generalization." Response-reinforcement

independence means our responses do not produce desired

outcomes. When an organism is repeatedly exposed to outcome

which are independent of his responses, it develops a feeling

that the outcomes are uncontrollable or independent of his

responses. This learning can result in the development of an

expectation that outcomes would be independent of responses

in future also. Which in turn leads to deficits in

performance (Maier et al, 1969; Seligman et al, 1971) . The

basis of performance deficits are of three types, which are

as follows:

MOTIVATIONAL DEFICITS

When a person believes that outcomes are not

dependent upon his responses, it leads to reduced motivation/

incentive for making efforts. The belief that outcome are

independent to response, the person generalizes it to other

new situations also. Let us take an example of a Sr. manager

TCCB Of BHEL, who had sent a proposal for some changes in the

design of the transformer to the R&D department. By making

this change the quality of the transformer can be improved a

lot. But all suggestions have been turned down by the DGM

(Research & Development or R&D) without giving any cause.

Even after some time when the above DGM of R&D got

transferred to some other place, and the new DGM who is

quite responsive to bringing in some technological changes,

for good performance of their products, the above Sr.

manager did not send any proposal for change. This is

because he believes that submitting such a proposal is

futile. A number of researchers have observed the

motivational deficits in human and animals because of LH

(Behrend and Bitterman, 1963; Lefcourt, 1966; Ratter, 1966;

Frumkin and Brookshire, 1969; Powel and Creer, 1969; Pyne,

Anderson and Murcurio, 1970; Padilla and Padilla, 1970;

Ketter and Giaclone, 1970; Padilla, 1973; Maier, Albin and

Teasta, 1973; Enberg, Hansen, Welker and Thomas, 1973; Gamzu,

Williams and Schwartz, 1973; Bainbridge, 1973; Hiroto,

1974; Welker, 1974; Hiroto and Seligman, 1975; Hiroto,

Seligman and Klien et al, 1975;' Miller and Seligman, 1975;

Seligman and Beagley, 1975; Seligman, Rosselini and Kozak,

1975; Rossiline and Seligman, 1975).

COGNITIVE DEFICITS

LH can also produce cognitive deficits, as

the organism does not think that responses and outcomes are

contingently related. Inference with future learning occurs,

and there is difficulty in forming new cognitives of response

producing outcomes. Let us take the example of the above Sr.

manager again who has acquired a cognitive set that

submitting any proposal leads only to a non sanction. It will

be more difficult for him to accept the fact that some of

these proposals can be accepted or sanctioned. This type of

cognitive deficits were also observed in animals and men by

a number of researchers in different experiments (Rescorla,

1967; Thomas, Freeman, Svincki, Burr and Lyons, 1970;

Mellgren and Ost, 1971; Kemler and Shepp, 1971; Mackintosh,

1973; Hiroto and Seligman, 1974; Miller and Seligamn; Maier

and Teasta, 1975; Klien et al, 1975) .

EMOTIONAL DEFICITS

Expectancy of response-outcome-independence

leads to emotional disturbance in the form of anxiety,

depression, insomnia etc. The above stated Sr. manager might

become indifferent towards other areas of his life, and can

show withdrawal symptoms and may even remain absent from duty

frequently. Emotional deficits are also reported by several

researchers among LH persons and or animals (Sines, Cleeland

and Adkins, 1963; Elliot, 1969; Moot, Cabella and Crabtree,

1970; Jay Weiss, 1970; Corah and Bofa, 1970; Seligman and

Grooves, 1970; Honkanson, Degood, Forest and Brittain, 1971;

Desiderato and Newman, 1971; Averill and Rosenn, 1972; Payne,

1972; But Seligman's model of LH fails to explain how

generalizability takes place from one situation to another

situation (Hiroto and Seligman, 1975) . Moreover,

helplessness did not always generalize beyond the setting in

which actual response-outcome independence was experienced

(Peterson, 1982; Alloy et al, 1984) . This model also did not

account for the impact of individual differences like gender

(Dweck and Repucci, 1973; Baucom, Danker and Brown, 1979).

Benson and Kennelly, 1976; and Burglass and Jones, 1978

explained that the expectancy of response-outcome

independence as well as aversive outcome are necessary to

induce LH.

ATTRIBUTION MODEL OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

To resolve the inadequacies in Seligman's

model Abramson et al., 1978 produced a reformulated model of

LH based on attribution theory. Attribution theories

10

suggested that people make causal explanation for observed

events and behaviour (Heider,, 1958; Wong and Weiner, 1981) .

These causal attributions have a powerful effect on feelings,

plans and well beings. This theory provides a framework by

which attribution made by persons can be classified along

many dimensions (Passer et al. , 1979). The basic dimensions

are Internal-External, Stable-Unstable (Weiner, 1971) and

Global-Specific (Seligman et al.)

INTERNAL-EXTERNAL ( I-E )

The I-E dimension makes a distinction between

causes. Internal causes are based within the person whose

behaviour the theory seeks to explain and are believed to be

applicable to that person only. While External causes are not

the part of the person whose behaviour is being explained.

They are expected to affect all persons who attempt to behave

similarly. This dimension represents self-other- continuum

and gives rise to two different types of helplessness.

PERSONAL HELPLESSNESS (PH)

PH refers to believes that there are responses

which can produce the desired outcomes. But the person does

not have them in his repertoire. Like lack of ability, poor

skills and lack of efforts etc.

11

UNIVERSAL HELPLESSNESS (UH)

UH refers to believes that relevant others

also do not have the requisite responses in their responses.

It is important to note that the reference person for

universal helplessness are relevant others and not just any

body. This includes luck, task difficulty and work overload

etc.

An additional effect associated with the I-E

dimension is loss of self esteem. Internal attribution make

the person feel that he, unlike others, has been unable to

control the desired outcomes, and is ashamed, feels guilty,

and loss of self esteem. On the

other hand, external attribution make the person felt that

all are helpless like him, and prevent such loss of self

esteem.

STABLE - UNSTABLE (S-U)

This dimension of attribution model

distinguishes factors which are long lived and recurrent from

those which are short lived and intermittent. Attribution of

failure to stable factors would produce helplessness effect

which persist for a longer period of time. While unstable

causal attribution would produce helplessness which

dissipitates with time. These unstable causes may not be

12

present in future situations. Seligman and his associates

proposed that chronicity of helplessness occur when stable

attribution are made (like, lack of ability, task

difficulty, and lack of power). This is because such factors

are likely to be present in the future. Therefore, these

factor will prevent response from having the desired effect.

If the attribution is unstable like (recession, poor health

and or insufficient effort) cause is not expected to occur in

future or unlikely to be chronic.

GLOBAL - SPECIFIC (G-S)

Global factors are those which exist in most

situations and influence outcome widely. In contrast,

specific factors are unique of the original situation and do

not generalize across situations. Global attribution of

uncotrollability imply that helplessness would occur across

situations. The generality of helplessness may thus be

explained by the G-S dimension of attributions.

Global causes like lack of aptitude, poor

health, and recession affect a wide variety of situations

including that in which the causes were stated. Whereas,

specific causes like insufficient effort, and difficult task

may affect only one or few mpre specific situations. Hence,

attribution to global causes affect the behaviour of the

13

person in many other situations (Alloy, 1982) and the person

may generalize the situation where this cause is relevant.

In contrast to specific causes helplessness is likely to

occur in dissimilar situations.

All the three dimensions of causal

attributions described above are continuous rather than

dichotomous. These three dimensions of attributions can be

grouped together in different combinations which will result

in eight types of causal attributions. These are :

1. Internal - global - stable

2. Internal - global - unsteJsle

3. Internal - specific - stable

4. Internal - specific - unstable

5. External - global - stable

6. External - global - unstzJsle

7. External - specific - stable

8. External - specific - unstable

Each of these dimensions has a different

implication for the future expectations of people, and their

performance on subsequent tasks.

Taking the effects of these three dimensions

together, it is observed that executives who makes internal-

global-stable attributions, like lack of aptitude for

14

managerial work will show highest personal helplessness in

large number of organizational situations. Similarly,

executives who make, external-stable-global attribution such

as fate or destiny will express highest universal

helplessness across a large number of organizational

situations.

The second major attributional model of LH was

presented by Miller and Norman (1979). This model supports

all the predictions of the reformulated LH model (Abramson et

al., 1978) . Besides, it provides new insight into the process

by which causal attribution and LH emerge. LH has been

viewed in the Abramson's attribution model as a cognition

produced by experiences of response-outcomes-independence

and the attribution that persons make for the experience. In

addition to this cause. Miller and Norman suggested that

attributions are also affected by person's charaicteristics,

as well as the particular situation in which the experience

takes place. These three elements interact to give rise to

causal attributions, which determines future expectations as

well as the likelihood of consequent helplessness. However,

this model fails to describe and clarify as to how the

interaction of experiences, information about situations and

personal characteristics gives rise to each type of causal

attribution. But this model does attempt to indicate the

variable involved in the development of LH, and gives

15

evidences of their significance in the development of Learned

Helplessness.

According to the Miller and Norman model the

two types of information which affect LH are outcome cues and

situational cues. Outcome cues refers to the feedback

received by the person from his previous experience, about

the extent to which outcome depended on his effort and extent

of previous success. Situational cues refer to the

significant stimuli or information received from the context

of the particular experience, such as instructions about the

uncontrollable stimuli (Glass and Singer, 1973; Hiroto, 1974;

Klein et al. , 1976), amount of exposure to uucontrollability

(Roth and Kubal, 1976) and other stimuli such as other's

performance (Weiner, 1974). Individual differences which

significantly affect LH are gender (Dweck and Repucci, 1973),

previously held expectations about performance (Hiroto, 1974)

and depressive mood (Hammen and Krantz, 197 6) .

After the reformulation, LH is conceived

primarily as a cognitive phenomenon in humans that emerges

following experiences of response-outcome independence. In

each person the experience gives rise to causal attributions

which represent a fairly stable characteristics and affect

future behaviour. More generally, a person first learns that

he/she makes for it, might or might not be helpless in future

16

situations. Therefore, helplessness need no more be treated

as a specific reaction to a particular experience in the

laboratory. Instead, it may be considered ao an enduring

state of response-outcome expectancy that individuals bear in

themselves.

The state-oriented approach towards LH was

suggested in Seligman's original reformulation. The original

reformulation lends support to this approach by suggesting

that the situational view of helplessness as a short lived

reaction to laboratory experience does not adequately explain

LH (Miller and Norman, 1979) . In spite of these theoretical

advances, most research has avoided studies ot naturally

occurring LH (Brown and Siegel, 1988), and has tended to

treat LH as a transient state observed immediately after a

short experience of experimentally induced response-outcome

independence.

RESEARCH EVIDENCE ON ATTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS & L.H.

INTERNAL-EXTERNAL (I-E) ATTRIBUTIONS

A number of researches has been done on

examining the link between I-E attribution and LH.

Internal attributions leads to greater loss in self esteem as

17

compared to external attributions (Abramson et al. , 1978;

McFarland and Ross, 1982; Peterson and Seligman, 1984;

Mikulincer, 1986, 1989). In his study of I-E attribution on

performance following insolvable problems, Mikulincer

manipulated perceived task importance, perceived task

difficulty and threat to self esteem, and examined the

effects of I-E attribution. While the performance deficits

for external attribution could be examined by recourse of

self handicapping strategies adopted by the person to protect

his self esteem. Internal attribution for failure leads to

personal helplessness whereas external attribution leads to

universal helplessness. In most of the laboratory based

researches on LH, personal and universal helplessness has

been treated as orthogonal dimensions. However, Sahoo's

(1991) study in organizational setting found the two to be

significantly and positively correlated. Balakriahnan (1990)

found that knowing that others are also helpless is no

consolation in reducing performance deficits. In a study on

the homeless, Burn (1992) found that environments which are

consistently low in control lead to external attribution and

universal helplessness. Similar results has also been

reported by Dweck and Repucci (1973) and Hanusa and Schultz

(1977) .

18

STABLE-UNSTABLE (S-U) ATTRIBUTIONS

Attribution of failure to stable factors leads

to chronicity of helplessness (Weiner, 1974; Mikulincer,

1986, 1988; Mikulincer and Nizan, 1988).

Attribution of failure to unstable cues is not

likely to lead to chronic deficits because those causes may

not be present in future.

GLOBAL-SPECIFIC (G-S) ATTRIBUTIONS

A number of researchers (Alloy, 1982;

Anderson, 1983; Mikulincer and Nizan, 1988; Snyder and

Higgins, 1988) found that global attributions are more likely

to lead to generalization of LH to dissimilar situations.

While specific attributions like poor effort is less likely

to lead to generality of LH in other situations.

Because the causal factors of the earlier

situations may not be present in later situations. The

available literature indicates that global and stable

attributions are necessary for generalization of

expectancies of uncontrollability to dissimilar situations.

19

ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE AND ANALYSIS

A number of people explain events in a

habitual fashion called "attribution style". The type of

attribution a person makes may be influenced by his general

attributional style (Seligman et al., 1979) and environmental

cues. Some people habitually attribute bad happenings to

external, stable and global causes, and good happenings to

internal, stable and specific causes.

The style becomes more important in situations

where the information about causes is ambiguous. A number of

researches have been done' on attributional style and

LH/depression using attributional style questionnaire-ASQ

(Seligman et al. , 1979; Alloy et al., 1984; Peterson et al.,

1988) . They found that a subject with global attributional

style for negative events showed LH deficits which

generalized to both similar as well as dissimilar

situations. Metalasky et al., 1984, in a naturalistic

situation found that students with more internal and global

attribution style showed more severe reactions.

Let's take an example of a Sr. manager, who

is not applying for the post of DGM. He can offer several

explanations for this behaviour, which in turn we may use to

predict their future behaviour.

20

"My efforts to convince the Selection Committee to

make me DGM are of no use, because

I I lack the aptitude for DGM work

(internal-global-stable).

II My current health is in shambles after the

accident (internal-global- unstable) .

Ill Any person can get such posts only through

destiny (external-global-stable).

IV There is recession in the industry

(external-global-unstable).

V I have not put in enough effort to convince the

selection committee

(internal-specific-unstable).

VI I do not have skills beyond my specialization

(internal-specific-stable).

VII This post is always given to owner's relatives

(external-specific-stable).

VIII The selection committee members are busy at

present

(external-specific-unstable).

ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

Attribution analysis of LH is still the most

well documented theory, but alternative explanation of LH has

emerged in recent years. Snyder and Higgins (1988) has tried

21

to explain LH by recourse to excuse making. "Excufie making is

the process of shifting causal attributions lor negative

personal outcomes from sources that are more ceiirral to the

person's sense of self to sources that are relatively less

central, thereby, resulting in perceived benefits to the

person's image and sense of control " (Snyder and Higgins,

1988) .

A global attribution produces more task-

irrelevant self-preoccupation (off task cognitionn), which

impairs performance on a subsequent task. On the other hand,

a specific, attribution for failure is an excuse attribution

which shifts the responsibility away from the person,

thereby making failure irrelevant for self evaluation. By

making excuses, people split the person who may have

performed poorly in some situation from the real person who

does well otherwise (Snyder et al.,1983). This e cou.se making

reduces engagement in off-task cognitions the main cause of

performance deficits.

Sedek and Kofta (1990) has put torth an

informational explanation of LH by defining inicot rollability

in information processing terms. When a person is in the

uncontrollable situation, he receives consistent

informational feedback as he engages in hypothesis testing

activity during problem solving. Gradually, some of the

hypotheses are disapproved and he is able to construct an

22

adequate cognitive schema for the future. But on the other

hand, a person facing uncontrollable situations receive

meaningless informational feedback and he is unable to

construct an appropriate cognitive schema for behaviour. The

high disorderliness thus produced does not get reduced

inspite of cognitive exertion by the person. Thiij inability

to have any cognitive gain leads to a state ot cognitive

exhaustion in which little hypothesis testing it3 done. This

state is the immediate antecedent of LH symptoms.

The main difference between the attributional

model and information model of LH is that the original theory

views response-outcome noncontingency as the crucial aspect,

thus locating the source of helplessness in something that

follows behavioral acts (i.e. their outcome which are

independent to behaviour). In contrast the present approach

attributes helplessness to difficulties encountered at an

early stage of action development, namely when an organism

attempts to derive an anticipatory schema usually called

action programme for successful guidance of future activity.

According to the current theory, the essential feature of

helplessness training is repeatedly experiencing the

inability to derive such a programme by means of hypothesis

testing activity (Sedek and Kofta, 1990) .

23

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN ORGANIZATIONS

A very few studies of LH in n.it uralistic

settings has been found in the review of literature.

Balakrishnan (1990) found LH to be positively-

correlated with chance locus of control and negatively-

correlated with internal locus of control, job involvement

and job satisfaction.

In this study attributional theory did not get

adequate support. Education level was inversely related with

LH.

People in financial organization were found to

have higher personal helplessness as compared to those in

manufacturing and consulting organizations.

Baum and Gatc'hel (1981) studied crowding in

college dormitories and found attribution to be important

determinants of helplessness. Golin et al. (1981) found that

attribution style of children and adults at a particular

time predicted depression in future. Hammen, Krantz and

Cochran (1981) found similar result for college students.

Metalasky et al. (1982) found that students with internal and

global attribution styles showed more severe depression

24

symptoms after receiving low mid term grade. Sahoo (1991)

found positive correlation between PLH and ULH and negative

correlation between PLH and Job satisfaction. Employees in

financial institutions showed less helplessness than employee

in educational and industrial organizations, contrary to the

finding of Balakrishnan (1990) for executives. Cliawla (1994)

found no relationship among PLH and ULH with demographic

variables among the managerial staff of Banking sectors.

Means age, sex, educational background and income has no

effect on Learned Helplessness. Lata and Dhar (1989) found

that age has significant correlation with learned

helplessness, more in old ages, less in young ages.

Sarkar(1993) reported very low level of learned helplessness

in middle managers of engineering industry.

Rampant employee indiscipline is observed in

many public and even private sector organizations in

different forms. If we ask to an executive what he does to

control indiscipline in the organizations, he will respond,

"What can I do? I am helpless". Or if we ask to any

executives what you will do to convince your employees not to

go on strike, they will say, "How can I ? I am not even sure

whether it is my job?" There are so many evidences of such

examples from our own personal and work experience. These

example capture a phenomenon very widely pervasive in life.

Injustice, inequities and deprivation are experienced as

aversive conditions. In such situations, people would

25

normally engage in instrumental activity, directed towards

removing or alleviating aversive conditions.

Perception of attractive, valued and

attainable goals or rewards tend to lead people to put in

efforts to obtain them. Problem faced in life would

ordinarily push people to squarely face them and engage in

problem solving activities. Some people remain passive and

apathetic, reflecting maladaptive behaviour. They tend not

to do anything and quietly suffer the unpleasant consequences

of inaction. And some even deny that the problem exists,-

others show different types of withdrawal behaviour. The LH

construct provides a clear explanation about why the

phenomenon observed in the above said example takes place.

When people initially make any effort and

often failed to achieve desired results, they believe that

desired results are uncertain, no matter what they do. From

these experiences they learned that they were helpless and

there was no use even to try. Thereafter, they reduced their

efforts or gave up completely, became passive and sad, and

faced the undesired outcome with inaction.

According to Martinko and Gardner (1982)," LH

can be induced by a variety of expei'iences in

organizations." Bureaucratic organizations are observed to

26

direct member behaviour through established rules and

routines which inhibit self expression and limit autonomy

(Conger and Kanungo, 1988).

Therefore, employees learn from the

organizational environment to suspend their judgement and

come to doubt whether their own ideas and actions are

acceptable at the job. Over time these organizations shapes

employees to become incapable of demonstrating innovation or

responsibility, even when such behaviour is desired and

rewarded (Argyris, 1957). For example, lack of control over

production process experienced by assembly line workers

(Blauner, 1964) can induce a sense of powerlessness and

cause LH. These workers become generally passive and

therefore, cannot be depended upon to exercise initiative on

the few occasions when it is required.

There are other factors which causes

helplessness in organizations. When a person faced very

difficult or impossible goals,they fail to find meaningful

relationship between their actions and desired results

(Stedry and Kay, 1966) . Employees and executives who are

held accountable for results produced by otherE;, or given

formal roles without commensurate resources and authority,

perceived a sense of powerlessness at their job (Kanter,

1983). Organizational rewards which are perceived to be

27

independent of efforts (Kerr, 1975) may be expected to

increase the sense of helplessness among employees. Conger

and Kanoongo (1988) stated that jobs providing very little

challenges and meaning or involving role ambiguity, role

conflict and role overload are related to powerlessness.

Factors which induced uncertainty in the

organizational environment have been suggested as possible

causes of helplessness. Toffler (1970) has stated that

rapidly changes in environment may give rise to helplessness

among workers.

Financial emergencies, significant

technological changes and mergers can induce significant

alterations in organizational structure, strategies and

tactics. These changes causes uncertainty in laiqe segments

within the organizations (Cogner and Kanungo, 1988).

Unpredictable work environment were also observed to be

related to "burnout" among health service professionals

(Cherniss, 1980).

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS AND ITS RELATED CONSTRUCTS

LOCUS OF CONTROL

Locus of control refers to the general

expectation that people hold about the major cause of events

28

and results. The causes could either be their own beliaviour

or qualities (internal control) or could be fate, chance and

other powerful people (external control). Most of the

researchers has used I-E scale (1966) to measure the internal

and external locus of control as bipolar states on a

continuum. Contrary to common belief, the scale was not

designed to measure the general conception of locus of

control (Lefcourt, 1981). The original aim was to assess the

expectancies about own control with regard to different goals

such as achievement, social recognition and affect ioii. Locus

of control has been treated as a trait, where persons with

high control are said to be potent and assertive, while the

external are held as helpless and incompetent (Cohen et al.,

1976).

However, some researchers have also indicated

the existence of multiple locus of control as against the

simple undimensional model proposed by Rotter

( eg. Collins, 1974).

Like learned helplessness, locus of control is

also a personality construct related to believes held by

people about desired outcomes. Unli)ce LH, which focuses on

the cognitive states where outcomes are perceived to be

independent of response, locus of control makes individuals

to identify causes of events around them. While causal

29

attributions made for perception of LH indicates causes which

interfere with responses made to achieve desired outcomes.

And locus of control merely indicates what the person

believes is the cause of outcome in general. Locus of control

which refers to an expectancy about events in general appears

to have poor predictive capacity, while LH uses an

attributional model to make elaborate predictions about

chronicity and cross-situational generalization of

maladaptive behaviour.

LEARNED RESOURCEFULNESS (LR)

Theoretical conceptualization suggested that

self control skills are learned; individual with different

learning histories are expected to show substantial

differences in self control (Rosenbaum, 1980). LR refers to

"an acquired repertoire of behaviour and skills (mostly

cognitive) by which a person self-regulates internal

responses such as emotions, cognitions and pain) that

interfere with smooth execution of desired behaviour

" (Rosenbaum and Ben Ari, 1985) . The construct proposes that

LR is triggered by a situation where well established

responses fail to produce expected outcomes. Following the

experience of uncontrollability, a person who had low LR

showed significantly higher performance deficits with

30

similar controllable tasks than those persons who had high LR

(Rosenbaum and Jaffe, 1983). Hence, persons with strong

self-control skills or high LR are likely to show low

personal helplessness.

Like LH, learned resourcefulness is also a

hypothetical construct which seeks to explain differences in

behaviour when action fails to produces desired results.

Although both these constructs reflects a stable disposition

held by individuals. LH has been identified as a cognitive

state while LR has been conceived as a set of cognitive and

behavioural skills. LR construct does not explain variations

in maladaptive behaviour such as chronicity and cross-

situational generalization, Which learned helplessness does.

SELF EFFICACY

According to Bandura (1977), " self- efficacy

is a belief in one's capability for performance of a specific

task. "Bandura's self efficacy theory of effects of control

is compatible with Minimax-hypothesis. Personal control

gives a sense of self efficacy (perceived ability) to the

individual for tackling an aversive event. This results in

reduction of their level of anxiety and arousal.

Biggs and Tofler (1981) suggested that the

expectancy about the outcomes sets the general context (to

31

respond or not respond), but actual involvement with the task

and persistence revolves around perception of sell-efficacy.

Self efficacy like LH is a hypothetical

construct about expectations that a person holds about the

ability of their actions to produce desired outcomes. The

primary difference is that, self-efficacy is posited with

respect to a specific situation while LH refers to a more

generalized trait carried by people. Hence, self-efficacy

does not reflect a stable disposition, and precludes its use

as a means of predicting behaviour in other situations or in

future.

CHAPTER - I I

METHODOLOGY

32

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The present research aimed at studying the

learned helplessness (LH) in a public sector undertaking. Its

relevence lay in the present scenario in the public sectors

which reveals widespread symptoms of learned helplessness

like indifference, lack of initiative in problem solving,

inaction while facing unpleasant conditions, etc.

There is widespread cynicism in the public

sector at all levels in the hierarchy. Employees behave as if

they have given up all hopes. The malady is more rampant in

the executives managers of public sector

undertakings. Executives are frequently seen expressing their

helplessness in dealing with the subordinates and superiors

alike. On enforcing discipline and punctuality, a common but

exasperated response is " What can I do?" or for that matter,

"What can anybody do?" Interference of trade unions is often

cited as one reason for their belief in futility of making

any effort. In the past, some attempts have been made to

explain such maladaptive behaviour using the learned

helplessness concept( Martinko and Gardner, 1982).

33

The aim of a scientific endeavor like the

present one is to ascertain facts and analyze them in an

objective manner, to work out a neat design,

systematically analyze the data and present the data in

the light of whatever parallel findings are available

(McGuigan, 1969; McNemar, 1962; Edward, 1956; and Siegal

and Castella, 1989).

Subscribing to these requirements of

scientific study, the present research is directed to

explore learned helplessness among the executives of a

public sector undertaking. It also proposes to

determine the relationship of learned helplessness with

several demographic variables.

SAMPLE ;

The size of the sample plays a

significant role in the statistical analysis of the data

and in the generalizability of results. There is no

clear rule regarding the appropriate size of the sample

for a particular analysis." It has been proposed that the

sample for stable results are directly proportional to

the number of variables involved. Thorndike (1979)

proposed a rule or informal guide that "there should be

34

ten respondent for each variable plus fifty respondents".

And as per this guide or rule we should have 11*10+50 -

160 respondents. Keeping this in view and availability

of the data the study was conducted on 172 executives of

different hierarchal posts working in BHARAT HEAVY

ELECTRICALS Ltd. Bhopal unit, a public sector

undertaking. After scrutiny of filled data 07 were

rejected because of various reasons like incomplete

information, wrong entry etc. The remaining 16'S cases

were used in this study. The respondents were broadly

divided into four groups on the basis of their position

in the organization.

1 . EXECUTIVE-I OR EXl (DGM/DGM/AGM) 35

2 . EXECUTIVES-II OR EX2 ( SENIOR MANAGER) 4 0

3 . EXECUTIVES- I I I OR EX3 ( MANAGERS) 4 5

4 . EXECUTIVES-IV OR EX4 (DY. MANAGERS) 4 5

TOTAL EXECUTIVES = 165

A l l t h e r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e h a v i n g

e n g i n e e r i n g b a c k g r o u n d i n t h e fo rm of d e g r e e and

d i p l o m a s . Some had management b a c k g r o u n d .

PROCEDURE ;

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (Bhopal unit)

35

executives were selected as a sample keeping in mind the

availability of the data, cost and distance for data

Collection. BHEL has eleven units including one

administrative unit. This organization runs in three

shifts. And most of the executive cadre are coming in

the first shift from 7.00 am to 4.00 pm. Keeping in mind

the maximum availability of respondents first shift

executives were chosen for data collection. While in

other shifts very few executive were available because

at that very time most of the units are controlled by

senior supervisors, and in case of emergency senior

officers move in to handle the problem. The data were

collected using the survey method. Each respondent was

personally contacted by the investigator and data was

collected through questionnaire. Executives of all the

eleven units were included in the sample. I'hey were

assured of confidentiality of their responses.

TOOL USED

The study was performed through a

questionnaire " A psychometric measure of learned

helplessness" developed by Pestonjee and Reddy (1988).

This scale is based on the attributional model of

learned helplessness, developed by Abramson et

al(1978,80). Three sets of attributional dimension have

36

been developed (a)Internal-External (b) Stable- Unstable

and (c) Global-Specific.

a) INTERNAL-EXTERNAL : Individuals tend to attribute

outcomes to internal factor, when they believe that

outcomes are more likely or less likely to happen to

themselves, than to relevant others.

Conversely when they believe that outcomes as

likely to happen themselves as to relevant others, they

are making extra attributions.

b) STABLE-UNSTABLE : Stable attributions are the

ones when the state of helplessness is likely to persist

for an individual over a period of time under similar

condition or situations. Unstable attributions, on the

other hand, may result in a state of helplessness for a

shorter period.

c) GLOBAL-SPECIFIC : Global factors are ones that can

cause helplessness generally in a wide variety of

situations and tasks. And specific factors causes

helplessness in a particular specific situation.

These three attributions combined

37

together give eight different attributions of learned

helplessness. These are as follows.

1. INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LHl)

2. INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH2)

3. INTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH3)

4. EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH4)

5. INTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH5)

6. EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH6)

7. EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH7)

8. EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LH8)

The learned helplessness scale has 24

statements. The statements are non-uniformly distributed

into eight groups (factors) of attributions discussed

above. A six point rating scale is used ranging from

"strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". The respondents

strongly agreeing with the statement will get a rating

of one and strongly disagree will get six. The ratings

have reverse meaning, higher the score lower the learned

helplessness. The scale has reliability and validity

within acceptable norms.

The following are the brief statements of the eight

different types of learned helplessness of the scale

used.

38

1. INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE ATTRIBUTIONS (LHl) : There

are six statements in the scale for measuring this type

of helplessness. Here an individual experiencing this

helplessness attributes it to himself, in a specific

situation and is likely to last long, eg. specialization

and expertise.

2. INTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE (LH2): Same as Internal-

specific-stable, but it is not likely to last long, eg.

poor effort. There are four statements in this scale for

this category of helplessness.

3. INTERNAL-GLOBAL-STABLE (LH3): Here too the individual

attributes his learned helplessness to internal factors.

They are general in nature and are likely to last long,

eg. lack of aptitude. There are only two statements, of

which, for one the score is to be reversed.

4. EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-UNSTABLE (LH4): There are three

statements and all of them are related to undesirable

elements in the culture of one's organization and his

inability to do anything about them.

39

5. INTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE (LH5): There are three

statements in this category of helplessness which are

internal but temporary and global, eg. current health.

6. EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-SPECIFIC (LH6): Learned helplessness

due to factors, external to individuals, universal and

permanent, eg. destiny. There are two statements in this

category for which rating of one will be reversed.

7. EXTERNAL-SPECIFIC-STABLE (LH7): There are two

statements and ratings for both are to be reversed. This

helplessness is due to external factors only, but very

specific and stable in nature.

8. EXTERNAL-GLOBAL-UNSTABLE (LH8) : Learned helplessness

due to external factors only, but global and unstable.

These are related to effort expanded and the results

obtained by people in general. The number of statements

are two and rating for both are to be reversed.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES ;

The data were analyzed with the help of

SPSS and SYSTAT software packages on personal computer.

40

The mean, median, standard deviation,

correlation, significance of difference between means

were calculated.

The whole data were divided into high

and low groups of executives considering Learned

Helplessness, Age, Present Experience, and Total

Experience using median, i.e. High LH group. Low LH

group, High Age group. Low Age group. High Present

Experience group. Low Present Experience group. High

Total Experience group. Low Total Experience group.

Analysis were done for different sub groups like

Executives groupl(Exl), Executives group2(Ex2), Executives

groups3 (Ex3), and Executives group4 (Ex4).

CHAPTER - I I I

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

41

The present research was an exploratory research which was

mainly directed to explore the learned helplessness (LH) ,

among the various hierarchies of executives of public sector

undertaking. Further it was also attempted to find out the

relationship of LH with some of the important demographic

variables. The sample has been categorised as Exl comprising

of GM, DGM, AGM, Ex2 comprising of Senior Managers, Ex3

comprising of Managers, and Ex4 comprising of Dy. Managers,

respectively from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) ,

Bhopal unit.

The four groups differ in terms of power,

position and resposibilities on their jobs in the

organizations. The data obtained were statistically analyzed

for all the eight dimensions of learned helplessness

seperately for the comparison groups and also on the total

learned helplessness of each group. The results have been

shown in the following Tables with their discussions.

between the means of two groups may be interpreted in terms

of their positions, responsibilities and status. However, on

LHl the two arouDS differed .q i an i f i rrint-1 v .qhowino mnr-f^

42

TABLE - 1 MEAN SCORES OF EXl, EX2, EX3 AND EX4

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5 LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

AGE

PR.

EXl (N-35)

EXPR.

T. EXPR.

MEAN

19.82

14.08

08.54

09.00

09.40 05.34

08.74

08.48

83.42

48.65

04.02

26.25

EX2 (N-40)

MEAN

22.45

12.80

08.20

07.65

09.40 07.15

09.02

09.05

85.72

48.22

03.20

25.45

EX3 (N-45)

MEAN

20.48

14 .73

08.20

06.80

10.82 06.75

09.24

08.91

85.95

41.53

06.71

19.15

EX4 (N-45)

MEAN

14 .17

14.55

06.51

07.24

09.57 06.93

08.13

08.15

75.28

3 9.53

04 .51

16.84

The Table-1 shows the mean scores of Exl, Ex2,

Ex3, and Ex4 on all the eight dimensions of learned

helplessness, total learned helplessness and demographic

variables, to have a general look about the trend of the

results in all the four comparison groups. It appears from

the mean scores that Ex4 had shown higher deqree of learned

helplessness, followed by Exl. The Ex2 and Ex3 had shown

almost similar trend and lesser degree of lielplessness in

comparison to Exl and Ex4.

43

TABLE

MEAN, S.D. AND t-VALUE FOR EXl AND EX2

LH FACTORS EXl (N-35)

MEAN S.D.

EX2 (N-40)

MEAN S.D. t-VALUE

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

19.82

14.08

08.54

09.00

09.40

05.34

08.74

08.48

83.42

03.59

03.07

01.60

02.26

01.69

01.51

01.74

01.20

06.06

22.45

12.80

08.20

07.65

09.40

07.15

09.02

09.05

85.72

03 .64

02.06

01.58

02.49

02 .14

01.78

01.50

01.30

04 .79

03.16*

02.13

00.94

02.50**

00.00

05.02*

00.77

01.58

01.81

* - Significant at .01 level of significance **- Significant at .05 level of significance

As shown in the Table-2, the Exl and Ex2

groups do not differ significantly on total learned

helplessness, but the difference between the means of two

groups have been found significant on LHl, LH4 AND LH6. On

the remaining five dimensions the difference between the two

groups were found to be insignificant. This difference

between the means of two groups may be interpreted in terms

of their positions, responsibilities and status. However, on

LHl the two groups differed significantly showing more

feeling of helplessness in Ex2, which indicates lack of

44

specialization and expertise in specific situations -

iitunediate decision makings and implementations. On LH4,

the two groups diffrered significantly. The mean score

of Exl is higher showing low degree of helplessness as

compared to Ex2, which may be due to the presence of

undesireable things in the organization - lack of autonomy,

communication and feedback. The comparison of means on LH6

dimension showed that there was significant difference

between Exl and Ex2. Since this factor of LH is related to

external-global factor like luck, chance and destiny, looking

dominant in Exl, because most of the decisions in public

sectors are taken at the govt, level so the top officials

have to implement the decisions in their organizations, which

is being imposed on them. As a result of this kind of

frequent experience might develop the attribution of

external-global factor. Therefore, this group showed more

helplessness in comparison to others. The results obtained on

factors LHl, LH4, and LH6 are supported directly or

indirectly with the findings of early researchers (Hiroto,

1974; Martinko and Gardner, 1982).

45

TABLE

MEAN, S.D., AND t-VALUE FOR EXl AND EX3

LH FACTORS EXl (N-35) EX3 (N-45)

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

MEAN

19.82

14.08

08.54

09.00

09 .40

05.34

08.74

08.48

83 .42

S.D.

03.59

03.07

01.60

01.69

01.69

01.51

01.74

01.20

06.06

MEAN

20.48

14.73

08.20

06.80

10.82

06.75

09.24

08.91

85.95

S.D.

04 .01

02 .74

01.40

01.74

01.46

01.49

01.28

01.37

04.76

t - VALUE

00.78

01.00

01.36

04.88*

04.05*

04.27*

01.47

01.53

02.40*

As shown in Table-3, the two groups differed

significantly on LH4, LH5, LH6, and also on total LH. The two

groups differed significantly on LHT, the mean score of both

the groups had shown that the Exl group suffered with high

degree of helplessness as compared to their junior

counterparts. The helplessness of Exl group can be attributed

so many factors like their power, position, responsibility,

status, govt, policies etc., because they are the top

officials of the organization and are responsible for every

mishap or activity in the organization. The two groups also

differed on LH4 dimension, and Ex3 are found to be more

46

suffered, this can be attributed to lack of autonomy,

communication and feedback, which may be prevelent in the

organization.

On LH5 dimension, the two group also differed

significantly, and the mean score of the two group showed

higher level of helplessness in Exl, this can be attributed

to current health, which is internal-global and unstable in

nature. At the same time their average age is highest among

the groups and age deteriorate the health as well as

performance in other terms. On LH6 dimensions, the two groups

differed significantly, and Exl group had shown low mean

score as compared to their counterparts. This trend of result

is almost same for Exl as discussed in Table-2.

TABLE - 4

MEAN, S.D. AND t - VALUE FOR EXl AND EX4

LH FACTORS EXl (N-35)

MEAN S.D.

EX4 (N-45)

MEAN S.D. t-VALUE

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

19.82

14.08

08.54

09.00

09.40

05.34

08.74

08.48

83.42

03.59

03.07

01.60

02.26

01.69

01.51

01.74

.01.20

06.06

14.17

14.55

06.51

07.24

09.57

06.93

08.13

08.15

75.28

02.20

01 .80

01.37

01.50

01.90

01 . 14

01 . 14

01.21

04 .64

08.43*

00.82

06.51*

04.09*

00.42

05.48*

01.90

00.99

06.61*

47

It is evident from Table-4, that Exl and Ex4

were found to differ significantly, on LHl, LH3, LH4, LH6,

and LHT. The feeling of helplessness is higher in Ex4 than

Exl. The presence of higher LH may be attributed to lack of

specialization and expertise, (LHl), lack of aptitude (LH3) ,

undesireable things in the environment like lack of autonomy,

feedback and communication (LH4), are the prominent cause of

helplessness feeling. On the total LH the significance of

difference between the means of the two groups clearly

indicates that the higher degree of LH in Ex4 than Exl. It is

obvious from the trend of the results discussed that nature

of the work, autonomy in the decision making exercise of

powers, emerges as causative factors to develop a greater

degree of helplessness in Ex4 as compared to Exl.

TABLE - 5

MEAN, S.D. AND t- VALUE FOR EX2 AND EX3

LH FACTORS EX2 (N-40)

MEAN S.D.

EX3 (N-45)

MEAN S.D. VALUE

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

22 .45

12 .80

08.20

07.65

09.40

07.15

09.02

09.05

85.72

03.64

02 .06

01.58

02.49

02 .14

01.78

01.50

01.30

04.79

20.48

14 . 73

08.20

06.80

10.82

06.75

09.24

08.91

85.95

04,

02

01

01,

01

01

01 ,

01,

04 ,

.01

.74

,04

.74

.46

.49

.28

. 37

.76

02.40^*

03 .78*

00.00

02.42**

03.64*

01.17

00.68

00.50

00.22

48

As shown in. Table-5, the significance of

difference between the means of Ex2 and Ex3 were found

significant only on LHl, LH2, LH4, and LH5. The significance

of difference could not be obtained on other dimensions of

learned helplessness including total learned helplessness. It

is seen from the mean score of Ex3, on LHl is lower indicates

high helplessness because of lack of expertise and

specialization. While on LH2, the Ex2 showed higher degree of

helplessness can be attributed to poor efforts. And this poor

effort is because of the absence of incentives in the form of

promotion or identification with the job. On LH4 dimension

the Ex3 showed higher helplessness as compared to their

counterparts, because of the presence of undesireable things

in the environment. While on LH5 dimension the Ex2 showed

high degree of helplessness can be attributed to their poor

health or any other internal but temporary problems.

49

TABLE - 6

MEAN, S.D. AND t VALUE FOR EX2 AND EX4

LH FACTORS EX2 {N-40) EX4 (N-45)

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

MEAN

22.45

12 .80

08.20

07.65

09.40

07 .15

09.02

09.05

85.72

S.D.

03.64

02.06

01.58

02.49

02.14

01.78

01.50

01.30

04.79

MEAN

14.17

14.55

06.51

07.24

09 .57

06 .93

08.13

08 .15

75 .28

S.D.

02 .20

01.80

01. 37

01.50

01 . 90

01 . 14

01 . 14

01.21

04 .64

t - VALUE

12.45*

04.26

05.45*

00.93

00.39

00.70

03.17*

03.60*

10.23*

As shown in the Table-6, the comparison of

means between the two groups viz, Ex2 and Ex4 clearly showed

that the two groups are found to be different significantly

on LHl, LH2, LH3, LH7, LH8 and LHT. As regards the LHl

dimension, the Ex4 groups had shown higher helplessness and

differed significantly on LHl dimension as compared to to

their counterparts, because of lack of specialization and

expertise with the present job. As for as LH2 dimension is

concerned, Ex4 group showed less helplessness mainly due to

their making of more effort on the job as compared to their

counterparts. This Ex4 group has a lot of expectation in the

50

job hierarchy, promotional avenues in the form of rewards and

incentives, therefore, they make more effort on their own

with the present job. As a result they have lesser degree of

helplessness than the comparison group on LH2. Since these

two groups also differed significantly on LH3, which shows

higher LH in Ex4, may be caused by lack of aptitude on the

present job. The mean score on LH7 and LH8 had shown the

higher degree of helplessness in Ex4 as compared to Ex2. On

LH7 the Ex4 group showed higher helplessness and both the

group differed significantly, because this factor is external

and the reason may be attributed to family problems, social

relations and organizational support. This kind of tendency

may be influencing more to the Ex4 because they are beginners

in to act in the managerial capacity as compared to Ex2. On

LH4 the Ex4 group is also found to differ significantly and

showed higher degree of helplessness, this helplessness can

be attributed to lack of rewrds for special efforts. On total

LH dimension also both the groups differed significantly and

mean score of the two groups revealed that the Ex4 group

suffered with high feeling of LH as compared to their

counterparts. And the difference and causes are same as

discussed earlier.

51

TABLE - 7

MEAN, S.D. AND t- VALUE FOR EX3 AND EX4

LH FACTORS EXl (N-35) EX3 (N-45)

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

MEAN

20.48

14.73

08.20

06.80

10.82

06.75

09.24

08.91

85.95

S.D.

04.01

02 .74

01.04

01.74

01.46

01.49

01.28

01.37

04.76

MEAN

14.17

14.55

06.51

07.24

09.57

06.93

08.13

08.15

75.28

S.D.

02 .20

01.80

01.37

01 . 50

01.90

01.14

01.14

01.21

04 .64

t - VALUE

09.41*

00.37

07.34*

01.33

03.72*

00.69

04.62*

02.92*

10.88*

It is apparent from Table-7, that the

difference between the Ex3 and Ex4 differed significantly on

LHl, LH3, LH5, LH7, LH8 and on LHT. The trend of the result

is almost similar on LHl, LH3, LH7, LH8 and LHT. As far as

LH5 is concerned this Ex4 group also showed higher degree of

higher helplessness as compared to their counterparts, though

this factor is attributed with health, but here some other

internal- specific problem is operating may be lack of

adjustment or other psychosomatic problems.

52

TABLE

MEAN, S.D. AND t - VALUE FOR HIGH LH AND LOW LH GROUP

LH FACTORS HIGH LH GROUP (N-85) LOW LH GROUP (N-80)

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

MEAN

18.00

14.15

07.58

06.97

10.00

06.45

08.75

08.58

80.51

S.D.

04.02

02.85

01.66

02.02

02.02

01.40

01.51

01.38

03.21

MEAN

21.67

15.01

08.05

08.28

10.50

06.77

09.22

09.20

88.72

S.D.

03 .43

02.91

01.53

02 .12

01.86

01.85

01.20

01.19

03 .06

t-VALUE

06.23

01.95

01.96

04.22*

01.78

01.28

02.47**

03 .26*

17.10*

As shown in Table-8, the the two groups

differed significantly on LHl, LH4, LH7, LH8 and LHT. The LHl

is related to specilization and expertise, the mean LH score

is very low in high learned helplessness group as compared to

low learned helplessness group. It revealed that the high

learned helplessness have been found lackness in

specialization and expertise in specific situation which

emerged as a factor contributing helplessness in executives.

The high learned helplessness group also showed significant

difference on LH4 which may be attributed to undesireable

elements in the organization. The high learned helplessness

group was also found significantly different on LH7 chat is

53

related with very specific internal-situation may be family

problems as compared to low learned helplessness group. With

regard to LH8, the two groups differed significantly, this

LH8 factor is related to efforts and rewards. The high

learned helplessness group was found much helpless as

compared to low learned helplessness group. This factor of LH

signifies that the high learned helplessness group have shown

high degree of helplessness due to lack of effort and reward

in the organization. On the LHT the two groups differed

significantly. Now it is apparent from the mean values as

shown in Table-8, the four factors i.e. LHl, LH4, LH7 and LH8

have emerged as a sources of feeling of learned helplessness

among the executives.

TABLE - 9

MEAN, S.D. AND t VALUE FOR HIGH AND LOW AGE GROUP

LH FACTORS HIGH

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

MEAN

20.05

14.21

08.04

08.05

10.03

06.37

09.06

08.81

84.65

AGE GROUP(N-

S.D.

04.38

02.71

01.63

02 .35

01.93

01.77

01.49

01.35

05.34

•94) LOW

MEAN

19.32

15.01

07 .50

07 .01

10 .54

06.88

08.87

08.98

84.15

AGE GROUP(N-71)

S .D.

03 .78

03 . 11

01.56

01.76

01 .96

01.38

01.25

01.30

04.68

t-VALUE

01.15

01.77

02.34*

03.46*

01.70

02 .12**

00.90

00.85

00.64

54

As shown in Table-9, the two groups differed

significantly on LH3, LH4 and LH6. The low age group showed

the higher degree of helplessness as compared to the high age

group.. This result is contradictory to the finding of Lata

and Dhar (1989), that higher age group suffered with higher

helplessness. The difference between the two groups on LH3,

LH4 and LH6 can be attributed to lack of aptitude,

undesireable things in the organization, and some external-

universal permanent factors like chance and destiny has the

sources of helplessness as compared to high age group.

However, the two groups did not differ significantly on total

learned helplessness.

TABLE - 10

MEAN, S.D. AND t- VALUE FOR THE HIGH PRESENT EXPERIENCE AND LOW PRESENT EXPERIENCE GROUP

LH FACTORS HIGH PR. EXP. GRP.(N-72) LOW PR. EXP. GRP.(N-93)

MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. t-VALUE

LHl

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

19

14

07

07

10

06.

08,

09

83,

.29

.48

.70

.59

.63

.34

.77

.04

.83

03,

03,

01

02,

01,

01.

01.

01.

10.

.85

.00

.66

.21

.71

.55

,51

.32

.79

20.

14.

07.

07,

09,

06.

09.

08.

84.

.16

.63

.89

.62

.93

.81

.13

.76

.96

04

02

01

02

02

01

01

01

05

.37

.84

.58

.14

.08

.67

.27

.33

.48

00 .40

0 0 . 3 2

0 0 . 7 6

0 0 . 8 0

0 2 . 4 1 ^ *

0 1 . 9 5

0 1 . 7 1

0 1 . 2 7

0 0 . 8 1

55

As shown in Table-10, the high and low present

experience group did not differ significantly on any

dimension of learned helplessness except LH5 . The Lh5 factor

is related to current health or may be any other personal

problem found to be a cause of helplessness in low present

experience group. The two groups did not differ significantly

on total learned helplessness.

TABLE - 11

MEAN, S.D. AND t- VALUE FOR HIGH TOTAL EXPERIENCE AND LOW TOTAL EXPERIENCE GROUP

LH FACTORS HIGH TOT. EXP.GRP.(N-94) LOW TOT. EXP. GRP.(N- 71)

MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. t-VALUE

L H l

LH2

LH3

LH4

LH5

LH6

LH7

LH8

LHT

1 9 . 8 9

1 4 . 2 5

0 7 . 9 4

0 8 . 0 9

0 9 . 9 8

0 6 . 3 5

0 9 . 0 5

0 8 . 7 8

8 4 . 3 7

0 4 . 3 2

0 2 . 7 9

0 1 . 6 7

0 2 . 2 7

0 1 . 9 5

0 1 . 7 4

0 1 . 4 6

0 1 . 3 0

0 5 . 3 8

1 9 . 6 3

1 4 . 9 8

0 7 . 6 3

0 6 . 9 7

1 0 . 5 7

0 6 . 9 5

0 8 . 8 8

0 9 . 0 1

8 4 . 6 6

03 . 9 6

03 . 0 2

0 1 . 5 3

01 . 8 6

0 1 . 9 1

0 1 . 4 1

0 1 . 2 8

0 1 . 3 5

0 4 . 8 6

0 0 . 4 0

0 1 . 6 2

0 1 . 2 9

0 3 . 6 U

0 1 . 9 6

0 2 . 5 0

0 0 . 8 5

0 1 . 1 5

0 1 . 1 5

As shown in Table-11, high and low total

experience groups also did not found to differ significantly

on any learned helplessness dimension other than LH4. The

56

mean score on LH4 is low in low total experience group

indicates that the feeling of learned helplessness may be

caused by undesireable things in the organization. These two

groups also did not differ significantly on total learned

helplessness. It appears from the trend of the result taht LH

may be attributed to environmental factor rather than

experience on the job.

TABLE-12

TABLE SHOWING r - VALUE OF LH WITH AGE, PRESENT EXPERIENCE

AND TOTAL EXPERIENCE

AGE PRESENT EXPERIENCE TOTAL EXPERIENCE

LHT .094 -.056 .092

As shown in Table-12, LH was found low

positively correlated with the age, though the value is

insignificant but the trend of the data showed that LH is

to some extend found to be related with age. Infact in one of

the studies carried out by Lata and Dhar (1989) reported

positive correlation with age. The finding obtained is

supporting the finding of Lata and Dhar (1989) . It is also

found that the LH is inversely related with the present

experience of executives on the job. The inverse correlation

reveals that only present experience on the job is not

influencing to develop the feeling of learned helplessness in

the executives. However, Lh was found low positively related

57

with total experience indicates that the total experience on

the job have some influence on the development of feeling of

helplessness in the executives of public sector undertaking.

Though the sample size of the present study is

small, if we take the sample of other category of employees

from the same organization keeping in view only the factor of

age and total experience on learned helplessness, we may

obtain positive correlation of learned helplessness with age

and total experience in public sector undertaking. Attempt to

be made in future to include other categories of employees to

make the findings of the present research more authentic and

generalized.

It appeared from the trend of the results

that the executives of this Public Sector Undertaking did not

show the higher degree of feeling of helplessness in general

but they had shown some degree of the feeling of learned

helplessness on factors like LHl (internal-specific-stable),

LH2 (internal-specific-unstable), LH4 (external-specific-

unstable) and LH6 (external-global-stable). On the other

remaining dimension of learned helplessness all the

executives had shown very lesser degree of learned

helplessness.

The present researcher was in great difficulty

to compare their findings with the findings of other

researchers in this area due to non-availability of research

findings.

58

According to the finding of the present

study the learned helplessness may be primarily due to

external attributions like undesirable things in the

organizations, strong believe in destiny etc. but, also on

some internal attribution like lack of specialization,

expertise and poor efforts in specific situations.

The learned helplessness may be lead to

performance deficits in the organizations. It can be

controlled by the management using some intervention

strategies.

The management should follow up a learned

helplessness measurement programme for its executives when

some changes takes place in the organization. The new comers

in the organization should be properly guided and given

assignment where they are likely to succeed. The management

should make aware to its executives that their failure on job

may be due to some specific internal and or external factors,

which might develop the feeling of helplessness, so specific

causes to be spelt out on some important occassions. There is

need to bring change in executives perception of

uncontrollability of outcomes, they should be given

encouragement, verbal feedback, and social persuation by the

management. The executives should be provided pre-treatment

strategies that may reduce the susceptibility of learned

59

helplessness. Lastly, through the principle of modelling

executives can unlearn organizationally induced helplessness

by seeing the model of success. This method of modelling

should encourage the management to develop some programme to

make successful executives more visible or rewards success

through social recognition.

The future research in this area requires an

extensive investigation using all categories of employees and

relate this concept with performance of employee at all

levels in the organizations.

REFERENCES

60

A l l o y , L . B . ; Seligman,M. gene ra l i ty -Personality

E . P o f

and

Abramson,L.Y.; Garber,J. and Seligman.M.E.P. (1980) : Learned helplessness in humans: An attributional analysis. In J.Garber and M.E.P. Seligman (Eds) Human Helplessness: Theory and Applications, New York: Academic Press.

Abramson,L.Y.; Seligman,M.E.P. and Teasdale.J. (1978) : Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of OG of Abnormal Psychology, Vol -87, Pg. 49-74.

Alloy.L.B.(1982) : The role of perceptions and attributions for response-outcome noncontingency in learned helplessness: A commentary and discussion. Journal of Personality, Vol -50 (4) Pg. 443-479.

Peterson, C. ; Abramson,L.Y. and (1984) : Attribution style and

learned helplessness. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol-46(3), Pg. 681-687

Anderson,C.A. (1983) : Motivational and performance deficits in interpersonal settings : The effect of attribution style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -45, Pg. 1136-1141.

Argyris,C. (1957) Personality and Organization. New York : Harper and Row.

Averill,J.R. and Rosenn,M. (1972) : Vigilant and nonvigilant coping strategies and Psychophysiological stress reaction during the anticipation of electric shock. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -23, Pg. 128-141.

Bainbridge,P.L. (1973) : Learning in the rat: Effect of early experience with an unsolvable problem. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol - 82, Pg. 301-307.

Balakrishnan,S. (1990) : A study of learned helplessness in organizations. Doctoral Dissertation, IIM, Ahmedabad.

Bandura,A. (1977) : Self Efficacy : Towards a unifying theory of behavioural changes. Psychological Review, Vol -84, Pg. 191-215.

Baucom,D.J.and Danker-Brown,P. :Influence of sex roles on the development of learned helplessness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol -47, Pg. 928-936.

61

Benson,J.S. and Kenelly,K.J. (1976) : Learned helplessness : The result of uncontrollable

reinforcement or uncontrollable aversive stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -34, Pg. 138-145.

Blauner,R. (1964) : Alienation and freedom. The factory worker and his industry. Chicago : Chicago University Press.

Brand,W.; Weppman,B. and Ruso,D. (1969) : Task and species generality of the helplessness phenomenon. Psychonomic Science, Vol - 16, Pg. 154-155.

Brown,J.D. and Siegal,J.M. (1988) : Attribution of negative life courts and depression. The use of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -54, Pg. 316-322.

Burglas,S. and Jones,E.E.(1978) : Drug choice as an internalization strategy in response to noncontingent success.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -36, Pg. 405-417.

Burn,S.M. (1992) : Loss of control, attributions and helplessness in the homeless. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol -22(15), Pg. 1161-1174.

Chawla,A.K. (1994) : Learned helplessness in the Banking sector : Interaction of individual and role characteristics. FPM Dissertation, IIM, Ahmedabad.

Cherniss,C. (1980) Staff Burnout. Benerly Hills : Sage.

Cohen,S.; Rothbart,M. and Phillip,S. (197 6) : Locus of control and generality of learned helplessness in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -34, Pg. 1049-1056.

Collins,B.E. (1974) : Four component of Rotter's Internal-External Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -29, Pg. 381-391.

Conger, J. A. and Kanoongo, R.N. (1988) -. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, Vol -13, Pg. 471-482.

Corah,N.L. and Boffa,J. (1970) : Perceived control, self observation and response to aversive stimulation.

62

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -16, Pg. 1-4.

Desiderate,0. and Newman, A. (1971) : Conditional Suppression produced in rats by tones paired with escapable or inescapable shock. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -77, Pg. 427-443.

Dweck,C.S. and Repucci,N.D. (1973) -. Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -25, Pg. 109-116.

Edwards,A.L. (1956) Statistical analysis for students in Psychology and Education. New York : Rinehart & Co. Inc.

Elliot,R. (1969) : Tonic heart rate : Experiments on the effects of collative variable lead to an hypothesis about its motivational significance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -12, Pg.211-228

Enberg,L.A.; Hansen,G.; Welker,R.L. and Thomas,D.R. (1973) : Acquisition of key pecking via autoshaping as a function prior experience : Learned laziness. Science, Vol -178, Pg.1002-1004.

Fosco,F. and Geer,J.H. (1971) : Effect of gaining control over aversive stimuli after differing amounts of no control. Psychological Reports, Vol - 29, Pg. 1153-1154.

Frumkin,K. and Brookshire,K.H. (1969) : Conditioned feared training and later avoidance learning m Goldfish. Psychonomic Science, Vol -16, Pg. 159-160.

Gamzu,E.R.; Williams,D.A. and Scwartz,B. (1973) : Pitfalls of organism and concept : Learned laziness. Science, Vol -101, Pg. 367-368.

Glass,D.C. and Singer,J.E. (1972) : Urban Stress : Experiments on noise and social stressors. New York: Academic Press.

Hammen,C.L. and Krantz,S. (1976) : Effective of success and failure on depression cognitions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol -85, Pg. 577-586.

Heider,F. (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York : Wiley.

Hiroto,D.S. (1974) : Locus of control and learned helplessness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol-102, Pg. 187-193.

63

Hiroto.D.S. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) : Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol - 32, Pg. 311-327.

Hokanson,J.E.; DeGood, D.E.; Forrest,M.S. and Brittain,T.M. (1971) : Availability of avoidance

behaviour in modulating vascular-stress responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -19, Pg. 60-68.

Kemler,D. and Shepp,B. (1971) : The learning and transfer of dimensional relevance and irrelevance in children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol -90, Pg. 120-127.

Kerr.S. (1975) : On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, Vol -18, Pg. 769-783.

Klein,D.C.; Fencil-Morse,E. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) : Depression learned helplessness and attribution of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, In Press.

Krantz.D.S.; Glass,D.C. and Snyder,M.L. (1974) : Helplessness, stress level and the coronary prone behaviour pattern. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, Vol -10, Pg. 2 84-300.

Lata,S.& Dhar,V. (1989): Effect of age and sex on learned helplessness. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology,vol -64 Pg. 87-90.

Lefcourt,H.M. (1981) : Locus of Control : Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale,N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaumm.

Mackintosh,N.J. (1973) : Stimulus selection : Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In R.A. Hindle and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.)Constraints on learning. New York : Academic Press.

Maier,S.F.; Albin,R.W. and Testa,T.J.(1973) : Failure to learn to escape in rats previously exposed to inescapable shock depends on nature of escape response. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -85, Pg. 581-592.

Martinko,M.J. and Gardner,W.L. (1982) : Learned helplessness: An alternative explanation for performance

64

deficits. Academy of Management Review, Vol -7, Pg. 195-204.

Mcfarland,C. and Ross,M. (1982) : Impact of causal attribution on effective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -48(6), Pg. 1534-1539.

McGuigan,F.J. (1959) Psychology - it methodological approach. New Delhi : Prentice Hall of India (P) Ltd.

McNemar.Q. (1962) : Psychological statistics. New York : John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Mellgren,R.L. and Ost,J.W.P. (1971) : Discriminate stimulus exposure and learning of an operant discrimination in the rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -77, Pg.179-187.

Mikulincer,M. (1989) : Cognitive interference and learned helplessness : The effects of off-task cognitions on performance following unsolvable problems. British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol -28(1), Pg. 13-29.

Mikulincer,M. (1986) : Attribution processes in the learned helplessness paradigm : Behavioural effects of global attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 51(6), Pg. 1248-1256.

Mikulincer,M. and Nizan,B. (1988) : The relation between stable/unstable attribution and learned helplessness : British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol -27, Pg. 221-230.

Miller-III,I.W. and Norman,W.H. (1979) : Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attribution theory model. Psychological Bulletin, Vol -86 (1), Pg. 93-118.

Miller,W. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) : Depression in humans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol -84, Pg. 228-238.

Overmier,J.B. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1967) : Effect of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance responding. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol - 63(1), Pg. 28-33.

Padilla,A.M. (1973) : Effect of prior and interpolated shock exposure on subsequent avoidance learning by Goldfish. Psychological Reports, Vol -32, Pg. 451-456.

Padilla,A.M.; Padilla,C.; Ketterer,T. and Giacolone.D. (1970) :Inescapable shock and subsequent avoidance

65

c o n d i t i o n i n g in Gold f i sh . Psychonomic Science, Vol - 20, Pg. 295-296.

P a s s e r , M . W . ; K e l l e y . H . H . and M i c h e l a . J . C . (1978) : M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g of t h e c a u s e s f o r n e g a t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o u r . Journal of Personal i ty and s o c i a l Psychology, Vol -36, Pg. 951-962.

P a y n e , R . ; A n d e r s o n , D . C . and M u r c u r i o , J . (1970) : Preshock- produced a l t e r a t i o n in pa in e l i c i t e d f i g h t i n g . Journal of Comparative and Phys io log ica l Psychology, Vol -71 , Pg. 258-266.

P a y n e , R . J . (1972) : A l t e r a t i o n of Sidman a v o i d a n c e b a s e l i n e s by CS p a i r e d wi th avo idab le or unavoidable shock. Psychological Reports, Vol - 3 1 , Pg. 291-294.

Pestonjee,D.M. and Reddy,P. (1988) : Development of a P s y c h o m e t r i c measure of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s ( L H ) , Working Paper No.746, Ahmedabad : IIM.

P e t e r s o n , C . and S e l i g m a n , M . E . P . (1984) -. Causa l e x p l a n a t i o n as r i s k f a c t o r fo r dep re s s ion : Theory and P r a c t i c e . Psychological Review, Vol -91 (3 ) , Pg. 377-389.

P e t e r s o n , C . ; Semmel,A.; Von Baeye r ,C . ; Abramson,L.Y.; M e t a l a s k y , G . I . and S e l i g m a n , M . E . P . (1988) : The a t t r i b u t i o n s t y l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Cognitive Theory and Research, Vol -6 , Pg. 287-300.

P o w e l l , D . A . and C r e e r , T . L . (1969) : I n t e r a c t i o n of d e v e l o p m e n t a l and e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s i n shock e l i c i t e d a g g r e s s i o n . Journal of Comparative and Phys io log ica l Psychology, Vol -69 , Pg. 219-225,

R a c i n s c a s , J . R . (1971) :Maladapt ive consequences of l e s s or l a ck of con t ro l over a v e r s i v e e v e n t s . Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Waterloo U n i v e r s i t y , Ontar io , Canada.

Rescor la ,R .A. (1967) : Pavlovian c o n d i t i o n i n g and i t s p rope r c o n t r o l p rocedure . Psychological Review, Vol -74, Pg. 71-79 .

R o d i n , J . (1975) : Ove rc rowd ing p e r c e i v e d c h o i c e and r e s p o n s e t o c o n t r o l l a b l e o u t c o m e s . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, In Press .

R o s e l l i n i , R . and S e l i g m a n , M . E . P . (1975) : Lea rned h e l p l e s s n e s s and escape from f r u s t r a t i o n . Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behaviour Processes , Vol - 1 , Pg. 149-158.

66

Rosellini,R. and Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) : Learned helplessness and escape from frustration. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol -1, Pg. 149-158.

Rosenbaum,M. (1980) : A schedule for assessing self-control behaviour : Preliminary findings. Behaviour Therapy, Vol -11, Pg. 109-121.

Rosenbaum.M. and Ben Ari,K. (1985) : Learned helplessness and learned resourcefulness : Effects of noncontingent success and failure, on individual differing in self control skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -48, Pg. 198-215.

Rosenbaum,M. and Jaffe,Y. (1983) : Learned helplessness : The role of individual differences in learned resourcefulness. British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol -22, Pg. 215-225.

Roth,S (1973) : The effect of experimentally induced expectancies of control: Facilitation of controlling behaviour or learned helplessness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North Western University,

Roth,S. and Bootzin,R.R. (1974) : Effects of experimentally induced expectancies of external control: An investigation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -31, Pg. 680-691.

Roth,S. and Kubal.L. (1975) : The effects of noncontingent reinforcement on tasks of differing importance : Facilitating and learned helplessness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -32, Pg. 680-691.

Sahoo,F.M. (1991) : Learned helplessness in organizations. Management and Labour Studies, Vol -16(1), Pg. 1-11.

Sarkar,S.U. (1993) : The effects of perceived organizational climate on organizational role stress and learned helplessness of middle level executives in engineering industry. Unpblished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Gujrat, Gujrat.

Sedek.G. and Kofta,M. (1990) : When cognitive exertion does not yield cognitive gain : Toward an informational explanation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol -58(4), Pg. 729-743.

Seligman,M.E.P.; Maier,S.F. and Solomon,R. (1971) : Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events. In

67

F.R.Brush(Ed.) Aversive Conditioning and Learning, New York, Academic Press.

Seligman,M.E.P. and Groves,D. (1970) : Non-transient learned helplessness. Psychonomic Sciences, Vol -19, Pg. 91-92.

Seligman,M.E.P. and Maier,S.F. (1967) : Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol - 74 Pg. 1-9.

Seligman,M.E.P. and Beagley,G. (1975) : Learned helplessness in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -88, Pg. 534-541.

Seligman,M.E.P. (1975) Helplessness : On Depression, development and Death. San Francisco : Freeman.

Seligman,M.E.P.; Abramson,C.Y.; Semmel,A. and Von Baeyer,C. (1979) : Depressive attribution style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol -88, Pg. 242-247.

Seligman,M.E.P.; Rosellini,R.A. and Kozak,M. (1975) : Learned helplessness in rat : Reversibility, time course and immunization. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol -88, Pg. 542-547.

Siegal,S.C.; Castellan,Jr. and John.N. (1989) : Parametric statistics for the behavioural science (2nd eds.) McGraw Hill Publications Co.

Sines,J.0.; Cleeland,C. and Adkins,J. (1963) : The behaviour of normal and stomach lesion susceptible rats in several learning situations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol -102, Pg. 91-94.

Snyder,C.R. and Higgins,R.L. (1988) : Excuses : Their effective role in the negotiation of reality. Psychological Bulletin, Vol -104(1), Pg. 23-35.

Snyder,C.R. ; Higgins,R.L. and Stucky,R.J. (1983) : Excuses : Masquerades in search of grace. New York : Willey.

Stedry,A.C. and Kay,E. (1966) : The effect of goal difficulty on performance. Behavioural Science, Vol -11, Pg. 459-470.

Thomas, D. R. ,- Freemai^ F.: ,n (. y iljricki, J. G. ; Burr, D. E. S. and Lyons, J. (1970) : Effects of'%K~fc.ra dimensional training

•t^ v\

DS-Z-O^j

68

on stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, Vol -83, Pg. 1-2.

Thomas,E. and Batler,A. (1969) : Learned helplessness: A melioration of symptoms by cholinergic blockade of the septxim. Science, In Press.

Thorndike,R.L. and Hagen,E.P. (1979) Evaluation in Psychology (4th Eds.). Eastern

Measurement and New Delhi : Wiley

Thorton,J.W. and Jacobs,P.D. (1971) helplessness in human subjects. Journal of Psychology, Vol - 87, Pg. 295-296.

: Learned Experimental

Weiner,B. attribution Press.

(1974) Achievement theory. Morristown, N.J.

motivation and General Learning

Welker,R.E. (1974) : Learned laziness: A replication and extension. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado.

APPENDIX

PARTICULARS OF THE CANDIDATES :

1. NAME OF YOUR ORGANIZATION

2. YOUR HIGHEST QUALIFICATION

3. AGE

4. SEX

5. DESIGNATION

6. EXPERIENCE IN THE PRESENT POST

7. TOTAL EXPERIENCE

8. PROMOTIONAL AVENUES

9 . INCOME

10. MARITAL STATUS

11. NUMBER OF DEPENDENT

12. FAMILY STRUCTURE

DEAR RESPONDENT : Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements by-putting appropriate number against the bracket ( ), showing your degree of agreement or disagreement with the statement given below ....

STRONGLY AGREE - 1 AGREE - 2 SLIGHTLY AGREE - 3 SLIGHTLY DISAGREE - 4 DISAGREE - 5 STRONGLY DISAGREE - 6

Your explicit response es will be very useful for this research work. Please do not conceal the facts, the responses would be treated in strict confidence and for research purpose only.

THANKS