Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
48 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Sovereign power
|
Defined by Michael Foucault, sovereign power refers to the process through which sovereigns (kings, dictators, prison wardens, or directors of mental institutions) dominate their subjects.
Historically, this kind of power is connected to the phrase "abuse of power," because having total power often leads to misuse. This type of power is flawed because it fails to recognize that power is dispersed throughout societies and organizations. Power exists in every relationship and every interaction, not just those at the top. |
|
|
Surface structure vs. deep structure
|
surface structure = overt, conscious level of power. Has two dimensions: open face and hidden face
Deep structure is a second level of power that operates below employees' conscious awareness |
|
|
open face
|
first dimension of surface structure
comprised of overt displays of power -- threats, promises, negotiations, orders, coalitions, gag rules, and so on. |
|
|
hidden face
|
second dimension of surface structure
this face works by regulating public and private issues. |
|
|
Hegemony
|
the idea that the hierarchical relationships that exist within a society come to be treated as natural (inevitable) and normal (expected and morally correct)
|
|
|
Work-to-rule (systematic soldiering)
|
an industrial action in which employees do no more than the minimum required by the rules of a workplace, and follow safety or other regulations to the letter in order to cause a slowdown rather than to serve their purpose
ex: 1991: American Airlines pilots followed FAA regs to the letter. paralyzed the airline. Also United pilots in '97 and '00. '00 cost United $225 million |
|
|
Whistleblowers
|
people who report unethical or illegal activities within their organizations to the authorities or the press
study said that 72% of all employees feel pressured to engage in unethical behavior. 41% said they succumb to those pressures |
|
|
Symbolic resistance
|
ex in text:
the color of a hard hat in a factory represented the power held by that person. People without hard hats had the least power; blue some power; and white the most power. Employees that were not given hard hats started wearing yellow toy hats to work, resisting the symbols of power |
|
|
Impression (image) management
|
accenting some personality characteristics and de-emphasizing others.
it involves putting on one's "best face" but not necessarily putting on a false face. |
|
|
Ingratiation
|
making others feel important or humbling oneself
|
|
|
intimidation
|
[not from book]
is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. |
|
|
self-promotion
|
[not from book]
act of promoting one's own work |
|
|
exemplification
|
[not from book]
the act or process of exemplifying |
|
|
supplication
|
[not from book]
To ask for humbly or earnestly, as by praying |
|
|
availability bias
|
tendency to assume that the examples one can call immediately to mind are the most likely to occur
|
|
|
bounded rationality
|
human rationality is bounded by limitations in information, so they more often use a more limited approach to decision making.
|
|
|
retrospective sense-making
|
Humans first make choices and act on them, then seek out the information needed to rationalize their decisions
|
|
|
groupthink
|
excessive cohesion may lead groups to do everything they can to implement a foolish decision and to ignore or distort feedback indicating that their decision was unwise.
Ex: 1941: Ignored warnings that Japan might attack Pearl Harbor |
|
|
The Standard Agenda
|
1. Define the task; analyze the problem
2. Develop criteria to evaluate solutions 3. Generate solutions to the problem 4. Analyze the pros and cons of each solution against the criteria 5. Choose the best solution 6. Implement & communicate Problems with it: Few groups actually follow it (although most groups think they do) - Insufficient time on analyzing the problem - Trouble following the steps in order Blurring “divergent” and “convergent” modes - Divergent = idea generating - Convergent = idea evaluation What exactly does “choose the best solution” mean? |
|
|
Evaluative criteria
|
In individual decision making, one can select a set of criteria, assign weights to each category; and an associated probability to each outcome.
One could multiply each category weight by the associated probability and compare the sums to come to a decision. |
|
|
Garbage can model
|
Everyone dumping their concerns, skills, motivations into the mix (regardless of fit)
Solutions finding problems, issues/feelings seeking to be aired, decision-makers looking for decisions People reach into the can, find problems and solutions that seem to match |
|
|
Pondy's phases of Conflict
|
Louis Pondy developed an influential model of the bases and phases of organizational conflict: latent, perceived, manifest, and aftermath
|
|
|
Latent conflict
|
In latent conflict, there is the potential for conflict but the parties have not yet framed the situation as a conflict.
Three sources of latent conflict: 1. Most important is a real conflict of interests between parties (i.e., managers and employees) 2. When different interest groups are created in the organization, latent conflict can occur (i.e., employees from two previously separate organizations in a newly merged organization) 3. Legacy of previous conflicts |
|
|
Perceived conflict
|
When one or more parties believe that someone stands between them and achieving their goals. Often stems from a "precipitating event," such as when one employee criticizes another.
Perceived conflict can exist when latent conflict does not, as when kids fight over a serving of ice cream that is too large for them both to eat. Latent can exist w/o perceived, as when siblings are given an actually (but not apparently) inconsumable mound of ice cream. |
|
|
Manifest conflict
|
[from book] Conflict Interaction:
Conflicts are made up of communication, or interactive cycles of messages, responses, and counter-responses. Once these cycles commence, their development and outcomes are not within the control of any single participant. |
|
|
Conflict aftermath
|
Final phase of conflict.
Two criteria are appropriate for evaluating the short-term effects of conflicts: 1. Quality of the final decision 2. The effect of the conflict on working relationships. If sensible solution is supported by a legitimate consensus, short-term effects will be positive. Far too much emphasis is placed on winning – far too little on what happens next - “Our side won; get over it!” (Has the South gotten over the Civil War yet?) - What happens after bitter strikes get resolved? - Land mines (and their social equivalent) Poorly handled aftermath turns into latent |
|
|
Precipitating event
|
During the perceived conflict phase, one employee criticizes another, or makes a demand that the second person perceives is not legitimate. Or an employee makes what she or he considers a legitimate request and is rebuffed. This is the precipitating event.
|
|
|
Kenneth Thomas's conflict styles
|
Competition, compromise, accommodation, avoidance, and collaboration
|
|
|
Competition
|
I win, you lose. "my way or the highway"
+ you get your way - could be wrong, strains relationships |
|
|
Avoidance
|
I lose, you lose
*Most common by far Ex: Factos include if it's worth it or not -- sliver in hand |
|
|
Accommodation
|
I lose, you win
"whatever you say dear" + preserve relationship - resentment |
|
|
Collaboration
|
I win, you win
+ increased satisfaction - time, resources, sometimes impossible |
|
|
Compromise
|
I win some/lose some, so do you
+ relatively easy, partial satisfaction - poor decisions, no one is fully satisfied Ex: Rows 3,5,7,9 are smoking in an airplane |
|
|
Interests vs. positions
|
?
|
|
|
Essentializing
|
Broad generalizations can obscure important differences in the experiences of the members of different social groups.
How to describe cultural/racial/gender differences without oversimplification? |
|
|
Role encapsulation
|
A process through which individual employees are perceived through racial or sexual stereotypes.
|
|
|
Homogenizing
|
A form of resistance to diversification.
To accept it while trying to minimize its impact. If "other" employees can be persuaded or forced to mimic the beliefs of the power-holders, their entry into an organization will lead to little or no change. |
|
|
Visibility paradox
|
For women and members of minority groups, visibility is paradoxical when there are small numbers of them. The ones that are there often live in "glass houses." Pressure to be a role model and a "first" along with personal competency. Men don't have to deal with this pressure.
|
|
|
Marginalizing
|
Another response to diversity.
Accept others but isolate them in "spaces" that have relatively low levels of power. |
|
|
Glass ceiling
|
Refers to situations where the advancement of a qualified person within the hierarchy of an organization is stopped at a lower level because of some form of discrimination, most commonly sexism or racism. However, since the term was coined, "glass ceiling" has also come to describe the limited advancement of the deaf, blind, disabled, and aged.
|
|
|
Glass walls
|
Gender- and racially-segmented sectors of an organization
- Women & minorities often end up in divisions of an organization with little power, few chances for promotion - Hotels: Desk clerks vs. maids - Target: Muslims that do not want to ring up pork |
|
|
Hofstede's dimensions of cultural difference
|
Geert Hofstede's study of IBM employees in 53 nations during the 1970's and 1980's. He looked at:
1. power distance 2. uncertainty avoidance 3. masculinity-femininity 4. individualism-collectivism |
|
|
Power distance
|
The amount of power that supervisors can acceptably exercise over their subordinates
High: China Low: Austria and Israel Very formal roles (never a "Call me Jeremy") |
|
|
uncertainty avoidance
|
preference for explicitness, and tolerance of ambiguity
High: Japan Low: US |
|
|
individualism-collectivism
|
Asian, Latin, Middle-Eastern and African cultures tend to be collectivist, which means that people in those societies learn to place a high value on solidarity, cooperation and concern for others. Their communication tends to be guided and constrained by concerns about hurting people's feelings, minimizing impositions on others, and avoiding negative evaluations of others. A person's identity is closely related to a group.
Western Europeans and Americans tend to be individualistic; people learn to value competition and independence from other people or groups. |
|
|
masculinity-feminity
|
the extent to which the culture values the stereotypically masculine traits of assertiveness and competitiveness or the stereotypically feminine attributes of cooperativeness and interdependence.
Masculine: Japan, Latin America Feminine: Scandinavia |
|
|
High context & low context cultures
|
Edward Hall's concept:
In low context cultures people focus their attention on the explicit content of a message when they try to make sense out of it. (ex. price tags and contracts) In high context cultures, much of the meaning is extracted from the context in which the message is uttered, and the message itself is much more ambiguous. (Ex: haggling) |
|
|
Glocalization
|
Combination of isomorphism and divergence
Develop “hybrid societies,” “dialects,” huge international chains with local flavors |
