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;
39 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Causes of conflict |
1. breakdowns in communication 2. value clashes 3. personality clashes 4. work policies and practices 5. adversarial management |
|
|
Strategies for dealing with conflict |
Win/lose: short term resolution, underlying conflict still exists, loser will resent winner Lose/lose: compromise, arbitration, rules/policies, doesn't address underlying issue Win/win |
|
|
Dimensions of conflict handling intentions |
Vertical axis - assertiveness Horizontal axis - cooperativeness Low assertive, low cooperative - avoiding Low assertive, high cooperative - accomodating High assertive, low cooperative - compete High assertive, high cooperative - collaborate Middle - compromise |
|
|
General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) |
Alarm - panic, gather resources Resistance - usually ends GAS Exhaustion - give up, resistance reserves depleted |
|
|
Type A vs. Type B personality |
A: competitive, devoted to work, strong sense of time urgency vs. B: opposite - As tend to have intense sense of time urgency - As are hyper competitive, hostile, aggressive - As more likely to multitask --> less attention to detail - As rush into work, higher chance of making errors |
|
|
Causes of stress |
Organizational: task demands (occupation, security, overload), role demands (ambiguity, conflict), physical demand (temperature, office design), interpersonal demands (group pressures, leadership) Life: life changes, life traumas |
|
|
Consequences of stress |
Individual: behavioural (alcohol/drug abuse, violence), psychological (sleep disturbances, depression), medical (headaches, heart disease) Organizational: decline in performance, decreased motivation and satisfaction (burnout) |
|
|
Managing stress in workplace |
Individual: exercise, relaxation, support groups Organizational: institutional programs (within organization, work design), collateral (outside of organization, ex. firm pays for gym membership) |
|
|
Leadership theories summary |
1. Trait-first 2. Behavioural - Ohio state - Managerial grid 3. Situational - Fiedler's LPC - Hersey & Blanchard situational - Path-goal theory |
|
|
Ohio State Studies |
Initiating structure: defines roles, focus on task Consideration: communicates trust and 2-way communication - When the task in unclear, leaders high in initiating structure are more effective - When the task is clear, leaders high in consideration are more effective |
|
|
Managerial Grid |
Vertical - concern for people Horizontal - concern for production |
|
|
Fiedler's LPC |
High = relationship oriented Low = task oriented Situational factors: 1. leader-member relations 2. task structure 3. position power - Low LPC leaders most effective under extreme low and extreme high situational control - High LPC leaders most effective under moderate situational control |
|
|
Hersey & Blanchard Situational Leadership |
Vertical - relationship/supportive behaviour Horizontal - task/directive behaviour 1. Telling - low relationship, high task 2. Selling - high relationship, high task 3. Participating - high relationship, low task 4. Delegating - low relationship, low task Contingency variable = Readiness (R 1-4) |
|
|
Path-Goal Theory |
Leadership Styles --> Follower-Path Perceptions --> Follower Goals Leadership styles: directive, supportive, participative, achievement oriented Follower-path perceptions influenced by: CONTINGENCY FACTORS - follower characteristics and workplace characteristics |
|
|
Transactional vs. Transformational Leadership |
Transactional - fairly straightforward exchange - contingent reward, management by exception Transformational - provides follower with vision and instills true commitment - charisma, inspiration, stimulation, concern Qualities that set transformational leaders apart from transactional: 1. charisma 2. intellectual stimulation 3. individualized consideration |
|
|
Communication process model |
Source --> Encoding --> Channel --> Decoding --> Receiver --> Feedback --> |
|
|
Barriers to effective communication |
- Filtering (by sender) - Selective perception (by receiver) - Emotions - Language |
|
|
Cross-cultural communication barriers |
- semantics - word connotations - tonal differences - differences among perceptions |
|
|
Rules when communicating across cultures |
1. assume differences until similarity is proven 2. emphasize description 3. practice empathy 4. treat interpretations as working hypothesis |
|
|
Communication barriers b/w men and women |
- Men use talk to emphasize status, women use it to create connection - Men approach conflict more directly, women see this as assertion of status, while men view women's indirectiveness as sneaky/weak - Men criticize women for apologizing but women say sorry to express empathy, not to accept blame |
|
|
Socialization process |
Socialization methods --> Learning --> Person-Job-Fit and Person-Organization-Fit --> Newcomer adjustment |
|
|
Stages of socialization |
1. Anticipatory (pre-entry) 2. Encounter 3. Role management |
|
|
Methods of socialization |
- realistic job previews - employee orientation programs - socialization tactics - mentoring |
|
|
Realistic job previews - why they're effective |
- met expectations - air of honesty - ability to cope (b/c forewarned) - self-selection/deselection |
|
|
Socialization tactics: institutionalized vs. individualized |
Institutionalized: collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, investiture --> more structured, better Individualized: individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive, divestiture |
|
|
Model of psychological contract violation |
Reneging - Unable: amount promised, turbulence, organizational performance - Unwilling: power asymmetry, employee behaviour, type of exchange Incongruence - Divergent schemata: cultural distance, socialization - Communication: RJPs, leader-member exchange, perceived similarity RENEGING AND INCONGRUENCE lead to PERCEIVED BREACH OF CONTRACT Interpretation process: attributions (internal vs. external) and fairness judgements ...may or may not lead to PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT VIOLATION |
|
|
Contributions to culture |
- Founder - Top management - Socialization process |
|
|
Forces for change |
Nature of work force, technology, economic shocks, competition (mergers, acquisitions, globalization), social trends, world politics |
|
|
Sources of resistance to change |
Individual: habit, economic factors, fear of unknown, security, selective information processing Organizational: threat to resource allocation, threat to power relationships, threat to expertise, group & structural inertia, limited focus of change |
|
|
Lewin's 3 Step Change Model |
1. Unfreezing - minimize resistance, arouse dissatisfaction, involve upper management support, use recognition, build in rewards, involve people 2. Movement - make change, establish goals, maintain communication, develop management structures (plans, strategies) 3. Refreezing - make sure change sticks, stabilize outcomes, constructive modifications, reward/reinforce desired behaviours, develop structures (ex. retreats, performance appraisals) |
|
|
Overcoming resistance to change |
Education, communication, participation, coercion, cooptation, manipulation, negotiation, facilitation and support |
|
|
Bases of power and employee reactions |
Reward: ability to reward --> compliance Coercive: ability to punish --> resistance Legitimate --> compliance Expert --> commitment Referent: admired --> commitment (also... information, persuasive, charisma) |
|
|
Strategic contingencies model (factors leading to sub-unit power) |
1. capacity to reduce uncertainty 2. high organizational certainty 3. non-substitutable and indispensable activities |
|
|
Principles/decision criteria for ethical decisions |
1. Utilitarian 2. Rights 3. Justice |
|
|
Utilitarian approach |
Ethical if results in greatest good for the greatest number of people Pros: promotes efficiency, productivity Cons: ignores rights of some individuals, difficult to apply values that cannot easily be quantified |
|
|
Rights approach |
Ethical if respects fundamental rights to all human beings Pros: consistent with freedom and privacy, everyone is considered Cons: overly legalistic, hinders productivity and efficiency |
|
|
Justice approach |
Ethical if decision is fair and impartial and rules are enforced fairly Pros: protects interest of under represented and less powerful Cons: "fairness" is subjective, issue of special consideration, reduces risk-taking, innovation and productivity |
|
|
Causes of unethical behaviour |
Bad apple vs. bad barrel - personality vs. situational (gain, role conflict, competition/scarce resources, social modelling, anonymity/lack of accountability, organizational culture) |
|
|
5 barriers to ethical organization |
1. ill-conceived goals 2 .motivated blindness 3. indirect blindness 4. slippery slope 5. over-valuing outcomes |
