Comm 5441 Final - Steve's Part

Front 1

Distributive v. integrative negotiation

Back 1

Distributive bargaining (competition) = is zero-sum; like tossing a coin

Integrative bargaining (cooperative) = value-added; like a candle flame

Front 2

Fundamental attribution error

Back 2

Attribution = what are the causes of your behavior?

FAE = You actions are due to your personality; my actions are due to circumstances

Front 3

Superordinate (overarching) goals

Back 3

Superordinate goals are goals that are achieved by the contribution and co-operation of two or more people. Focusing on superordinate goals and commonalities is a key principle of collaboration.

Front 4

Gunnysacking

Back 4

Storing up grievances over time, then dumping all of them at once.

"Gunnysacking" is a destructive technique that can hose up constructive conflict. Fair fighting is the constructive alternative.

Front 5

Uninformed optimism

Back 5

This is one of the responses to change, and represents an increase in positive sentiment toward an impending change based on little actual knowledge of the change's consequences

Front 6

Informed pessimism

Back 6

This is one of the responses to change, and represents a significant drop in positive sentiment toward a specific change based on learning more about the change's consequences

Front 7

Hopeful realism

Back 7

This is one of the responses to change, and represents a slight uptick in positive sentiment toward a specific change based on greater understanding of the real consequences the change will bring

Front 8

Informed optimism

Back 8

This is one of the responses to change, and represents an increase in positive sentiment toward a specific change based on a real understanding of the change's consequences

Front 9

The Resistance Pyramid

Back 9

At the top, "Not Able" -- Lack of skills to execute the change

At the middle, "Not Willing" -- Lack of motivation to enact the change

At the bottom, "Not Knowing" -- Lack of understanding or knowledge regarding the change

Front 10

Spray & Pray

Back 10

A method of communication in which you shower employees with information hoping they will be able to sort out what is important

Front 11

Tell & Sell

Back 11

A method of communication in which you tell employees about the key issues, then sell them on the wisdom of their approach

Front 12

Underscore & Explore

Back 12

A method of communication in which you develop a few core messages while actively listening for potential misunderstanding and unrecognized obstacles.

This is the proper way to communicate change.

How to do it:
-- Translate objectives and priorities
-- Use repetition and redundancy
-- Select the right channels
-- Provoke dialogue (you cant wait; you need employee input on implementation issues)
-- Check the pulse

Front 13

Identify & Reply

Back 13

A method of communication in which you identify key employee concerns and then reply to them.

Front 14

Withhold & Uphold

Back 14

A method of communication in which you withhold information until necessary; control is the name of the game.

Front 15

Change sponsor

Back 15

A manager who champions the change. To be a good sponsor, this person must have:

- The ability to get you the resources you need to get the job done
- The willingness to stay focused on the strategic issue at hand
- The willingness to demonstrate out in public their support for the strategic direction of the organization
(and others)

Front 16

Diversity dilemma

Back 16

For an organization to function, there must be some degree of uniformity -- i.e., members must "fit in" and follow some guidelines. (For example, a professor couldn't just say, "Grades aren't my thing," even though that would be diverse rather than uniform.)

Front 17

Isomorphism

Back 17

The tendency for organizations throughout the world to become increasingly similar

*(as opposed to divergence)

Front 18

Divergence

Back 18

The tendency for local independence and recognition of diverse cultures

*(as opposed to isomorphism)

Front 19

Caveat emptor

Back 19

Latin for "let the buyer beware"; Historically, it has referred to the inability of a buyer to recover from the seller for a defective product.


*(The ethical significance, I'm guessing here, is the question of whether or not this is ethical? I also think we will learn about this on Tuesday.)

Front 20

Power

Back 20

Some definitions:

* The ability to get another person to do something that he/she would not otherwise have done ("power over")
* The ability to accomplish your goals; effectiveness ("power to")
* Control of resources (esp. scarce resources)
* Asymmetrical patterns of dependence
* The ability to define the reality of others

Front 21

Why is power difficult to analyze?

Back 21

Because everyone has some degree of it (Butterfly Effect) but hardly anyone admits to having any real power (even a CEO is still accountable to his/her BOD)

Front 22

Sovereign power

Back 22

The processes through which sovereigns (kings, dictators, prison wardens, or directors of mental institutions) dominate their subjects

Front 23

Surface structure v. deep structure

Back 23

Surface structure = the overt, conscious level of power; it involves the open face (threats, promises, negotiations, orders) and the hidden face (behind-the-scenes acts to regulate public and private issues)

Deep structure = operates below employees' conscious awareness. Hegemony; people act in ways that they have learned are normal and natural and usually do so without being aware of it.

Front 24

Discursive closure

Back 24

Refers to the idea that storytelling is a form of power, and that who gets to tell the story determines which version of the story is passed along. (Think: Braveheart)

Front 25

Hegemony

Back 25

Controlling the masses by getting them to think of hierarchies and domination as "normal" and "natural"

Front 26

Reward power

Back 26

The social power of being able to dole out rewards to others

Front 27

Coercive power

Back 27

The social power of being able to withhold or take things away from others. (i.e., threat-making in order to get something)

Front 28

Referent power

Back 28

Social power gained through charisma, popularity, and identification with those granting you power over them.

Front 29

Legitimate power

Back 29

Refers to the social power resource drawn from a legitimate rank or social status.

Front 30

Expert power

Back 30

Refers to the social power resource drawn from knowing information in an area where that knowledge/understanding is a scarce resource. Expertise in a particular field and expertise in communicating effectively are two different forms of power

Front 31

Alliances and networking

Back 31

Refers to the social power resource drawn from strategic ties with others outside of the person's immediate group

Front 32

Transacting Power: The C-A-R-D-S model; letter C = ?

Back 32

Compliance; = conformity to norms

Traditionally, being a loyal company person/a "yes-man" gets you promoted

Front 33

Transacting Power: The C-A-R-D-S model; letter A =

Back 33

Alliances = coalitions (ganging up)

Unions are a large-scale example of this. (Though, ironically, unions often become an authority themselves.)

Front 34

Transacting Power: The C-A-R-D-S model; letter R =

Back 34

Resistance = covert noncompliance (subtle sabotage)

Can involve:
* Strategic stupidity
* Selective amnesia
* Clumsiness
* Procrastination
* Work-to-rule (a.k.a. systematic soldiering)

In general, deliberate inefficiency by sticking to explicitly written rules. (Think of the airline pilots' resistance to the paperwork they were asked to document.)

Front 35

Transacting Power: The C-A-R-D-S model; letter D =

Back 35

Defiance = overt noncompliance

Defiance is frightening to power-holders because of the threat of contagion.

Front 36

Transacting Power: The C-A-R-D-S model; letter S =

Back 36

Self-empowerment = assertiveness.

* Increasing personal power resources (e.g., education)
* Find a mentor
* Networking

Front 37

Paradox of empowerment

Back 37

Empowering = trying to give power to those who don't have it. The paradox is that empowering someone is a top-down act. It still requires that the recipient be granted power by the power-holder.

Front 38

Work-to-rule (systematic soldiering)

Back 38

Following rules exactly as an act of rebellion; this can rob organizations of the common sense and flexibility that make rule systems work. (Think American Airlines pilots paralyzing the airline through malicious obedience to time-consuming FAA regulations.)

Front 39

Whistleblowers

Back 39

People who report unethical or illegal activities within their organizations to the authorities or to the press. Even though organizations should, logically, be grateful to whistleblowers, the reality is that they rarely are. Whistleblowers are subject to credibility attacks, retaliation, and ostracizing.

Front 40

Symbolic resistance

Back 40

Refers to using a symbol of power (e.g., the hard-hat in the book example) to rebel against the power attributed to the symbol.

Front 41

Impression (image) management

Back 41

Refers to the idea that a communicator's image has an impact on his or her messages. The image influences the way other employees interpret, evaluate, and respond to those messages. Impression management refers specifically to accenting some traits, abilities, and personality characteristics while de-emphasizing others.

Because impression management is so pervasive in organizations, one employee rarely can know the "real" person of another employee.

Front 42

Ingratiation

Back 42

Refers to the act of making others feel important or humbling oneself; related to image management as a source of power

Front 43

Intimidation

Back 43

Is intentional behavior meant to cause another person fear of injury or harm; related to image management as a source of power.

Front 44

Self-promotion

Back 44

The act of promoting one's own work; related to impression management

Front 45

Exemplification

Back 45

The act of showing/leading by example; related to impression management

Front 46

Supplication

Back 46

The act of humbling yourself before another person; related to impression management

Front 47

Availability bias

Back 47

The tendency to assume that the examples one can call immediately to mind are the most likely to occur.

This is significant because it represents a common impediment toward rational action.

Front 48

Selective perception

Back 48

Similar to vividness effects; in these cases, vivid examples can distort how we perceive a situation. Example: basing your decision on the last bad outcome/ last crisis

Front 49

Bounded rationality

Back 49

The idea that human rationality is limited by natural, irrational tendencies. As a result, people often use a more limited approach to decision-making, such as satisficing (making a decision that is 'good enough' based on a limited number of options and a few criteria).

Front 50

Retrospective sense-making

Back 50

Refers to the sequence of first making choices and acting on them and then seeking out the information needed to rationalize the decision. This makes the decision-maker appear to be a rational actor.

Front 51

Groupthink

Back 51

A dysfunctional process whereby pressures develop that can reduce the range and quality of information presented and thus eliminate the advantage of having decisions made by groups rather than by individuals.

Symptoms of groupthink include:

1. Overestimation of the Group's Power & Morality
* The illusion of invulnerability
* Unquestioned belief in the moral superiority of the group
* Negative stereotypes of the enemy

2. Closedmindedness
* Decision first, analysis/rationale later (outcome-driven thinking)
* Ignoring warnings

3. Pressure Toward Uniformity
* Coercion of doubters/self-censorship
* Unnecessary time pressures

Front 52

Abilene Paradox

Back 52

The faulty decision-making process in which group members think they have consensus, but in reality no one supports the decision.

It is based on a failure to communicate desires or beliefs -- perhaps because of "fear fantasies" about what would happen if they spoke up
- Decision-making is driven by inaccurate perceptions of what others want
- Requests for opinion are taken as suggestions

Front 53

Description decision-making model

Back 53

Models of how groups/individuals do reach decisions. (It is very difficult to develop group models that are simple enough to use, yet accurate.)

Front 54

Prescriptive decision-making model

Back 54

Advice on how groups/individuals should reach decisions.

Prescriptive models that ignore reality (descriptive models) can only go so far.

However, using any model is better than not using one.

Front 55

The Standard Agenda

Back 55

This is the most common prescriptive model of decision-making.

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 and communicate

Front 56

Problems with the Standard Agenda

Back 56

- Few groups actually follow it (although most think they do)
** Insufficient time on analyzing the problem
** Trouble following the steps in order

- Blurring 'divergent' (idea-generating) and 'convergent' (idea-evaluation) models

Front 57

Divergent mode

Back 57

Idea-generating approach to finding a solution to a task/problem.

Front 58

Convergent mode

Back 58

Idea-evaluating approach to finding a solution to a task/problem.

Front 59

Evaluative criteria

Back 59

According to rational-actor models of decision making, people use the criteria to evaluate all probable outcomes of each alternative and to select the one that promises the greatest return.

Problems:
- It is very difficult to identify and articulate your criteria (often you react intuitively first, identify criteria after)
- It is difficult to prioritize criteria
- It is very difficult to be consistent in how you apply criteria

Front 60

Issues with divergent and convergent modes:

Back 60

- Rapid (unconscious) vacillation
- Conflict & resentment occur in convergent mode (this is why brainstorming doesn't allow for evaluation)

Front 61

Decision premises

Back 61

Refers to rationalities in the decision-making process.

For example, hospitals have competing rationalities: valuing efficiency and upholding an ethic of care.

Common decision premises include:
- Growth is good
- The customer is always right
- Government regulators are the enemy

Front 62

Garbage can model

Back 62

- 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

Front 63

Historical paradox

Back 63

The idea that decisions should be informed by history (i.e., those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it), but that too much history restricts options (it becomes stifling, fatalistic; it suggests that nothing could turn out differently than it did in the past)

Front 64

Perceived interference

Back 64

One potential ingredient of conflict. It's the idea that "you're in the way of me achieving my goals".

Front 65

Latent conflict

Back 65

The first in Pondy's phases of conflict. In it, there is the potential for conflict, but the parties have not yet framed the situation as a conflict.

Front 66

Perceived conflict

Back 66

The second in Pondy's phases of conflict. In it, the parties become aware of the sources of conflict.

Front 67

Manifest conflict

Back 67

The third in Pondy's phases of conflict. It is the parties' overt response to a perceived conflict.

Front 68

Conflict aftermath

Back 68

The fourth and final phase in Pondy's phases of conflict. This is the 'patching up' phase. Too often, too much emphasis is placed on winning the conflict and not enough emphasis is placed on the aftermath. (For example, what happens after a bitter strike is resolved?)

Front 69

Precipitating event

Back 69

The event that makes parties aware of a conflict. This bridges the gap between latent conflict and perceived conflict.

Front 70

Competition

Back 70

A style of conflict: I win, you lose.

"My way or the highway."

PLUS: You get your way
MINUS: You could be wrong; strains relationships

Front 71

Accommodation

Back 71

A style of conflict: I lose, you win.

"Whatever you say."

PLUS: Preserves the relationship; little effort
MINUS: Resentment, issues aren't fully explored

Front 72

Compromise

Back 72

A style of conflict: I win/lose some, you win/lose some.

"Meet you halfway."

PLUS: Relatively easy; partial satisfaction
MINUS: Poor decisions; no one is fully satisfied

Front 73

Collaboration

Back 73

A style of conflict: I win, you win. Represents actual problem-solving.

PLUS: Highest satisfaction, best solution.
MINUS: Time, resources; may not actually be possible.

Front 74

Avoidance

Back 74

A style of conflict: I lose, you lose.

PLUS: Is there one? (It's easy.) It's the most common choice by far.
MINUS: Problems not resolved; emotional costs may be high

Front 75

Essentializing

Back 75

Broad generalizations that invariably obscure important differences in the experiences of the members of different societal groups.

Front 76

Role encapsulation

Back 76

A process through which individual employees are perceived through racial or sexual stereotypes. (For example, some women simply are not warm, supportive, nurturing people and do not want to be, in spite of what dominant stereotypes suggest. however, they are often negotiated into support-oriented organizational roles.)

Front 77

Homogenizing

Back 77

The act of encouraging members of an organization to minimize their "differences". One of the ways to deal with diversity, although not a good one. This can involve encouraging diverse employees to "be loyal members" (act more like others in the organization, and less like your culture of organization). It can cause issues when organizational norms clash with cultural norms (i.e., devotion to family v. working long workdays).

Front 78

Visibility paradox

Back 78

The idea that excellent performance is rewarded only if it is also visible to the organization's power holders, but often that is difficult to accomplish: in some cultures, openly talking about one's successes is unacceptable. Additionally, "different" employees are often excluded from the networks needed to informally communicate their success. "Glass celieings" and "glass walls" add to the paradox.

Front 79

Marginalizing

Back 79

The act of accepting "different" others' presence in the organization but to isolate them in "spaces" that have relatively low levels of power. Glass ceilings and glass walls are examples of these.

Front 80

Glass walls

Back 80

Gender- and racially-segmented sectors of an organization. Refers to the fact that women and minorities often end up in divisions of an organization with little power and few chances for promotion. (E.g., maids at a hotel.)

Front 81

Glass ceiling

Back 81

The idea that it is harder for some, due to gender and race biases, to earn promotions. It still happens to this day, despite discrimination laws and good faith efforts.

Front 82

Power distance

Back 82

One of Hofstede's dimensions of cultural difference. It's the amount of power that supervisors can acceptably exercise over their subordinates.

High = China
Low = Israel, Austria

Front 83

Glocalization

Back 83

Combination of both isomorphism and divergence; it develops "hybrid societies." An example of glocalization is the fact that a huge international chain like McDonald's localizes its menu (wine in Italy, for example).

Front 84

Uncertainty avoidance

Back 84

One of Hofstede's dimensions of cultural difference. It's the degree to which people are uncomfortable with ambiguity and risk and therefore prefer to work with long-term acquaintances or friends rather than with strangers.

High = Japan
Low = U.S.A.

Front 85

Individualism v. collectivism

Back 85

One of Hofstede's dimensions of cultural difference. In collectivist societies, they place a high value on solidarity, cooperation, and concern for others. Individualist societies tend to value competition and independence.

Collectivist = Asian, Latin, Middle-Eastern, and African cultures

Individualist = U.S.A.

Front 86

Masculinity v. femininity

Back 86

One of Hofstede's dimensions of cultural difference. It's the extent to which the culture values the stereotypically masculine traits of assertiveness and competitiveness or the stereotypically feminine attributes of cooperativeness and interdependence.

High = Latin America, Japan
Low = Scandinavia

Front 87

High context culture

Back 87

A culture in which much of a message's meaning is extracted from the context in which the message is uttered, and the message itself is much more ambiguous.

(A concept developed by Edward Hall.)

Front 88

Low context culture

Back 88

A culture in which people focus their attention on the explicit content of a message when they try to make sense out of it.

Bureaucracy is, by definition, low context.

Contracts are low context.

(A concept developed by Edward Hall.)

Front 89

Externalities

Back 89

Expenses that are not normally included in the costs of a transaction between buyer and seller. Examples include public education, transportation systems, military security, and cleaning up environmental damage. They are thus "external" to the value of the exchange. Treating as many of their costs as possible as externalities means an organization bears less responsibility for such costs and can pass them onto others.