Management: Real Power vs. Authority

Real Power vs. Title of Authority:

Many managers / teachers / leaders feel that they have power simply due to a title or position of authority. Authority is the position of leadership; however, power is actually “the ability to influence various outcomes” (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2008, p. 209).  There are many people who are managers or who are in the position of leadership (those who have authority over others), though to have power is to be able to influence the environment and make changes where changes need to be made.  Power is a tool that is earned, not granted due to a position or a title given.  

I have personally witnessed managers who are promoted to a greater title but they have absolutely no control or power over subordinates due to a lack of relationship-building techniques.  It almost seems as though many people equate positions with power and feel that just because they have a title that they should automatically have power and respect.  One particular manager I encountered had been hired from outside the company directly as a manager because she had her 4-year degree with a major in accounting.  None of the employees knew her and even though we tried to get to know her, she was often short, rude, and holier than thou.  She had the feeling, because she was hired directly to a position of authority that employees had to automatically give her respect.  She truly believed due to her title that she had power over the employees under her and she was not shy in sharing her sense of entitlement with employees.  She was an appointed leader, but was not a true leader in the sense that she did not have any influence or power over employees; nor did she have the authority to carry out many organizational tasks as she thought she did.  As Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart (2008) state, “although an individual may be granted a formal leadership position, this does not mean that the person will necessarily be effective in ‘leading’ others or exerting influence on them” (p. 209).  I agree with this very much - I found from observing my manager that in order to be a true leader, one that can influence changes and one who has real power, a person needs to network and to build social relationships, to have the trust of others, but to also give trust to others, and in order to gain respect of employees a manager must first respect the employees. 

 Expanding the thought:

The insight that I gained when researching this topic was the difference between real power and title of authority; how real power is obtained through relationships and how to use the power once it is obtained.   Power is gained through relationship-building, trust, commitment, and knowing what to do with the power once it is in your grasp.   It is important to note how to get power, but as the Pfeffer article points out, it is also very important to understand something about power and that is the identity of power itself.  Pfeffer (1992) stated that some people choose to remain powerless because it is easier to simply do nothing at all rather than to be saddled with the label of the person who may have done a bad thing or who may have made a mistake.  “In many domains of activity we have become so obsessed with not upsetting anybody, and with not making mistakes, that we settle for doing nothing. Rather than rebuild San Francisco's highways, possibly in the wrong place, maybe even in the wrong way, we do nothing, and the city erodes economically without adequate transportation” (p. 48).  This says a lot to me because contrasted with the over-zealous boss I had, who had a seriously flawed sense of entitlement, I have also witnessed a very close friend of mine and noticed that he will never take the lead in any situation because he is afraid of making a mistake; he is also afraid of being responsible for his own actions/decisions.  Is that simply being lazy?  Or is that insecurity?

“Obtaining power is not always an attractive process, nor is its use” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 48).   Being a leader and obtaining power may have a tainted name due to some leaders in history; it is important, however, not to allow a few bad apples to ruin the entire bushel.  Power is a good thing in the right hands, and power makes things happen - it is with power that things get done and it is necessary in today’s workplace.  If no one ever wanted to step up and take a risk or make a change, then not much would ever get accomplished.  We would have an entire group of people just sitting around analyzing situations instead of getting up and taking action.  Reading the sources for this week, I have noticed that people shy away from responsibility in organizations because they do not want to take the risk of making bad decisions, but at the same time people want that large salary with a nice title.   Perhaps that is the issue with some managers is that they rush to get the title without first working on gaining real power?  Or perhaps those who have real power have no clue how to apply it to real-life situations?  What does anyone else think about this?      

References:

Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Chapter 7: Leadership. Power, and the Manager. A Primer on Organizational Behavior (7th ed., p. 155). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding Power in Organizations. [i]Columbia University. [/i]Retrieved November 27, 2012, fromhttp://columbiauniversity.us/itc/hs/pubhealth/isett/Session%2003/Pfeffer%201992%20Power.pdf

Expectancy Theory: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy & Selective Perception

The Theory

           I became interested in this theory because human perception is as individual as individuals are themselves and with each perception being unique, the outcomes of situations are often a product of subjective inference more so than being a solid reality. The expectancy theory occurs when a person sees only what they expect to see through a variety of different means such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, selective perceptions, projection, and perceptual defense mechanisms; however I have chosen to discuss two of these sub-theories: the self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perception. These expectancy factors deeply influence how we, as humans, perceive situations around us, how we interpret information, and how we see other peoples’ behaviors.

            According to Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart (2008), our expectations influence behaviors and attitudes toward other people, situations, and can even distort reality based on what we expect and choose to see (p. 48).  A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person anticipates a particular behavior from another person and due to that expectation the other person actually behaves in accordance to the expectation. Vroom (1995) reinforces and expands the Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart text, stating: the “expectancy theory asserts that human choice is subjectively rational” (p. xviii).   This means that people expect certain outcomes and they view these expectations with their own perceptions and prejudices; also that these viewpoints are deemed as completely rational by the perceiver, even if the human choice, behavior, or perception is not considered rational by other people.   This subjectivity often leads to a distortion of reality and often alters the behaviors of others, usually unbeknownst to the person who perceives the situation.  Specifically so considering the self-fulfilling prophecy wherein an individual actually makes the outcome of a situation occur simply due to their own expectations and actions.  The selective perception exacerbates the subjectivity of the situation and sets the framework for a self-fulfilling prophecy because an individual is only looking for attributes which he/she expects to find and ignores other attributes that are not expected (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2008, p. 48).  It is important to note that the expectancy theory can work for or against organizations and individuals; it is exclusively dependent upon the individual who is making choices in situations and ultimately who guides the direction of the organization with their perceptions (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).

Application of Theory

Appling the Theory to the Workplace:

            Expectancy theory and the theory sub-sets are used quite frequently in organizations to study human behaviors and the effect of these behaviors on particular organizational settings fundamentally in order to enhance motivation in employees; as Lawler and Suttle (1973) stated, “expectancy theory has evolved in recent years as a basic paradigm for the study of human attitudes and behavior in work and organizational settings” (p. 482).  The self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perception are often prevalent in organizations, specifically to entrepreneurs/small business owners (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).  I understand this as true because I owned a small business between the years of 1998 and 2009 and personally enacted expectancy theory through the self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perceptions on employees.  For instance, I hired a friend as an employee and expected that as a friend she would do the duties assigned to her correctly and efficiently.  I did not watch her work and failed to have accurate performance appraisals on her mainly because she was a great friend and I expected she would also be a great worker.  I failed to notice that she was causing issues with other employees, slacking on the job, and ignoring her duties, even in the face of facts from other employees.  I enacted the expectancy theory and especially the selective perception factor in this instance.  Also, at work, I often expected employees to do well when we had large shipments come in.  I expected it so much that I worked overtime; I helped employees meet quotas, and gave employees drive by continuously telling them we could get the job done.  I did not simply think we would get the job done, I knew we would.  However the main reason that we did get the job done was due to my actions and positively reinforcing my employees, as well as motivating them to work harder and longer hours in order to get the job done.  We never missed a deadline using this technique and after each time, I would say, “See? I knew we could do this.”  This is not the only instance where I have enacted the self-fulfilling prophecy with my employees.  In the year 2005, at the request of a female friend employee, I hired a young man to work in the shipping department.  I immediately felt as though, because of his age, that I would have to watch him carefully and stay on him to ensure that he was doing his job correctly.  I felt that he would not do the job I needed him to do and verbally made that clear to him on a few occasions.  I would say things such as, “just leave that for Emily, she has been here longer and will do it right.”   My forecast was that he would not do the job right and that he would quit soon, and again I felt this way simply due to his age.  It was because of my own negative actions and behaviors toward this young man, that I was ultimately correct.  He quit because of my failure to note any of his good qualities, my lack of confidence in him which was ever so evident in my actions, and my bad managerial practices; thus I enacted the expectancy theory and both sub-sets of the theory (a self-fulfilling prophecy and selective perceptions) in this instance.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Application:

            The expectancy theory and the theory sub-sets have great strengths when used positively in organizational settings for the purpose of motivating employees.  Primarily when a manager expects positive outcomes from employees and that manager expresses their expectations and standards in the form of praise, recognition, and rewards.  Using the expectancy theory in this way gives confidence to employees and influences their behaviors in a productive way.   This is evident with the Pygmalion effect (a.k.a., the Rosenthal effect) which is a situation where a manager, educator, or other leader holds positive expectations for their students, employees, or followers.  It is the simple fact that there are positive expectations held that feed the students’, employees’, or followers’ inner beliefs that they can accomplish what the authority figure expects from them.  According to Dr. Ronald Riggio, “Research has clearly shown the power of holding positive expectations of others; we get the outcomes that we expect” (2009).

            Unfortunately, the expectancy theory and the sub-sets can also create a negative effect in organizational settings.  As seen in my personal application of the theories, a poor manager may use the expectancy theory with negative intent and expect bad things from employees, only look for the negative attributes of employees, and enact a self-fulfilling prophecy based on his/her own negative actions and behaviors.  If a manager holds negative expectations, it follows that the Pygmalion effect with also apply with an equal but opposite effect.  Also, it is important to note that organizational decline due to expectancy theory and sub-theories can occur with little or no awareness; “organizational decline through the self-fulfilling prophecy is particularly important because it is a subtle process, and it tends to unfold without the awareness of the managers or external constituencies that are its agents” (John, McKinley, & Moon, 2002).  Therefore, it is imperative that managers are self-aware and make sure they are expecting only positive outcomes with their employees, as to not influence employee behaviors inadvertently negatively.    

References:

Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Chapter 2: Perceptions, Attitudes, and   Individual Differences. A Primer on Organizational Behavior (7th ed., p. 48-49). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

John, C. E., McKinley, W., & Moon, G. (2002). The enactment of organizational decline: The self-fulfilling prophecy.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(1), 55-75. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198626894?accountid=38003

Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. l. (1973). Expectancy Theory and Job Behavior. ORGANIZATIONAL   BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 9, p. 482-503. Retrieved November 27,   2012, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/33872/1/0000133.pdf

Riggio, R. (2009, April 18). Pygmalion Leadership: The Power of Positive Expectations | Psychology Today. Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist.     Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge- leadership/200904/pygmalion-leadership-the-power-positive-expectations

Vroom, V. H. (1995). Introduction to the Classic Edition. Work and Motivation (p. xviii). San       Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. (Original work published 1964)

Job Characteristics Model and Theories

Hackman & Oldham’s job characteristics theory essentially states that the job (or task) that the employee is doing is the key to employee motivation.   That is to say that if the job or task is monotonous, not challenging, tedious, and in general not fun, then the employee(s) will not be very motivated to do said job or task.   The job characteristics theory states that there are three ways to enrich or add challenge to a job or task and these three ways are:  autonomy, decision authority, and variation in the job/task.   The job characteristics theory (and model) is based on the assumption that there are five main job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback).  These five components have a direct impact of three psychological states of the employee(s) which are: experienced responsibility, experienced meaningfulness, and knowledge of the results of the job or task.  The five fundamental characteristics and the three impacted psychological states, in turn, will influence work outcomes such as employee motivation, work performance, satisfaction with work, and absenteeism/turnover (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2007).   The job characteristics survey is a tool used to measure the motivation of employees and is a good guideline to see “how likely a job is to affect an employee’s attitudes and behaviors” (Ball, 2012).      

Now, which theory in the text best complements the job characteristic model?   In the text, the theory categories listed are: 

1.  Static-content theories which are based off energizing the behavior of employees - (which is where the job characteristic theory is situated).

2. Process theories which are concerned with channeling employee behavior.

3. And environmentally based theories which are concerned with how to maintain specific behavior over time. 

Immediately, I can see that all three of these categories are related to the job characteristics model and with reading all of the theories in the text I noted that they are all somehow connected to the job characteristics model.   However, I feel that since the job characteristics model has to do mainly with the task itself and how to make the job more appealing to employees, that the theory that best complements the job characteristics model is the Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Theory.   This theory is a static-content theory and essentially states that the motivators need to be put into the job itself, just like the job characteristics model assumes. As stated in the text on page 76, “for employees to be truly satisfied and perform above minimally accepted standards, motivators had to be built into the job” (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2007).  This statement is directly related to the job characteristics model in regards to making the job more interesting to employees by not focusing mainly on their psychological well-being (such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs dictates), or by the manager setting up a system of rewards based on outcomes (as the expectancy theory does), but rather by making the job more interesting itself.  Even though there are validity concerns with this theory, I feel it best supports the job characteristics model.  Furthermore I feel that the motivator-hygiene theory was a foundation to the job characteristics model because it laid the framework of different thinking in the field of employee motivation.  Overall, Herzberg’s theory not only states that it’s the job itself that motivates people but also “achievement, recognition for that achievement”, “responsibility, and the opportunity for growth or advancement” in an organization (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2007).  Again, this directly relates to experienced responsibility, experienced meaningfulness, and knowledge of the results of the job or task as the job characteristics model suggests.  

Motivational differences among generations and cultures

Human behavior and psychology has always fascinated me; therefore I have chosen to discuss the motivational differences among different cultures and generations. The fact that there is a direct link between different types of people and the way they respond to reward systems/incentives in the work place is a very interesting topic. Motivation strategies are difficult to implement when an organization just has one culture, or one generation; the implementation of such strategies becomes even more of a challenge when the workplace is more diverse in generations, culture, and the type of organization culture that is present. 

Cultural differences in motivation - 

"At the global level, culture affects reward structures" (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   There are so many differences between cultures such as morals, values, and even what motivates an employee in an organization.  For instance, the German culture is individualistic which means it focuses more on personal growth and personal monetary gain; whereas in Japan, where it is a collective society, employees are more focused on group rewards.  But, there is an internal culture made up of many different cultures – for instance, an organization that employs Japanese, American, Germany, and Indian workers has cultural diversity; however the organization itself has an overall culture that it has created through the types of employees hired, and overall company practices.   

I feel that the difference in organizational culture is the best to discuss for this forum and not simply the collectivist vs. individualistic nature of particular cultures from around the globe.  The Orr and Lockwood article points out that there are three types of organizational cultures based on an adaptation from T.B. Wilson’s book entitled Innovative reward systems for the changing workplace.  These three organizational cultures are: entitled, compliant, and achievement-oriented.  

 “In an entitlement environment, people simply expect that they will receive the rewards because senior management will find a way to adjust the measures to justify the payout” (Wilson, 1995).   The entitlement culture expects to be promoted, they expect more rewards from their work, and they “feel that they deserve more” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  The entitled culture simply feel that the need a raise just because they are employed with the organization; they feel that they are entitled to a reward “without having to do anything special for it” (Wilson, 1995).   In cultures who feel entitled, the employees do not connect pay and performance well – in other words, employees do not link their pay increases with their performance and therefore do not exert any special effort for a raise, since there is no need to do so.   

As a previous manager, I feel that creating this type of culture or rewarding a person “just because” is not a good or correct step for any company to take.  I feel that specific cultures who feel they are entitled already need to be taught that hard work is what pays and rewards are not handed out to employees just because they work in the organization and have a pulse.  Standards should be held high and rewards should be given to those who earn them.  The second type of culture is the compliant.  In this culture, employees “do what is expected and seek clarity of goals; focus on the leader” and do not take risks very often.  In the compliant culture, employees understand very well what they need to do and they may or may not be rewarded for the efforts; however “the negative responses to problems or failures to meet certain goals are well known” (Wilson, 1995).  The third type of culture is achievement-oriented.   In this type of environment, “people are rewarded for achievements and feel that they have earned what they receive” (Wilson, 1995).   Employees in this type of organizational culture directly link pay to performance; a demotion or lack of reward is very noticed with achievement-oriented employees and it is understood that the reason for the loss of merit is due to their poor performance.  “Members of the organization will know why these awards did not materialize” (Wilson, 1995).   Achievement-oriented cultures “do what is necessary to achieve desired results; challenge conventional practices;” and “focus on the tasks to be done and communicate freely” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  So, essentially, the culture has a serious affect on the reward structure and if a company is just handing out rewards for no other reason that being present, the company has an entitlement culture.  If the company punishes people for not meeting goals and rarely rewards their employees for their efforts, then this is a compliant culture.  And if the organization reinforces good behavior with rewards, then the company s operating in an achievement-oriented environment.

Generation differences in motivation -

Currently, the United States labor pool consists of four major generations:  Traditionalists (also called veterans or seniors), Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y.  Due to the variety in the workforce, “a ‘one size fits all’ approach to total rewards will no longer be adequate” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   These generations are grouped by birth year: traditionalists (pre-1945), Baby Boomers (1945-1964),   Generation X (1965-1980), and Generation Y (post-1980).  There is some slight variation in the years according to research; however the years of the generations are usually congruent with each other, as are the typing of the generations.  “Traditionalists (also called Veterans, Silents [sic], or Greatest Generation; 75 million born before 1945; 10% of the workforce), Baby Boomers (80 million born 1945-1964, 45% of the workforce), Generation X (46 million born 1965-1980, 30% of the workforce), and Generation Y also called Echo Boomers, Millenials [sic], Internet Generation, or Nexters [sic]; 76 million born after 1980; 15% of the workforce)” (Eisner, 2005).

Traditionalists are the eldest of the generations and have experienced in their lifetime immense hardships such as the stock market crash in 1929, the Great Depression, and World War II (mainly).  These groups of employees understand scarcity and hard times and therefore they “have a tendency to be disciplined and respectful of rules and regulations” and “Individuals in this generation believe in a hard day’s work in exchange for fairness and pay” (Crampton & Hodge, 2009).    Traditionalists have the assets of wisdom, perseverance, and experience; however lack in technology skills and therefore should be communicated to via face-to-face methods instead of emails or text messaging.   Traditionalists also tend to take charge and do what is needed, and if there is a dilemma they are usually the group that does what is considered ethically right (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  To motivate the traditionalists, managers should let these employees know that “their experience is respected and important to the company and that their perseverance is valued and will be rewarded” (Eisner, 2005).  The manager should let the traditionalists share information with the younger employees in order to teach them what has or has not worked in the past.  And if the traditionalist employee retires, it was also suggested in Eisner’s article to hire them as a part-time employee to coach and teach younger employees.   Baby boomers are the children of the traditionalists and they comprise the largest percentage of the total current workforce.  Baby boomers have the asset of social skills however they also lack in technology skills; they respect authority, are good at micro-managing, they are hard workers, proactive instead of reactive, and they enjoy networking (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   Baby boomers have seen a lot such as the invention of the television, the JFK assassination, the invention of the birth control pill, the space race between Russia and the United States, the Vietnam War, and the start of the Civil Rights movement (to name a few pivotal moments).  They were the first generation to watch the world change via media and therefore tend to judge their performance with material incentives (in order to keep up with the Jones’).   Managers can motivate this group of employees by letting them know that they are important to organizational success, that they are considered equals among employees but that they are unique individuals whose contributions are important and needed.  This generation “should be encouraged to become facilitating coaches rather than authoritarian figures dictating expectations and methods. They should be offered flexibility, authority, and respect” (Eisner, 2005).  Both baby boomers and traditionalists “prefer monetary rewards and promotion to benefits, services and workplace opportunities” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).     

Employees from generation X are the children of the baby boomers and comprise 30% of the total workforce.  Their assets include technology skills, fast achieving, managing capabilities (usually taking over management positions from the retiring traditionalists), and this group has a good education generally; however generation X employees are skeptical, bend rules where they see fit, and are hesitant to network (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).  This generation has also seen a lot such as more of the Civil Rights movement, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the Women’s Liberation Movement, the shooting of John Lennon, Woodstock, Watergate, and also during this time Apple released the first personal computer.   Also, many of the baby boomers parented the generation X children via the Dr. Spock method and therefore many of the generation X children want to be the authority figure, rather than the subordinate.  Generation X was also a part of the latch-key generation due to the baby boomers working hard; therefore the generation X (also known as the “me” generation) often feel less appreciated and overlooked (Crampton &  Hodge, 2009).  Motivators for generation X employees are personal freedom in their jobs (autonomy), and they should be provided with up-to-date technology.  This group of employees do not appreciate having orders barked at them, but would rather have a coaching-style of management and they enjoy room for organizational advancement (Eisner, 2005). 

Generation Y is the newest and most difficult to manage generation in the workforce today.  They comprise 15% of the current workforce and have been influenced by world events like AIDS epidemic, MTV, Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, video games, the Columbine High School killings, the Gulf War, soccer moms (strict scheduled childhood), Desert Storm, and the huge growth of the Internet.    This generation is “fundamentally conservative in their lifestyle, with a dislike of ambiguity and risk” (Williams, 2009).   This generation has been called the “why me?” generation, they become easily bored at work, and are considered impatient.  Pinpointing motivational factors for this generation and managing this generation overall is extremely difficult because they are considered the “trophy generation” which indicates that they were raised by soccer moms and in an environment where everyone always wins, even if they really lose (Crampton & Hodge, 2009).  This generation would likely fall into the category of the entitlement culture discussed above.   Generation Y employees are more motivated when they are communicated with through emails, text messaging, and other technologies because they like to be on the go and sitting through meetings or having long work days is considered demotivation for this generation.   Their assets include education, they love to network, they are able to effectively multitask, and they have great technology skills.  Their weaknesses are lack of soft skills (interpersonal), and lack of direction, focus, and confidence.   Generation Y is very fast-paced, open-minded, tolerant of diversity, enjoy blending work and play, and like to get their work done right away in order to start on new goals/tasks (Orr & Lockwood, 2006).   

Through researching the different types of generations, I feel that a great motivation for the generation Y employees would be to mentor /coach the baby boomers and traditionalists in new technologies and the Internet.  This way, the generation Y employees are not bored, they feel important, they feel in control, and they will gain knowledge from the older generations in casual conversations and in a work environment (Raines, 2002).   Flexibility and autonomy should be granted to generation Y employees, and job expectations should be clearly explained - sometimes even written out (Eisner, 2005).  Also, since this generation is so face-paced, a manager will need to make sure the praise/ feedback is immediate to the generation Y employee(s).   A manager could also make sure the generation Y employees have enough work, again, because they are fast-paced but also because this generation tends to get bored easily.   As for rewards, generation Y enjoys “time off, flexible work schedules, and specialized training” (Orr & Lockwood, 2006). 

  

References:

Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (2009). Generation Y: Unchartered Territory. Journal of Business and Economic Research, 7(4), 1.

Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation Y. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 4-15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231242493?accountid=38003

Orr, C. B., & Lockwood, N. R. (2006). Total Rewards: Motivating with strategic rewards. SHRM Online - Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from http://www.shrm.org/research/articles/articles/pages/total_20rewards_20_20motivating_20with_20strategic_20rewards.aspx

Raines, C. (2002). Managing Millenials. Generations at Work. Retrieved on October 31, 2012, from http:// www.generationsatwork.com

Williams, R. B. (2009, June 14). Millennials Poised to Take Over the Workplace | Psychology Today. Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. Retrieved November 3,   2012, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/200906/millennials-poised-take-over-the-workplace

Wilson, T. B. (1995). Transform Rewards from Entitlement to Achievement. Innovative reward systems            for the changing workplace (pp. 306-312). New York: McGraw-Hill.

The Big Five - Personality Dimensions

Researchers and psychologists have come to the conclusion over the last sixty-two years that people have five core personality traits which are called “The Big Five”.  These traits are common in every human, but vary on the ranges per human.  For instance, one person may be extroverted some, agreeable some, but very open in nature.   These five personality traits tend to sum up a person as a whole – the list below is describing each at the extreme level: 

1.       Extraversion – this is when a person is assertive, outgoing, talkative, and amicable (what I would call a social butterfly).

2.       Agreeableness – exhibits prosocial tendencies such as empathy, affection, kindness toward others, trust, altruistic behavior (good deed doer). 

3.       Conscientiousness – being very thoughtful, goal oriented, organized, pays careful attention to detail, has impulse control (what many would call ocd or anal in our society – at the extreme level anyway). 

4.       Neuroticism – not very emotionally stable in that these types of people can often cry at small things, be very moody, have high levels of anxiety, be irrational, irritable, and prone to depression. 

5.       Openness – shows imagination, many interests, and insight into everyday problems. 

Personality is extremely complex and many people show some of these traits simultaneously.  For instance, people who are conscientious also tend to be agreeable and people who are extraverted also tend to be open.   These big five personality dimensions are a very broad range of personality traits in a person.  A single person may have all at extreme levels, all at low levels, only one of the traits at a low or high level, etc… .   Usually it is the situation a person is in that determines the personality traits to show.  Another example would be in general, I tend to have all at mid level, but if I am late on an assignment, hungry, tired, and people are bugging me in the house, well… I tend to be more neurotic. 

Maybe you can help me on this, but where do the people who are players, who are very shy and backward, and who are antisocial fit in to this big five?

References:

Cherry,  Kendra. "The Big Five Personality Dimensions - Overview of the Big Five Personality       Dimensions." Psychology - Complete Guide to Psychology for Students, Educators & Enthusiasts.    N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Aug. 2011.                 <http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/a/bigfive.htm>.

Quick Information Regarding Theory Z

Theory Z was identified by William Ouchi in his book, “Theory Z: How American management can Meet the Japanese Challenge” in 1981.  Theory Z is a Japanese-American based management style comprised of five assumptions which are:

1.       Employees want close, cooperative relationships with their employers and coworkers.

2.       Employees value their social life, culture, traditions, and family as much as they value material success.

3.       Employees need a lot of support from their job in the form of secure employment, good wages, and career advancement opportunities.

4.       Employees are able to make good decisions through compromises.

5.       Employees are dedicated to their work, and have moral obligations as well as good self discipline.

With these five assumptions, it is easy to say that theory Z essentially states that employees want to work, they want a secure environment, they want to know their coworkers and bosses, they are dedicated to their families just as much as work, and overall they enjoy job satisfaction. 

The theory itself came from a culmination of the best known organizational structure of the Japanese and deep rooted American culture and traditions.  This theory is a humanistic theory in that is focuses on social interactions between humans and suggests essentially that a happy work is a productive worker.   Professor Ouchi’s idea is that when a team works well together, they fend together – much like a clan would fend for their members.  The idea behind this is that the employees are close to their coworkers and bosses and have a deep sense of loyalty to the firm/business because of this.  Instead of simply being self-interested, this management theory focuses on group goals as a whole system.  Commitment and loyalty is the overall tone of the management style proposed by Ouchi, and it is not necessarily an approach for every single company in America. 

The main goals that are set forth in theory Z are long term employment, consensual decision making, slow evaluation and promotion, individual responsibility, informal control with formalized measures, holistic concern, and specialized career paths.   With instruction in these areas, the theory is meant to increase overall job satisfaction as well as more profits for the organization/business.   

Reference:

"Theory Z: Encyclopedia of Management." eNotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More..   N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Aug. 2011. <http://www.enotes.com/management-encyclopedia/theory-z>.

Insight to Social and Racial Inequalities

        Racial and ethnic inequality has been a part of human life as far back as the first diversity of blue eyes, or blonde hair appeared. Humans naturally notice differences – the question is, do they discriminate based on these differences? We have all been a part of ethnocentric practices whether we realize it or not. Simply noticing the marked differences between African Americans and white people can be considered ethnocentric to an extent. Why? Because when an American sees a person from a different culture, he or she does not think to themselves “oh they are better than me”. And the same goes for an Indian, Chinese, Mexican person looking outside to other cultures. 

      We, as humans automatically want to feel superior – whether it is due to race, creed, etc... In any given culture, people are reminded that their culture is a good culture. For instance, in America, we give thanks to the President, and those who believe in him imagine that God is on our side no matter what. We are taught at a young age our country's national anthem, and pledge of allegiance (which by name is a pledge of allegiance to our home country, and by definition is ethnocentric in nature itself). Therefore, we have all been guilty at one point of ethnocentric behaviors by simply believing our culture, or country is the best. Who would admit it wasn't? 

      I want to discuss what is meant by the social construction of race, how this concept can be applied to Americans from multiple racial backgrounds; I will discuss the various ethnocentric practices historically used by the United States that may have contributed to the development of prejudicial attitudes toward other cultures or groups of people, I will define the term “model minority” and discuss which minority group in America is perceived as living up to that image; I will explain why other minorities have not been as fortunate in obtaining a "model" status; and lastly, I will describe how I have been ethnocentric in my own behaviors as well as my positive and negative ways of thinking in regards to other cultures and belief-systems.

     The social construction of race is defined simply as a designated and understood separation of races based on social and cultural differences. The distinctness of racial formations is that no one person or group can escape the label they are given in any society. For instance, Native Americans are Native Americans, white people are white people, mixed people are mixed color / nationality, etc... Race is micro-defined by looking at genetics, ancestry, national origin, facial features and skin color mainly. Although, we are actually all one race – the human race- in society, people tend to construct races based on the aforementioned qualities of an individual or a group of people. In scientific circles, such as anthropology, the term “race” really has no significance, since we are, again, all human. Some examples for social construction of race are: 

            1. Allotting certain land area for Native Americans. 

            2. The “One-Drop” rule designated by White Legislators in the 1800's to distinguish who was indeed Black or White. 

            3. When a politician plays a “race card” and tries to instill fear or hate of another nationality in order to win favor of his / her nationality (such was the case with George Bush calling Iraqis “Evil Doers”). 

But what of the Americans who are “Mixed” in nationality, such as Latin-Americans, Indian-Americans, African-Americans, etc...? How are they to handle the situation from which none of us can escape? Because the word and concept of race is pretty much a social construct in itself, the answer is these people hyphenate their nationality, or they choose one or the other. Sadly, because they are not considered a social majority, many have a very hard time blending in with any culture in specific. These people are then scrutinized and subject to be stereotyped and discriminated against.

      American history has not made it easy for people of different color or nationality to blend well with “whites”. A good example of this is slavery - from the foundation of our roots in this country, white men tried to and successfully enslaved and controlled Native Americans. To me, the treatment of the Native Americans was the worst treatment of humans ever in the history of our country (yes, that includes African American slavery, though this was a close second). There were many instances of maltreatment toward the Native Americans, however the biggest slap in the face was legislation in the early 1800's which essentially plotted their “race” off from the rest of the “white” world. African American slavery was also a set back which allowed for prejudice in America. When the government, in the past, made laws that perpetuated the skin color or nationality differences among naturalized citizens, this created hate, fear and prejudices. The government set a bad example by clearly insinuating that white men were better than others who were different. Because this type of belief was indoctrinated into citizens to create conformity, those beliefs were passed down to children who were susceptible to their parent's ideologies. Unfortunately, though these ideals are not as common today, children are still being exposed to such ideologies and hate groups are formed and condoned within the system. These hate groups and the idea that different is bad, do come from the simple-minded ideologies of our framers, sadly. This type of thinking has clearly contributed to the prejudice of immigrants – in the early 1900's, Italian, Scottish and Irish immigrants were not treated as “white” , but rather they were treated badly in terms of social acceptance. This still holds true today, unfortunately, when people are against Mexican immigrants, what do they say? I have heard, “They steal American jobs” and I have heard “They do the dirty jobs American's refuse to do”. This is a stereotype of Mexican / Latin people on the issue of immigration. Perhaps, and this is my opinion of course, if the government would simply step in – a key political figure could set the record straight on the immigration issues by simply stating, “Please do not use hate or stereotypes on immigrants coming to our country. We respect them as part of the human race, as I hope they will respect us and our differences to them as well.” But, the government does not stand up, or talk loud, because it seems that is not a good way to win an election. Sometimes, it is not only what governments have done, but rather what a government has not done that hurts the human race.

      A model minority is a minority group who has, despite discrimination and prejudices, exceeded the standards of society economically, without resorting to forming their own hate groups or enacting violently in order to succeed. The ideal minority in America are the Asian Americans because they have been able to rise above expectations in education, social status and economically without resorting to a confrontation with whites. Other races have not reached the label of “model minority” because they have caused confrontations, they have fought for their “rights”. For instance, the civil rights movement, integration sit-ins and demonstrations, prominent black leaders such as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers in the 1960's, and eventually in today's time, the segregation by the black community in the form of an all-black Miss America and all-black television channels. Asian Americans did not “rise above” the whites or try to cause friction with the majority color of a nation. There was not an Asian American who preached to other Asian Americans about dishonestly of the white man. In short, Asian Americans did not try to turn other Asian Americans against the white population in order to make a point, thus creating the label of “model minority” for their ethnic group in America.

     Throughout my life, I have had Mexican, French, Russian, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, African American, Asian, and various other types of close friends. I accept all people as friends, unless they cannot accept other people, themselves. I do feel good about being an American, however I do not let it rule my life. When I introduce myself to new people I say, “hey, I'm Laura how are you?” I do not say “Hey, I'm a white American named Laura”. I do not even think that way – as a matter of fact, I feel that color, nationality, sexual orientation, creed, etc... are not something to be “proud” of. All of these things are a product of genetics, and place of birth. I tell people that if they want to be proud of something, be proud of an achievement or something you can actually earn; don't be proud of circumstance.

     In conclusion, race and the social construction of race is a completely man-made stratification within any given culture or society. It separates people based on genetics, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, and more instead of identifying the fact that we are all one under the human race. No individual or group of people can escape from their social labels, including people who are multinational or a “mixed” race. Because of history, and maltreatment of specific races, our country has initiated and perpetuated hate groups, and indifference among united citizens. The Asian American people have been labeled not only with “Asian American”, but also with the term “model minority” which suggest that since they were essentially quiet in overcoming prejudice, they are considered model as opposed to other minorities in America. I do not agree with or condone any type of segregation among the human race or labels within the strata. I feel that differences in people are what make people interesting. I do not feel there is anything to fear or hate from diversity, but rather there is more to learn.