To acquaint you with common behavioral analysis tools by using them to break down and view your organization in smaller elements and discover how each element can influence you individually and
PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT: To acquaint you with common behavioral analysis tools by using them to break down and view your organization in smaller elements and discover how each element can influence you individually and your organization as a whole.
Read through this assignment(Work Place Analysis 2 Doc-Attached), then read the assigned articles and watch the videos before completing this assignment. Use the attached document to write in your answers. Please answer all the 3 Questions in the Workplace Analysis Doc
Video reference link:
1) Go to this link to compare the U.S. to another country in which you are familiar. For more information about this visit https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-hofstede/6d-model-of-national-culture/
2) Hofstede's Model on Cultural Dimensions
3) Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People
4) It's the Situation, Not the Person
ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT 2 – Cultural Dimensions and Perceptions
PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT: To acquaint you with common behavioral analysis tools by using them to break down and view your current organization (or a prior organization) in smaller elements and discover how each element can influence you individually and your organization as a whole.
1. Workplace Cultural Diagnoses : The goal of this analysis is to describe your organization (or a prior organization) in terms of Hofstede’s Model on Cultural Dimensions. In other words, I am looking for how you perceive your workplace in terms of five (5) dimensions – PDI, IDV, MAS, UAI and LTO.
a. Before beginning the assignment, be sure to watch the video on the Hofstede dimensions and compare the U.S. to another country in which you are familiar as outlined on the syllabus.
b. Then, score each dimension by circling the appropriate number on the scale. List at least one example that influenced you to score where you did on the scale. Use short descriptive phrases and personal examples of how your comments apply to you.
Power Distance Index (PDI)
Degree of inequality among people considered normal.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
Low -flatter organizations -supervisors & employees considered equals -tend not to use formal titles for people |
High -centralized companies -strong hierarchies -large gaps in pay, authority and respect |
|
List an example that supports your score: |
Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV)
Degree people prefer to act as individuals or as a group.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
Low -emphasis on collective good, focus on welfare of the group to which an individual belongs |
High -emphasis on the individual |
|
List an example that supports your score: |
Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS)
How much society values traditional masculine and feminine attributes
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
Low -emphasize caring for individuals’ health and well-being, quality of life, care for the sick and those lacking in resources to take care of themselves. Feminine values of nurturing others. |
High -emphasize achievement and competitiveness. Masculine values of aggressiveness and winning are important. |
|
List an example that supports your score: |
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)
Degree of anxiety that society members feel when in uncertain or unknown situations. Degree of preference for structured over unstructured situations.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
Low -informal business attitude -more concern for long-term strategy than what happens on a daily basis. Comfortable with uncertainty. |
High -very formal business conduct – lots of rules & policies. Not comfortable with uncertainty and lack of structure. -sense of nervousness, spurs high levels of emotion & expression |
|
List an example that supports your score: |
Long Term Orientation vs. Short Term Normative Orientation (LTO)
How much society values long-standing vs. short-term traditions and values
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
Low -short term focus, e.g., emphasis on quarterly results. Impatience: desire for immediate feedback. |
High -long term focus. Strong values on traditions and a long-range outlook on the future. |
|
List an example that supports your score:
|
2. Psychological Contract : Based on your understanding of the psychological contract, do the following.
a. Describe in a short paragraph the psychological contract you have with your current organization (or an organization you were affiliated with in the past). For example, is it transactional? Why? Is it relational? Why?
b. List three examples of how your contract has been fulfilled, violated, and/or modified.
3. Inclusivity, Diversity and Workplace Bias :
a. Name one bias you have held toward others. How did that affect your behavior?
b. Name one stereotype/bias others have held toward you. Are these stereotypes/biases founded or unfounded? Explain.
c. Based on what you’ve read to date, what is something you could do to make a workplace more inclusive?
2 | Page
,
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved.
,
By Invitation: Building the civilized workplace 47
By Invitation:
Building the civilized workplace
Nasty people don’t just make others feel miserable; they create economic problems for their companies.
Robert Sutton
Lars Dalgaard is CEO and cofounder of SuccessFactors, one of the world’s fastest-growing software companies—and the fastest with revenues over $30 million. Dalgaard recently listed some milestones that his California-based company passed in its first seven years:
• the use of its software by more than two million employees at over 1,200 companies around the world
• the use of its software by employees speaking 18 languages in 156 countries
• growth three times that of the company’s nearest competitor
• enthusiastic recommendations of the product by nearly all customers
• dramatically low employee turnover
• employing no jerks
That’s right—no jerks—although the word SuccessFactors really uses (except on its Web site) is a mild obscenity that starts with the letter A and sort of rhymes with “castle.” All the employees SuccessFactors hires agree in writing to 14 “rules of engagement.” Rule 14 starts out,
“I will be a good person to work with—not territorial, not be a jerk.” One of Dalgaard’s founding principles is that “our organization will consist only
The McKinsey Quarterly 2007 Number 248
of people who absolutely love what we do, with a white-hot passion. We will have utmost respect for the individual in a collaborative, egalitarian, and meritocratic environment—no blind copying, no politics, no parochialism, no silos, no games—just being good!”
Dalgaard is emphatic about apply- ing this rule at SuccessFactors because part of its mission is to help companies focus more on performance and less on politics. Employees aren’t expected to be perfect, but when they lose their cool or belittle colleagues, inad- vertently or not, they are expected to repent. Dalgaard himself is not above the rule—he explained to me that, given the pressures of running a rapidly growing busi- ness, he too occasionally “blows it” at meetings. At times, he has apologized to all 400-plus people
in his company, not just to the people at the meeting in question, because “word about my behavior would get out.”
As Dalgaard suggests, there is a business case against tolerating nasty and demeaning people. Companies that put up with jerks not only can have more difficulty recruiting and retaining the best and brightest talent but are also prone to higher client churn, damaged reputations, and diminished investor confidence. Innovation and creativity may suffer, and cooperation could be impaired, both within and outside the organization— no small matter in an increasingly networked world.
The problem is more widespread than you might think. Research in the United Kingdom and the United States suggests that jerk-infested workplaces are common: a 2000 study by Loraleigh Keashly and Karen Jagatic1 found that 27 percent of the workers in a representative sample of 700 Michigan residents experienced mistreatment by someone in the workplace. Some occupations, such as medical ones, are espe-
Article at a glance
It’s a bigger problem than you might think—jerks and bullies in the workplace. Research shows that they not only hinder recruiting and retention but also raise levels of client churn, damage reputations, and diminish the confidence of investors.
Companies that harbor jerks may also suffer from reduced levels of creativity and innovation, as well as impaired or dysfunctional cooperation, within and outside the organization. That is no small matter in an increasingly networked world.
The author of this article, a Stanford University professor, argues that companies can take specific and interrelated steps to root out jerks and bullies and build a more civilized workplace.
Related articles on mckinseyquarterly.com
“The CEO’s role in leading transformation,” Web exclusive, February 2007
“Organizing for successful change management: A McKinsey Global Survey,” Web exclusive, July 2006
“The psychology of change management,” 2003 special edition: Organization
1 Loraleigh Keashly and Karen Jagatic, “The nature, extent, and impact of emotional abuse in the workplace: Results of a statewide survey,” Academy of Management conference, Toronto, August 8, 2000.
By Invitation: Building the civilized workplace 49
cially bad. A 2003 study2 of 461 nur- ses found that in the month before it was conducted, 91 percent had experienced verbal abuse, defined as mistreatment that left them feel- ing attacked, devalued, or humiliated. Physicians were the most frequent abusers.
There is good news and bad news about workplace jerks. The bad news is that abuse is widespread and the human and financial toll is high. The
good news is that leaders can take steps to build workplaces where demean- ing behavior isn’t tolerated and nasty people are shown the door.
How workplace jerks do their dirty work Researchers who write about psychological abuse in the workplace define it as “the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior, exclud- ing physical contact.” At least for me, that definition doesn’t quite capture the emotional wallop these creeps pack. The workplace jerk definition I use is this: do people feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled after talking to an alleged jerk? In particular, do they feel worse about themselves?
Workplace jerks do their dirty work in all sorts of ways; I’ve listed 12 com- mon ones—the dirty dozen—to illustrate the range of these subtle and not-so-subtle moves, which can include physical contact (Exhibit 1). Researchers who study workplace abuse and bullying have identified scores of others. I suspect you can add many more that you’ve seen, person- ally experienced—or committed.
Lists like these are useful but leave a sterilized view of how workplace jerks act and the damage they inflict. Stories, often painful ones, are necessary to understand how workplace bullies demean and de-energize people. Con- sider the story of this victim of multiple humiliations:
“Billy,” he said, standing in the doorway so that everyone in the central area could see and hear us clearly. “Billy, this is not adequate, really not at all.” As he spoke he crumpled the papers that he held. My work. One by one he crumpled the papers, holding them out as if they were something dirty and dropping them inside my office as everyone watched. Then he said loudly, “Garbage in, garbage out.” I started to speak, but he cut me off. “You give me the garbage,
2 Laura Sofield and Susan W. Salmond, “Workplace violence: A focus on verbal abuse and intent to leave the organization,” Orthopaedic Nursing, July–August 2003, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 274–83.
Q2 2007 Citizen workplace Exhibit 1 of 2 Glance: There are twelve types of behavior common to workplace jerks.
e x h i b i t 1
The dirty dozen
Personal insults Invading coworker’s personal territory Uninvited physical contact Threats and intimidation, verbal and nonverbal Sarcastic jokes and teasing used as insult delivery systems Withering e-mails Status slaps intended to humiliate victims Public shaming or status degradation rituals Rude interruptions Two-faced attacks Dirty looks Treating people as if they were invisible
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12
The McKinsey Quarterly 2007 Number 250
now you clean it up.” I did. Through the doorway I could see people looking away because they were embarrassed for me. They didn’t want to see what was in front of them: a 36-year-old man in a three-piece suit stooping before his boss to pick up crumpled pieces of paper.3
The damage done The human damage done by that kind of encounter is well documented— especially the harm that superiors do to their subordinates. Bennett Tepper studied abusive supervision in a representative study of 712 employees in a midwestern city.4 He asked them if their bosses had engaged in abusive behavior, including ridicule, put-downs, and the silent treatment— demeaning acts that drive people out of organizations and sap the effec- tiveness of those who remain. A six-month follow-up found that employees with abusive supervisors quit their jobs at accelerated rates. Those still trapped felt less committed to their employers and experi- enced less satisfaction from work and life, as well as heightened anxiety, depression, and burnout. Dozens of other studies have uncovered simi- lar findings; the victims report reduced levels of job satisfaction, productiv- ity, concentration, and mental and physical health.
Nasty interactions have a far bigger impact on the mood of people who experience them than positive interactio
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
