Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli

Florida International University

Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli

Summary :

Berkowitz and Lepage (1967 ) designed a study to test the hypothesis that individuals who are in a state of anger are more likely to act out their aggression if cues associated with violence and aggression are present. The sample consisted of 100 male students from the University of Wisconsin who were all enrolled in an introductory level psychology course.

This study used an experimental research method because it manipulated the independent variable and presumably involved random assignment (although this was not stated in the text). There were two main independent variables. The first one was the subject’s level of anger and this was determined by whether the subject was shocked once or seven times. The second independent variable was the kind of cue present near the shock button when it was the subject’s turn to evaluate the confederate. For one group there was no object, in the control group there was a neutral object (a badminton racquet), and for the last group there was a gun that was supposedly part of a different study. This last group was further separated into 2 subgroups with some being told that the gun belonged to the confederate while others were told that it was left behind by someone else. These independent variables were then combined to see how they affected the dependent variable, which was the level of aggression the subject displayed. The dependent variable was measured by how many shocks the subject delivered to the confederate .

The procedure ran as follows: volunteers were told that they were participating in a study to test the physiological effects of stress. To do this the subject and the other participant (who was actually a confederate) were both given a social problem and they had to think up ways to solve it. After they completed this task (in separate rooms) their problem solving ideas were then exchanged so they could evaluate each other. The evaluation was done by pushing a button that was supposed to shock the person in the other room (although they still could not see each other); 1 shock represented the best rating while a lesser evaluation was communicated through a higher number of shocks. The confederate was the first to do the evaluation. The number of shocks given to the actual volunteer was already determined as 1 or 7 though (depending on the random assignment) and was not based on a real rating. After this came the volunteer’s turn to do the same evaluation, but the number of shocks was not predetermined. Next to the shock button was one of the previously stated objects, and the gun was the only cue hypothesized to elicit increased aggression .

The results of this study confirmed the hypothesis. Those participants who were more angered (given 7 shocks) and were cued by the violent object (a gun) and told that it belonged to the person they were rating, outwardly expressed their aggression the most by giving the confederate a higher number of shocks. The next highest number of shocks was by the group in the presence of a gun, but had been told the gun was left behind by someone else. Those who did not see any objects gave on average one less shock and the least number of shocks were given by those in the presence of the badminton racquets. On the other hand, when the volunteer was not as angered (only shocked once by the confederate), outward expression of aggression was relatively low and stable regardless of what type of cue was present. The researchers used these results to theorize that a person who is already aroused and is then cued by a violent object is more likely to have an impulsive reaction to act more aggressively .

Critique :

Overall this study was well designed in order to test the given hypothesis that weapons are aggression-eliciting stimuli. The method of using different objects to induce a given response is very similar to the proven phenomenon of priming. Priming is where certain information is more attended to when related cues are presented. Therefore the results of Berkowitz and Lepage (1967) make sense because weapons are connected to aggression, which increases the person’s awareness of his or her aggressive feelings, and consequently makes the outward act of aggression more likely.

Based on the results, chances are high that these men would always act in this way when in a similar situation, so this study can be considered reliable (that is, it is repeatable). Validity is not as strong, though. Validity refers to whether the study is measuring what it purports to measure. When the participant was already aroused (given 7 shocks) there was a significant difference in the amount of retaliation depending on which cue was present. However, this retaliation did not depend on the cues if the participant was not as initially aroused (only given 1 shock). So how can they be measuring the impact of a priming mechanism like the gun in the room if they need participants to already be aroused? I am not sure they are measuring their variables correctly. That being said, it did show that although the cues do have an effect on aggressive behavior, initial aggression level plays a much larger role in the causal relationship . The ethicalness of this study is also questionable . Receiving and delivering shocks could potentially cause physical pain and also have a negative effect on one’s emotional well-being. Nonetheless, most participants probably did not suffer any serious consequences. Also, due to the nature of this specific research question it does not seem like there is another way to measure aggression that would be anymore ethical.

One major methodological problem that should have been addressed is the sample that was obtained. The sample used in this experiment is not a good representation of humans in general, because it only involved college-aged men. It is possible that women or people of different ages may respond differently to the cues. Women are often thought of as less violent, so their reaction to a negative stimulus might cause them to deliver fewer shocks. A weapon makes the seriousness of the situation salient and may cause some people to think rationally about their behavior in the near future. Clearly this proposal requires actual testing before making further assumptions, but it does show the need for a more diverse sample of participants.

Along the same line as the previous issue, a follow-up study could more carefully look at the relationship between peoples’ attitudes towards guns (or other weapons) and their corresponding level of aggressive behavior when given the chance to retaliate. This would be more of a quasi-experiment because in order to test the independent variable of attitudes towards weapons the groups could not be randomly assigned. Three existing groups would be used; those who support weapons, those who are against them, and those who feel neutral (the control group). The hypothesis would predict that if prior arousal level was high, participants who support weapons would show increased aggression when cued by the gun, but the group of participants with negative attitudes towards guns would not be as aggressive. If the subjects did not receive prior arousal (if they were only shocked once by their “evaluator”), then neither group would be significantly affected by the cues.

Even if initial aggression is a greater cause in inducing violent behavior than the existence of weapon-related cues, this study has serious implications for social policies related to gun control. It is apparent from the results that if someone is angry and is near a gun, then that person will likely act more aggressively than he or she typically would. Since the guns in the experiment were not loaded and the situation was controlled, the heightened aggression was not transferred over to actually using the guns. In a private home though, arguments occurring with a gun nearby might make it more likely that a gun will be used. Knowing that the mere presence of a weapon increases violence should urge lawmakers to consider adopting stricter gun laws .

Brief Summary

Berkowitz and Lepage (1967) conducted a study in which they hypothesized that priming people with an aggressive object (a gun) would lead them to act aggressively. The authors gave electrical shocks (from 1 to 7 of them) to 100 male undergraduates. They told them that one of their peers had delivered the shock. The participant could then retaliate, but they did so in the presence of either a gun or a tennis racket (which was supposedly left in the researcher room from a different study). Participants given the highest number of shocks (7) gave higher retaliation shocks to the peer, but this was more likely when they were in the presence of a gun (compared to a tennis racket). The authors concluded that the guns increased aggressive responses from male participants who were highly aroused.

References

Berkowitz , L., & Lepage, A. (1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 202-207. doi: 10.1037/h0025008

�There are a few things to keep in mind as you write your article critique paper. First, use appropriate APA formatting. For example, note the Running head above. The R is capitalized, the h is lower case, there is a colon, and then the title is in ALL CAPS. Your paper should look like this, too. The title you use in your Running head should be no more than 50 characters (including spaces and punctuation). The Running head title can be the same title as the one you use in your paper (below), but it can also differ. Just make sure that it is descriptive.

Also notice the page number. The title page starts on page one

Are you unfamiliar with headers? To insert them, go into the “Insert” menu, and click on “Headers”. It will open a box at the top of the page. Just type in the box for the header and use spacing and rulers as usual. To have the first page differ from later pages, click the box for “Different first page.” Then repeat “Insert Headers” on page two (where you will remove the words “Running head”)

�This title is from the article that Jane Doe critiqued. You can use the original article title as well or come up with one similar that is descriptive. This title can also be the same one used in the running head, though Jane Doe has different titles

�Your name goes here

�Your institution

�Note the titles here. First, the EXACT SAME running that we saw on the title page is present (just absent the words “Running head”). Second, this page starts on page 2.

The title “Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli” is EXACTLY the same as on the title page, and it is centered

�Please include this word “Summary” so we know which section we are grading. This isn’t a true aspect of APA style, but for this article critique paper I want to make sure we know when each section starts and ends

�This is correct APA citation for the article that Jane Doe critiqued. The paper was by Berkowitz and Lepage. . Notice that the author names are in the order they are found on the original study, and that the date is present in parentheses. Jane Doe used the word “and” and not “&”, which is correct here since the word “and” appears outside of the parentheses.

Note that Jane Doe could have also said “Two researchers (Berkowitz & Lapage. 1967) designed a study …” This is correct APA format as well. When the “&” appears within parentheses, make sure to use that & symbol

�The summary does just that – summarizes the design without commenting too much on other matters. I want to make sure you can follow the design, noting whether it is experimental or correlational, and highlighting the independent and dependent variables as well as the procedure and hypotheses.

�A good description here of exactly what the original authors did

�The results summary here once again focuses on the original article without editorializing too much.

�Insert the word “Critique” so we know you have moved onto the next section. In the critique, you finally get to express your own opinion. There are eight things listed in the instructions that you can cover, and you must cover at least four of them. You can do more than four, but four is the minimum.

�Good analysis of validity and reliability here

�Also gets into the ethical nature, covering some of those requirements once again

�See, reaching your minimum page number isn’t that tough for the summary and critique! Jane Doe did these two section in 5 pages when only 3 pages minimum are required (1.5 for each section). If you write both sections in a total of three pages, though, it better be very, very good. I would expect at least 4 pages from most students (2 pages for each section)

�Add in this brief summary phrase so we know you are moving onto the next section.

The reason for this section is twofold: First, I want to make sure you have a good grasp on the study, and second, I want to make sure that you can summarize more briefly what you wrote above.

In later papers, you will write a literature review of your own, where you summarize prior research as you work toward your hypotheses. You won’t always spend a page and a half writing about each study in your literature review. Sometimes a short paragraph (like this brief summary) is better, and I want to make sure you can write both ways!

�Make sure the word References is centered and starts on its own page. Try to use “Page breaks” in Word so that the references section always starts on its own page, even when you open it later or use earlier versions of Word. That is, go up to the “Insert” menu in word and click on “Page Break”

�Notice the spacing here. The first line of the reference is flush left. The second line, though, is indented. This is correct APA format. Use the ruler function in word when you space your references.

�Make sure to give a reference in APA format. This is correct format here. Jane Doe only cited the original authors, so she only has the one reference. That is fine for this paper. You do not need to go outside of that article, but you are welcome to reference other works if you want. If you do, include that reference in the reference page.

The post Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

What are the special considerations that you will need to be aware of for this immersion experience?

Contemporary Issues in Diversity Immersion Learning Proposal Grading Rubric

Criteria

5 Points

2 Points

Points

What group from the spectrum of diversity do you plan to immerse yourself in?

· Appropriate selection

· Included sub-group if applicable

Met all criteria.

Did not meet all criteria.

(0 points for no answer)

Criteria

10 Points

8 Points

6 Points

2 Points

Points

Why did you choose this group to immerse yourself in?

· Explained with detail

· Clearly demonstrated absence of prior contact

· 100 word minimum

All criteria met.

2 criteria met.

1 criteria met.

No criteria met.

(0 points for no answer)

Criteria

15 Points

10 Points

8 Points

2 Points

Points

What is your immersion plan?

· Name or title of the event or establishment

· Address

· Date and time

· Where you found out about the experience

· Why you chose that particular location

· Stated whether you need prior approval to attend and how you know this

· 100 word minimum

Met all criteria.

Met 6 criteria.

Met 5 criteria.

Met 4 or less criteria.

(0 points for no answer)

Criteria

15 Points

10 Points

8 Points

2 Points

Points

What are the special considerations that you will need to be aware of for this immersion experience?

· Listed all relevant special considerations

· Included behavior and etiquette, way of dress, and respect

· Explained how you will adhere to each one

· 125 word minimum

Met all criteria.

Met 3 criteria.

Met 2 criteria.

Met 1 or less criteria.

(0 points for no answer)

Criteria

10 Points

5 Points

Points

How do you know what the special considerations are?

· Clearly answered the proposed question

· Used a reputable source or sources

· Identified the source or sources

· 25 word minimum

Met all criteria.

Did not meet all criteria.

(0 points for no answer)

Criteria

15 Points

10 Points

8 Points

2 Points

Points

What do you hope to learn and gain from this immersion experience?

· Clearly answered the proposed question

· Specific and detailed

· Included how it may benefit you personally

· 150 word minimum

Met all criteria.

Met 3 criteria.

Met 2 criteria.

Met 1 or no criteria.

(0 points for no answer)

Criteria

10 Points

5 Points

Points

Discuss your anticipation of the experience. Are you nervous about anything? Why or why not?

· Clearly answered both proposed questions

· 50 word minimum

Met all criteria.

Did not meet all criteria.

(0 points for no answer)

Criteria

10 Points

8 Points

6 Points

2 Points

Points

Do you have any pre-conceived notions about the group of people you are going to immerse yourself in? If so, what are they? What are the stereotypes that you have heard about this group of people?

· Clearly identified and discussed preconceived notions

· Clearly identified and discussed relevant stereotypes

· 50 word minimum

Met all criteria.

Met 2 criteria.

Met 1 criteria.

No criteria met.

(0 points for no answer)

Criteria

10 Points

8 Points

6 Points

2 Points

Points

Set a goal with three objectives.

· SMART

Met all SMART criteria.

Met 3-4 SMART criteria.

Met 2-1 SMART criteria.

No criteria met.

Did not include three objectives.

(0 points for no answer)

*Plagiarism will result in automatic 0 points for entire assignment

*Offensive content (as determined by instructor) will result in 50-point reduction from final assignment grade

*Excessive grammar or composition errors will result in 5-point deduction from final assignment grade

100 Possible Points

3

The post What are the special considerations that you will need to be aware of for this immersion experience? appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

want DQ Answer 300 Words, No Plagiarism, Use 3 References And In-Text Citation And Turn It In For The Content.

Attached the Chapter 9.

---

DQ1: Can you identify different sense-making activities going on during organizational change? What ability do you have to influence these? Do you exercise power in your attempts to influence the interpretations others have of change situations? With what success? What are the implications of this?

---

DQ2: Briefly summarize the main concepts presented in Exercise 9.5.

The post want DQ Answer 300 Words, No Plagiarism, Use 3 References And In-Text Citation And Turn It In For The Content. appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Organization Development and Sense-Making Approaches

Chapter 9

Organization Development

and Sense-Making Approaches

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

2.pdf
Providing the Skills to Successfully Manage Change Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach, 3e, by Palmer, Dunford, and Buchanan, offers managers a multiple perspectives approach to managing change that recognizes the variety of ways to facilitate change and reinforces the need for a tailored and creative approach to fit different contexts.

The third edition offers timely updates to previous content, while introducing new and emerging trends, developments, themes, debates, and practices.

Highlights of the third edition include: • New coverage of contemporary topics throughout, such as “depth of change”

(Chapters 1, 4, and 12), change in a recession (Chapter 3), the built-to-change organization (Chapter 4), and the impact of social media and the communication “escalator” (Chapter 7).

• A new chapter, “The Effective Change Manager: What Does It Take?” (Chapter 12), exploring competency frameworks, interpersonal communication processes and skills, issue-selling tactics, and the need for the change manager to be politically skilled.

• Improved visual appeal with more graphics and occasional memorable cartoons.

Now available with —the leading adaptive learning resource.

connect.mheducation.com

Providing the Skills to Successfully Manage Change Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach, 3e, by Palmer, Dunford, and Buchanan, offers managers a multiple perspectives approach to managing change that recognizes the variety of ways to facilitate change and reinforces the need for a tailored and creative approach to fit different contexts.

The third edition offers timely updates to previous content, while introducing new and emerging trends, developments, themes, debates, and practices.

Highlights of the third edition include: • New coverage of contemporary topics throughout, such as “depth of change” (Chapters 1, 4, and 12),

change in a recession (Chapter 3), the built-to-change organization (Chapter 4), and the impact of social media and the communication “escalator” (Chapter 7).

• A new chapter, “The Effective Change Manager: What Does It Take?” (Chapter 12), exploring competency frameworks, interpersonal communication processes and skills, issue-selling tactics, and the need for the change manager to be politically skilled.

• Improved visual appeal with more graphics and occasional memorable cartoons.

Now available with —the leading adaptive learning resource.

connect.mheducation.com

Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

Note: The caretaker and nurturer images are not central to managing change literature because they involve the assumption that managers receive rather than initiate change

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Image Approach Focus
Chapter 9
Coach Organization Development Appreciative Inquiry Positive Organizational Scholarship Broadly based on assumptions about the importance of humanistic values (openness, honesty, integrity), democratic values (social justice, freedom of choice, involvement), and developmental values (authenticity, growth, self-realization)
Interpreter Dialogic OD Sense-Making The significance of the meanings that people attribute to actions, how these meanings influences people’s behaviors, and how managers of change can take this into account. .
Chapter 10
Director Change Management Contingency Focus on strategic and planned organizational change. Intentional change outcomes are treated as achievable through a series of planned steps.
Navigator Processual Treats outcomes as the result of a complex interplay of different interests, both internal and external to the organization.
Organization Development (OD)

OD has played a central role in the management of organizational change for more than half a century; it
‘has been, and arguably still is, the major approach to organizational change across the Western world, and increasingly globally’ (Burnes & Cooke, 2012: p.1396

Traditional OD (Beckhard, 1969)
Planned, whole system focus

Top management involvement

Aims to improve effectiveness

Long-term

Action-oriented

Changing attitudes and behavior

Experiential learning is important

Group/team focus

Values basis is humanistic, democratic and developmental

Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

OD Steps

Problem identification
Consultation
Data gathering and problem diagnosis
Feedback
Joint problem diagnosis
Joint action planning
Change actions
Further data gathering
Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Criticisms of OD

As OD has become more widespread, so have questions about its strengths and weaknesses as an approach to managing change.

Questions include

Is the OD emphasis on ‘humanistic’ values (e.g., open communication, participation, and empowerment) ‘up to the task’ of bringing about change in tough, competitive environments?

Is OD too slow and too incremental when organizations often require change to be rapid and transformational

Are OD values universal or are they culturally specific?

Is OD able to handle the challenges associated with large-scale change?

Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Large-scale Change

Some applications of OD have developed with a specific ‘whole system’ focus such as World Café, ‘town hall meetings’, and ‘future search’
The large scale change approach typically involves bringing all organizational members/stakeholders together in one place.
In large-scale change, the traditional OD focus on participation exists in parallel with a focus on responsiveness to changing business conditions. Inclusiveness is considered to develop shared perspectives about what needs to be done which in turn provides the basis for successful collective action
Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Current relevance

Are OD values universal

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

AI takes as its starting point not current problems but what it is that is working well in an organization
Change is framed as a process of identifying what might be possible in the future by building on existing strengths
Shows a from problem solving to joint envisioning of the future
AI can be envisaged as a four-step technique (Fuller et al, 2000)
Discovering/appreciating the good qualities in what is currently practiced

Building on existing knowledge to envisage what the future could be

Designing, through collective dialogue, what should be

Sustaining the organization’s future

Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

A POS perspective involves the following (Cameron & McNaughton, 2014, p.447)
Adopting a ‘positive lens’ on any situation

Focusing on ‘spectacular, surprising, or extraordinary’ outcomes

Seeing positivity as providing the capacity for greater achievements

Assuming that humans have an innate inclination to try to achieve the best that can be achieved

POS has its critics. For example, (Fineman, 2006)
Whether a particular behavior is positive is a subjective judgement and may also be culturally relative

Prioritising positive behaviours risks insufficient attention being given to the important change that can come from attention to negative behaviors?

‘Be positive’ programs can have a coercive element

POS advocates counter-position
POS does not ignore negative factors; rather it seeks to give attention to the positive to counter the historic dominance on a problem-focused approach to change

Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Dialogic OD
(adapted from Marshak, 2015)

Traditional (Diagnostic) OD

Begin with diagnosis of the situation
Change comes from identifying, planning and managing change in a systematic unfreeze-freeze sequence
Consultant’s role is as a neutral facilitator who retains distance from those being affected
Dialogic OD

Work with people in a way that creates new awareness, knowledge and possibilities
Engage with stakeholders in ways that challenge existing norms, beliefs and behaviors
Consultant’s role is as a facilitator who becomes part of the situation being changed
Note different views on the utility of the diagnostic-dialogic distinction

Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Sense-Making 1

Sense-making is consistent with the interpreter image of managing change
Sense-making is:
“ a social process of meaning construction and reconstruction through which managers understand, interpret, and create sense for themselves and others of their changing organizational context and surroundings’ (Rouleau and Balogun, 2010, p.955)

Sense-making treats organizations as being in an ongoing state of adjustment to changing circumstances (rather than ever being ‘frozen’ (in a state of inertia)
Sense-making rejects the idea of change being able to be managed through a standardised change management program
Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Sense-Making 2

Some implications of a sense-making perspective on managing change are that:

Change managers should try to provide a clear narrative that articulates the what, why, and how of the proposed change
Because humans hate a ‘meaning vacuum’, in the absence of a clear narrative they will create meaning to ‘fill the void’ which opens up the possibility for all sorts of (mis)interpretations to ‘take hold’
Managers attempts at sense giving are only one source of information (about what is ‘going on’) so their effectiveness is not guaranteed
Managers should be aware that their actions are likely to be interpreted symbolically (i.e., what the actions ‘mean’) by other organizational members and that this interpretation occurs regardless of whether or not managers intend it to occur
Images of Managing Change, Approach & Focus

Organization Development

OD steps

Criticisms of OD

Large-scale change

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)

Dialogic OD

Sense-Making

7-*

Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

The post Organization Development and Sense-Making Approaches appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"