Ob360 first test
Order by
42 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 work specialization | degree to which tasks are subdivided into separate jobs |
| departmentalization | basis b which jobs are grouped together |
| chain of command | how many individuals a manager can efficiently and effectively direct |
| centralization | - degree to which decision making is concentrated at a single point in the organization - stable environment favors centralization of authority - top-level managers make decisions |
| formalization | degree to which jobs are standardized |
| pros of functional departmentalization | - allow for high specialization - reduced depletion of resources - can achieve large economies of scale - large organizations with multiple levels become possible |
| cons of functional departmentalization | - "one size fits all" (differences in customers, products, regions not handled well) - poor communication across functional areas - department goals > organization goals |
| Silo effect | - slow communication and decision making, action is up and down the hierarchy not across - preoccupation with departmental goals than organizational goals |
| Throwing it over the wall | - doing your job without really involving other functions - other functions first see project one your group is finished |
| narrow span of control | - managers exert close control due to limited number of employees - fosters silos - discourages autonomy |
| wide span of control | - less control and coordination by managers - faster communication, decision making, and implementation - fewer managers -> lower overhead costs |
| decentralization | - degree to which lower-level employees provide inputs or actually make decisions - works best in dynamic, highly competitive environments - often associated with wider spans of control |
| simple structure | pros: fast decision making, flexible, inexpensive to maintain, clear accountability cons: suited to small organizations, one person has all power |
| Group development: five-stage model | ... |
| Group development: punctuated-equilibrium model | Phase 1: - team determines a) methods by which they should proceed, b) task goals, c) how they should work toward accomplishing these goals - work is unfocused and unproductive Phase 2: - triggered to rethink project - question project goals and way they worked on the project - increase performance |
| norms | acceptable standards or expectations shared by the group |
| conformity | members follow norms to obtain rewards, imitate respected members, and believe that this behavior is right |
| conformity & deviance | - low conformity/high deviance - low performance - moderate conformity/moderate deviance - high performance - high conformity/low deviance - low performance |
| cohesiveness | degree to which members are attracted to a group and share the group's goals |
| How to foster cohesiveness? | - smaller groups - increase time spent together - increase status and perceived difficulty of attaining membership (harder it is to get in = more cohesiveness) - group identity (name group) - reward small initial successes of team |
| self-categorization theory | .... |
| Is diversity good? | - can have positive effects by increasing variance in knowledge and perspectives - can also have negative effects by increasing conflict and lower cohesion |
| status | prominence, respect, and influence individuals enjoy in the eyes of others |
| status characteristics theory | through socialization in a broader culture, individuals learn to associate different personal characteristics with task competence or ability |
| Low status individuals tend to: | - participate less - get interrupted/challenged more - conform more - more tentative in their speech - demonstrate more submissive non-verbal cues |
| Personality: Big-Five Model (OCEAN) | - Openness to experience - Conscientiousness (reliability) - Extraversion - Agreeableness - Neuroticism (inability to withstand stress) |
| Personality: Myers-Briggs Types | - Extroverted v. Introverted - Sensing v. Intuitive - Thinking v. Feeling - Judging v. Perceiving |
| Which personality test is better? | Big 5 because MB assumes options are mutually exclusive |
| Self-esteem and its effects | - degree to which people like/dislike themselves - low = prone to outside influences; seek approval from others |
| Locus of control and its effects | - extent to which people believe they can control their fate - external = believe you have no control over your life |
| self-monitoring and its effects | - degree to which people adjust behavior circumstances - high = conforming, better performers, more mobile in careers, more promotions, occupy central positions in organizations |
| Type A/B | - Type A: fast workers, emphasize quantity over quality, often make poor decisions, rarely creative |
| Machiavellianism | - High Mach: manipulative, maintains emotional distance, believes ends justify means, do well in jobs requiring bargaining skills or competition |
| In which situation is personality more likely to be linked to an actual behavior? | - weak situations due to weak incentives, weak norms, limited rules - drive through yellow light |
| Terminal values | - end-states of existence - social recognition, equality, freedom, etc. |
| Instrumental values | - mode of conduct - clean, helpful, obedient, polite, responsible - way to get to terminal values |
| Confirming-evidence trap and how to reduce it | - seek out information that supports our existing point of view while avoiding contradictory information - don't ask leading questions - assign a devil's advocate or build counter arguments yourself - don't surround yourself with yes-men |
| anchoring trap and how to reduce it | - give disproportionate weight to the first information received - think about problem on your own before becoming anchored by others - be open minded (seek info and opinions from a variety of people) - avoid having anchors imposed upon you |
| status-quo trap and how to reduce it | - favor decisions that perpetuate status quo - don't exaggerate costs of breaking from status quo - ask yourself if you would choose status quo if it was not the status quo |
| sunk-cost trap and how to reduce it | - make choices that justify past choices and resource commitments, even when past choices no longer seem valid - seek our and listen to views of people who were not involved in earlier decisions - accept failure and move on - cultivate a learning culture |
| framing trap and how to reduce it | - the way a problem is framed can profoundly influence the choices we make - problem solving is representing and re-representing itself until solution presents itself - seek our people with different frames |
| estimating and forecasting trap and how to reduce it | - overly confident about accuracy of predictions - high-stakes decision -> people tend to adjust estimates to be on safe side - recallability -> overestimate probability of rare but catastrophic events - consider extremes and challenge those estimates - state estimates honestly - get actual statistics whenever possible |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.