Social environment Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Crowding, teams and leaders

A

How do we design social environment at work?

  • part of job design/
  • want to prevent stress.

Crowding = subjective - could be crowded by one person you dislike.
- density - could be in a busy crowd but enjoy it.

Many potential stressors arise from social situations.

Consideration for factors that make a person feel crowded and how feelings arise from peer/manager/subordinate relationships.
- potential solutions through effective team building and leadership.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Personal space

A

“Area with invisible boundaries” - Sommer, 1996.

Interpersonal distance (Hall, 1966): 4 main zones which communicate the nature of the relationships:

  • INTIMATE (approx 0-45cm/18inches) - very good friends.
  • PERSONAL (1.5-4ft) - familiar, on good terms.
  • SOCIAL (4-12ft) - previously unacquainted individuals.
  • PUBLIC DISTANCES (12-25ft) - formal situations.

Orientation and eye contact:

  • corner to corner or face to face preferred for casual conversation.
  • side by side for cooperative work.
  • distanced face to face for competitive situations.
  • interaction of angle and distance.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Territoriality

A

Animal acquisition, physical marking and defence of territory.

Humans use symbolic indicators to prevent intrusion and personalise to establish identity.
- eg. photos on work desk, sign on bedroom door.

Altman (1975) 3 types:

  1. primary territory = owned on a permanent basis, under our perceived control - extensions of self (eg. home, neighbourhood).
  2. public = free access areas, belonging to nobody (eg. place on beach, seats on train next to you).
  3. secondary (interest at work) = owned on a temp basis; no exclusive rights (eg. office space at work, desk in class); semi-public areas.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Crowding-invasion of PS of/and T

A

Constrains behaviour; disturbs equilibrium.

Loss of personal control (Schmidt & Keating, 1979): normal distribution bell curve (arousal/performance).

  • cognitive control = degree of understanding situations.
  • behavioural control = degree of constraints on actions.
  • decisional control = degree of choice available.

Stimulus overloading - social and informational.
- actual amount in relation to preferred amount.

Need for psychological privacy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Privacy (not feeling crowded)

A

The selective control of access to the self.

Interpersonal privacy: social interaction management.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Factors affecting crowding

A
  • Cognitive appraisal of the situation.
  • Who we are, how we feel, other people.

Individual differences:

  • the task - competitive vs. cooperative.
  • physical environment - social density and office landscaping (eg. attempt to create privacy in open plan offices with dividers) - balance between individual privacy and social needs.
  • social environment - relations with peers and leaders.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Improving relations with others

A

Team building - how we put people together to get on.

Leadership.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Relationships with peers/team building

A

Crowding as a result of poor relationships.

Stress from bullying/harassment.

Mostly related to hetero/homogeneity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Relationships with peers: Heterogeneity (diversity) or homogeneity

A

(of appearance, personality, ability etc).

Through everyone working in a “group cohesive” rather than conflict way.

Tajfel’s social identity theory (1979) and factors affecting ingroup and outgroup?
- proposed that groups which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem.

Groupthink - need a little heterogeneity to avoid this.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Relationships with peers: compatibility of interpersonal needs

A

Within the group: stress reducing if socially/mutually supportive (French & Caplan, 1972).

Shutz (1978): fundamental interpersonal relations orientation (FIRO) measure - discusses interpersonal needs relating to how much a person:

  • wants (W) from others or expresses (E) to others with respect to: inclusion, control, affection.
  • would be most effect to associate those who like to be included/controlled/want affection with those who like to offer it.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Relationships with peers: task oriented roles (behaviour patters) within the team

A

Regardless of functional responsibility, mix of team roles, so one:

  • initiates
  • another coordinates
  • one summarises etc.

Belbin (1996):

  • implementor
  • coordinator
  • shaper
  • plant
  • resource investigator
  • monitor evaluator
  • team worker
  • completer finisher
  • specialist

Margerison & McCann (1990): have similar.
+ upholder-maintainer, reporter-advisor, linker.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Relationships with leaders

A

Crowding is a result of poor relationships with leaders.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Relationships with leaders: people oriented or task oriented leader behaviours - Ohio state leadership studies (1940s)

A

Using leader behaviour description questionnaire (LBDQ) came up with 2 underlying styles:

  1. consideration: the extent to which leader demonstrates trust of subordinates, respect for ideas and consideration of feelings.
  2. initiating structure: “getting the job done” - extent leader defines own and others’ roles towards goals attainment.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Relationships with leaders: people oriented or task oriented leader behaviours - Michigan leadership studies (Likert, 1950s)

A

On effect and ineffective leaders - 2 styles:

  1. employee-oriented.
  2. task-oriented: variations/combinations - eg. “exploitative authoritative” or “consultative systems”.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Relationships with leaders: people oriented or task oriented leader behaviours - Democratic and autocratic (Gastil, 1994)

A

How far the leader:

  • distributes responsibility.
  • empowers.
  • aids deliberation.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Relationships with leaders: people oriented or task oriented leader behaviours - Transformational and transactional leaders (Bass, 1985)

A

Using multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ):

  • transactional: contingent reward, management by expectation.
  • transformational: charisma, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation etc.
17
Q

Relationships with leaders: HSE management competencies for reducing work stress

A
  • empowerment
  • participative approach
  • development
  • accessible/visible
  • health & safety
  • feedback
  • managing conflict
  • acting with integrity
  • communication
  • empathy
  • taking responsibility
  • knowledge for the job
18
Q

Relationships with leaders: contingencies theories

A

Key criticisms: do not take account of different leadership behaviours being more or less appropriate depending upon the aspects of work situation at the time.

19
Q

Relationships with leaders: contingencies theories - Blake & Moutons (1964) managerial grid

A

Considered various combination of ‘concern for people’ and ‘concern for production’:

  • indifferent/impoverished.
  • accommodating/country club.
  • dictatorial/produce or perish.
  • team.
  • status quo/middle-of-the-road.

Attempted to relate to theory X and Y views of the work force, implying different style for different situations.

20
Q

Relationships with leaders: contingencies theories - Fiedler (1967) and his Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) scale

A

High LPC similar to ‘consideration’ and low LPC to ‘initiating structure’.

Most appropriate depends on:

  • leader-member structure.
  • task structure.
  • positive power.

When all high or all low - low LPC seems best.
- high LPC desirable when in moderately favourable situations.

21
Q

Relationships with leaders: contingencies theories - Vroom & Jago (1988) leader participation model

A

Styles from autocratic (domineering, absolute power to leader) -> consultative (intended to give professional advice) -> group.

More participative if subordinates committed, no time pressure, decision information unclear.

22
Q

Relationships with leaders: contingencies theories - Hershey & Blanchard’s situational theory (1982)

A

Delegating, participating, selling and telling - depending on the maturity of the subordinates.
- tell the less mature.

23
Q

Law of averages

A

Principle that future events are likely to turn out so they balance any past deviation from a presumed average.