Higher Education Bubble by Savings Account.org

(ARA) – Back to school means back to homework for most kids. For many parents it also means asking, pleading, nagging and demanding that their kids get to it. But getting your kids to hit the books when they get home could be as easy as reorganizing their study space, or providing a special spot for studying in the first place.

Does your child have a comfortable place to study? Some kids prefer a traditional desk, while others may be more comfortable working in a lounge chair or even propped up against pillows on their bed with a laptop. The key is giving them a choice, says Jackie Barry, Interior Design program coordinator at The Art Institute of Houston-North, a branch of The Art Institute of Houston. “Talk to your children about how they like to study and what motivates them,” she says, adding that when the kids are comfortable, they’ll be more productive.

If your child prefers a traditional study space, but your budget is tight, a new desk does not have to break your piggy bank. “You can create a desk with two construction horses and a board,” says Seyavash Zohoori, academic director for Interior Design at The Art Institute of Salt Lake City. The best part is that this desk is mobile, so if your child wants a change of scenery, moving the study space is a snap. But do invest in a chair with good lumbar support.

Once you settle on a comfortable spot, remove the distractions, like the TV. Also, get rid of one of the biggest distractions of all – clutter. A messy room can be unsettling and leave kids unproductive, advises Jeannette Dubyak, professor of Education Leadership at Argosy University in Atlanta. But there are plenty of organizational and storage options, says Catherine Azcarate, Interior Design instructor at The Art Institute of Colorado. “There are so many storage solutions out there – use them. You can find an organizer for just about any item you have in your study space,” she says. “The more organized the space, the more you want to be in it.”

Know what to keep and what to throw out, adds Barry. If you bring something new into the study space, perhaps it’s time to get rid of something old. Barry also suggests keeping a clock and a calendar in the room to reinforce organization and time management. “Make sure it’s an analog clock,” adds Dubyak. That way your kids can start to gauge how time passes and really see what 15 minutes or an hour means.

And make sure you have enough and the right kind of light to get work done. If your kids study when they get home from school in the afternoon, natural light may be best, says Zohoori. What if the kids study when the sun goes down? “Invest in an LED or even OLED light,” he suggests. “They are eco-friendly and can significantly cut down on the eye strain you’ll get with fluorescents.”

To learn about The Art Institutes schools, visit www.artinstitutes.edu.

            Task conflict involves differences between team members about the content of the task, including differences in viewpoints and opinions about the task (Robbins & Judge, 2006). Task conflict can lead to unwillingness to work together and in some cases personal conflict or antagonism. In this case, the role of the leader is most important, because the leader will be able to resolve task conflict through the use of some forms of power (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). For example, one study found that the use of expert power and legitimate power by the team leader was most effective in resolving task conflict regarding a manufacturing task. However, it should be noted that the use of forms of power such as coercive power are rarely, if ever, likely to resolve a task conflict, but will only force the conflict below the surface in order to allow it to interfere some other time. Task conflict is not always a negative factor; if it is used properly, and without engendering relationship conflict between two individuals with competing viewpoints, it can be a healthy addition to a team’s group dynamic, increasing the capabilities of the team by increasing its creative thinking skills and techniques (Robbins & Judge, 2006). This use of task conflict should be encouraged, rather than discouraged, by leadership, as it improves the overall organizational effectiveness.

            Relationship conflict, or personal conflict, is conflict between two individuals based on elements or issues not related to the task at hand. These conflicts may be based in any number of factors, including previous poor relationships, diversity and unexamined attitudes toward it, or different viewpoints about the individual’s relative position within the organization (Robbins & Judge, 2006). Relationship conflict is one of the hardest types of conflict to resolve, because it is not the case that the leader’s assertion of reality concerning the task or goal will be able to override the conflict that exists between the two individuals (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2005). In extreme cases, relationship conflict may even lead to fractionalization of the organization as the two individuals fail to resolve their differences (Grossman, 2006). In this case, the use of politics and reputation may come into play; if the leader can resolve the issues between the two politically, or by using leadership techniques such as affective leadership, which strives to make connections between the two, the issue may be resolved (Davies & Mian, 2006).

            The third type of conflict is process conflict, which is conflict regarding the way in which a task should be completed, including the actual process and allocation of resources for the task (Robbins & Judge, 2006). The use of power in resolving process conflict is high; for example, an individual with expert power may override an individual with legitimate power in this case (Weinstock, 2007). Process conflict is often one of the more productive forms of conflict, particularly when a system is being developed, because it offers a number of views of the meaning and structure of a task that can be examined in order to provide insight into the task (Robey, Farrow, & Franz, 1989). However, even in this case the resolution of process conflict must be done skillfully or it can impact the ability of an organization to function; for example, if one QC technician uses a different process for quality control than another, there will be a significant impact to the overall ability to create consistent quality control within the organization. In this case, the leader must determine the appropriate methods and assist the others in following these methods by using the appropriate power base and leadership technique (Abreu, May, Spangler, & Vargas, 2008)

            In all of these issues, politics plays a role, because politics is the basis on which an organization’s power structure is based. For example, if the political bias of the organization tends to value legitimate power over expert power, the effectiveness of the organization may be reduced because, unless the expert happens to also have legitimate power to make a decision, his or her input may or may not be considered (Abernethy & Vognoni, 2004). One way to resolve this is to implement a matrix organizational structure, in which power flows along two separate axes; legitimate power rests with one group of managerial personnel, while a second power flow, that of expert power, is assigned legitimacy by implementing a technical management structure (Robbins & Judge, 2006). This organizational structure will serve to balance the emphases on legitimate and expert power, and allow for both the procedure of the organization and the technical or other knowledge contained informally within the organization to be used to their fullest potential to resolve conflicts and to keep the organization functional. Ultimately, conflict has both positive and negative potential effects upon an organization, and whether these effects are positive or negative rests largely in the way they are addressed and resolved by the use of leadership and power.

            Emotions are an important part of organizational function, because they are the basis of our ability to relate to each other. The use of emotional intelligence, or the ability to understand and relate to the emotions of others, is the basis of Goleman’s theory of leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2005). This theory of leadership stated that the individual emotions of followers must be understood in order to lead appropriately, and offered significant ways in which these emotions could be understood and how they could be responded to. However, the impact of emotions on the organization goes deeper than the simple impact on leadership style described by Goleman. For example, Callehan (2006) studied an organization’s organizational culture from the aspect of gendered emotion. The author found that women had a different perception of the organizational culture, and were more likely to indicate that it required its participants to remain affectively neutral (Callehan, 2006). This difference is significant in terms of organizational perception by its members, because it indicates that men and women may have a basic difference of the perception of the organization.  The rating on the basic personality test that relates to emotions is that of emotional stability. On this I scored high, indicating a high emotional stability, high enthusiasm and maturity, and openness to experience and creativity. I can use these traits within an organizational context in order to ensure that I am a positive influence on the organization. For example, creativity, enthusiasm and emotional stability will ensure that I can resolve conflicts between others with some degree of success, although I will need to learn the correct techniques to do so.

            Moods also have a significant impact on the organizational context. Hobbs (1965) was one of the first to address the issue of mood in the organizational context. He discussed the recognition of employee moods, particularly in terms of stress and the illnesses caused by it. He identified social and organizational factors that may lead to an increase in stress and negative moods. Goleman (2005) also discussed the use of the mood in the organization; specifically, that the mood of the leader in a group may impact the mood of all the followers in the group as well.  The scores in the personality test that are most relevant to mood are agreeableness and extroversion. I scored as an extrovert and an individual that values harmony over dissent. This indicates that, overall, I will have a positive effect upon the mood of the organization as a whole.

            A third factor in the individual personality that may affect the organization as whole is team learning dynamics. Team learning is particularly important in high-knowledge workplaces, such as research facilities and academic facilities, but it still must take place in other organizations as well in order to allow individuals to learn to work together. There are different types of team learning; for example, one study found that reflective team learning, in which team members discuss the learning experience and critically reflect on it individually, was highly successful within the academic team (Knights, Meyer, & Sampson, 2007). This learning strategy also takes place in the manufacturing world, as described by Kock (2007). Kock identified several requirements for the team learning environment, including the presence of challenging tasks, development of team leadership skills for the individuals within the organization, supportive learning conditions and the creativity and willingness to learn on the part of the individual team members (which may be either naturally occurring or be emphasized and developed as part of the team learning strategy) (Kock, 2007). The personality test elements that apply most closely to the issue of team learning include agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability. Agreeableness determines how likely someone is to follow directions, conscientiousness indicates the degree to which they will follow directions and how much care will go into their work, and emotional stability maintains an element of creativity and ability to solve problems. My scores are relatively low on agreeability, but high on conscientiousness and emotional stability. This indicates that I will be a valuable addition to team learning; however, I may want to learn to be more willing to follow directions in situations in which it is warranted. This will allow me to contribute most fully to the team learning process.

            A fourth factor that is affected by personal learning styles and strategies is that of group dynamics. Group dynamics can be considered to be simply the way in which members of a group relate to each other and the impact this relationship has on the team’s performance and capabilities. Group dynamics may have multiple affects on the organization in question. For example, it has been observed that the group dynamics of a public organization both reflect and contribute to the corruption of the organization (Gokcekus & Godet, 2006). The authors of this study found that collusive or competitive group dynamics (in which individuals either cooperated or competed) made a difference in the outcomes of increasing monitoring and punishment for bribery; groups with collusive models reduced the corrupt activity, while groups with competitive models decreased the level of activity but increased the amount of bribes taken (Gokcekus & Godet, 2006). The effects of changing group dynamics can be seen in Anderson, Anderson and Mayo’s (2008) discussion of the implications of a management team cohesion exercise, in which the group dynamic was changed to include cooperative activities and effective cooperative work (Anderson, Anderson, & Mayo, 2008). This demonstrates the possibilities of the change in group dynamics brought by the introduction of new positive elements to a group situation. All of the personality elements described below are contributors to the group dynamic and have the possibility to change it. For example, emotional stability and maturity can bring stability to an existing group that lacks this stability, while extroversion can help to create connections between individuals and increase the level of emotional insight in the group as a whole. Agreeableness, including good-naturedness and cooperativeness, can bring an element of positive interaction to the team. Conscientiousness will introduce consistency, achievement and focus to the team’s work dynamic, while openness to experience will increase the ability of the team to react to changing situations. All of these elements are essential in determining the outcomes of the group dynamic, and may have the ability to change, or at least influence, whether a group works on a competitive or collusive model.

            The basic personality of an individual has a great effect on the outcome of his or her organization; but it can also determine the “fit” of the individual to the organization (Robbins & Judge, 2006). The individual will only have so much power to change the organization as a whole, particularly if the individual is not a member of upper management, where organizational culture is largely determined. If the differences are too great, or the organization resists the change even on the team level, the individual may not be happy within the organization. For example, I would not be happy within a highly competitive organization because I prefer a cooperative environment; likewise, I would not be satisfied in an organization that did not value creativity and innovation, because these are some of my personal strengths and I like to be able to use them. Ultimately, the fit of the organization and individual is most important, because most individuals will not have significant capability to change the organization enough to make a substantial difference.

Bibliography

Anderson, M., Anderson, D., & Mayo, W. (2008). Team coaching helps a leadership team drive cultural changes at Caterpillar. Global Business and Organizational Excellence , 27 (4), 40-48.

Callehan, J. L. (2006). Gendered emotion management and perceptions of affective culture in a military nonprofit organization. Advancing Women in Leadership , 2 (11).

Gokcekus, O., & Godet, A. (2006). Group dynamics of corruption in public organizations. Journal of Policy Reform , 9 (4), 275-87.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Primal Leadership: Learning to lead with emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hobbs, E. G. (1965). Mood and emotional problems: Effect on the individual and the business organization. Business Quarterly , 30 (3), 57-63.

Knights, S., Meyer, L., & Sampson, J. (2007). Enhanced learning in the academic workplace through reflective team teaching. Journal of Organizational Transformation and Social Change , 4 (3), 237-247.

Kock, H. (2007). the team as a learning strategy: Three cases of team-based production in the Swedish manufacturing industry. Journal of Workplace Learning , 19 (8), 480-490.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2006). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Appendix A Test Results

WHAT’S MY BASIC PERSONALITY?

The five-factor model of personality – often referred to as the Big Five – has an impressive body of research supporting that five basic personality dimensions underlie human behavior. These five dimensions are defined as follows:

 Extraversion. Someone who is sociable, talkative, and assertive. High scores indicate an extravert; low scores indicate an introvert.

Agreeableness. Someone who is good-natured, cooperative, and trusting. This is a measure of your propensity to defer to others. High scores indicate you value harmony; low scores indicate you prefer having your say or way on issues.

Conscientiousness. Someone who is responsible, dependable, persistent, and achievement oriented. High scores indicate that you pursue fewer goals in a purposeful way; low scores indicate that you’re more easily distracted, pursue many goals, and are more hedonistic.

Emotional stability. Someone who is calm, enthusiastic, and secure. High scores indicate positive emotional stability; low scores indicate negative emotional stability. Openness to experience. Someone who is imaginative, artistically sensitive, and intellectual. High scores indicate a wide range of interests and a fascination with novelty and innovation; low scores indicate you’re more conventional and find comfort in the familiar.

Your personality score was calculated as follows (with reverse scoring on those items marked with an asterisk). Scores in each category will range from 3 to 15:

Items 1, 6, and 11*                Extraversion You scored

Items 2*, 7, and 12                Agreeableness           You scored

Items 3, 8, and 13                  Conscientiousness    You scored

Items 4, 9, and 14*                Emotional Stability    You scored

Items 5*, 10*, and 15                        Openness to Experience       You scored

The most impressive evidence relates to the conscientiousness dimension. Studies show that conscientiousness predicts job performance for all occupational groups. The preponderance of evidence indicates that individuals who are dependable, reliable, thorough, organized, able to plan, and persistent tend to have higher job performance in most, if not all, occupations.

The attitude of the individual may influence organizational behavior, particularly in individuals that hold responsibility for creating the corporate culture, such as the top management (Robbins & Judge, 2006). For example, it has been found that a materialistic personal attitude in an employee will have a negative impact on their organizational citizenship behavior (corporate social responsibility initiatives) (Torlak & Koc, 2007). However, it is not only the employee’s own organizational citizenship that may suffer; bad attitudes have been shown to affect the organizational citizenship of other employees as well (Tepper, Hoobler, Duffy, & Ensley, 2004).

One of the biggest determining factors of organizational behavior is values and ethics of the individuals involved in the organization. The values and ethics of the individual are in many ways similar in regard to their effect on the organization. One such impact is in employee attitudes of organizational justice. Organizational justice is the perception that the organization conducts itself in a fair manner, according to the individual. (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002) This perception varies not only on the treatment each individual receives from the organization, but also depending on their individual values and ethics as well as other factors. For example, an individual that expects that the decisions regarding promotions will be made on the basis of seniority due to her own values and ethics may experience a reduced sense of organizational justice if promotions are not performed in this manner. The importance of values and ethics is particularly true at the top levels of the organization, because this is the level at which individual values are directly translated into organizational values, both through the use of formal mechanisms such as corporate codes of ethics and through the use of informal mechanisms such as leadership modeling and corporate culture construction (Doconinck, 2003).

The individual’s personality is also one of the determining factors of organizational participation and organizational citizenship behavior, which affects the organization as a whole. Some of the personality factors that may influence the organizational citizenship behavior include optimism/pessimism, positivity/negativity, work/social, and other orientations that may affect the way in which the organization functions (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997). For example, an individual that engages in persistent negative social behaviors such as gossiping or trying to create conflict will have a negative effect on the organization; this negative effect may far outweigh the individual’s nominal position within the organization. Conversely, the positive attitude on the part of the individual can also have a disproportionately positive effect; this effect can be seen in every organization with a friendly receptionist or a human resources manager who remembers the name of all the employees (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997). Personality effects are one of the least predictable variants in organizational behavior, but may be one of the highest impact.

Cultural differences are likely to have a large effect on organizational behavior. One difference that is likely is what kind of organization the employee expects. For example, employees that tend to expect a high power distance from their manager, as is expected in many Asian cultures, will not respond well to the Western-style hands on management (Pasa, 2000). If this cultural mismatch occurs, it is likely that the individuals will change the outcomes of the organizational behavior rather than the other way around. Cultural differences also influence expectations of things like required benefits and sick leave and the potential that a given employee will be laid off or fired; if the cultural differences within an organization regarding these issues are not addressed, it may affect the behavior of the organization. Of course, the cultural background of the manager may also have the same effect on the organization; if the manager is inflexible in his or her cultural expectations, this will have a negative effect on the organization by reducing the effectiveness of the teams and employee morale, increasing intent to turnover and engaging other negative organizational behaviors (Robbins & Judge, 2006).

The individual attributes described above all have an effect on the organization as a whole, and all have an effect on the organizational behavior of their coworkers and others. However, it should be stated that the largest effects of these factors is likely to be within the top ranks of management, in which corporate culture is determined and goals and priorities are set. If the organization’s leaders do not have a positive attitude, a determined ethics and values statement, and appropriate personal attributes and cultural sensitivities, it is unlikely that the organization as a whole is likely to be successful. In the end, the organizational behavior is based on individual behavior, but it is larger than any single individual – in order for the single individual to have an impact on the organization, he or she must be able to transmit this impact through the organization.

Bibliography

Doconinck, J. (2003). The impact of a corporate code of ethics and organizational justice on sales managers’ ethical judgments and reaction to unethical behavior. Marketing Management Journal , 13 (1), 23-31.

Pasa, S. (2000). Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 21 (8), 414-421.

Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance , 10 (2), 111-130.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2006). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tepper, B. J., Hoobler, J., Duffy, M. K., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationships between coworker’s organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 (3), 455-65.

Torlak, O., & Koc, U. (2007). Materialistic attitude as an antecedent of organizational citizenship behavior. Management Research News , 30 (8), 581-96.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic examination of relations with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics , 38 (3), 193-203.

In the changing workplace, the impact of globalization and diversity on the role of the manager is growing on almost a daily basis. The major task of management has changed from managing primarily homogeneous teams with similar educational, socioethnic and cultural backgrounds to managing heterogeneous teams composed of individuals from all over the world, with both visible diversity within the team and invisible diversity. The essential challenges of managing a heterogeneous team may rely on the manager’s intuition and knowledge of the situation in order to resolve; however, this is also perilous because the reliance on tuition places primary importance on the manager’s own cultural background, which may not be appropriate for all members of his or her team. This paper discusses the impact of globalization and diversity on the role of the manager, as well as the role that intuition has to play on the job of the manager and his or her handling of the issues caused by globalization and diversity.

Diversity brings many challenges to the role of the manager. Diversity can be defined most simply as the differences between people, both visible and not visible (Aghazadeh, 2004). It has long been considered to have significant influence on the performance of the organization, as it provides a number of different viewpoints from which a problem can be solved (Aghazadeh, 2004). However, the management of a diverse team is not without its challenges. One of the biggest challenges is the resolution of nonproductive conflict between diverse team members; often, non-visible differences such as cultural or religious background, sexual orientation, level of education, or other differences may cause nonproductive conflict within the team, which impacts the performance of the team and does not allow for a consistent team performance (Aghazadeh, 2004). In order to reduce this nonproductive conflict, the team leader must learn to create connections between the team. The role of the manager is also vitally important in the success of diversity training programs; without the enthusiastic support of the management, these training programs are not likely to be effective (Avery, McKay, Wilson, & Tonidandel, 2007).

The role of globalization in management is primarily due to its affect on diversity within the management team. The biggest reason for this is because the differences in cultures between global teams offer a significant amount of diversity within the newly structured team, including both visible diversity (racioethnic differences) and non-visible diversity (cultural expectations and other differences)(Prasad & Prasad, 2007). These differences in team members create an atmosphere where considerable conflict may occur, and where other problems as described above may also occur. However, there are also implications for the manager’s relationship to his or her staff members individually. One such example is in the case of a human resources manager of a widely distributed team; this individual will need to take into account the differences in HR requirements, laws and expectations between locales rather than attempting to impose a single standard across all his or her regions of oversight (Friedman, 2007). This may complicate matters greatly, and is one case in which a matrix organization (where the technical leadership of the organization is separate from the HR management) would benefit. Another issue is that of employee expectations for management. There are a number of variables that affect how a given employee will expect his or her management to act; for example, individuals in high power distance, collectivist cultures will expect what is called transactional leadership in the West, where the leader directs the followers to engage in each separate act and the followers obey (Pasa, 2000). However, in cultures with low power distances, this type of management style may seen to be authoritarian or too demanding, and may not gain the results it would in another cultural context.

In some cases, it may seem that the manager should do what his or her intuition tells him. However, this is the wrong assumption. A manager’s intuition is grounded in his or her own cultural background and assumptions, and as such is subject to its own bias that may moderate against the effective management of diverse individuals. (Robbins & Judge, 2006) Rather than relying entirely on individual intuition in order to make decisions when dealing with individuals with a different cultural background or other diverse viewpoints, it is better to use critical reflection in order to consider not only your point of view, but also theirs.

There is no way to completely control for the variables that are introduced into an organization by globalization. Many of these variables will end up impacting the role of the manager, by providing different viewpoints and new ways of thinking and challenging the status quo. In order to remain flexible enough to overcome the difficulties with diversity and globalization within the organization, it is important that the manager does not attempt to manage blindly, or without understanding of his or her diverse employees. Instead, the manager should seek to understand the difficulties that may be caused by diversity in his or her employees and to overcome these difficulties in order to gain access to the many positive aspects of the phenomenon. More robust problem-solving skills and an ability to think outside the box and connect with more people are just a few of the benefits to the well-functioning diverse team, and they are well worth the management effort to allow them to blossom.

Bibliography

Aghazadeh, S.-M. (2004). Managing workforce diversity as an essential resource for improving organizational performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , 53 (5/6), 521-30.

Avery, D. K., McKay, P. F., Wilson, D. C., & Tonidandel, S. (2007). Unequal attendance: The relationships between race, organizational diversity cues, and absenteeism. Personnel Psychology , 60, 875-902.

Buttner, E. H., Lowe, K. B., & Billings-Harris, L. (2006). The influence of organizational diversity orientation and leader atittude on diversity activities. Journal of Managerial issues , XVIII (3), 356-71.

Friedman, B. (2007). Globalization implications for human resource management roles. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal , 19 (3), 157-71.

Martins, L. L., Milliken, F., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Salgado, S. R. (2003). Racioethnic diversity and group members’ experiences: The role of the racioethnic diversity of the organizational context. Group & Organization Management , 28 (1), 76-106.

Pasa, S. (2000). Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 21 (8), 414-421.

Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2007). Fix, flux and flows: The globalization of culture and its implications for management and organizations. Journal of Global Business Issues , 1 (2), 11-20.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2006). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

behaviorDiversityglobalizationintutionmanagementPhD