Fluent Essays

Week 3 Written Assignment This week’s journal article focuses on attribution theory and how it influences the implementation of innovation technologies.  Two types of employee attributions are noted in the article (intentionality and deceptive intentionality), please review these concepts and answer the following questions: Provide a high-level overview/ summary of the case study Note how constructive intentionality impacts innovation implementations Find another article that adds to the overall findings of the case and note how attribution-based perspective enhances successful innovation implementations.  Please be explicit and detailed in answering this question. Be sure to use the UC Library for scholarly research. Google Scholar is also a great source for research.  Please be sure that journal articles are peer-reviewed and are published within the last five years.The paper should meet the following requirements: 3-5 pages in length (not including title page or references) APA guidelines must be followed.  The paper must include a cover page, an introduction, a body with fully developed content, and a conclusion. A minimum of five peer-reviewed journal articles. The writing should be clear and concise.  Headings should be used to transition thoughts.  Don’t forget that the grade also includes the quality of writing.ANNALS, AAPSS, 639, January, 2012 49 This article summarizes literatures on power, status, and influence in sociology’s group processes tradition and applies them to issues of diversity in organizations. Power—defined as the ability to impose one’s will even against resistance from others—results primarily from position in a social structure. Influence—defined as compelling behavior change without threat of punish- ment or promise of reward—results largely from the respect and esteem in which one is held by others. Research identifies status as a foundation of influence differences in groups and indicates that members of disadvantaged status groups, such as women and minorities, will have decreased influence and face chal- lenges in acquiring and using power. The literature also suggests solutions to these challenges, including self- presentation strategies of group motivation and institu- tional arrangements that support women and minority group members in powerful leadership positions. Keywords: power; status; influence; leadership; man- agement; diversity Reflecting the changing demographics of American society, organizations in the United States are becoming increasingly diverse places to work. Women, for the first time in his- tory, make up half of the U.S. workforce, up from about 35 percent of the workforce 40 years ago (U.S. Department of Labor 2009). If demographic trends continue, nonwhites will make up half the U.S. workforce by 2050 (Toossi 2006). At the same time, this increasing diver- sity is not extending to high-level management positions. In fact, women and minority group members lost ground overall in representation in Fortune 500 corporate boards between 2004 ANN THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACAD- EMYPOWER, INFLUENCE, AND DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS Jeffrey W. Lucas is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Maryland. He carries out basic exper- imental research on group processes, particularly sta- tus, power, and leadership. Amy R. Baxter is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Maryland. Her current research is experimental work focusing on factors that contribute to the wage and promotion gap between women and men. DOI: 10.1177/0002716211420231 Power, Influence, and Diversity in Organizations By JEFFREY W. LUCAS and AMY R. BAxTER http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177\%2F0002716211420231&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2011-12-15 50 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY and 2010 (Lang et al. 2011). Despite composing only about one-third of the U.S. workforce, white men hold more than 75 percent of board seats and 95 percent of board chair positions in Fortune 500 corporations (Lang et al. 2011). A consequence of inequalities in access to corporate leadership positions is that it is harder for persons in certain social groups to exercise their will in organi- zations. In this way, the experiences of women, persons of color, aInternational Journal of Business Communication 2015, Vol. 52(4) 452 –478 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2329488415598429 jbc.sagepub.com Article Women Doing Leadership: Leadership Styles and Organizational Culture Robyn C. Walker1 and Jolanta Aritz1 Abstract Although women in the United States make up about half of the workforce, only 14.6\% of executive officer positions in the Fortune 500 and 16.9\% of Fortune 500 board of director seats in 2013 were held by women, numbers that have remained flat for the past decade. Decades after the so-called “feminist revolution,” women are still struggling to be seen as leaders within organizations even though many have put in place hiring and recruitment policies to help eliminate this problem. Our study examines this disparity by observing how leadership emerges and is negotiated in discourse among male and female participants in decision-making groups in a masculine organizational culture. First, it identifies whether female participants randomly assigned to mixed- gender groups emerge as leaders. Second, it analyzes the discourse of those competing for leadership positions in mixed groups to identify the effects of leadership style on leader attribution by others. Of the 22 mixed-gender groups (N = 110) that took part in our study, no woman emerged as the unanimously chosen leader, even though women were identified as leaders by transcript coders. This article uses a case study approach to analyze leadership emergence in two mixed groups in which women were recognized by some members as demonstrating leadership. It then looks at a third case that demonstrates how some discourse behaviors that have been recognized as leadership may not be viewed as such in a masculine organizational culture. Study results illustrate how organizational culture can define accepted ways of “doing” leadership and affect who is and who is not recognized as a leader, particularly in terms of gender. Keywords turn-taking, leadership communication, gender and leadership, discourse analysis, interaction analysis 1University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Corresponding Author: Robyn C. Walker, University of Southern California, Marshall School of Business, Trousdale Parkway, ACC 400, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA. Email: [email protected] 598429 JOBXXX10.1177/2329488415598429International Journal of Business CommunicationWalker and Aritz research-article2015 mailto:[email protected] http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177\%2F2329488415598429&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-08-18 Walker and Aritz 453 Although women in the United States make up about half of the workforce, only 14.6\% of executive officer positions in the Fortune 500 companies in 2013 were held by women, a number that has remained flat for the past decade (Soares, Bartkiewicz, & Mulligan-Ferry, 2013). That year, women held only 16.9\% of FoJournal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(2) 142 –151 © Baker College 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051811433358 http://jlos.sagepub.com Power in organizations can be interpreted as the potential influence that one individual exhibits over another (Emer- son, 1962; Pfeffer, 1992; Weber, 1947), and its study has intrigued scholars for decades. Sociological research focused on structural and authority/position-related expla- nations represented early attempts to explain hierarchical power (e.g., Emerson, 1962; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). However, much has remained to be understood about how individuals acquire power in organizations, when such power is not prescribed by hierarchical level or position that is formally designated (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993).With regard to leader–follower relationships, it is typical to think that leaders hold more power over their followers (Mintz- berg, 1983; Weber, 1947) because of the traditional hierar- chy of authority in bureaucratic organizational structures. However, there are certainly cases where the opposite is true (Mechanic, 1962; Pfeffer, 1992, 2010). Differences in power between leaders and followers repre- sent significant issues for leader–follower attitudes, behavior, and work relationships, though little direct empirical research has been conducted to investigate the phenomenon (e.g., Ferris et al., 2009; Ragins & Dutton, 2007). This is rather surprising in light of the recent research attention focused on both the nature of work relationships and on shared leadership, power sharing between leaders and followers, and empowerment (e.g., Graen, 2009; Pearce & Conger, 2003). Power is an important consideration because most researchers implicitly assume that leader–follower relationships are entered into, and maintained, by both parties volitionally (Rousseau & Schalk, 2000), which may not always be an accurate assumption. Furthermore, despite its recognized importance in the organi- zational sciences, power has remained under investigated in leader–follower relationships. Therefore, the major objective of the present study is to examine the effects of power levels perceived by leaders and followers on central aspects of their work relationships (i.e., work relationship quality and job tension). As such, this investigation attempts to make contributions to the leader- ship, social power, and work relationships literatures. Theoretical Foundations and Hypothesis Development A model of power in dyadic relationships is presented in Figure 1, which specifies that leader power affects work 433358 JLOs19210.1177/1548051811433358Martin ez et al.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies © Baker College 2012 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav 1Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA 2Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA 3Florida Department of Children and FPsychological Reports, 2006,99,67 1-674. O Psychological Reports 2006 PRELIMINARY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE SCALE FOCUSED O N ARTIFACTS TOMAS BONAVIA University of Valencia Summary.-In this preliminary study, an Organizational Culture Scale was devel- oped to assess cultural artifacts according t o Scheins typology (1985). It includes a set of cultural artifacts t o measure the extent t o which an organization is more or less traditional. A total of 249 managers from a range of different companies responded to the items. Preliminary analysis yielded a one-dimensional scale with 14 items with high internal consistency and homogeneity. The concept of organizational culture has attracted broad scholarly in- terest and a number of questionnaires have been developed to measure it. For example, Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, and Falkus (2000) reviewed 18 scales published between 1975 and 1992. Interestingly, only three of these focused on measuring patterns of behavior, according to Scheins typology (1985). The others considered a deeper level, that is, values and beliefs. However, none focus on artifacts, which are the first level of Scheins typology. This paper was intended to be an initial inquiry into this gap since, as Rousseau (1990) affirmed, the most visible leveIs of organizational culture can be ap- propriately studied quantitatively. Schein (1985) distinguished three levels of culture: artifacts and crea- tions, values, and basic assumptions. H e treated basic assumptions as the es- sence of culture and values and behaviors as observed manifestations of the cultural essence. As Schein affirmed (1999, p. 15) The easiest level to ob- serve when you go into an organization is that of artifacts: what you see, hear, and feel as you hang around. Therefore, the definition of artifacts includes directly observable elements, e.g., dress codes, physical space, tech- nology, as well as other more subtle components, such as the way status is demonstrated by members, how decisions are made, communications, dis- agreements and conflicts, balance between work and family, etc. The essen- tial difference between values and basic assumptions is that both inform ob- servers of the meaning the artifacts have, understanding why people d o what they do in an organization. For this reason, survey responses can be viewed as cultural artifacts and as reflections of the organizations climate, but they do not say anything about the deeper values or shared assumptions Address correspondence to Professor Tomas Bonavia, Facultad de Psicologia, Departimento de Psicologia Social, Av. Blasco Ibaiiez, 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain or e-mail ([email protected] uv.es). 672 T. BONAVIA that are operating (Schein, 1999, p. 86). However, this does not mean that Schein found no utility in evaluating artifacts. In fact, after defining the busi- ness problem, they are the first necessary step toward deciphering the com- panyPsychological Reports, 1995, 7 6 , 483-492. O Psychological Reports 1995 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE M. M. PETTY AND N. A. BEADLES I1 CHRISTOPHER M. LOWERY University of Akzbama Georgia College DEBORAH F. CHAPMAN DAVID W. CONNELL University of Alabama The Southern Company Summary.-Data on measures of organizational culture and organizational per- formance were collected at two different points in time from a sample of 12 or- ganizations of a firm in the electric utility industry. Pearson correlations indicated measures of organizational culture were signiEicantly related t o objective measures of performance. Teamwork was strongly associated with organizational performance. If measures of organizational culture could be integrated into the reward system, manag- ers might pay more attention to improving organizational culture and thereby improve organizational performance. The concept of organizational culture has been viewed as an important paradigm for organizational analysis by providmg a dynamic and interactive model of organizing Uelmek, Smircich, & Hirsch, 1983; Smircich, 1983). It is important to theorists in providing another way to understand organiza- tions. For practitioners of management, the relationship between culture and performance postulated by organizational analysts makes organizational cul- ture a significant consideration; however, among researchers there is some disagreement as to whether corporate culture actually has any effect upon organizational performance. While some have argued that it exerts a power- ful effect upon firms performance (Barney, 1986; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Denison, 1984; Goll & Sambharya, 1990; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Wiener, 1988), others argue that there is either no such lmk or that the rela- tionship has no measurable effect (Arogyaswamy & Byles, 1987; P. D. Rey- nolds, 1986; Saffold, 1988). The purpose of this paper was to investigate em- pirically the relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance. Defining Culture Organizational culture is not a particularly easy concept to address. Part of the difficulty lies in its definition for the concept is borrowed from the anthropological literature and the researchers who have applied it to organi- zations and a business context have defined culture differently and disagree Address correspondence to Christo her M. Lowery, Department of Management, Georgia College, Campus Box 01 1, ~ i l l e d ~ e v i f e , G A 3 1061. 484 M. M. PETTY, ET AL. somewhat as to the precise nature of the construct. Ln their introduction to the Administrative Science Quarterly special issue on culture, Jehnek, et al. (1983) observed that the concept of culture is not well-developed and that it may be desirable to have a range of approaches rather than one fixed defini- tion. A survey of the literature indicates that there are several def