Note: Link the following statement with individual differences especially personality in dealing with emotional labor. Those who are high in conscientiousness for example view their responsibility in work-related emotional labor and household/personal responsibility in a different light. Explain more. • Hochschild (1983) – Negative consequences of emotional labor involve an interference with worker’s capacity to strike balance between the requirements of the self and the demands of the work role. o Why?
When an individual's personal goals are at stake and are not aligned with the organization goals there can be situation of conflict between individual and organization and the individual may had to fight for his personal goals, creating a conflict situation that will hamper success of the project (Janie Sullivan). Another conflict that according to my experience can happen in the organization is of not having Enough Resources. Resource scarcity, time and material can cause teams to undercut, leading to conflict between departments or other work groups. Valuable resources need to be protected, as well as distributed fairly among all the groups. Starting out a project with a clear picture of the resources available will help waylay some of this conflict.
Anti-oppressive practice focuses on the structural inequalities and places the blame that service users internalize on the structures and systems themselves (Ajandi, 2018). Humanistic and social justice values and ideas shape anti-oppressive practice (Healy, 2015). They address inequalities that affect opportunities of service users, due to the interlocking of social relations and oppression (Burke & Harrison, 2002). AOP aims to identify oppressions and define ways in which social workers can attempt to become anti-oppressive, avoid discomfort, and end oppression to service users (Strega, 2007). It highlights mutual involvement between the social worker and the service user, challenging forms of oppression and inequalities (Burke & Harrison, 2002), and presents the idea that service users do not occupy a “single identity”, but instead have interlocking oppressions that work together to put clients at a social disadvantage (Strega, 2007).
Functionalism views society as broken down parts of society that work together as a whole but the conflict theory sees those broken down parts of society and assesses them while they compete. Both founders of the conflict theory, Max Webster and George Herbert, based their perspective as being humans themselves and not off of society much like the functionalism theory does. Functionalism and symbolic interactionists are positive perspectives while the conflict theory is mostly negative. Although, conflict theory does not always have to be negative. Most people want to understand their role in a society.
Power based negotiations can be a useful tactic in negotiations. Power based negotiations are an adversarial negotiations in which both parties try to exert their power over one another. This tactic is essentially a competitive interaction. Both parties are fighting over resources, and each view the negotiation as a zero-sum game. The parties are both willing to use their power to deceive and take advantage to pursue their personal goals.
However the question arises what moral behaviour actually is. According to economist Zsolnai (1997), moral responsible choices emerge when there is more than one choice and the choice the decision maker takes affects not only him/herself but also other parties for example the producer and the company. So the outcome of the choice is highly affecting others. However to act morally every human being needs moral values. How these values form is highly discussed.
It’s burdensome to think about any expectations beyond our own immediate needs. How are we supposed to consider the necessities of people who are completely different than us? Subsequently, we latch on to whatever power we have and utilize it, in efforts to manipulate those around us. People in power emphasize the negative actions of the weak and impuissant, to increase the distance between
While people might have different definitions that define workplace hostility, it generally means experiencing unfriendliness, aggressiveness, or being confronted or pointed out negatively on your every move in the workplace. In other words, a hostile work environment may be described in different contexts by employees which they deem to be hostile, including: 1. Regarding the superior as the bad boss 2. Rudeness shown by co-workers 3.
The group is more concerned with preserving harmony than with objectively assessing their circumstances, substitutions and preferences. The group, as a whole, tends to take unreasonable actions or overestimate their positions. Groupthink subdues individual thought, and innovation is often a casualty. As a result, organizations often fail to see or respond to developing market trends or adopt emerging technologies. A larger danger of groupthink occurs with companies that are dealing with stressful internal or external conditions or have faced failure in the past, especially as the result of deviating from standard procedure.
It can also be referred to as a feeling of displeasure or misunderstanding between people at workplace which stemmed from uncontrolled workplace exigencies such as unclearly defined roles, assignments or tasks, organizational structure, sharing of resources, role dependency, communication gap, poor remuneration or compensation scheme, job insecurity, differences in managerial styles, organizational change and so on . Flowing from the mainstream of definition of organizational conflict, three distinct views have emerged. These include; traditional view, human relation view and interactionist view. The traditional view considers organizational conflict as a negative occurrence, violence or destruction that has devastating impact on organizational performance and effectiveness. The human relation view perceives organizational conflict as a natural event that may enhance organization performance and effectiveness; if it is effectively managed.