*윤* 스토어

*윤*

개인

팔로워0 팔로우

소개

등록된 소개글이 없습니다.

전문분야 등록된 전문분야가 없습니다.

판매자 정보

학교정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

직장정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

자격증

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

판매지수

판매중 자료수

1개
전체 판매량

0개
최근 3개월 판매량

0개
자료후기 점수

-
자료문의 응답률

-

전체자료 1개

조직행태론 영문 Proposal

Issue – in the business simulation study of Chatman & Barsade (1995), MBA students with collectivistic disposition varied their group behavior depending on the group norms. However, students with individualistic dispositions did not vary their behavior according to the group norms, but uniformly exhibiting individualistic behavior. I would like to explore the adaptability shown by the MBA students in Chatman & Barsade to identify factors that led to the variability shown by the collectivistic students.Research Question – I would like to explore whether the collectivistic individuals acquire the ability to vary their group behavior according to group norms through experience. Chatman & Barsade conducted their simulation on MBA students with 5 to 6 years of work experiences. The collectivistic students in the study might have ‘learned’ to mold their group behavior according to the group norms to better fit in and perform in the group. However, younger and less experienced individuals mignal work settings.At the same time, Caspi, Roberts, and Shiner (2005) remarked that there is robust evidence that early-emerging individual differences in personality shape how individuals experience, interpret, and respond to the developmental tasks they face across the life course. Baltes, Lindenberger, and Staudinger (2006) identified the concept of individual differences in change that refers to the phenomenon that some people fail to conform to the general trends by not changing at all, while others accelerated in their change patterns. Many studies with young adult samples have documented sizable individual deviations from patterns of mean-level change over time (Donnellan, Conger, and Burzette; 2007). Individual differences lead to different developments and changes over time.For this research, I will focus on the individual differences in collectivistic vs. individualistic personalities and how the differences lead to different behavioral adaptations over time. Personality is ale to adjust their group behavior in individualistic in-groups, but behave in collectivistic manners. However, because collectivists shape their behavior primarily on the basis of in-group norms, i.e. adjusting themselves according to the group norms, they will over time ‘learn’ to behave individualistically when they experience individualistic in-groups. Through experience, collectivists will develop the capacity to adjust to individualistic in-groups and behave individualistically. At the same time, because individualists primarily behave on the basis of their individualistic attitudes rather than the norms of their in-groups, they will not develop the capacity to behave in collectivistic manners even when they experience collectivistic in-groups. Therefore, experienced or inexperienced, individualists will uniformly display in individualistic behaviors even when they are in collectivistic in-groups.H1a: First-year (undergraduate) collectivistic individuals will show considerably mortic and collectivistic corporations (divisions), as they will be able to adjust their behavior according to the group norms. However, individualistic job seekers should focus on firms (divisions) with individualistic norms as they will have a harder time adjusting their behavior according to the collectivistic norms. Meanwhile, HR managers from collectivistic companies (divisions) should focus on recruiting collectivistic individuals because the individualistic individuals will have trouble adjusting their behaviors. However, HR managers from companies with individualistic norms could recruit both individualistic and collectivistic individuals, as the latter would be able to adjust their behavior to the individualistic norms.Methods – I will borrow largely from the Looking Glass business simulation mentioned in Chatman & Barsade. However, the subjects will come from two distinct groups: first-year undergraduate students and MBA students. I plan to collect age and the length of professiprofessional experience, gender, and nationality. After the simulation, I would like to compare the cooperativeness ratings of individualists and collectivists in individualistic or collectivistic manipulation settings for separately for the undergraduate and MBA groups (2 x 2 x 2 design). Manipulation checks will also be carried out to make sure that the manipulations had intended effect on the subject’s perception of the team cultures according to the manipulations.ReferencesBaltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (2006). Life Span Theory in Developmental Psychology. Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. 1, Chapter 11.Caspi, A., Robers, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005) Personality Development: Stability and Change. Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 56, 453-484.Chatman J. A. & Barsade S. G. (1995). Personality, Organizational Culture, and Cooperation: Evidence from a Business Simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 40, 423-443.Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Burzesal

경영/경제| 2013.03.21| 4페이지| 1,000원| 조회(91)

영문, 조직행태론, 기말과제

미리보기

닫기