Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
On a straightforward view, we directly perceive the world as it is. The way that things look, feel, smell, taste, and sound is
the way that they are. We see colours, for example, because the world is coloured. This view of perception is called,
somewhat dismissively, naive realism.
Plausibly, perception is a lot more complicated than this. Though things may appear to be coloured to us, our experiences of
colour are merely representative of the surface properties of objects; the physical property of reflecting certain wavelengths
of light and the colour red as we experience it are two quite different things.
This has led to representative realism, which suggests that perception is not the passive process that the naive realist
suggests, that we do not simply receive information about the world through our senses. Rather, we are actively involved in
perception, supplying much of the content of our experiences, and must bear this in mind if we are to know what the world is
really like in itself.
More extreme than either naive or representative realism is idealism. Idealists, persuaded by the thought that we have direct
access only to our experiences of the world, and not to the world itself, have questioned whether there is anything beyond
our experiences. A more recent theory that bears some similarities to idealism has also been proposed: phenomenalism.
senses which make perception possible. The intellect (Buddhi) receives material from the mind and presents them to the
Purusha or the Atman which is behind the screen. The intellect is like the prime minister; it is closer to the Purusha than the
mind is. As soon as facts are placed by the intellect before the Purusha, there flashes out egoism (Ahamkara). The intellect
receives back the message from the Purusha, decides and determines, and transmits it to the mind for the execution of orders.
The external organs of action carry out the orders of the master.The Antahkarana (inner psychical instrument) is a broad
term which includes the intellect, the ego, the memory, the subconscious and the conscious mind. The one Antahkarana
assumes all these names due to its different functions, just as a person is called a judge when he dispenses justice in a law
court, a president when he presides over a society or an association, a chairman when he superintends over a meeting, and a
storekeeper when he is in charge of goods. If one can clairvoyantly visualise the inner working of this mental factory one
will be dumbfounded. Just as in the telephone exchange of a big city various messages come from diverse houses and firms
to the central station, and the central operator plugs, connects and disconnects the various switches, so does the mind plug,
connect and disconnect sensory messages. When one wants to see an object the mind puts a plug into the other four centres,
viz. hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling. When one wants to hear something the mind plugs similarly the remaining four
centres. The mind works with a speed which is unimaginable.In ordinary persons the mental images are distracted and
undefined. Every thought has an image, a form or a shape. A table is a mental image plus an external something. Whatever
one sees outside has its counterpart in ones mind. The pupil of the eye is a small round construction. The retina is limited in
its structure. How is it that the image of a huge mountain seen through such a small aperture is cast in the mind? How does
this colossal form enter the tiny hole in the eye? The fact is that the image of the mountain already exists in the mind. Here
Swami Sivananda brings out the significant truth that the limited sense-organs are able to cast the image of an extensive
scene on the limited mind working in a body on account of the essentially omnipresent and all-comprehensive character of
the consciousness that is reflected through the mind. All perception suggests the marvellous working of this immanent
consciousness through the instrumentality of the mind, and later through the senses. The real seer and the senser of things is
this consciousness which is at the background of the perceiving subject as its existence and essence. The ultimate knower of
the world is an absolute being whose presence is established by the nature of knowledge itself. In order to know the world
fully, the knower must be independent of the laws governing the world; else, knowledge complete would be impossible. One
whose knowledge is controlled by external phenomena can never have real knowledge of them. The impulse for absolute
knowledge guarantees the possibility of such a knowledge. This shows that the knower is superior to the known to such an
extent that the known loses its value as being, in the light of the absoluteness of the knower (Gita Meditations: p. ix).
Q2 second part
Perceptual distortion is said to occur when the reported perception of a stimulus varies from a "normal response". This is a
function of individual differences, for example in perceptual style and is conceptually different
Q3fi
Content theories are also called needs theories, because they are generally associated with a view that concentrates on the
importance of determining 'what' motivates us. In other words they try to identify what our 'needs' are and relate motivation
to the fulfilling of these needs.
the average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if possible,
because of this most people needed to be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment to get them
to put adequate effort into the achievement of organisational objectives, and
the average person prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has very little ambition and wants security
above all else.
McGregor maintains that the application of this approach, as well as misunderstanding the real needs of employees, creates a
self-fulfilling outcome because it forces people to become like thisthey have no alternative.
McGregor proposed an alternative set of assumptions which he called Theory Y. The assumptions here are virtually the
opposite to Theory X. They are :
The ability to seek and develop innovative problem solving approaches is widely, not narrowly distributed across
the whole population.
In most work organisations the abilities of most employees is only partially utilised.
McGregor advocated that the application of Theory Y, would not only meet the needs of the organisation but also those of
the employee. He believed that Theory X at best only met Maslows Deficiency needs, whilst Theory Y also met the Growth
Needs. You would thus have more motivated employees if you adopted Theory Y.
Process theories explain how workers select behavioral actions to meet their
needs and determine their choices. The following theories each offer advice and
insight on how people actually make choices to work hard or not work hard based on
their individual preferences, the available rewards, and the possible work outcomes.
Equity theory
According to the equity theory, based on the work of J. Stacy Adams, workers compare the reward potential to the effort
they must expend. Equity exists when workers perceive that rewards equal efforts (see Figure 1).But employees just don't
look at their potential rewards, they look at the rewards of others as well. Inequities occur when people feel that their
rewards are inferior to the rewards offered to other persons sharing the same workloads.
Employees who feel they are being treated inequitably may exhibit the following behaviors:
The equity theory makes a good point: People behave according to their perceptions. What a manager thinks is irrelevant to
an employee because the real issue is the way an employee perceives his or her situation. Rewards perceived as equitable
should have positive results on job satisfaction and performance; those rewards perceived as inequitable may create job
dissatisfaction and cause performance problems.
Every manager needs to ensure that any negative consequences from equity comparisons are avoided, or at least minimized,
when rewards are allocated. Informed managers anticipate perceived negative inequities when especially visible rewards,
such as pay increases or promotions, are allocated. Instead of letting equity concerns get out of hand, these managers
carefully communicate the intended values of rewards being given, clarify the performance appraisals upon which these
rewards are based, and suggest appropriate comparison points.
Expectancy theory
Victor Vroom introduced one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation. Very simply, the expectancy
theory says that an employee will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when he or she believes that:
1. Effort will lead to a good performance appraisal.
2. A good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards.
3. The organizational rewards will satisfy his or her personal goals.
The key to the expectancy theory is an understanding of an individual's goals and the relationships between effort and
performance, between performance and rewards, and finally, between the rewards and individual goal satisfaction. When an
employee has a high level of expectancy and the reward is attractive, motivation is usually high.
Therefore, to motivate workers, managers must strengthen workers' perceptions of their efforts as both possible and
worthwhile, clarify expectations of performances, tie rewards to performances, and make sure that rewards are desirable.
Reinforcement theory
The reinforcement theory, based on E. L. Thorndike's law of effect, simply looks at the relationship between behavior and its
consequences. This theory focuses on modifying an employee's onthejob behavior through the appropriate use of one of the
following four techniques:
Positive reinforcement rewards desirable behavior. Positive reinforcement, such as a pay raise or promotion, is
provided as a reward for positive behavior with the intention of increasing the probability that the desired behavior
will be repeated.
Avoidance is an attempt to show an employee what the consequences of improper behavior will be. If an employee
does not engage in improper behavior, he or she will not experience the consequence.
Extinction is basically ignoring the behavior of a subordinate and not providing either positive or negative
reinforcement. Classroom teachers often use this technique when they ignore students who are acting out to get
attention. This technique should only be used when the supervisor perceives the behavior as temporary, not typical,
and not serious.
Punishment (threats, docking pay, suspension) is an attempt to decrease the likelihood of a behavior recurring by
applying negative consequences.
If the goalsetting theory is followed, managers need to work with their employees in determining goal objectives in order to
provide targets for motivation. In addition, the goals that are established should be specific rather than general in nature, and
managers must provide feedback on performance.
It is normal to experience resistance whenever there is change. Understanding that there will be resistance to change will
help you anticipate resistance, identify its sources and reasons, and modify your efforts to manage the issues of change to
ensure the success of your change efforts.
Resistance is actually healthy. Try not to react against it defensively. It is good for you because it makes you check your
assumptions and it forces you to clarify what you are doing. You must always probe the objections to find the real reason for
resistance. Many times, it comes down to personal fear.
As the leader, you must take the time to understand resistance and you may have to come at it from several different angles
before it is conquered. You must understand what your employees are feeling, as well as thinking.
Ways to reduce resistance to change:
1.
Involve interested parties in the planning of change by asking them for suggestions and incorporating their ideas.
2.
3.
Clearly define the need for the change by communicating the strategic decision personally and in written form.
Address the "people needs" of those involved. Disrupt only what needs to be changed. Help people retain
friendships, comfortable settings and group norms wherever possible.
4.
Design flexibility into change by phasing it in wherever possible. This will allow people to complete current
efforts and assimilate new behaviours along the way. Allow employees to redefine their roles during the course of
implementing change.
5.
6.
Do not leave openings for people to return to the status quo. If you and your organization are not ready to commit
yourselves to the change, don't announce the strategy.
7.
Focus continually on the positive aspects of the change. Be specific where you can.
8.
Deliver training programs that develop basic skills as opposed to processes such as: conducting meetings,
communication, teambuilding, self-esteem, and coaching.
Group conflict, or hostilities between different groups, is a feature common to all forms of social organization (e.g., sports
teams, ethnic groups, nations, religions, gangs).[1] Although group conflict is one of the most complex phenomena studied by
social scientists, the history of the human race evidences a series of group-level conflicts that have gained notoriety over the
years. For example, from 1820 to 1945, it has been estimated that at least 59 million persons were killed during conflicts
between groups of one type or another.[2] Literature suggests that the number of fatalities nearly doubled between the years
1914 to 1964 as a result of further group conflict.[3]
Group conflict can be separated into two sub-categories of conflict: inter-group conflict (in which distinct groups of
individuals are at odds with one another), and intra-group conflict (in which select individuals a part of the same group clash
with one another). Although both forms of conflict have the ability to spiral upward in severity, it has been noted that
conflict present at the group level (i.e., inter-group rivalries) is generally considered to be more powerful than conflict
present at an individual level a phenomenon known as the discontinuity effect.[4]
For example, in some restaurants, all tips are shared equally by all waiters and waitresses. Some particular waitress who may
be overly polite and efficient may feel that she deserves more, thus causing conflict between her and the group. Similarly, if
a group is going on strike for some reasons, some members of the group may not agree with these reasons or simply may not
be economically able to afford to go on strike, thus causing conflict with the group.
This conflict may also be between the manager and a group of subordinates or between the leader and the followers. A
manager may take a disciplinary action against a member of the group causing conflict with the group and this may result in
reduced productivity.
Mutiny on the Bounty is a classic example of rebellion of the crew of the ship against their leader, based upon the
treatment that the crew received at the hands of their leader. The conflict among the armed forces is taken so seriously that
the army must obey their commander even if the command is wrong and in conflict with what others believe in.
4. Intergroup conflict:
An organization is an interlocking network of groups, departments, sections or work teams. The intergroup conflicts are not
so much personal in nature as they are due to factors inherent in the organizational structure. For example, there is active and
continuous conflict between the union and the management.
One of the most common conflict is between the line and the staff members of the organization. The line managers may
resent their dependence on staff for information and recommendations. The staff may resent their inability to implement
directly their own decisions and recommendations. This interdependence causes intergroup conflict.
These inter-unit conflicts can also be caused by inconsistent rewards and differing performance criteria for different units
and groups. For example, sales people who depend upon their commission as a reward for their efforts may promise their
customers certain quantity of the product and delivery times which the production department may find impossible to meet
thus causing conflict between the two units.
Different functional groups within the organization may come into conflict with each other because of their different specific
objectives. There are some fundamental differences among different units of the organization both in the structure as well as
operations and processes and thus each unit develops its own organizational sub-structure. These sub-structures according to
Lawrence and Lorsch, differ in terms of (a) goal orientation which can be highly specific for production but highly fluid for
research and development, (b) time orientation which is short run for sales and long run for research, (c) formality of
structure which is highly informal for research and highly formal in production and (d) supervisory style which may be more
democratic in one area as compared to another area.
A classic example of inter-unit conflict is between sales and production as described earlier. The sales department is
typically customer-oriented and wants to maintain high inventories for filling orders as they are received which is a costly
option as against the production department which is strongly concerned about cost effectiveness requiring as little inventory
of finished product at hand as possible.
Similarly, intergroup conflict may arise between day shift workers and night shift workers who might blame each other for
anything that goes wrong from missing tools to maintenance problems.
5. Inter-organizational conflict:
Conflict also occurs between organizations which are dependent upon each other in some way. This conflict may be between
buyer organizations and supplier organizations about quantity, quality and delivery times of raw materials and other policy
issues.
Such conflict could also be between unions and organizations employing their members, between government agencies that
regulate certain organizations and the organizations that are affected by them.
Forcing
Also known as competing. An individual firmly pursues his or her own concerns despite the resistance of the other person.
This may involve pushing one viewpoint at the expense of another or maintaining firm resistance to another persons actions.
Examples of when forcing may be appropriate
In certain situations when all other, less forceful methods, dont work or are ineffective
When you need to stand up for your own rights, resist aggression and pressure
When a quick resolution is required and using force is justified (e.g. in a life-threatening situation, to stop an
aggression)
As a last resort to resolve a long-lasting conflict
May negatively affect your relationship with the opponent in the long run
May cause the opponent to react in the same way, even if the opponent did not intend to be forceful originally
Cannot take advantage of the strong sides of the other sides position
Taking this approach may require a lot of energy and be exhausting to some individuals
Win-Win (Collaborating)
Also known as problem confronting or problem solving. Collaboration involves an attempt to work with the other person to
find a win-win solution to the problem in hand - the one that most satisfies the concerns of both parties. The win-win
approach sees conflict resolution as an opportunity to come to a mutually beneficial result. It includes identifying the
underlying concerns of the opponents and finding an alternative which meets each party's concerns.
Examples of when collaborating may be appropriate:
Requires a commitment from all parties to look for a mutually acceptable solution
May require more effort and more time than some other methods. A win-win solution may not be evident
For the same reason, collaborating may not be practical when timing is crucial and a quick solution or fast
response is required
Once one or more parties lose their trust in an opponent, the relationship falls back to other methods of conflict
resolution. Therefore, all involved parties must continue collaborative efforts to maintain a collaborative
relationship
Compromising
Compromising looks for an expedient and mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties.
Examples of when compromise may be appropriate:
When the goals are moderately important and not worth the use of more assertive or more involving approaches,
such as forcing or collaborating
To reach temporary settlement on complex issues
To reach expedient solutions on important issues
As a first step when the involved parties do not know each other well or havent yet developed a high level of
mutual trust
When collaboration or forcing do not work
Faster issue resolution. Compromising may be more practical when time is a factor
Can provide a temporary solution while still looking for a win-win solution
Lowers the levels of tension and stress resulting from the conflict
May result in a situation when both parties are not satisfied with the outcome (a lose-lose situation)
Does not contribute to building trust in the long run
May require close monitoring and control to ensure the agreements are met
Withdrawing
Also known as avoiding. This is when a person does not pursue her/his own concerns or those of the opponent. He/she does
not address the conflict, sidesteps, postpones or simply withdraws.
Examples of when withdrawing may be appropriate:
When the opponent is forcing / attempts aggression, you may choose to withdraw and postpone your response until
you are in a more favourable circumstance for you to push back
Withdrawing is a low stress approach when the conflict is short
Gives the ability/time to focus on more important or more urgent issues instead
Gives you time to better prepare and collect information before you act
May lead to weakening or losing your position; not acting may be interpreted as an agreement. Using withdrawing
strategies without negatively affecting your own position requires certain skill and experience
When multiple parties are involved, withdrawing may negatively affect your relationship with a party that expects
your action
Smoothing
Also known as accommodating. Smoothing is accommodating the concerns of other people first of all, rather than one's own
concerns.
Examples of when smoothing may be appropriate:
When it is important to provide a temporary relief from the conflict or buy time until you are in a better position to
respond/push back
When the issue is not as important to you as it is to the other person
When you accept that you are wrong
When you have no choice or when continued competition would be detrimental
In some cases smoothing will help to protect more important interests while giving up on some less important ones
Gives an opportunity to reassess the situation from a different angle
There is a risk to be abused, i.e. the opponent may constantly try to take advantage of your tendency toward
smoothing/accommodating. Therefore it is important to keep the right balance and this requires some skill.
May negatively affect your confidence in your ability to respond to an aggressive opponent
It makes it more difficult to transition to a win-win solution in the future
Some of your supporters may not like your smoothing response and be turned off