%!$ Easy Diy Woodworking Bench Plans For You #!@

modern-woodworking-textbook-answers-chapter-2 Why think of yourself as fat or thin? In other words, different job applicants will find different cultures to be attractive. These points represented a common-pool resource for the group, like valuable goods or services in society such as doodworking land, ground water, and air quality that are freely accessible to everyone but prone to modern woodworking textbook answers chapter 2 and degradation. Here, we look at some of the more commonly modern woodworking textbook answers chapter 2 power tactics found in both business and public organizations Pfeffer, that also have relevance for groups. Its contents are brief, easy to read, and very difficult to misinterpret or evade. In contrast to a topic such as leadership, which has a history spanning several centuries, organizational culture is a young but fast-growing area within organizational behavior.

Legitimate power exists when person B submits to person A because B feels that A has a right to exert power in a certain domain Tjosvold, Legitimate power is really another name for authority.

A supervisor has a right, for instance, to assign work. Legitimate power differs from reward and coercive power in that it depends on the official position a person holds, and not on his or her relationship with others. Reward power exists when person A has power over person B because A controls rewards that B wants.

These rewards can cover a wide array of possibilities, including pay raises, promotions, desirable job assignments, more responsibility, new equipment, and so forth. Research has indicated that reward power often leads to increased job performance as employees see a strong performance-reward contingency Shetty, However, in many organizations, supervisors and managers really do not control very many rewards.

For example, salary and promotion among most blue-collar workers is based on a labor contract, not a performance appraisal. Coercive power is based primarily on fear. Here, person A has power over person B because A can administer some form of punishment to B. Thus, this kind of power is also referred to as punishment power. As Kipnis points out, coercive power does not have to rest on the threat of violence.

These bases provide the individual with the means to physically harm, bully, humiliate, or deny love to others. Indeed, it has been suggested that a good deal of organizational behavior such as prompt attendance, looking busy, avoiding whistle-blowing can be attributed to coercive, not reward, power.

We have seen, then, that at least five bases of power can be identified. In each case, the power of the individual rests on a particular attribute of the power holder, the follower, or their relationship. In some cases e. In all cases, the exercise of power involves subtle and sometimes threatening interpersonal consequences for the parties involved.

In fact, when power is exercised, individuals have several ways in which to respond. These are shown in Figure 1. If the subordinate accepts and identifies with the leader, their behavioral response will probably be one of commitment. That is, the subordinate will be motivated to follow the wishes of the leader. This is most likely to happen when the person in charge uses referent or expert power. A second possible response is compliance. This occurs most frequently when the subordinate feels the leader has either legitimate power or reward power.

Under such circumstances, the follower will comply, either because it is perceived as a duty or because a reward is expected; but commitment or enthusiasm for the project is lacking. Finally, under conditions of coercive power, subordinates will more than likely use resistance. In any situation involving power, at least two persons or groups can be identified: 1 the person attempting to influence others and 2 the target or targets of that influence.

Until recently, attention focused almost exclusively on how people tried to influence others. More recently attention been given to how people try to nullify or moderate such influence attempts.

In particular, we now recognize that the extent to which influence attempts are successful is determined in large part by the power dependencies of those on the receiving end of the influence attempts. In other words, all people are not subject to or dependent upon the same bases of power.

What causes some people to be vulnerable to power attempts? For example, if the outcomes that A can influence are important to B , then B is more likely to be open to influence than if the outcomes were unimportant.

In other words, such complaints may really be saying that young people are more difficult to influence than they used to be. In addition, the nature of the relationship between A and B can be a factor in power dependence. Are A and B peers or superior and subordinate?

Is the job permanent or temporary? Moreover, if A and B are peers or good friends, the influence process is likely to be more delicate than if they are superior and subordinate. Finally, a third factor to consider in power dependencies is counterpower. The use of counterpower can be clearly seen in a variety of situations where various coalitions attempt to bargain with one another and check the power of their opponents. Figure 2 presents a rudimentary model that combines the concepts of bases of power with the notion of power dependencies.

If A has more modest power over B, but B is still largely power dependent, B may try to bargain with A. For instance, if your boss asked you to work overtime, you might attempt to strike a deal whereby you would get compensatory time off at a later date. If successful, although you would not have decreased your working hours, at least you would not have increased them.

Where power distribution is more evenly divided, B may attempt to develop a cooperative working relationship with A in which both parties gain from the exchange.

An example of this position is a labor contract negotiation where labor-management relations are characterized by a balance of power and a good working relationship. B may even become the aggressor and attempt to influence A. In doing so, B will discover either that A does indeed have more power or that A cannot muster the power to be successful. These companies simply ignored governmental efforts until new regulations forced compliance.

As we look at our groups and teams as well as our organizations, it is easy to see manifestations of power almost anywhere. In fact, there are a wide variety of power-based methods used to influence others.

Here, we will examine two aspects of the use of power: commonly used power tactics and the ethical use of power. As noted above, many power tactics are available for use. However, as we will see, some are more ethical than others. Here, we look at some of the more commonly used power tactics found in both business and public organizations Pfeffer, that also have relevance for groups. Most decisions rest on the availability of relevant information, so persons controlling access to information play a major role in decisions made.

A good example of this is the common corporate practice of pay secrecy. Only the personnel department and senior managers typically have salary information—and power—for personnel decisions. Another related power tactic is the practice of controlling access to persons. His two senior advisers had complete control over who saw the president. Similar criticisms were leveled against President Reagan. Very few questions have one correct answer; instead, decisions must be made concerning the most appropriate criteria for evaluating results.

As such, significant power can be exercised by those who can practice selective use of objective criteria that will lead to a decision favorable to themselves.

Attempts to control objective decision criteria can be seen in faculty debates in a university or college over who gets hired or promoted. One group tends to emphasize teaching and will attempt to set criteria for employment dealing with teacher competence, subject area, interpersonal relations, and so on.

Another group may emphasize research and will try to set criteria related to number of publications, reputation in the field, and so on. One of the simplest ways to influence a decision is to ensure that it never comes up for consideration in the first place. There are a variety of strategies used for controlling the agenda.

Efforts may be made to order the topics at a meeting in such a way that the undesired topic is last on the list. Failing this, opponents may raise a number of objections or points of information concerning the topic that cannot be easily answered, thereby tabling the topic until another day.

Still another means to gain an advantage is using outside experts. The unit wishing to exercise power may take the initiative and bring in experts from the field or experts known to be in sympathy with their cause. Hence, when a dispute arises over spending more money on research versus actual production, we would expect differing answers from outside research consultants and outside production consultants. Most consultants have experienced situations in which their clients fed them information and biases they hoped the consultant would repeat in a meeting.

In some situations, the organizations own policies and procedures provide ammunition for power plays, or bureaucratic gamesmanship. In this way, the group lets it be known that the workflow will continue to slow down until they get their way. The final power tactic to be discussed here is that of coalitions and alliances. One unit can effectively increase its power by forming an alliance with other groups that share similar interests.

This technique is often used when multiple labor unions in the same corporation join forces to gain contract concessions for their workers. It can also be seen in the tendency of corporations within one industry to form trade associations to lobby for their position. Although the various members of a coalition need not agree on everything—indeed, they may be competitors—sufficient agreement on the problem under consideration is necessary as a basis for action.

Several guidelines for the ethical use of power can be identified. These can be arranged according to our previous discussion of the five bases of power, as shown in Table 1. As will be noted, several techniques are available that accomplish their aims without compromising ethical standards. For example, a person using reward power can verify compliance with work directives, ensure that all requests are both feasible and reasonable, make only ethical or proper requests, offer rewards that are valued, and ensure that all rewards for good performance are credible and reasonably attainable.

Even coercive power can be used without jeopardizing personal integrity. For example, a manager can make sure that all employees know the rules and penalties for rule infractions, provide warnings before punishing, administer punishments fairly and uniformly, and so forth. The point here is that people have at their disposal numerous tactics that they can employ without abusing their power.

This remix comes from Dr. Jasmine Linabary at Emporia State University. Hawn and Scott T. Organizational behavior. Access the full chapter for free here. The content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4. Oppresion and power. Jason, O. Glantsman, J. Ramian Eds. The content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.

Ancient animal remains found near early human settlements suggest that our ancestors hunted in cooperative groups Mithen, Cooperation, it seems, is embedded in our evolutionary heritage. Even with issues that can only be solved through large-scale cooperation, such as climate change and world hunger, people can have difficulties joining forces with others to take collective action.

Psychologists have identified numerous individual and situational factors that influence the effectiveness of cooperation across many areas of life. This module will explore these individual, situational, and cultural influences on cooperation. Imagine that you are a participant in a social experiment. As you sit down, you are told that you will be playing a game with another person in a separate room. The other participant is also part of the experiment but the two of you will never meet. In the experiment, there is the possibility that you will be awarded some money.

The choice you make, along with that of the other participant, will result in one of three unique outcomes to this task, illustrated below in Figure 1. Remember, you and your partner cannot discuss your strategy. Which would you choose? Striking out on your own promises big rewards but you could also lose everything. Cooperating, on the other hand, offers the best benefit for the most people but requires a high level of trust. It gets its name from the situation in which two prisoners who have committed a crime are given the opportunity to either A both confess their crime and get a moderate sentence , B rat out their accomplice and get a lesser sentence , or C both remain silent and avoid punishment altogether.

This divide between personal and collective interests is a key obstacle that prevents people from cooperating. Think back to our earlier definition of cooperation : cooperation is when multiple partners work together toward a common goal that will benefit everyone.

At venues with seating, many audience members will choose to stand, hoping to get a better view of the musicians onstage. As a result, the people sitting directly behind those now-standing people are also forced to stand to see the action onstage. This creates a chain reaction in which the entire audience now has to stand, just to see over the heads of the crowd in front of them. That is, if people were only interested in benefiting themselves, we would always expect to see selfish behavior.

Given the clear benefits to defect, why then do some people choose to cooperate, whereas others choose to defect? One key factor related to individual differences in cooperation is the extent to which people value not only their own outcomes, but also the outcomes of others.

A person might, for example, generally be competitive with others, or cooperative, or self-sacrificing. People with different social values differ in the importance they place on their own positive outcomes relative to the outcomes of others. For example, you might give your friend gas money because she drives you to school, even though that means you will have less spending money for the weekend. In this example, you are demonstrating a cooperative orientation. People generally fall into one of three categories of SVO: cooperative, individualistic, or competitive.

While most people want to bring about positive outcomes for all cooperative orientation , certain types of people are less concerned about the outcomes of others individualistic , or even seek to undermine others in order to get ahead competitive orientation.

Are you curious about your own orientation? People with competitive SVOs, who try to maximize their relative advantage over others, are most likely to pick option A. People with cooperative SVOs, who try to maximize joint gain for both themselves and others, are more likely to split the resource evenly, picking option B.

People with individualistic SVOs, who always maximize gains to the self, regardless of how it affects others, will most likely pick option C. For example, in one laboratory experiment, groups of participants were asked to play a commons dilemma game. In this game, participants each took turns drawing from a central collection of points to be exchanged for real money at the end of the experiment.

These points represented a common-pool resource for the group, like valuable goods or services in society such as farm land, ground water, and air quality that are freely accessible to everyone but prone to overuse and degradation. Participants were told that, while the common-pool resource would gradually replenish after the end of every turn, taking too much of the resource too quickly would eventually deplete it. Taken together, these findings show that people with cooperative SVOs act with greater consideration for the overall well-being of others and the group as a whole, using resources in moderation and taking more effortful measures like using public transportation to protect the environment to benefit the group.

Research has shown that when people empathize with their partner, they act with greater cooperation and overall altruism —the desire to help the partner, even at a potential cost to the self.

When empathizing with a person in distress, the natural desire to help is often expressed as a desire to cooperate. In one study, just before playing an economic game with a partner in another room, participants were given a note revealing that their partner had just gone through a rough breakup and needed some cheering up. From a very early age, emotional understanding can foster cooperation. Although empathizing with a partner can lead to more cooperation between two people, it can also undercut cooperation within larger groups.

In groups, empathizing with a single person can lead people to abandon broader cooperation in favor of helping only the target individual. In one study, participants were asked to play a cooperative game with three partners. In the game, participants were asked to A donate resources to a central pool, B donate resources to a specific group member, or C keep the resources for themselves.

Objectively, this might seem to be the best option. However, when participants were encouraged to imagine the feelings of one of their partners said to be in distress, they were more likely to donate their tickets to that partner and not engage in cooperation with the group—rather than remaining detached and objective Batson et al.

This is because communication provides an opportunity to size up the trustworthiness of others. It also affords us a chance to prove our own trustworthiness, by verbally committing to cooperate with others. Since cooperation requires people to enter a state of vulnerability and trust with partners, we are very sensitive to the social cues and interactions of potential partners before deciding to cooperate with them. During the chats, the players were allowed to discuss game strategies and make verbal commitments about their in-game actions.

While some groups were able to reach a consensus on a strategy e. The researchers found that when group members made explicit commitments to each other to cooperate, they ended up honoring those commitments and acting with greater cooperation.

This suggests that those who explicitly commit to cooperate are driven not by the fear of external punishment by group members, but by their own personal desire to honor such commitments. Working with others toward a common goal requires a level of faith that our partners will repay our hard work and generosity, and not take advantage of us for their own selfish gains. Trusting others, however, depends on their actions and reputation.

One common example of the difficulties in trusting others that you might recognize from being a student occurs when you are assigned a group project. Imagine, for example, that you and five other students are assigned to work together on a difficult class project. At first, you and your group members split the work up evenly.

After a while, you might begin to suspect that this student is trying to get by with minimal effort, perhaps assuming others will pick up the slack. Indeed, research has shown that a poor reputation for cooperation can serve as a warning sign for others not to cooperate with the person in disrepute.

For example, in one experiment involving a group economic game, participants seen as being uncooperative were punished harshly by their fellow participants. If donors chose to give up a small sum of actual money, receivers would receive a slightly larger sum, resulting in an overall net gain.

However, unbeknownst to the group, one participant was secretly instructed never to donate. On the other hand, people are more likely to cooperate with others who have a good reputation for cooperation and are therefore deemed trustworthy. In one study, people played a group economic game similar to the one described above: over multiple rounds, they took turns choosing whether to donate to other group members.

In other words, individuals seen cooperating with others were afforded a reputational advantage, earning them more partners willing to cooperate and a larger overall monetary reward. People can identify with groups of all shapes and sizes: a group might be relatively small, such as a local high school class, or very large, such as a national citizenship or a political party.

When members of a group place a high value on their group membership, their identity the way they view themselves can be shaped in part by the goals and values of that group. Emphasizing group identity is not without its costs: although it can increase cooperation within groups, it can also undermine cooperation between groups. Outgroups do not have to be explicit rivals for this effect to take place.

Though a strong group identity can bind individuals within the group together, it can also drive divisions between different groups, reducing overall trust and cooperation on a larger scope.

Under the right circumstances, however, even rival groups can be turned into cooperative partners in the presence of superordinate goals. The twenty-two boys in the study were all carefully interviewed to determine that none of them knew each other beforehand. For the next phase of the experiment, the researchers revealed the existence of each group to the other, leading to reactions of anger, territorialism, and verbal abuse between the two. Eventually, the two groups refused to eat together in the same dining hall, and they had to be physically separated to avoid further conflict.

However, in the final phase of the experiment, Sherif and colleagues introduced a dilemma to both groups that could only be solved through mutual cooperation. As both groups gathered around the water supply, attempting to find a solution, members from each group offered suggestions and worked together to fix the problem. Since the lack of drinking water affected both groups equally, both were highly motivated to try and resolve the issue.

Finally, after 45 minutes, the two groups managed to clear a stuck pipe, allowing fresh water to flow. The researchers concluded that when conflicting groups share a superordinate goal, they are capable of shifting their attitudes and bridging group differences to become cooperative partners.

The insights from this study have important implications for group-level cooperation. Since many problems facing the world today, such as climate change and nuclear proliferation, affect individuals of all nations, and are best dealt with through the coordinated efforts of different groups and countries, emphasizing the shared nature of these dilemmas may enable otherwise competing groups to engage in cooperative and collective action. To answer this question, Joseph Henrich and his colleagues surveyed people from 15 small-scale societies around the world, located in places such as Zimbabwe, Bolivia, and Indonesia.

These groups varied widely in the ways they traditionally interacted with their environments: some practiced small-scale agriculture, others foraged for food, and still others were nomadic herders of animals Henrich et al. If Player B accepts the offer, both players keep their agreed-upon amounts. However, if Player B rejects the offer, then neither player receives anything. According to a model of rational economics, a self-interested Player B should always choose to accept any offer, no matter how small or unfair.

This number is almost identical to the amount that people of Western cultures donate when playing the ultimatum game Oosterbeek et al. Henrich and colleagues also observed significant variation between cultures in terms of their level of cooperation.

Specifically, the researchers found that the extent to which individuals in a culture needed to collaborate with each other to gather resources to survive predicted how likely they were to be cooperative. The interdependence of people for survival, therefore, seems to be a key component of why people decide to cooperate with others. Though the various survival strategies of small-scale societies might seem quite remote from your own experiences, take a moment to think about how your life is dependent on collaboration with others.

Very few of us in industrialized societies live in houses we build ourselves, wear clothes we make ourselves, or eat food we grow ourselves. Instead, we depend on others to provide specialized resources and products, such as food, clothing, and shelter that are essential to our survival.

While living in an industrialized society might not require us to hunt in groups like the Lamelara do, we still depend on others to supply the resources we need to survive. Cooperation is an important part of our everyday lives. Practically every feature of modern social life, from the taxes we pay to the street signs we follow, involves multiple parties working together toward shared goals. There are many factors that help determine whether people will successfully cooperate, from their culture of origin and the trust they place in their partners, to the degree to which they empathize with others.

Although cooperation can sometimes be difficult to achieve, certain diplomatic practices, such as emphasizing shared goals and engaging in open communication, can promote teamwork and even break down rivalries. Though choosing not to cooperate can sometimes achieve a larger reward for an individual in the short term, cooperation is often necessary to ensure that the group as a whole——including all members of that group—achieves the optimal outcome.

Jake P. His research focuses on the nature of prosocial behavior, and how factors such as identity, ideology, and morality impact human prosocial tendencies. Paul K. Piff, Ph. Piff's research examines the origins of human kindness and cooperation, and the social consequences of economic inequality.

We are more easily persuaded, in general, by the reasons that we ourselves discovers than by those which are given to us by others. No doubt there has been a time when you wanted something from your parents, your supervisor, or your friends, and you thought about how you were going to present your request.

But do you think about how often people—including people you have never met and never will meet—want something from you? When you watch television, advertisements reach out for your attention, whether you watch them or not.

When you use the Internet, pop-up advertisements often appear. Living in the United States, and many parts of the world, means that you have been surrounded, even inundated, by persuasive messages.

Mass media in general and television in particular make a significant impact you will certainly recognize. Mass communication contains persuasive messages, often called propaganda, in narrative form, in stories and even in presidential speeches.

Your local city council often involves dialogue, and persuasive speeches, to determine zoning issues, resource allocation, and even spending priorities.

You yourself have learned many of the techniques by trial and error and through imitation. Persuasion is an act or process of presenting arguments to move, motivate, or change your audience. Aristotle taught that rhetoric, or the art of public speaking, involves the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion Covino, W. In the case of President Obama, he may have appealed to your sense of duty and national values.

In persuading your parents to lend you the car keys, you may have asked one parent instead of the other, calculating the probable response of each parent and electing to approach the one who was more likely to adopt your position and give you the keys. Persuasion can be implicit or explicit and can have both positive and negative effects. Motivation is distinct from persuasion in that it involves the force, stimulus, or influence to bring about change.

Persuasion is the process, and motivation is the compelling stimulus that encourages your audience to change their beliefs or behavior, to adopt your position, or to consider your arguments.

Why think of yourself as fat or thin? Why should you choose to spay or neuter your pet? Messages about what is beautiful, or what is the right thing to do in terms of your pet, involve persuasion, and the motivation compels you to do something. Another way to relate to motivation also can be drawn from the mass media. Perhaps you have watched programs like Law and Order , Cold Case , or CSI where the police detectives have many of the facts of the case, but they search for motive. You may have heard a speech where the speaker tried to persuade you, tried to motivate you to change, and you resisted the message.

Use this perspective to your advantage and consider why an audience should be motivated, and you may find the most compelling examples or points. You may think initially that many people in your audience would naturally support your position in favor of spaying or neutering your pet. After careful consideration and audience analysis, however, you may find that people are more divergent in their views. Some audience members may already agree with your view, but others may be hostile to the idea for various reasons.

Some people may be neutral on the topic and look to you to consider the salient arguments. Your audience will have a range of opinions, attitudes, and beliefs across a range from hostile to agreement. Rather than view this speech as a means to get everyone to agree with you, look at the concept of measurable gain , a system of assessing the extent to which audience members respond to a persuasive message.

You may reinforce existing beliefs in the members of the audience that agree with you and do a fine job of persuasion. You may also get hostile members of the audience to consider one of your arguments, and move from a hostile position to one that is more neutral or ambivalent.

The goal in each case is to move the audience members toward your position. Some change may be small but measurable, and that is considered gain.

The next time a hostile audience member considers the issue, they may be more open to it. Figure Edward Hall also underlines this point when discussing the importance of context.

The situation in which a conversation occurs provides a lot of meaning and understanding for the participants in some cultures. In Japan, for example, the context, such as a business setting, says a great deal about the conversation and the meaning to the words and expressions within that context. In the United States, however, the concept of a workplace or a business meeting is less structured, and the context offers less meaning and understanding.

Cultures that value context highly are aptly called high-context cultures. Those that value context to a lesser degree are called low-context cultures.

These divergent perspectives influence the process of persuasion and are worthy of your consideration when planning your speech. This ability to understand motivation and context is key to good communication, and one we will examine throughout this chapter.

Persuasion is the act of presenting arguments for change, while motivation involves the force to bring about change. The concept of measurable gain assesses audience response to a persuasive message. Not all oral presentations involve taking a position, or overt persuasion, but all focus on the inherent relationships and basic needs within the business context.

Getting someone to listen to what you have to say involves a measure of persuasion, and getting that person to act on it might require considerable skill. Whether you are persuading a customer to try a new product or service, or informing a supplier that you need additional merchandise, the relationship is central to your communication.

The emphasis inherent in our next two discussions is that we all share this common ground, and by understanding that we share basic needs, we can better negotiate meaning and achieve understanding. Table As you can see, the final item in the table indicates that we communicate in order to meet our needs. What are those needs? We will discuss them next. Psychologist Abraham Maslow provides seven basic categories for human needs, and arranges them in order of priority, from the most basic to the most advanced.

In this figure, we can see that we need energy, water, and air to live. Without any of these three basic elements, which meet our physiological needs 1 , we cannot survive. We need to meet them before anything else, and will often sacrifice everything else to get them. Once we have what we need to live, we seek safety 2.

A defensible place, protecting your supply lines for your most basic needs, could be your home. For some, however, home is a dangerous place that compromises their safety. Children and victims of domestic violence need shelter to meet this need.

In order to leave a hostile living environment, people may place the well-being and safety of another over their own needs, in effect placing themselves at risk. An animal would fight for its own survival above all else, but humans can and do acts of heroism that directly contradict their own self-interest. Our own basic needs motivate us, but sometimes the basic needs of others are more important to us than our own. We seek affection from others once we have the basics to live and feel safe from immediate danger.

We look for a sense of love and belonging 3. This is an important step that directly relates to business communication. If a person feels safe at your place of business, they are more likely to be open to communication. Communication is the foundation of the business relationship, and without it, you will fail. If they feel on edge, or that they might be pushed around, made to feel stupid, or even unwanted, they will leave and your business will disappear.

On the other hand, if you make them feel welcome, provide multiple ways for them to learn, educate themselves, and ask questions in a safe environment, you will form relationships that transcend business and invite success. Once we have been integrated in a group, we begin to assert our sense of self and self-respect, addressing our need for self-esteem 4.

Self-esteem is essentially how we feel about ourselves. They certainly turned it into an opportunity. Each Saturday around the country, home repair clinics on all sorts of tasks, from cutting and laying tile to building a bird house, are available free to customers at Home Depot stores. You can participate, learn, gain mastery of a skill set, and walk out of the store with all the supplies you need to get the job done. You will also now know someone the instructor, a Home Depot employee whom you can return to for follow-up questions.

This model reinforces safety and familiarity, belonging to a group or perceiving a trustworthy support system, and the freedom to make mistakes. Maslow discusses the next level of needs in terms of how we feel about ourselves and our ability to assert control and influence over our lives.

Once we are part of a group and have begun to assert ourselves, we start to feel as if we have reached our potential and are actively making a difference in our own world. Maslow calls this self-actualization 5. Self-actualization can involve reaching your full potential, feeling accepted for who you are, and perceiving a degree of control or empowerment in your environment.

It may mean the freedom to go beyond building the bird house to the tree house, and to design it yourself as an example of self-expression. As we progress beyond these levels, our basic human curiosity about the world around us emerges. When we have our basic needs met, we do not need to fear losing our place in a group or access to resources.

We are free to explore and play, discovering the world around us. Our need to know 6 motivates us to grow and learn. You may have taken an elective art class that sparked your interest in a new area, or your started a new sport or hobby, like woodworking.

If you worked at low-paying jobs that earned you barely enough to meet your basic needs, you may not be able to explore all your interests. You might be too exhausted after sixty or seventy hours a week on a combination of the night shift and the early morning shift across two jobs. Want to read a good book? Want to take a watercolor class? Sounds interesting. If, however, we are too busy hunting and gathering food, there is little time for contemplating beauty.

Beyond curiosity lies the aesthetic need to experience beauty 7. The appreciation of beauty transcends the everyday, the usual; it becomes exceptional. You may have walked in a building or church and become captivated by the light, the stained-glass windows, or the design. As we increase our degree of interconnectedness with others, we become interdependent and, at the same time, begin to express independence and individuality. As a speaker, you may seek the safety of the familiar, only to progress with time and practice to a point where you make words your own.

Your audience will share with you a need for control. The introduction will set up audience expectations of points you will consider, and allow the audience to see briefly what is coming. The field of communication draws from many disciplines, and in this case, draws lessons from two prominent social psychologists. Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor articulated the social penetration theory , which describes how we move from superficial talk to intimate and revealing talk Altman, I.

Altman and Taylor discuss how we attempt to learn about others so that we can better understand how to interact Altman, I. With a better understanding of others and with more information, we are in a better position to predict how they may behave, what they may value, or what they might feel in specific situations. We usually gain this understanding of others without thinking about it through observation or self-disclosure. We come to know more about the way a person perceives a situation breadth , but also gain perspective into how they see the situation through an understanding of their previous experiences depth.

Imagine these two spheres, which represent people, coming together. What touches first? The superficial level. As the two start to overlap, the personal levels may touch, then the intimate level, and finally the core levels may even touch. Have you ever known a couple—perhaps your parents or grandparents—who have been together for a very long time?

They might represent the near overlap, where their core values, attitudes, and beliefs are similar through a lifetime of shared experiences. We move from public to private information as we progress from small talk to intimate conversations. Imagine an onion. The outer surface can be peeled away, and each new layer reveals another until you arrive at the heart of the onion. People interact on the surface, and only remove layers as trust and confidence grows. Another way to look at it is to imagine an iceberg.

How much of the total iceberg can you see from the surface of the ocean? Not much. But once you start to look under the water, you gain an understanding of the large size of the iceberg, and the extent of its depth. We have to go beyond superficial understanding to know each other, and progress through the process of self-disclosure to come to know and understand one another. See Figure This model has existed in several forms since the s, and serves as a useful illustration of how little we perceive of each other with our first impressions and general assumptions.

We are motivated to communicate in order to gain information, get to know one another, better understand our situation or context, come to know ourselves and our role or identity, and meet our fundamental interpersonal needs.

What comes to mind when you think of speaking to persuade? Perhaps the idea of persuasion may bring to mind propaganda and issues of manipulation, deception, intentional bias, bribery, and even coercion.

Each element relates to persuasion, but in distinct ways. In a democratic society, we would hope that our Bill of Rights is intact and validated, and that we would support the exercise of freedom to discuss, consider and debate issues when considering change. We can recognize that each of these elements in some ways has a negative connotation associated with it.

Why do you think that deceiving your audience, bribing a judge, or coercing people to do something against their wishes is wrong? These tactics violate our sense of fairness, freedom, and ethics. Your audience expects you to treat them with respect, and deliberately manipulating them by means of fear, guilt, duty, or a relationship is unethical.

In the same way, deception involves the use of lies, partial truths, or the omission of relevant information to deceive your audience. No one likes to be lied to, or made to believe something that is not true. Deception can involve intentional bias, or the selection of information to support your position while framing negatively any information that might challenge your belief.

Bribery involves the giving of something in return for an expected favor, consideration, or privilege. It circumvents the normal protocol for personal gain, and again is a strategy that misleads your audience. Coercion is the use of power to compel action. You make someone do something they would not choose to do freely. As Martin Luther King Jr. They are just two wrongs and violate the ethics that contribute to community and healthy relationships.

Each issue certainly relates to persuasion, but you as the speaker should be aware of each in order to present an ethical persuasive speech. Learn to recognize when others try to use these tactics on you, and know that your audience will be watching to see if you try any of these strategies on them.

His main points reiterate many of the points across this chapter and should be kept in mind as you prepare, and present, your persuasive message. Aristotle said the mark of a good person, well spoken was a clear command of the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.

He discussed the idea of perceiving the many points of view related to a topic, and their thoughtful consideration. In your speech to persuade, consider honesty and integrity as you assemble your arguments. Your audience will appreciate your thoughtful consideration of more than one view, your understanding of the complexity, and you will build your ethos, or credibility, as you present your document.

Be careful not to stretch the facts, or assemble them only to prove yourself, and instead prove the argument on its own merits.

Deception, coercion, intentional bias, manipulation and bribery should have no place in your speech to persuade. Fallacies are another way of saying false logic. These rhetorical tricks deceive your audience with their style, drama, or pattern, but add little to your speech in terms of substance and can actually detract from your effectiveness. Here we will examine the eight classical fallacies. You may note that some of them relate to the ethical cautions listed earlier in this section.

Eight common fallacies are presented in Table Avoid false logic and make a strong case or argument for your proposition. Finally, here is a five-step motivational checklist to keep in mind as you bring it all together:.

This simple organizational pattern can help you focus on the basic elements of a persuasive message when time is short and your performance is critical. Speaking to persuade should not involve manipulation, coercion, false logic, or other unethical techniques.

An elevator speech is to oral communication what a Twitter message limited to characters is to written communication. An elevator speech is a presentation that persuades the listener in less than thirty seconds, or around a hundred words. It takes its name from the idea that in a short elevator ride of perhaps ten floors , carefully chosen words can make a difference.

In addition to actual conversations taking place during elevator rides, other common examples include the following:. An elevator speech does not have to be a formal event, though it can be. An elevator speech is not a full sales pitch and should not get bloated with too much information. The speech can be generic and nonspecific to the audience or listener, but the more you know about your audience, the better. When you tailor your message to that audience, you zero in on your target and increase your effectiveness Albertson, E.

The emphasis is on brevity, but a good elevator speech will address several key questions:. Albertson, E. How to open doors with a brilliant elevator speech. New Providence, NJ: R. Howell, L. Give your elevator speech a lift. Bothell, WA: Publishers Network. Altman, I. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships.

New York, NY: St. Maslow, A. Motivation and personality 2nd ed. Covino, W. Rhetoric: Concepts, definitions, boundaries. Body image and nutrition: Fast facts. Teen Health and the Media. Brumberg, J. The body project: An intimate history of American girls. DuRant, R. Tobacco and alcohol use behaviors portrayed in music videos: Content analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 87 , — Hofschire, L. Brown, J.

Walsh-Childers Eds. Huston, A. Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Raimondo, M. About-face facts on the media. Ship, J. Tiggemann, M. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 20 , — A Gantt chart is a type of bar chart [3] [4] that illustrates a project schedule. Terminal elements and summary elements constitute the work breakdown structure of the project. Modern Gantt charts also show the dependency i. Gantt charts can be used to show current schedule status using percent-complete shadings and a vertical "TODAY" line as shown here.

Gantt charts are usually created initially using an early start time approach , where each task is scheduled to start immediately when its prerequisites are complete. This method maximizes the float time available for all tasks.

In , Gantt charts were identified as "one of the most widely used management tools for project scheduling and control". In the following table there are seven tasks, labeled a through g. Some tasks can be done concurrently a and b while others cannot be done until their predecessor task is complete c and d cannot begin until a is complete.

Additionally, each task has three time estimates: the optimistic time estimate O , the most likely or normal time estimate M , and the pessimistic time estimate P. The expected time T E is estimated. A vertical line is drawn at the time index when the progress Gantt chart is created, and this line can then be compared with shaded tasks.

If everything is on schedule, all task portions left of the line will be shaded, and all task portions right of the line will not be shaded. This provides a visual representation of how the project and its tasks are ahead or behind schedule. Once I ran across something in a book that really agitated me. The volume presented lists of ideas for living a happy and fulfilled life. All those ideas seemed reasonable to me.

In education, business, and the military meetings dominate the way many groups operate in American society. Estimates of the number of meetings that take place every day in our country range from 11 million to more than 30 million 1.

One authority claims that the average chief executive officer spends 17 hours per week in meetings, whereas the average senior executive spends 23 hours per week 2. If the average number of people in each of these meetings is only five and the average meeting lasts only one hour, this means that between 55,, and ,, person-hours each day are being consumed by meetings.

Assuming a week work year, then, the total time devoted to meetings each year amounts to at least fifteen billion person-hours. Like any other course of action, the process of engaging in meetings has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

Aller Anfang ist schwer. Office equipment and supplies constitute tools to support the work of most modern groups such as student teams in college classes, employees and executives in businesses, and collections of people in other organizations. None of those groups would say, however, that using copy machines and staplers is one of their goals. And none of them would visit a copy machine unless they had something they needed to reproduce.

Meetings resemble office supplies in at least one way: they can help a group accomplish its goals. When deciding if you should meet, first consider if the group operating well. The group probably adopted goals for itself. It may even have ranked those goals in order of importance. Members of a student team might, for example, decide that their joint goals are to earn a high grade on their group project, to have fun together, and to ensure that all of them can secure a positive recommendation from the instructor when they look for a job after graduation.

You should not meet until and unless doing so clearly contributes to a goal of your group. To this end, you may want to create a list of basic obligations you feel everyone should fulfill with respect to all meetings.

These obligations might include the following items:. Write the goals down. Reread them. Let them sit a while. If you calculate that the people you plan to invite to your meeting constitute larger than a two-pizza group, ask yourself if all of them really, really, really need to be there. For each item, name the individual in charge of it, indicate whether it will require action by the group, and provide an estimated duration.

Strive to cut down on how long you spend to handle each item on your agenda as much as you can so that members of your group can get back to their other responsibilities as soon as possible. A shorter-than-expected meeting is usually a thing of joy.

If you have a choice, plan to gather in a place with plenty of light, comfortable furniture, and a minimum of distracting sounds or sights. You should be able to adjust the temperature, too, if people get too hot or cold.

Even if you expect to ha. Make sure the participants receive the agenda. Once you submit your instructions, while your order is in progress and even after its completion, our support team will monitor it to provide you with timely assistance. Hiring good writers is one of the key points in providing high-quality services. We try to make sure all writers working for us are professionals, so when you purchase custom-written papers, they are of high quality and non-plagiarized.

Our cheap essay writing service employs only writers who have outstanding writing skills. The quality of all custom papers written by our team is important to us; that is why we are so attentive to the application process and employ only those writers who can produce great essays and other kinds of written assignments. We understand that submitting a plagiarized paper can have dire consequences such as zero grade or even expulsion from your university.

We always ensure that your paper is completed from scratch and is completely plagiarism free. Moreover, we can provide you with a plagiarism report if you are unconvinced that your paper is original. We have a team of experienced writers who do not only understand how to conduct research but also know how to cite the sources they have used in all major referencing styles.

With Solution Essays, you are guaranteed that the paper we send to you follows all the assignment instructions and can be submitted in its raw state to your class.

All our essays are customized to meet your requirements and written from scratch. Moreover, at our academic service, we have an internal plagiarism-detection software which is designed to find similarities between completed papers and online sources. Our cheap essay writing service tries to always be at its best performance level, so each customer who pays money for paper writing can be sure that he or she will get what is wanted.

There can be a number of reasons why you might not like your order. You can also request a free revision, if there are only slight inconsistencies in your order. Your writer will make the necessary amendments free of charge. You can find out more information by visiting our revision policy and money-back guarantee pages, or by contacting our support team via online chat or phone. We even have an urgent delivery option for short essays, term papers, or research papers needed within 8 to 24 hours.

We appreciate that you have chosen our cheap essay service, and will provide you with high-quality and low-cost custom essays, research papers, term papers, speeches, book reports, and other academic assignments for sale. Once you have placed an order with us, you can rest assured that we will deliver your paper on time and follow all your assignment instructions to the letter.

Our mission is to ensure that you have a place to turn to every time you have an assignment regardless of how urgent it appears. We provide affordable writing services for students around the world.

Contact us for cheap writing assistance. Get your paper done by an expert No matter what kind of academic paper you need, it is simple and secure to hire an essay writer for a price you can afford at Fountain Essays. Order my paper. Calculate your essay price. Type of paper. Academic level. Pages words. Basic features.

On-demand options. Paper format. Our guarantees Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore. Read more. Zero-plagiarism guarantee Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. Free-revision policy Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. Privacy policy Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules.

Fair-cooperation guarantee By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Calculate the price of your order Type of paper needed:. Pages: words. You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Jet Planes Book Set Marking Knife Or Scriber 3d