Show Menu
Cheatography

OB 262 final Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by

For my final exam organizational behaviour

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.

Organi­zat­ional Structure and change

Organi­zat­ional strategy
How company will allocate resources to achieve goals
Work specia­liz­ation
Subdivided tasks
Depart­men­tal­ization
Grouping jobs together
Chain of command
Whos reporting to who
Span of control
How many people can be directed
Centra­liz­ation and decent­ral­ization
Decision making authority
Formal­ization
Rules and regula­tions
Lewins 3 Step process
Unfree­zing, Moving, Refreezing
Simple Structure
Low depart­men­tal­iza­tion, wide spans of control, little formal­iza­tion. Flexible but can slow down
Bureau­cracy
Pyramid, lower quality employees, obsessive concern with rules
Matrix structure
2 boses, more commun­ication but power struggles
Boundary Spanning
building relati­ons­hips, diverse networks, resources

Power And politics

Power
Potential to influence
Those without power
More stress­/Lower job securi­ty/­Burnout
High vs LowPower Distance
High=F­orm­alities and titles: Low=More informal
Where does power come from
Others, Situat­ional powers (Control over resources) Depsnd­encies (Control over access)
Zero sum
Expanding others power with out makes our power less threat­ening
Connection power
Power over formal and informal relati­ons­hip­s/n­etworks
Rational Persua­sions
Logical arguments and facts
Inspir­ational appeals
Appeal to one’s values and goals, arouses enthusiasm
Consul­tation
Involve the target in planning and decision making
Ingrat­iation
Flattery
Personal Appeals
Appeal to friendship
Exchange
Mutual benefit
Coalition tactics
Aid or support of others
Pressure
Threats and demands
Legitm­ating tactics
Rely on authority
Dependency
Key to power
Self interested politics
Working to shift outcomes in your best inerest
What causes politics
Scarcity, perfor­mance outcomes, goals
 

Commun­ication Skills

Barriers to Commun­ication
Language, filtering, Percep­tion, Defens­ive­ness, Emotions, Info overload, silence, lying
Denotation
Transl­ation of words
Metaphors
Figure of speach
Rhetorical questions
Questions to make a point
Moral conviction
Using your morals to influence
Nonverbal commun­ication
Body Position, facial expres­sions, Body position, eye contact, other physical gestures
Joint problem solving
Turning a problem into an objective

Relati­onships or networks

Leader Member Exchange (LMX)
Theory of manager subord­inate relati­onship quality (Highe­r=More trust)
Team Member Exchange (TMX)
Theory of Team members ability to contribute
Boundary Spanning Relati­onships
Hierar­cha­l=T­op/Mid level managers
Social Exchange
Building relati­onships through reciprocal intera­ctions
Recipr­ocity
Exchanging things with others for mutual benefit
Components of recipr­ocity
Equiva­lence (fairness) Immediacy Interest
Networks
System of interc­onn­ected relati­onships
Dyadd, Triad, Clique
2 People, 3 people, 4+
Network centrality
Does actor have ties with others
Network density
Are all actors connected
Intrum­ental ties
Profes­sional ties
Expressive ties
Friendship ties
Simmelian ties
Relati­onship between 2 actors
Homophily
Tendency for actors to form connec­tions with similar people
Cohesive network
People are connected
Bridging network
Connected to people who arent connected
Brokering network
Connecting others to access of goods or info
 

Leader and follower

Leadership
2 or more people depending on an INFLUENCE
Leadership Vs Following
Leadin­g=I­nfl­uencing Following: Accepting influence
Shared Leadership
Leadership and followship roles rotate
Distru­buted leadership
Influence distru­buted throughout instit­ution
Co Leadership
No Single person has unilateral power
Legitimate power
Formal Power
Coercive power
TO punish or threaten
Expert Power
Smart in an area
Inform­ational power
has all info
Reward power
Can reward employees
Referent Power
Gives leaders ability to inspire
Trait Theories
Focus on traits that make a leader
Behavi­oural theories
Specific behaviours differ­entiate leaders from non leaders: Leadership can be taught to anyone
Contin­gency theories
Focus on all outcomes in a crisis
Fielder contin­gency model
An indivi­duals leadership style is fixed
Hersey Blanchard
Focuses on follower readiness
(Inspi­rat­ional) Charis­matic leadership
Inspire thru words ideas and behaviours
(Inspi­rat­ional) Transa­ctional Leadership
Rely on rewards in exchange for accomp­lis­hment of goal
(Inspi­rat­ional) Transf­orm­ational Leadership
Transcend self interest for good of organi­zation

Conflict Negoti­ation Decision Making

Functional Conflict
Supports goals and improves perfor­mance
Dysfun­ctional Conflict
hinders group perfor­mance
Substa­ntive conflict
Fundam­ental disagr­eement
Emotional conflict
Interp­ersonal Diffic­ulties
Relati­onship conflict
Emotional conflict over incomp­ati­bility
Status conflict
Heirar­chial struggle between lower and higher power person
Process confllict
over how work gets done
Sources of conflict
Commun­ica­tion, Structure, Personal values
How to manage conflict
Problem solving, deloping goals, smoothing, compro­mising, avoidance
Negoti­ation
Making joint decisions when people have different prefrences
Bargaining power
Strength in position
Substance goals
Outcomes being negotiated
Relati­onship goals
How well people work after negoti­ation
Distri­butive bargaining (win-lose)
Dividing fixed resources
Integr­ative bargaining (win-win)
Seeking settle­ments
5 steps to negoti­ation
Develop Strategy: Define rules: Clarif­y/j­ustify: Bargai­n/P­roblem Solve: Close and implement
BANTA
Best Altern­ative To a Negotiated Agreement
Differ­ences in negoti­ation
Person­ality traits, moods, gender (women more cooper­ative)
Classical Decision Making
Logical and rational
Behavi­oural Decision making
Act in terms of perception
Systematic Decision making
Analytical approach
Intuitive decision making
Experi­ence, learning based
Overco­nfi­dence bias
Too optimistic
Confir­mation bias
Seek what we want to hear
Heuristics
Assessing a current event based on memory
Hindsight trap
Overes­timate ability to predict events after they happened