DOCSLIB.ORG

Conflict and Cohesion in Groups

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conflict and Cohesion in Groups 314397_CH_07.qxd 10/23/03 8:59 AM Page 146 Conflict and Cohesion in Groups Chapter Outline Conflict in Groups Approaches to Conflict Substantive Conflict Management Procedural Conflict The 4Rs Method Affective Conflict The A-E-I-O-U Model Negotiation Constructive and Mediation Destructive Conflict Arbitration Conflict Styles Group Cohesion Avoidance Enhancing Cohesion Accommodation Groupthink Competition Compromise Adapting to Differences Collaboration Choosing a Conflict Style Balancing Conflict and Cohesion 146 314397_CH_07.qxd 10/23/03 8:59 AM Page 147 conflict in groups Conflict is unavoidable in an effective group. Rarely do conscientious members work in groups for any length of time without expressing differences and dis- agreeing. Yet despite the inevitability of conflict, many of us go out of our way to avoid or suppress it. One of the myths about effective groups is “that they are characterized by chumminess. Many effective teams look more like battle- grounds, it turns out. Teams with vastly competent members embrace con- flict as the price of synergy and set good idea against good idea to arrive at the best idea.”1 The word conflict is frequently associated with quarreling, fighting, anger, and hostility. While these elements may be present in a group situation, conflict does not have to involve the expression of negative emotions. We define conflict as the disagreement and disharmony that occurs in groups when dif- ferences are expressed regarding ideas, methods, and/or members. When treated as an expression of legitimate differences, conflict “can be used as the spur to find the wider solution, the solution that will meet the mutual interest of the parties involved in it.”2 Putnam has classified the sources of conflict as substantive, procedural, and affective.3 ■ Substantive Conflict Substantive conflict is disagreement over members’ ideas and group issues. For example, when members of a student government council argue whether or not student activities fees should be raised, their conflict is substantive. Such con- flict is directly related to working toward the group’s goal of serving students’ cocurricular needs. ■ Procedural Conflict Procedural conflict is disagreement among group members about the methods or process the group should follow in its attempt to accomplish a goal. Whereas FIGURE 7.1 Sources of Group Conflict 147 314397_CH_07.qxd 10/23/03 8:59 AM Page 148 148 PART II Interaction Skills some group members may want to begin a discussion by suggesting solutions to a problem, others may want to start by gathering and discussing information. Some members may believe that a decision should be made by secret ballot while others may want a show of hands. ■ Affective Conflict Affective conflict centers around the personalities, communication styles, and emotions of group members. Its causes are numerous. Affective conflict may occur when a member does not feel valued or is threatened by the group. Affective conflict also occurs when members believe that their ideas are not judged fairly or when group members are struggling for power. Affective con- flict is more difficult to resolve because it involves people’s feelings and the way members relate to one another. Frequently when disagreement occurs in groups, both substantive and affec- tive types of conflict are present. For example, Dee believes student fees should be raised in order to fund more campus activities. Charles disagrees and suggests that the existing funds should be used more efficiently rather than placing a larger financial burden on students. At this point in the discussion, the conflict is substantive; it is focused on issues. However, when responding to Dee, Charles rolls his eyes and states that “only a political fool believes that higher fees are the answer to the problem.” Not only does Dee disagree with Charles on the issues, but she is also angered by his comment. Now the conflict is not just substantive; it has become affective as well. Constructive and Destructive Conflict Conflict itself is neither good nor bad. However, the way in which a group deals with conflict can be constructive or destructive. Destructive conflict results when groups engage in behaviors that create hostility and prevent achievement of the group’s goal. Constant complaining, personal insults, conflict avoidance, and loud arguments or threats all con- tribute to destructive conflict.4 The quality of group decision making deterio- rates when members are inflexible and not open to other points of view. Destructive conflict has the potential to permanently disable a group. Constructive conflict results when group members express disagreement in a way that values everyone’s contributions and promotes the group’s goal. Figure 7.2 characterizes the differences between destructive and constructive conflict. Groups committed to constructive conflict abide by the following principles:5 ■ Disagreement is not punished. “I’m not afraid of being fired for disagreeing with other members.” 314397_CH_07.qxd 10/23/03 8:59 AM Page 149 7: Conflict and Cohesion in Groups 149 FIGURE 7.2 Constructive Conflict Destructive Conflict Constructive and •Focus on Issues • Personal Attacks Destructive • Respect for Others • Insults Conflict • Supportiveness • Defensiveness •Flexibility • Inflexibility • Cooperation • Competition •Commitment to Conflict Management • Avoidance of Conflict ■ Members work with each other to achieve a mutually satisfying resolution of conflict. “We can work this out. After all, we’re all after the same thing in the long run.” ■ Lower-status members are free to disagree with higher-status group members. “I know she’s the CEO, but I think there are some disadvantages to the approach she suggests.” ■ The group has an agreed-upon approach for conflict resolution and deci- sion making. “Our group is using the Nominal Group Technique, so I know my ideas will be heard and included.” ■ Members can disagree and still respect each other. “The group may not like my idea, but members would never personally attack me for expressing my opinion.” Constructive group conflict has many positive outcomes. Issues and people are better understood through an open exchange. The quality of decision mak- ing improves as opposing viewpoints and concerns are discussed. Expressing dif- ferences constructively can make a group discussion more interesting and promote participation. Conflict Styles There are many ways of identifying and classifying different styles of conflict. One of the most preferred methods suggests that individuals are predisposed to using one of the following five conflict styles: avoidance, accommodation, com- petition, compromise, and collaboration.6 These five styles can be further understood by examining the extent to which a group member’s approach to conflict is focused on achieving personal goals and/or the group’s goal. Members 314397_CH_07.qxd 10/23/03 8:59 AM Page 150 150 PART II Interaction Skills FIGURE 7.3 High COMPETITION COLLABORATION Conflict Styles “I win; you lose.” “We win!” Concern COMPROMISE for Own “Give a little; get a little.” Goals AVOIDANCE ACCOMMODATION Low “Leave me alone.” “I give in.” Low High Concern for Group Goals who are motivated to achieve their own goals tend to choose more competitive approaches. Cooperative members are usually more concerned with achieving the group’s goals. Figure 7.3 illustrates the relationship of each conflict style to a group member’s motivation. ■ Avoidance When members are unable or unwilling to accomplish their own goals or con- tribute to achieving the group’s goal, they may adopt the avoidance conflict style. Group members using this style may change the subject, avoid bringing up a controversial issue, and even deny that a conflict exists. Avoiding conflict in groups is usually counterproductive because it fails to address a problem and can increase group tensions. Furthermore, ignoring or avoiding conflict does not make it go away. However, in some circumstances, avoidance of conflict can be an appropri- ate approach, specifically when ■ the issue is not that important to you. ■ you need to take time to collect your thoughts or control your emotions. ■ other group members are effectively addressing the same concerns. ■ the consequences of confrontation are too risky. ■ Accommodation Group members using the accommodating conflict style give in to other mem- bers at the expense of their own goals. A genuine desire to get along with other 314397_CH_07.qxd 10/23/03 8:59 AM Page 151 7: Conflict and Cohesion in Groups 151 group members is often the motivation of accommodators. Such members believe that giving in to others serves the needs of the group even when the group could benefit from further discussion. A group member who always approaches conflict by accommodating others may ultimately be perceived as less powerful and have less influence in group decision making. Accommodating during conflict can be an appropriate approach when ■ the issue is very important to others but not very important to you. ■ it is more important to preserve group harmony than to resolve the current issue. ■ you realize you are wrong or have changed your mind. ■ you are unlikely to succeed in persuading the group to adopt your position. ■ Competition The competitive conflict style occurs when group members are more concerned with their own goals than with meeting the needs of the group. Competitive members want to win; they argue that their ideas are superior to the alternatives suggested by others. When used inappropriately, the competitive style may be characterized by hostility, ridicule, and personal attacks against group mem- bers. Approaching conflict competitively tends to reduce group members to winners and losers. Ultimately, this may damage the relationships among group members. In certain group situations, however, the competitive approach may be the most appropriate style. Approach conflict competitively when ■ you have strong beliefs about an important issue. ■ the group must act immediately on an urgent issue or emergency situation. ■ the consequences of the group’s decision may be very serious or harmful.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • When Do People Trust Their Social Groups?
    When Do People Trust Their Social Groups? Xiao Ma1y, Justin Cheng2, Shankar Iyer2, Mor Naaman1 {xiao,mor}@jacobs.cornell.edu,{jcheng,shankar94}@fb.com 1Jacobs Institute, Cornell Tech, 2Facebook y Work done while at Facebook. ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION Trust facilitates cooperation and supports positive outcomes Trust contributes to the success of social groups by encour- in social groups, including member satisfaction, information aging people to interpret others’ actions and intentions fa- sharing, and task performance. Extensive prior research has vorably, thereby facilitating cooperation and a sense of com- examined individuals’ general propensity to trust, as well as munity [5, 22, 32, 54, 60, 76]. In groups, trust increases mem- the factors that contribute to their trust in specific groups. ber satisfaction and task performance [79], reduces con- Here, we build on past work to present a comprehensive flict [32, 79], and promotes effective response to crisis [52]. framework for predicting trust in groups. By surveying 6,383 Previous research has examined how different factors such Facebook Groups users about their trust attitudes and ex- as size [13, 21, 85], group cohesiveness [37], and activity [79] amining aggregated behavioral and demographic data for may impact people’s trust in their social groups, both on- these individuals, we show that (1) an individual’s propensity line [38] and offline [67]. However, previous studies tend to trust is associated with how they trust their groups, (2) to be small in scale, limited to specific contexts (e.g., online smaller, closed, older, more exclusive, or more homogeneous marketplaces), or only consider a specific type of group (e.g., groups are trusted more, and (3) a group’s overall friendship- organizations [18, 49]).
    [Show full text]
  • Group Cohesion: Relationships with Work Team Culture
    Psicothema 2009. Vol. 21, nº 1, pp. 97-104 ISSN 0214 - 9915 CODEN PSOTEG www.psicothema.com Copyright © 2009 Psicothema Group cohesion: Relationships with work team culture José C. Sánchez and Amaia Yurrebaso Universidad de Salamanca The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between group cohesion and the perceived culture and desired culture of work teams. Two separate studies were carried out with a time interval of one year. The first study had a sample of 50 work teams belonging to different organizations and the second study had a sample of 75 work teams. We used Lindell’s index of agreement to estimate the culture and cohesion variables. Multiple and hierarchical regression analysis in both studies confirmed our initial hypothesis, showing that perceived and desired culture were positively related to group cohesion, and that culture gap had a negative association with cohesion. To a lesser extent, control variables such as job tenure and gender had a positive relationship with cohesion. The implications of these results are discussed along with the importance of considering the group level as analysis. Cohesión grupal: relaciones con la cultura de los equipos de trabajo. El objetivo de este estudio fue examinar las relaciones entre cohesión grupal y la cultura percibida y deseada de los equipos de tra- bajo. Se realizaron dos estudios independientes con un intervalo de un año entre ambos. El primer es- tudio lo integraron 50 equipos de trabajo pertenecientes a diferentes organizaciones y el segundo estu- dio tuvo una muestra de 75 equipos de trabajo. Para estimar las variables de cultura y cohesión utilizamos el índice de acuerdo de Lindell.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Rhetoric in Twitter: a Case Study of the U.S
    Moral Rhetoric in Twitter: A Case Study of the U.S. Federal Shutdown of 2013 Eyal Sagi ([email protected]) Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60208 USA Morteza Dehghani ([email protected]) Brain Creativity Institute, University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA Abstract rhetoric is prevalent in political debates (e.g., Marietta, 2009). In this paper we apply a computational text analysis technique used for measuring moral rhetoric in text to analyze the moral Our investigation contributes to the general study of loadings of tweets. We focus our analysis on tweets regarding moral cognition by providing an alternative method for the 2013 federal government shutdown; a topic that was at the measuring moral concerns in a more naturalistic setting forefront of U.S. politics in late 2013. Our results demonstrate compared to self-report survey method and artificial that the positions of the members of the two major political paradigms used in traditional judgment and decision-making parties are mirrored by the positions taken by the Twitter experiments. communities that are aligned with them. We also analyze retweeting behavior by examining the differences in the moral Following Sagi and Dehghani (2013), we define moral loadings of intra-community and inter-community retweets. rhetoric as “the language used for advocating or taking a We find that retweets in our corpus favor rhetoric that moral stance towards an issue by invoking or making salient enhances the cohesion of the community, and emphasize various moral concerns”. Our analysis of moral rhetoric is content over moral rhetoric. We argue that the method grounded in Moral Foundations Theory (Graham et al., proposed in this paper contributes to the general study of 2013; Haidt & Joseph, 2004), which distinguishes between moral cognition and social behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group
    Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group by STANLEY E. SEASHORE SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN—ANN ARBOR 1954 The Institute for Social Research oi the University of Michigan is engaged in basic and applied research Ln the social sciences. The Institute has two main research units. The Survey Research Center is concerned with the Foreword application of sample survey methods to the study of eco• nomic behavior, human relations in organizations, and public attitudes and behavior in relation to public Issues. The Research Center for Group Dynamics studies the be• This Investigation Is one of a series conducted havior of people in groups. The research Is conducted ln within the Human Relations Program of the Survey Research industry, education, government and community life as well as in the laboratory, in an effort to discover the de• Center, Institute for Social Research. This program of research terminants of behavior, of group effectiveness and of human has as its aim the exploration of social and psychological fac• satisfactions. tors related to the effectiveness of organizations. The word Inquiries regarding the Institute and its research "program" is used with its full meaning and the study described program may be addressed to the Director of the Institute. here is but one in a sequence of closely related studies con• ducted over a span of seven years. I am particularly Indebted to Dr. Rensis Likert, Director of the Institute, and to Dr. Robert L. Kahn, Director of the Pro• gram, who provided the data for the study, encouraged the work, and made available the substantial resources, facilities and personal consultation needed for a study of this kind.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohesion in Online Groups
    Cohesion in online groups P. Rogers & M. Lea Dept. Psychology, University of Manchester, UK Abstract Groups are traditionally defined in terms of the interpersonal bonds that exist between group members and thus cohesion is based on the strength of those bonds. The transition of this definition of the group onto online groups leads to attempts to emulate face to face behaviour through presentation of group member pictures, video and detailed personal descriptions. However, this can be problematic due to reduced bandwidth and individual cues necessary for supporting interpersonal behaviour. A social identity approach to groups, in contrast, defines the group in terms of group members' cognitive representation of the group identity, rather than interpersonal bonds. From this perspective cohesion is defined in terms of the strength and salience of the group identity and is not dependent on the transference of interpersonal cues, or constrained by group size. Indeed, interpersonal information can act to the detriment of group cohesion. This counter-intuitive approach to cohesion in online groups has a number of implications in terms of group development and group behaviour in online groups. Two longitudinal field studies of computer-mediated collaborative learning groups investigated these issues. Cohesion in the groups was achieved through the application of this approach to both the design of the group tasks and communication environment, and results showed amongst other things, that cohesion was determined by identification with the group, and that this identification was associated with increased accountability, decreased conflict and, furthermore, positively influenced group productivity (measured by the group mark) through group member prototypicality.
    [Show full text]
  • How Cohesive Are You in Virtual Communities?
    International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 10, No. 15, Youth and Community Wellbeing: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Empowerment V1. 2020, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2020 HRMARS How Cohesive are You in Virtual Communities? Hamizah Sahharon, Jusang Bolong, Siti Zobidah Omar, Khairuddin Idris To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i15/8246 DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i15/8246 Received: 27 September 2020, Revised: 18 October 2020, Accepted: 11 November 2020 Published Online: 27 November 2020 In-Text Citation: (Sahharon et al., 2020) To Cite this Article: Sahharon, H., Bolong, J., Omar, S. Z., & Idris, K. (2020). How Cohesive are You in Virtual Communities? International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(15), 233–252. Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s) Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com) This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Special Issue: Youth and Community Wellbeing: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Empowerment V1, 2020, Pg. 233 –252 http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/IJARBSS JOURNAL HOMEPAGE Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/publication-ethics 233 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • When Do People Trust Their Social Groups?
    When Do People Trust Their Social Groups? Xiao Ma1†, Justin Cheng2, Shankar Iyer2, Mor Naaman1 1Jacobs Institute, Cornell Tech, 2Facebook {xiao,mor}@jacobs.cornell.edu,{jcheng,shankar94}@fb.com ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION Trust facilitates cooperation and supports positive outcomes Trust contributes to the success of social groups by encourag- in social groups, including member satisfaction, information ing people to interpret others’ actions and intentions favor- sharing, and task performance. Extensive prior research has ably, thereby facilitating cooperation and a sense of commu- examined individuals’ general propensity to trust, as well as nity [5, 22, 33, 55, 60, 74]. In groups, trust increases member the factors that contribute to their trust in specific groups. satisfaction, and task performance; reduces conflict [33, 77]; Here, we build on past work to present a comprehensive and promotes effective response to crisis [53]. framework for predicting trust in groups. By surveying 6,383 Previous research has examined how different factors such Facebook Groups users about their trust attitudes and ex- as size [13, 21, 83], group cohesiveness [38], and activity [77] amining aggregated behavioral and demographic data for may impact people’s trust in their social groups, both on- these individuals, we show that (1) an individual’s propen- line [39] and offline [67]. However, previous studies tend sity to trust is associated with how they trust their groups, to be small in scale, limited to specific contexts (e.g., online (2) groups that are smaller, closed, older, more exclusive or marketplaces), or only consider a specific type of group more homogeneous are trusted more, and (3) a group’s over- (e.g., organizations [18, 50]).
    [Show full text]
  • Incorporating Actor Variables in Statistical Network Models
    Beyond Homophily: Incorporating Actor Variables in Statistical Network Models Tom A.B. Snijders University of Groningen, University of Oxford Department of Sociology, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712TG Groningen, The Netherlands Alessandro Lomi University of Italian Switzerland, Lugano October 17, 2018 1 Beyond Homophily: Incorporating Actor Variables in Statistical Network Models Abstract We consider the specification of effects of numerical actor attributes, measured according to an interval level of measurement, in statistical models for directed social networks. A fundamental mechanism is ho- mophily or assortativity, where actors have a higher likelihood to be tied with others having similar values of the variable under study. But there are other mechanisms that may also play a role in how the at- tribute values of two actors influence the likelihood of a tie between them. We discuss three additional mechanisms: aspiration, defined as the tendency to send more ties to others having high values; what we call attachment conformity, defined by sending more ties to others whose values are close to what may be considered the `social norm'; and sociability, where those having higher values will tend to send more ties generally. These mechanisms may operate jointly, and then their effects will be confounded. We present a specification representing these effects simultaneously by a four-parameter quadratic function of the values of sender and receiver. Greater flexibility can be obtained by a five-parameter extension. We argue that empirical researchers often overlook the possibility that homophily may be confounded with these other mechanisms, and that for numerical actor attributes that have important effects on directed networks, these specifications may provide an improvement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Group-Member Mind Trade-Off: Attributing Mind to Groups Versus Group Members
    Research Article Psychological Science 23(1) 77 –85 The Group-Member Mind Trade-Off: © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Attributing Mind to Groups Versus DOI: 10.1177/0956797611423546 Group Members http://pss.sagepub.com Adam Waytz1 and Liane Young2 1Management and Organizations Department, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, and 2Department of Psychology, Boston College Abstract People attribute minds to other individuals and make inferences about those individuals’ mental states to explain and predict their behavior. Little is known, however, about whether people also attribute minds to groups and believe that collectives, companies, and corporations can think, have intentions, and make plans. Even less is known about the consequences of these attributions for both groups and group members. We investigated the attribution of mind and responsibility to groups and group members, and we demonstrated that people make a trade-off: The more a group is attributed a group mind, the less members of that group are attributed individual minds. Groups that are judged to have more group mind are also judged to be more cohesive and responsible for their collective actions. These findings have important implications for how people perceive the minds of groups and group members, and for how attributions of mind influence attributions of responsibility to groups and group members. Keywords groups, theory of mind, mind attribution, morality, responsibility, law, social cognition, legal processes Received 3/3/11; Revision accepted 7/18/11 People recognize that others around them can think, have attributions of mind to the members of the same group.
    [Show full text]
  • European Union Politics
    European Union Politics http://eup.sagepub.com/ View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace at VU The Dimensionality of the EU Policy Space : The European Elections of 1999 Paul Pennings European Union Politics 2002 3: 59 DOI: 10.1177/1465116502003001004 The online version of this article can be found at: http://eup.sagepub.com/content/3/1/59 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for European Union Politics can be found at: Email Alerts: http://eup.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eup.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://eup.sagepub.com/content/3/1/59.refs.html Downloaded from eup.sagepub.com at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on April 9, 2011 04 Pennings (jr/d) 1/2/02 9:00 am Page 59 European Union Politics The Dimensionality of the EU [1465-1165(200203)3:1] Volume 3 (1): 59–80: 021225 Policy Space Copyright© 2002 SAGE Publications The European Elections of 1999 London, Thousand Oaks CA, New Delhi Paul Pennings Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands ABSTRACT In any full-grown democracy, parties must confront voters with real choices that matter. The European Union is often said to be devoid of these choices owing to minor policy differences between parties. The manifestos issued at European Parliament elections by party groups are often perceived as being bland and indistinguishable from each other. How correct is this perception? In this article, the diversity of policy positions within and between the main European party groups is analyzed by means of the Euro- pean election manifestos of 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relation Between Self-Efficacy and Group Cohesiveness Perceptions of Professional Men and Woman's Football Team (Ankara Province Example)
    Universal Journal of Management 8(2): 33-38, 2020 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/ujm.2020.080202 The Relation between Self-Efficacy and Group Cohesiveness Perceptions of Professional Men and Woman's Football Team (Ankara Province Example) Faruk Aydin1, Hakan Sunay2, Erdal Bal3, Erdem Ayyildiz2 1Faculty of Sport Sciences, Lokman Hekim University, Turkey 2Faculty of Sports Sciences, Ankara University, Turkey 3Faculty of Life Sciences, Health Sciences University, Turkey Received November 6, 2019; Revised December 28, 2019; Accepted December 30,2019; Copyright©2020 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License Abstract The Purpose of the study is to determine 1 . Introduction whether there is a meaningful difference between the self-efficacy and self-efficacy perceptions of the In our developing world, football has ceased to be a footballers (gender, marital status, age and education level game and has become an industry. In this industry, various etc.) according to their personal qualities. The sample of studies have been carried out to determine the group fit and the work consists of professional male and female soccer self-perception of the athletes in the teams. When the teams in Ankara. A total of 354 athletes from 10 male to 5 matches played on the team sports during the season are female soccer teams participated in the study. 128 female evaluated, it can be seen that the athletes who have soccer players and 226 male soccer players participated. discrepancies in the team at different times during the The majority of the athletes participating in the survey are season do not feel compatible with the group or do not between the ages of 19-23.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Matching and Mirroring with Homophily in Onboarding Leadership Socialization Manuel Almendarez Walden University
    Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2018 Testing Matching and Mirroring With Homophily in Onboarding Leadership Socialization Manuel Almendarez Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Walden University College of Management and Technology This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Manuel Almendarez has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Richard Schuttler, Committee Chairperson, Management Faculty Dr. Daphne Halkias, Committee Member, Management Faculty Dr. Jean Gordon, University Reviewer, Management Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D. Walden University 2018 Abstract Testing Matching and Mirroring With Homophily in Onboarding Leadership Socialization by Manuel Almendarez MBA, University of Phoenix, 2007 BBA, Houston Baptist University, 2002 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Leadership and Organizational Change Walden University February 2018 Abstract This study was designed to test the relationship between matching and mirroring (MM) and homophilous perceptions (PHM) in leadership socialization. Elevated PHM levels were hypothesized to affect workplace acceptance levels.
    [Show full text]