Cognitive Ability

Journal of Applied Psychology 2010, Vol. 95, No. 5, 889 –901  © 2010 American Psychological Association 0021-9010/10/$12. 00 DOI: 10. 1037/a0019985 Get Smarty Pants: Cognitive Ability, Personality, and Victimization Eugene Kim and Theresa M. Glomb University of Minnesota Drawing on the victim precipitation model, this study provides an empirical investigation of the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization at work. We propose that people high in cognitive ability are more prone to victimization.In this study, we also examine the direct and moderating effects of victims’ personality traits, specifically the 2 interpersonally oriented personality dimensions of agency and communion. Results support the direct positive relationship of cognitive ability and victimization. The positive relationship between high cognitive ability and victimization is moderated by the victims’ personality traits; agency personality traits strengthen the relationship of cognitive ability and victimization, whereas communion personality traits weaken this relationship.Keywords: cognitive ability, victimization, personality, agency, communion Recently, a Seattle Times article described the victimization of Suzuki Ichiro, a high-ability baseball player who achieved 200 hits for 8 consecutive years and was the 2007 All Star Game Most Valuable Player (see Baker, 2008). The article reported that his teammates from the Seattle Mariners stated they â€Å"really dislike him† and wanted to â€Å"knock him out† because this high-ability player cares more about individual records than team records.A popular press article (Bruzzese, 2002) reported that victims of workplace bullying are often employees who are â€Å"smart† and â€Å"talented,† and organizations that fail to prevent victimization against these talented employees will experience their turnover, decreases in productivity, and increases in health care costs (see also Murp hy, 2006). Similarly, a survey of workplace victimization suggests that â€Å"bright† people are often targets of interpersonal aggression because of their high level of ability (Namie & Namie, 2000).In the school context, research by Peterson and Ray (2006a, 2006b) on gifted children suggests that many high-ability students experience bullying in school because of their intellectual capability. Although each of the above examples provides a mere glimpse into the phenomena of victimization, together they suggest that ability may be a critical precipitating factor in victimization. However, there is limited research attention to the possibility that ability, specifically cognitive ability, may be associated with being a target of victimization—the possibility of â€Å"smart victims. Given that Brand (1987) posited â€Å"cognitive ability is to psychol- This article was published Online First August 16, 2010. Eugene Kim and Theresa M. Glomb, Department of Human Resourc es and Industrial Relations, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2009 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.We are grateful to Michelle Duffy, Paul Sackett, and the participants of the Center for Human Resources and Labor Studies Workshop for comments on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eugene Kim, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 321 19th Avenue South, Room 3-300, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: [email  protected] umn. edu 889 ogy as carbon is to chemistry† (p. 257), it is surprising that cognitive ability has not received attention in the workplace victimization literature.This study takes an important first step in establishing the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization in an organizational context; it builds the scholarly knowledge base of workplac e victimization and suggests that smart victims may be important to consider in attempts to prevent workplace victimization. In doing so, it makes contributions to the literature on cognitive ability, victimization, and an emerging theme in management research suggesting that victims may precipitate aggression from others in the workplace (for review, see Aquino & Thau, 2009).We outline these contributions below. First, this study suggests an exception to the generally accepted idea that cognitive ability is associated with various positive outcomes. Previous research confirming that cognitive ability predicts many job and real-life outcomes is plentiful (see Brand, 1987; Jensen, 1998; Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998); however, typically these outcomes are favorable. In comparison, we propose victimization, a negative outcome, will be higher for those high in cognitive ability.Understanding the relationship between cognitive ability and workplace victimization is particularly relevant because cognitive ability is used in selection decisions (Heneman & Judge, 2005) and is strongly related to skill and knowledge acquisition, task performance, and creativity at work (Kuncel et al. , 2004). Thus, understanding workplace victimization for those high in cognitive ability can reduce the risk of negative outcomes for these highly desirable employees, including decreased motivation, job satisfaction, and task performance (Glomb, 2002, in press) as well as lower team and organizational performance (Aquino & Thau, 2009).Second, this study extends the scope of the victim precipitation model, the idea that victims either intentionally or unintentionally provoke potential perpetrators. The limited application of the victim precipitation model emphasizes submissive and provocative victim characteristics (Aquino, 2000; Olweus, 1993) but has not posed the possibility of smart victims (for exceptions, see Namie & Namie, 2000; Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). By positing and testing the idea that smart victims may also adhere to the victim 890 KIM AND GLOMB recipitation model, we extend this theoretical framework beyond the typical submissive and provocative victim typologies. Third, we extend previous research by considering two basic personality dimensions—agency and communion (Digman, 1997; Wiggins, 1991)—and their interplay with cognitive ability and victimization. According to Bakan (1966), agency is defined as individualization in a group, and it involves independence, dominance, and personal growth; communion is defined as integration of the individual in a group, and it involves cooperation, attachment, and caring (see alsoWiggins, 1991). The original aim of agency and communion personality traits was to understand and distinguish interpersonal behaviors between individuals (Wiggins, 1991), thereby making agency and communion especially relevant to workplace victimization in which the interpersonal relationship of perpetrators and victims is critical for understanding victimization motives (see Schafer, 1977).Drawing primarily on the theory of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), we propose that communion is negatively related to victimization and also buffers the relationship of cognitive ability and victimization, whereas agency is positively related to victimization and also strengthens the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. In summary, in this study we advance theoretical and empirical research on workplace victimization by examining the role of cognitive ability in precipitating victimization at work and how personality traits linked to more favorable interpersonal interactions (i. e. agency and communion) may have direct and moderating effects on victimization. Workplace Victimization The prevalence of harmful behaviors among employees has been reflected in a growing body of academic research (e. g. , Aquino & Thau, 2009; Barling, Dupre, & Kelloway, 2009; Bowl? ing & Bee hr, 2006; Douglas et al. , 2008; Glomb, Steel, & Arvey, 2002; Hershcovis et al. , 2007; Neuman & Baron, 2005; Sackett & DeVore, 2001). Researchers have examined interpersonal workplace aggression—any form of interpersonal behavior to harm, injure, or discomfort the target at work (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Glomb, 2002)—at the individual level (e. . , Baron & Neuman, 1996) and have also extended theoretical and empirical frameworks to consider group-level (e. g. , Glomb & Liao, 2003) and dyadic (e. g. , Andersson & Pearson, 1999) relationships. Drawing on theories of victimization (e. g. , Curtis, 1974; Schafer, 1968; Sparks, Genn, & Dodd, 1977), researchers have also examined workplace victimization—the self-perception of being a target of interpersonal aggression at work (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, & Allen, 1999; Aquino & Thau, 2009)—at the individual level (e. g. , Aquino et al. 1999; Glomb, 2002), group level (e. g. , Aquino & Byron, 2002), and dyadic level (e. g. , Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). Drawing on criminology theory in which victim precipitation (Curtis, 1974) and victim elements (Schafer, 1968) are studied, researchers have suggested typical characteristics of victims. For example, Olweus’s (1978, 1993) work in school settings resulted in the proposition of two types of victims. One type of victim is labeled submissive victim and is more anxious, cautious, quiet, and sensitive than other students.In contrast to submissive victims, some students who show highly aggressive behaviors can also become the targets of aggression; Olweus (1993) referred to them as provocative victims. Although Olweus’s research was in a school setting, similar themes of victim types have been suggested in organizational contexts. For example, Aquino and colleagues (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000; Aquino & Byron, 2002; Aquino et al. , 1999) posited that self-determination, aggressiveness, dominating interpersonal behavior, and negative affect ivity are typical characteristics of victims.Individuals low in self-determination are more likely to be targets of aggression (e. g. , Aquino et al. , 1999) and may be likened to submissive victims. Individuals high in aggressiveness (e. g. , Aquino & Bradfield, 2000) and dominating interpersonal behavior (e. g. , Aquino & Byron, 2002) may be likened to provocative victims. Individuals high in negative affectivity may be likened to either submissive or provocative victims because negative affectivity is related to either insecurity and anxiety or hostility and aggression (e. . , Aquino & Bradfield, 2000; Aquino et al. , 1999). In other words, previous research suggests that certain types of individuals, either submissive or aggressive people, may be more frequent targets of aggression in both school and organizational contexts. Although existing research has enhanced the understanding of victimization, there is limited attention to the role of an important individual differenceâ₠¬â€ cognitive ability (for possible exceptions, see Namie & Namie, 2000; Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b).Peterson and Ray (2006b) showed that many smart students experienced bullying in school contexts and that intellectual capability is one of the most frequently reported reasons for being bullied. In their study, 36% of smart students were called derogatory names (e. g. , dork, geek, nerd, smarty, idiot, moron, retard, dumb), and 19% of them were teased about their grades and intelligence. According to Peterson and Ray’s (2006a) qualitative study, some high-ability students reported that the envy of lowability students contributes to targeting smart students.Interviewees stated that â€Å"gifted kids have the upper hand in classrooms† and â€Å"good kids usually get what they want† (p. 257). In addition, some students responded that competition between gifted students contributes to targeting one another. One interviewee reported being the target of bullying fr om â€Å"other gifted kids who didn’t like that I was smarter than they were† (p. 258). One exception to the lack of research on ability and victimization in organizational contexts is a survey of working adults by Namie and Namie (2000).Although this study was not focused on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization, their survey data provide insight into this issue. In their survey, more than 20% of survey participants (i. e. , targets and witnesses) responded that bright people were targets of interpersonal aggression, reporting that perpetrators envied the targets’ high level of competence and abilities (21%) and that perpetrators treated them as competitors or challengers who threatened their superiority (31%).Literature on school bullying among gifted children, employee reports of smart victims, and the submissive/provocative victim typology suggest that understanding the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization in an org anizational context is valuable. Linking Cognitive Ability and Victimization The victim precipitation model (e. g. , Amir, 1967; Curtis, 1974; Gottfredson, 1981; Schafer, 1968, 1977; Sparks et al. , 1977) undergirds the proposed relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. The core argument of the model is that victimsCOGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIMIZATION 891 exhibit behavioral tendencies (either intentional or unintentional) that provoke potential perpetrators to respond to them with harmful behaviors (see Aquino et al. , 1999; Schafer, 1977). In other words, at a minimum, victims unknowingly are at risk of victimization for their individual characteristics; at a maximum, individual characteristics lead to behaviors that elicit victimization from potential perpetrators. Cognitive ability may function as a â€Å"victim precipitator† for several reasons.First, the desirable characteristics of high-cognitive employees may unintentionally instigate other employees to react to them with harmful behaviors. As noted above, cognitive ability plays a central role in the prediction of myriad important workplace outcomes, including task performance, training performance, counterproductive work behavior, creativity, and career success (e. g. , Dilchert, Ones, Davis, & Rostow, 2007; Jensen, 1998; Judge, Higgins, Thoreson, & Barrick, 1999; Kuncel et al. , 2004; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1994; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).For example, the validity of cognitive ability in predicting task performance, training performance, and creativity is . 51, . 57 (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and . 36 (Kuncel et al. , 2004), respectively. However, these favorable outcomes may also create conditions for victimization. Such positive outcomes of highcognitive-ability employees make them more likely to be targets of an upward or a lateral social comparison process within a work group because individuals choose a â€Å"standard setter† who has high ability as a comparative target (Feldman & Ruble, 1981; Festinger, 1954).As a consequence, these comparisons may elicit negative cognitive and affective states, such as lowered self-evaluation and emotions of envy, shame, hostility, and interpersonal competition (e. g. , Garcia, Tor, Gonzalez, 2006; Smith, 2000; Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988), which in turn increase the likelihood of becoming the target of victimization.In other words, the positive characteristics of high-cognitive-ability employees unintentionally place them at risk of being a target because others want to restore their lowered self-evaluation and negative emotions following comparison (see Fein & Spencer, 1997; Smith, 1991). Schafer (1977) categorized this type of victim as someone who has done nothing against the perpetrators but whose unintentional behaviors or outcomes instigate the perpetrators to commit aggressive behaviors toward the victim.Second, the favorable characteristics of high-cognitive-abi lity employees may instigate other employees within a work group to react to them with harming behaviors in a more intentional way. An experimental study by Menon and Thompson (2007) found that individuals in higher (relative) social comparison positions are more likely to overestimate that they are a threat to others. This perceptual bias leads them to experience uncomfortable interpersonal relationships as â€Å"asymmetries in threat appraisal [strain] social interactions during a conflict situation† (p. 6). In their study, people who regarded themselves as threatening elicited less favorable reactions from a counterpart and lower satisfaction with the interaction, even though these perceptions about threat were not communicated explicitly during the interaction. In an organizational context, because of the positive work outcomes of highcognitive-ability employees, they are more likely to have favorable views of themselves, to perceive that others are threatened by them, an d to distrust others’ motives (i. e. , self-enhancing bias; Menon & Thompson, 2007).In other words, high-cognitive employees may overestimate the comparison threat they pose to other group members, which may result in a change in behaviors—for example, avoidance or condescension—toward other group members. This change in behavior then elicits harming behaviors from others (see Duffy, Shaw, & Schaubroeck, 2008). In summary, drawing on the victim precipitation model, we argue that high-cognitive-ability employees may instigate other individuals to respond to them with interpersonally aggressive behaviors.First, high-cognitive-ability employees may unintentionally provoke potential perpetrators because of their position as upward or lateral social comparison targets, thereby fostering negative affective and cognitive states in others who turn to harming behaviors. Second, high-cognitive-ability employees may provoke potential perpetrators because of their overestim ates of how threatening they are, which results in changed behaviors against coworkers that promote more negative interactions.Accordingly, we hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 1: High cognitive ability is positively related to victimization. We note that the current study is unable to address the specific mechanism for the association between cognitive ability and victimization. Rather, we propose likely theoretical mechanisms and conduct empirical tests that would lend support for this association without testing the exact meditational processes. The Role of Personality Traits: Agency and CommunionAccording to Bakan (1966), there are â€Å"two fundamental modalities in the existence of living forms, agency for the existence of an organism as an individual and communion for the participation of the individual in some larger organism of which the individual is part [emphasis added]† (p. 14). Wiggins (1991) integrated Bakan’s idea into the personality literature, d efining agency and communion as â€Å"the condition of being a differentiated individual and the condition of being part of a larger social or spiritual entity [emphasis added]† (p. 9), and proposed that the agency– communion model is relevant to understand and distinguish interpersonal behaviors between individuals. Personality researchers have used agency and communion as umbrella terms that broadly cover self-oriented terms (including independence, egoistic bias, ambition, self-competence, personal growth, and instrumentality) versus group-oriented terms (including cooperation, attachment, consideration, warmth, nurturance, and socialization), although these constructs are not exactly the same (e. g. Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Digman, 1997; Wiggins, 1991). Previous research suggested that two broad dimensions—akin to agency and communion—are independent higher order dimensions of personality in the interpersonal circumplex (e. g. , Blackburn, Renwick, Do nnelly, & Logan, 2004; Digman, 1997; Wiggins, 1991). With regard to the five-factor model of personality, Trapnell and Wiggins (1990) found that agency corresponds primarily to the dominance aspect of extraversion and that communion corresponds primarily to agreeableness (see also Peabody & Goldberg, 1989; Wiggins, 1991).Digman (1997) has also derived two independent higher order factors that correspond to an agency and communion taxonomy; agency corresponds to extraversion and openness (i. e. , personal growth), and communion corresponds to agreeableness, con- 892 KIM AND GLOMB scientiousness, and emotional stability (i. e. , socialization; see also John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1996). Recently, Abele and Wojciszke (2007) confirmed previous studies by showing that a pool of 300 trait items (e. g. , communion, collectivism, morality, and femininity items for communion; agency, individualism, competence, and masculinity items for agency) is educed to the two broad dimensions of agency and communion. This idea is well summarized by Abele and Wojciszke, who stated the following: There is a long tradition in social and personality psychology to distinguish fundamental dimensions for the description of persons and groups: social and intellectual desirability, individualism and collectivism, independent and interdependent self, competence and morality, competence and warmth, dominance and nurturance, masculinity and femininity, and so on.Following Bakan (1966), we call these fundamental dimensions agency and communion. (p. 759) a similar vein, Aquino and Bommer (2003) showed that high levels of organizational citizenship behavior decreases victimization; presumably, this relationship may be due to a positive reciprocity norm. Overall, targets who have high agency personality traits do not engage in the positive reciprocity cycle and are more likely to be engaged in the negative reciprocity circle, which increases the likelihood of victimization.Targets who have high c ommunion personality traits are more likely to be engaged in the positive reciprocity circle with coworkers, which decreases the likelihood of victimization. Therefore, we hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 2: High agency is positively related to victimization. Hypothesis 3: High communion is negatively related to victimization. Integrating the victim precipitation model with theories of reciprocity, we propose the moderating roles of agency and communion personality traits on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization.Although high levels of cognitive ability and competence may make someone predisposed to victimization, this may depend on their interpersonal interactions with others as influenced by their agency and communion personality traits. Because agency-driven behaviors do not build a norm of positive reciprocity or possibly initiate a norm of negative reciprocity, it strengthens the positive relationship between targets’ cognitive ability and vi ctimization. For example, employees who are high in cognitive ability and agency traits may use their talent to increase individual performance, which may negatively impact other group members.Conversely, because communion-driven behaviors initiate a norm of positive reciprocity between the giver and the taker, it circumvents or buffers the positive relationship between targets’ cognitive ability and victimization. For example, employees who are high in both cognitive ability and communion traits may use their talent to increase group performance (e. g. , help coworkers with workloads or problems). Such behaviors contribute to build the positive reciprocity cycle with coworkers and thereby weaken the likelihood of victimization because of high cognitive ability.Put simply, being smart and focused on oneself will lead to more victimization, but being smart and focused on group members will lead to less victimization. Although there is no direct empirical evidence suggesting an interactive effect of cognitive ability and agency and communion traits on victimization, recent studies hint at the plausibility of such an effect. For example, Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick (2006) suggested that people differentiate one another by competence as well as likeability, which in turn affects their cognitive and affective content of interpersonal perception (see also Collins, 1981).Similarly, Casciaro and Lobo (2005) suggested the importance of competence and likeability in a work setting; when individuals were high in both competence and likeability, coworkers treated them as â€Å"lovable stars,† but when individuals were high in competence and low in likeability, coworkers treated them as â€Å"competent jerks. † Consistent with the previous conceptual arguments, Casciaro and Lobo (2008) showed that individuals who are competent and likeable form more task interaction networks, whereas individuals who are competent and dislikeable fail to form taskPut simply , agency and communion personality traits are independent multidimensional constructs (Saragovi, Koestner, Dio, & Aube, 1997) that reflect self-oriented and group-oriented behaviors. Given that behaviors are rooted in personality traits (see Fleeson, 2001; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Moskowitz & Cote, 1995) and that agency and communion personality traits serve to describe interpersonal behaviors (Wiggins, 1991), we propose that individuals who have more agency traits, such as independence, egoistic bias, ambition, and self-competence, are involved in agency-driven behaviors, such as seeking goals and being less concerned about others.Conversely, individuals who have more communion traits, such as communality, socialization, consideration, and warmth, are involved in communion-driven behaviors, such as helping and nurturing coworkers and developing harmonious interpersonal relationships with coworkers. The direct relationship between agency and communion personality traits and victimizat ion is supported by theories of reciprocity. Agency-driven behaviors do not build a norm of positive reciprocity, at best (Axelrod, 1984), and initiate a norm of negative reciprocity, at worst (Andersson & Pearson, 1999).In the absence of a norm of positive reciprocity, employees do not feel obligated to respond to (positive) actions with other positive actions. Individuals high in agency engage in agency-driven behaviors, which may be at the expense of and harmful to others. A norm of negative reciprocity will perpetuate these harmful behaviors. Thus, aggressive behaviors against individuals who are high in agency may, in fact, increase. This implies higher victimization for people who have agency traits that either block the positive reciprocity norm or elicit the negative reciprocity norm through agency-driven behaviors.Conversely, communion-driven behaviors initiate a norm of positive reciprocity between the giver and the taker (Gouldner, 1960). In other words, the taker general ly responds to the communion-driven behavior with another communion-driven behavior toward the giver. After building a norm of positive reciprocity, both givers and takers are reluctant to violate this relationship through harming one another because it breaks the social norm and promotes a reputation for being untrustworthy, unkind, and unthankful (Cialdini, 2001; Gouldner, 1960).Thus, individuals who are high in communion traits engage in communion-driven behaviors and perpetuate a norm of positive reciprocity in which they are less likely to be the targets of interpersonal aggression. In COGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIMIZATION 893 interaction networks. Although failure to form task networks with â€Å"competent jerks† is distinct from victimizing them, this work does suggest withholding something favorable from them—a behavior that is consistent with some passive, indirect forms of victimization examined here (e. . , withholding information or resources). In line with t his research, we predict that two interpersonally oriented personality dimensions that affect likeability play a critical role in the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization; smart individuals who are high in agency traits may experience more victimization, whereas smart individuals who are high in communion traits may experience less victimization.Therefore, we hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 4: The relationship between cognitive ability and victimization is moderated by agency, such that when targets are high in cognitive ability, targets high in agency will experience more victimization than those lower on agency. Hypothesis 5: The relationship between cognitive ability and victimization is moderated by communion, such that when targets are high in cognitive ability, targets high in communion will experience less victimization than those lower on communion.Method Participants and Procedure Two hundred and seventeen employees of an organization that manages health care homes for individuals with disabilities voluntarily completed paper-and-pencil surveys during on-site survey administration with researchers. 1 Participants were guaranteed confidentiality. Employees within a health care home worked closely with one another to provide excellent care and service for the residents, and they constitute our work groups.Of the respondents, 95% were Caucasian, 74% were women, and 35% were employed full time. Average tenure was 22 months, and average age was 24 years. The organization had administered the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1984) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough & Bradley, 1996) to job applicants prior to hire, and the Wonderlic and CPI scores of our respondents were linked to the survey data from the current study using identifiers. Fifty employees who did not have Wonderlic and CPI scores were excluded.After listwise deletion of individuals with incomplete information, the final sample was composed of 133 employees in 27 groups (i. e. , health care homes). Group size ranged from two to 10 members (average 4. 93). Comparisons between those respondents who were in our final sample and those who were deleted because of missing data revealed only one significant difference; excluded employees had slightly lower negative affectivity scores ( p . 05). Measures Cognitive ability. Cognitive ability was assessed using the Wonderlic Personnel Test prior to hire.The Wonderlic Personnel Test is a 50-item, 12–20-min omnibus test of intelligence, and it was originally designed to measure general mental ability for personnel selection. The manual reports that test–retest reliability ranges from . 82 to . 94 and that interform reliabilities range from . 73 to . 95 (Wonderlic, 1984). Victimization. Victimization was assessed using the 20-item Aggressive Experiences Scale (AES)-Target scale (Glomb, in press; Glomb & Liao, 2003). Illustrative items are â€Å"how often has a coworker or supervisor made angry gestures toward you? â€Å"how often has a coworker or supervisor spread rumors about you? † and â€Å"how often has a coworker or supervisor belittled your opinions in front of others? † Respondents indicated the frequency of their victimization experience using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (once a week or more). One item was removed because of zero variance (â€Å"how often has a coworker or supervisor physically assaulted you? †). The coefficient alpha of the AESTarget scale was . 87. Agency and communion.At present, there are not commonly accepted assessments of agency and communion, perhaps because of their designation as higher order constructs. Agency and communion have been measured by the Masculinity and Femininity scales from several personality inventories, including the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974) and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974; for review, see Helgeson, 1994; Saragovi et al. , 1997). Agency and communion have also been measured using the five-factor model; Wiggins (1991) suggested using the Extraversion (i. e. dominance facet only) and Agreeableness scales because these capture a substantial portion of variance in agency and communion, respectively (for empirical support, see also Peabody & Goldberg, 1989; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). Also, using the Big Five framework, Digman (1997) suggested using the Extraversion and Openness scales for agency (i. e. , personal growth) and the Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability scales for communion (i. e. , socialization). In this study, agency and communion were operationalized using both Wiggins’s (1991) specific measure approach and Digman’s (1997) broad measure approach.Following Wiggins’s approach, we selected the CPI scale of Dominance ( . 83) for agency and the CPI scale of Communality ( . 71) for communion. The CPI-Dominance is highly correlated with extraversion (r . 82; Fleenor & Eastman, 1997), and dominance is a key facet of extraversion (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). The construct definition also supported our choice: Individuals high in dominance are assertive, dominant, and task-oriented; individuals low in dominance are quiet and cautious. The CPI-Communality is highly correlated with agreeableness (r . 0; Fleenor & Eastman, 1997), and agreeableness corresponds to communion (Wiggins, 1991). The construct definition of communality supports our decision: Individuals who are high in communality are likely to be team players who fit in with other people easily, agreeable, cooperative, reasonable, approachable for advice, dependable, and contented; individuals who are low in communality are likely to be nonconformers, changeable, moody, and reckless (Gough & Bradley, 1996; Groth-Marnat, 1990). Following Digman’s (1997) broader approach to agency measurement, we selected the CPI scales of Social Presence ( . 2), 1 This data set was used to examine different research questions in Glomb and Liao (2003), Glomb and Tews (2004), and Glomb and Welsh (2005). 894 KIM AND GLOMB Capacity for Status ( . 72), and Independence ( . 74) in addition to Dominance. These additional three scales have been identified as compound traits of extraversion and openness (Fleenor & Eastman, 1997), and extraversion and openness correspond to agency (Digman, 1997). CPI-Social Presence also corresponds to the dominance facet rather than the sociability facet of extraversion (Hough & Ones, 2001).The construct definition supported our choice: Individuals high in social presence are self-assured in social settings, and individuals low in social presence are reserved; individuals high in capacity for status are likely to be ambitious and to have high desire to succeed, and individuals low in capacity for status dislike competition; individuals high in independence are likely to be self-sufficient, persistent in seeking goals whether others agree, aggressive, and assertive, and individuals low in independence are likely to seek support from others, avoid conflict, be meek, and be mild (Gough & Bradley, 1996).We used similar conceptual and construct evidence for the Communion scale. In addition to CPI-Communality, we selected the CPI scales of Socialization ( . 78) and Responsibility ( . 77) because these two scales have been identified by Hough and Ones (2001) as compound traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (see also Fleenor & Eastman, 1997); furthermore, Digman (1997) has suggested that communion corresponds to agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability.The construct definition of these two components also supported our decision: Individuals high in socialization are likely to be conscientious and easy to conform to others, whereas individuals low in socialization are likely to be rebellious and to have unconventional attitudes; individuals high in respons ibility are responsible and ethically perceptive, whereas individuals low in responsibility are likely to be self-indulgent and careless (Gough & Bradley, 1996).In summary, the Agency scale is composed of the CPI scales of Dominance, Social Presence, Capacity for Status, and Independence; the Communion scale is composed of the CPI scales of Communality, Socialization, and Responsibility. 2 Given the typical conceptualization of agency and communion as broad traits, we consider the broad operationalization in our primary analyses and conduct additional analyses for the narrow, one variable conceptualization. The reliability scores of multidimensional Agency and Communion scales were . 87 and . 84, respectively (see Cronbach, 1951; W. M. Rogers, Schmitt, & Mullins, 2002).We conducted confirmatory factor analysis to assess whether the CPI scales load on the higher order common latent constructs of agency and communion using LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The results for the ? Agen cy and Communion scales reveal that a two-factor model— 2 (12) 19. 43; incremental fit index (IFI) . 98; comparative fit index (CFI) . 98; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) . 06; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) . 07—fits the data quite well and fits significantly better than a one-factor model— 2(13) 49. 96; IFI . 91; CFI . 90; SRMR . 10; RMSEA . 5—providing evidence that subscales load on the higher order measures of agency and communion. In addition, agency and communion correlate . 16 (ns) in our study, which is comparable with correlations reported in previous studies (e. g. , Abele & Wojciszke, 2007 [r –. 03, –. 05]; Bruch, 2002 [r . 05, . 11]; Conway, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996 [r . 27, . 32]). We also assessed the criterion-related validity of the Agency and Communion scales by examining whether they are significantly related to variables shown to be related to agency and communion measures in the broader p ersonality psychology literature.Specifically, we assessed life satisfaction and burnout in our study but did not examine these variables in our substantive hypotheses. Correlations in our data are similar to those in prior literature using alternative operationalizations of communion and agency. Specifically, results show that our Communion scale is significantly related to well-being outcomes, such as life satisfaction (r . 24, p . 01, compared with r . 26 for women and . 28 for men in Saragovi et al. , 1997), and that our Agency scale is significantly related to psychological health outcomes, such as emotional exhaustion (r –. 21, p . 01, compared with r –. 5 in Roos & Cohen, 1987). Control variables. On the basis of previous workplace victimization research (e. g. , Aquino et al. , 1999; Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Hentig, 1948; Schafer, 1968), we controlled for several variables to reduce the potential impact of unmeasured variables on victimizatio n. Empirical evidence on the relationship between employee demographics and victimization shows mixed findings (Bowling & Beehr, 2006); we control for an employee’s age, gender, and tenure in the organization. There is a compelling theoretical link between organizational hierarchy and victimization (see Aquino et al. 1999); we control for supervisory versus nonsupervisory status. Individual differences, such as positive and negative affectivity, show mixed relationships with victimization (see Bowling & Beehr, 2006); we use the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to control for positive affectivity ( . 86) and negative affectivity ( . 86). Stress may generate negative affective and behavioral responses that spark victimization (Bowling & Beehr, 2006); we use the Stress Diagnostic Survey (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1982) to control for job, work group, and organizational stress ( . 9 for job, . 89 for work group, and . 87 for organizational s tress). Interpersonal aggression engagement has been proposed as an antecedent of victimization on the basis of social exchange theory (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Bandura, 1973), and Glomb and her colleagues (e. g. , Glomb, 2002; Glomb & Liao, 2003) provided empirical support for the idea of reciprocal aggression. Interpersonal aggression engagement was assessed by the AES-Engaged In scale (Glomb, in press; Glomb & Liao, 2003).The AES-Target (discussed above) and AES-Engaged In scales have the same item content except that one asks about behaviors that you were the target of and the others asks about behavior that you engaged in. We removed three items from the AES-Engaged In scale ( . 80) because of zero variance. Other CPI scales were excluded for one of two reasons: (a) They did not include the core dimensions of Extroversion–Dominance for agency or Agreeableness for communion, or (b) they included these dimensions but were contaminated by others as well.These â€Å"mixed † scales were the most likely reason for exclusion. Specific mappings of CPI scales to Big Five (i. e. , A: agreeableness, C: conscientiousness, ES: emotional stability, EX: extraversion, O: openness) characteristics are as follows: Self-Acceptance (ES EX), Empathy (EX O C), Well-Being (ES EX), Tolerance (O A), Achievement With Conformation (O C), Achievement With Independence (ES EX O C), Psychological-Mindedness (ES O), Flexibility (O C), Sociability (EX-Sociability), Intellectual Efficiency (O), Self-Control (ES C), and Good Impression (C). COGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIMIZATION 895 Results Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 1. Cognitive ability is significantly correlated with victimization (r . 18, p . 05). Agency and communion are not significantly correlated with victimization. Several control variables—including age (r . 21, p . 01); job, workgroup, organizational stress (r . 41, . 24, . 41, respectively, p . 01); and aggressi on engagement (r . 54, p . 01)—are significantly correlated with victimization.The control variables of positive and negative affectivity and hierarchical status suggest nonsignificant associations with victimization. Table 2 presents the regression results using the broad operationalization of agency and communion (see Digman, 1997). Because individuals in the same work group are not independent, the independent assumption of traditional ordinary least squares regression is violated, causing biased estimators. Therefore, we used a clustered regression with a White-correction in STATA that allows covariance between individuals within groups and corrects for heteroscedasticity across groups (see W.H. Rogers, 1993). We report unstandardized regression coefficients and regular R2 because standardized coefficients and adjusted R2 are not valid with the cluster option (see Glomb & Liao, 2003; W. H. Rogers, 1993). We tested the degree of multicollinearity with the variance inflatio n factor; values ranged from 1. 05 to 1. 94, with an average variance inflation factor of 1. 37, suggesting it was not a critical problem. Control variables explain 42% of the variance in victimization (Model 1). Model 2 includes cognitive ability, agency, and communion.Results suggest a significant relationship between cognitive ability and victimization (b 0. 17, p . 01), supporting Hypothesis 1. Agency and victimization were also significantly associated (b 0. 08, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 2. This association is different from the nonsignificant zero-order correlation, suggesting the association exists after controlling for other variables. Consistent with the zero-order correlations, communion was not significantly associated with victimization; Hypothesis 3 was not supported. These variables explain an additional 4% of the variance in victimization.Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Gender Tenure (years) Age (years) Hierarchical status Negative affectivity Positive affectivity Job stress Workgroup stress Organizational stress Aggression engagement Agency (index) Communion (index) Agency (CPI–Dominance) Communion (CPI–Communality) Cognitive ability Victimization M SD 1 . 15 . 09 . 05 . 00 . 11 . 02 . 12 . 21 . 11 . 01 . 09 . 03 . 09 . 18 . 02 2 3 4 To test the moderating effects of personality traits, we used hierarchical moderated regression with centered interaction terms.Interaction terms explain an additional 4% of the variance in victimization (Model 3). Hypothesis 4, which predicts the moderating role of agency personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, was supported (b 0. 02, p . 05). Hypothesis 5, which predicts the moderating role of communal personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, was also supported (b – 0. 05, p . 05). The interactions were plotted using Aiken an d West’s (1991) method and are shown in Figures 1 and 2.Figure 1 illustrates that as cognitive ability increases, for those high in agency, victimization increases compared with those low in agency. Figure 2 illustrates that as cognitive ability increases, for those low in communion, victimization increases, and for those high in communion, victimization decreases. These results suggest that agency traits exacerbate and that communion traits buffer the relationship of cognitive ability to victimization. We tested the same regression model using specific measures of agency and communion, which is consistent with Wiggins’s (1991) operationalization (i. e. CPI-Dominance for agency and CPI-Communality for communion). These results suggest similar empirical findings, which confirm the role of cognitive ability, agency, and communion on victimization at work. Table 3 presents the regression results. In Model 4, results suggest a significant relationship between cognitive abi lity and victimization (b 0. 15, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 1. Dominance and victimization were significantly associated (b 0. 11, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 2. Communality was also significantly associated with victimization (b – 0. 18, p . 05), supporting Hypothesis 3.This finding is different than the broad communion index, in which the association was not significant. These variables explain an additional 6% of the variance in victimization. In Model 5, interaction terms explain an additional 2% of the variance in victimization. Hypothesis 4, which predicts the moderating role of agency personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0. 74 0. 44 1. 85 2. 21 23. 77 7. 41 0. 73 0. 45 19. 24 5. 22 37. 61 5. 63 11. 94 3. 81 9. 63 3. 63 14. 94 5. 02 21. 33 5. 06 55. 55 7. 98 55. 21 4. 25 58. 85 10. 3 54. 43 5. 34 25. 41 5. 40 23. 74 6. 41 .28 . 20 . 04 . 12 . 22 . 18 . 39 . 28 . 16 . 03 . 12 . 05 . 18 . 16 .19 . 10 . 06 . 33 . 31 . 28 . 05 . 03 . 06 . 09 . 01 . 08 . 21 .14 . 05 . 37 . 05 . 21 . 09 . 15 . 07 . 09 . 07 . 05 . 14 .19 . 06 . 15 . 02 . 19 . 10 . 23 . 07 . 18 . 05 . 00 .06 . 29 . 13 . 10 . 27 . 25 . 29 . 09 . 12 . 03 .45 . 55 . 25 . 03 . 01 . 01 . 05 . 03 . 41 .43 . 21 . 01 . 15 . 01 . 12 . 12 . 24 .31 . 22 . 04 . 21 . 01 . 07 . 41 .07 . 05 . 07 . 03 . 08 . 54 .16 . 87 . 11 . 13 . 04 .24 . 54 . 14 . 11 . 11 . 10 . 09 .05 . 09 . 18 1, male Note. N 133. Correlations greater than . 7 are significant at p . 05; those greater than . 21 are significant at p 0; Hierarchical status: subordinate 1, supervisor 0; CPI California Psychological Inventory. .01. Gender: female 896 KIM AND GLOMB Table 2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Victimization Victimization Variable Gender Tenure (years) Age (years) Hierarchical status Negative affectivity Positive affectivity Job stress Workgroup stress Organizational stress Aggression engagement Cognitive ability Agency (index) Commu nion (index) Cognitive Ability Agency Cognitive Ability Communion R2 R2 Model 1 0. 2 . 03 . 09 . 55 . 11 . 03 . 35 . 03 . 24 . 62 Model 2 1. 16 . 01 . 09 . 81 . 12 . 05 . 37 . 10 . 25 . 60 . 17 . 08 . 21 . 46 . 04 Model 3 1. 06 . 02 . 09 1. 09 . 15 . 04 . 43 . 18 . 27 . 60 . 15 . 06 . 26 . 02 . 05 . 50 . 04 .42 Note. N 133. Regression coefficients are unstandardized because standard regression coefficients are invalid with the cluster option (see Glomb & Liao, 2003; W. H. Rogers, 1993). Gender: female 1, male 0; Hierarchical status: subordinate 1, supervisor 0. p . 05. p . 01 (two-tailed test).Figure 2. The moderating role of communion personality traits on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. was marginally supported (b 0. 01, p . 10). Hypothesis 5, which predicts the moderating role of communion personality traits on the association between cognitive ability and victimization, was supported (b – 0. 03, p . 05). Discussion The primary purpose of this study was to examine the role of cognitive ability in workplace victimization, a topic that has received scant research attention.Cognitive ability predicts many job and real-life outcomes (see Brand, 1987), and thus, it is important to include in the portfolio of variables associated with victimization, such as personality, demographics, behaviors, and organizational characteristics (see Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006). Consistent with a victim precipitation model, our results suggest that cognitive ability is associated with workplace victimization. We also tested the relationship between agency and communion—two interpersonally oriented personality dimensions—and victimization.Consistent with a negative reciprocity cycle and a provocative victim typology, our results suggest that individuals high in agency personality traits experience victimization at work. Counter to expectations, we did not find a significant relationship between communion and lower victimization in our primary analyses. This nonsignificant finding may be explained by the positive–negative asymmetry effect (see Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Fickenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Taylor, 1991), which would suggest that positive interpersonal interactions carry less weight than negative social interactions, and therefore, it may cause a nonsignificant finding.The nonsignificant findings may also be caused by the broad communion measure, the components of which might evidence differential relationships with victimization. A previous study found that victimization is significantly associated with agreeableness ( – . 21, p . 05) but is not significantly associated with conscientiousness and emotional stability ( – . 02 and . 10, respectively; Figure 1. The moderating role of agency personality traits on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. COGNITIVE ABILITY AND VICTIMIZATION 897Table 3 Supplemental Analysis Results of Hierarchical Regress ion Analysis for Victimization Victimization Variable Gender Tenure (years) Age (years) Hierarchical status Negative affectivity Positive affectivity Job stress Workgroup stress Organizational stress Aggression engagement Cognitive ability Agency (CPI Dominance) Communion (CPI Communality) Cognitive Ability Agency Cognitive Ability Communion R2 R2 Model 4 1. 33 . 01 . 11 . 46 . 11 . 00 . 34 . 14 . 28 . 61 . 15 . 11 . 18 . 48 . 06 Model 5 1. 24 . 02 . 08 . 36 . 14 . 00 . 35 . 18 . 30 . 61 . 12 . 10 . 18 . 1†  . 03 . 50 . 02†  outcomes, rather than the more distal individual difference of cognitive ability, that are mediating explanatory variables. Future work might explore whether high performance, ability, and achievement in other domains adhere to similar processes (cf. Feather, 1994, on tall poppies). Theoretical Implications This study contributes to the cognitive ability, personality, and workplace victimization literatures in a variety of ways. First, we extend the sc ope of the victim precipitation model by proposing and testing the possibility of smart victims.Second, contrary to the existing cognitive ability literature, our finding indicates a potential downside to high cognitive ability (e. g. , for another possible exception, such as clever concealer effects, see Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). This study moves cognitive ability research in a new direction by positing and testing a potential downside to high cognitive ability in the workplace. Third, in our study we examined two broad interpersonally oriented personality dimensions— agency and communion—and their association with workplace victimization.Although personality researchers have confirmed that the agency and communion model is useful in terms of investigating interpersonally oriented outcomes (see Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Bruch, 2002; Digman, 1997; Helgeson, 1994; Wiggins, 1991), this model is currently less popular than the Big Five model in organizational scholarship , perhaps because of the absence of an agreed upon operationalization of these multidimensional traits (see Helgeson, 1994; Saragovi et al. , 1997).Although the Big Five is certainly a useful taxonomy, because we are interested in workplace victimization and the interpersonal relationships between victims and perpetrators, the agency and communion framework may be useful for future victimization research. Fourth, the interplay of two key individual differences— cognitive ability and personality traits— on victimization provides an integration of two complementary theories, which adhere to the social and personality psychological models of social interactions. Although previous workplace victimization literature integrated the victim precipitation model with structural theory (e. g. Aquino, 2000; Aquino et al. , 1999), and reciprocity theory with structural theory (e. g. , Aquino & Bommer, 2003), the integration of the victim precipitation model and reciprocity theory h as not received research attention. In this study, we take the first step by integrating victim precipitation with reciprocity theory to demonstrate the interactive effects of cognitive ability and agency– communion personality traits on workplace victimization. This approach is consistent with social psychological literature suggesting the multiplicative effect of competence and likeability on social interactions (see Casciaro & Lobo, 2008; Fiske et al. 2006). Note. N 133. Regression coefficients are unstandardized because standard regression coefficients are invalid with the cluster option (see Glomb & Liao, 2003; W. H. Rogers, 1993). Gender: female 1, male 0; Hierarchical status: subordinate 1, supervisor 0; CPI California Psychological Inventory. †  p . 10. p . 05. p . 01 (two-tailed test). Jensen-Campbell et al. , 2002), which are captured in our index. These results are consistent with our supplemental analysis; when we adopted the specific scale of Communion (i. e . CPICommunality for agreeableness; see Wiggins, 1991), we found a significant relationship between communion and victimization (b – 0. 18, . 15, p . 05). More studies are necessary to have greater confidence in the relationship between communion personality traits and victimization at work. Finally, our results demonstrate the moderating effects of agency and communion on the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization. Results suggest that the relationship between cognitive ability and victimization is exacerbated by agency personality traits, which is manifested in self-oriented behaviors (i. . , independence, dominance, capacity for status, and social presence) in a work group. Conversely, results suggest that the increased propensity to be victimized because of one’s high cognitive ability can be mitigated by communion personality traits, which is manifested in other-oriented or â€Å"team player† behavior (i. e. , communality, responsibility, and socialization) in a work group. We acknowledge that we do not study possible mediating mechanisms and that cognitive ability may be operating as a proxy for other variables relevant to workplace success.For example, it may be that high-performing individuals, rather than high-cognitiveability individuals, are those who are most likely to be the targets of interpersonal aggression. Similar theoretical processes of social comparison would also apply to high performance, but in this case, cognitive ability operates as a proxy for performance. As noted, cognitive ability is related to myriad positive outcomes on the job, and we acknowledge that it may be those proximal favorable job Organizational ImplicationsIn the 1950 movie Harvey, Jimmy Stewart’s character Elwood Dowd says, â€Å"Years ago my mother used to say to me . . . She’d say ‘In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant. ’ Well, for years I was smart . . . I recommend pleasa nt. † On the basis of our findings, we recommend that if you are going to be â€Å"oh-so smart† then you should also be â€Å"oh-so pleasant† to avoid workplace victimization. Beyond individual advice, the results also have important practical implications for managers. First, 898 KIM AND GLOMB managers need to be aware of this potential dark side of high cognitive ability at work.Managers are familiar with the positive side of high cognitive ability, but initial evidence of smart victims suggests managers may need to be on the lookout for and take precautions to deter the workplace victimization of smart employees. The strong and consistent relationship between cognitive ability and many elements of performance suggests that these individuals may be among the most important to keep satisfied, productive, and retained. Tactics helpful in preventing the victimization of high-cognitive-ability employees may reduce both the proximal and distal costs of workplace vic timization.Second, our results suggest that high cognitive ability does not predestine employees to be victimized—their personality also plays a role. Although managers attend to personality during the selection process because it predicts job performance (see Dunn, Mount, Barrick, & Ones, 1995), our results suggest that personality can also have either a protective (i. e. , communion) or intensifying (i. e. , agency) role in victimization. We do not suggest that organizations should not select applicants who are high in agency traits because they are more vulnerable to victimization at work.Personality traits have their own bright and dark sides (see Judge & LePine, 2007). For example, although our results show that employees who are high in agency traits are more likely to be victims at work, research also shows that traits under the agency umbrella are associated with being a leader (e. g. , extraversion; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Further, although high-abilit y employees who are also high in communion are less likely to be victims at work, research also suggests that traits under the communion umbrella are associated with the use of more lenient standards to evaluate coworker performance (e. . , agreeableness; Bernardin, Cooke, & Villanova, 2000). Thus, organizations need to consider both the benefits and costs of the communion and agency personality traits of employees and to be aware of their correlates, both favorable and unfavorable. Regardless of the composition of agency and communion in the workforce, organizations can attempt to modify individual behaviors by creating strong situations (e. g. , human resource practices, organization culture) that minimize the link between personality and behaviors and that enhance positive reciprocity norms between employees.Limitations and Future Directions This study is not without limitation. First, range restriction in cognitive ability may cause reduced sample correlations. However, given th at range restriction reduces the strength of relationships because of limited variance (Sackett & Yang, 2000), this seems to be a minor issue. Further, the degree of variability of cognitive ability is similar to that in other studies (e. g. , Chan, 1997; Mumford, Van Iddekinge, Morgeson, & Campion, 2008; Sackett & Ostgaard, 1994). Second, the external validity of these findings is limited.This data set is small and is from a predominantly Caucasian sample of health care workers. The sample is also predominantly female, which may have influenced effects; women high in cognitive ability and agency may be particularly prone to victimization because of gender stereotypes (see Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972). The context of a health care home is interesting because employees may be more empathetic and less competitive given self-selection into this caring profession.They are also more likely to be exposed to victimization; the health care industry continually reports some of the highest levels of workplace aggression and victimization (see Rippon, 2000), though victimization is often perpetrated by patients, and in our study we examined victimization from coworkers and supervisors. Examining our relationships in other business contexts and groups is necessary. Third, the construct validity of our agency and communion measures may be questioned.Given that there is not a generally accepted method of transforming the CPI scales into the broad indices of agency and communion, we created our own measures guided by previous literature and linkages of the content of the scales (e. g. , Digman, 1997; Gough & Bradley, 1996; Hough & Ones, 2001). In the field of personality psychology, there have been calls for the development and study of agency and communion scales (see Helgeson, 1994); we concur and believe the development of valid and concise measures of agency and communion traits might promulgate the use of these interpersonally oriented per sonality constructs.Fourth, measures were self-report from a single source, and thus, common method bias is a potential problem. However, cognitive ability and personality traits were measured for personnel selection, and perceived victimization was measured 22 months later, on average (i. e. , average tenure is 22 months). Because there are large temporal and psychological distances between cognitive ability and perceived victimization measures, the impact of common method bias is not a major concern (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).We also controlled for positive affectivity and negative affectivity, which also impact the cognitive perception and reporting processes (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Isen, 1987; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Schmitt, 1994; Spector, 1994; Watson & Clark, 1984). As Schmitt (1994) suggested, the appropriateness of methods should be based on the stage of development of the research; given the lack of research in this area, self-report data would be deemed acceptable. Further, as noted by others (e. . , Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Spector, 1994), it is difficult to envision circumstances in which non-self-report data w

Mktg 2202 Midterm Review

Chp 1 * The promotional mix * Advertising * Sales Promotion * Public Relations * Direct Marketing * internet marketing * personal selling Chp 3 * Consumer Decision Making Decision Stage| Psychological Process| Need Recognition| Motivation| Information Search| Perception| Alternative Evaluation| Attitude Formation| Purchase Decision| Integration| Postpurchase Evaluation| Learning| * Target Market and Target Audience * Target Market * The group of consumers toward which an overall marketing program is directed. * Target Audience * A group of consumers within the target market for which the advertising campaign is directed. Target audience options: rossiter and percy perspective * Brand loyal customers regularly buy the firm’s product * Favourable brand switchers buy focal brand but also buy others * Non-customers * New catergory users customers not purchasing within a product category * Other brand switchers not consistently purchasing focal brand * Other brand loyals loyal to a nother brand Chp4 * The communications processFeedback Feedback Response Response decoding decoding Encoding Encoding Receiver Receiver Channel Message Channel Message Source/Sender Source/Sender chp4 1.Traditional Models a. Aida b. Hierarchy of effects c. Innovation adoption model d. Information processing model 2. Response process models e. Standard learning model > learn/feel/do f. Dissonance/attribution model >do/ feel/learn g. Low involvement model>learn/ do/ feel 3. Cognitive reponse models h. Cognitive response approach-message/source/ad i. Elaboration likelihood model-central/peripheral Chp 5 * Dagmar Definition of Objectives * Target Audience * Benchmark and Degree of Change Sought * Specified Time period * Concrete, measurable tasks * What affects sales? * Technology * Competition * The economy Advertising and promotion * Product quality * Distribution * Price Chp 6 * Brand Strategy models * Salient Beliefs * Beliefs concerning specific attributes or benefits that are acti vated and form the basis of an attitude * Evolve over time * Differ across various segments * Brand positioning Strategy * Relates to the intended image of a product or brand relative to a competing brand for a give competitive space as defined by certain product market or category characteristics Chp7 * Source The person involved in communicating a marketing message, either directly or indirectly Direct Source| Indirect Source|A spokesperson who delivers a message or demonstrates a product or service| Doesn’t actually deliver a message| Andre Agassi endorsing head tennis rackets| Draws attention to or enhances the appearance of the ad| | A model| Seeking the major idea Seeking the major idea Chp 8 * Creative Execution Style * The way in which an advertising appeal is presented * Message Structure * The structure of a persuasive message can influence its effectiveness * Design Elements * The way in which components are place on the page or screen * Ad execution Techniques Str aight-sell / Factual| Animation|Scientific/technical evidence| Personality symbol| Demonstration| Imagery| Comparison| Dramatization| Slice of life| Humour| testimonial| | Chp9 * Marketing Testing Print Ads Post-test of Print Ads Post-test of Print Ads * Reasons for and against measuring effectiveness * Reasons to measure * Avoid costly mistakes * Evaluate Alternative Strategies * Increase Advertising Efficiency * Reasons Not to measure * Cost * Problems with Research * Disagreement on what to test * Objections of creative specialists Chp 10 * Media Tactics Decisions * Media Vehicle * Budget Adjustments * Blocking Chart * Media Strategy Decisions

Lactobacillus Bulgaricus vs E.Coli Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Lactobacillus Bulgaricus vs E.Coli - Essay Example Effect of a microorganism or virulence of a bacterium may be caused by an organism being physically present in the host where it releases toxins to the host directly or its preformed toxins get into another organism’s body system through various routes such ingestion, skin etc. The virulence of microorganisms varies across genus as well as species. In this paper, I am going to describe two bacteria, explain their ecological niche, and finally compare them. Selection of bacteria After a thorough evaluation of bacteria I have rested on Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus bulgaricus. The reason for selecting the two organisms is that they share a common feature of exhibiting a rectangular shape but their behaviors are totally different. Their similarities and differences are expounded below. Lactobacillus bulgaricus Lactobacillus bulgaricus’ is a non pathogenic organism. It occurs in its natural environment and its ecological niche is where there is its requirements for gro wth are provided especially in dairy products that contain lactose. It is chemoorganotrophic meaning that it must obtain energy and carbon from organic compounds. It is a rod shaped and the rods join end to end to form a filamentous structure that are extensively long. This bacterium is a gram positive facultative anaerobe. Based on this fact, Lactobacillus bulgaricus can be homofermenative or heterofermentative. When it comes to motion, the bacterium is non motile because it does not possess locomotion. When conditions become unfavorable this particular bacterium does not form a spore. According to Guchte (2006) its size based on its shape ranges between 0.5-0.8 x 2.0-9.0mm. For this bacterium to grow it requires a medium whose pH ranges between 4.6 -5.4 (Guchte, 2006). The fact that it can only hydrolyse lactose sugar makes it quite important to food industry because of its by-products. When it is fed with lactose, the bacterium converts this sugar to lactic acid. This fact has be en exploited as a principle in yoghurt production where lactose in milk in converted to lactic acid and it is used as a preservative as well as well as giving the yoghurt an awesome a tart flavor. The bacterium reproduces asexually through conjugation. Conjugation is a process where RNA and DNA are transferred from one bacterium to another (PBWorks, 2008). Lactobacillus bulgaricus can also be found in human intestines. Escherichia coli This bacterium occurs in the natural environment particularly fecal contaminated one but it carves its niche in the lower part of intestines of organisms that are warm blooded because there is a well balanced ecosystem. In the intestines there are specific nutrients that are provided and conditions are favorable for its growth and survival. Some strains of this bacterium especially O111, O145, O104:H21, O157:H7, O121, O104:H4, O26, and O103 are very pathogenic (Nicole et al., 2001). About 0.1% of the bacteria that colonize mammalian gut belong to the E. coli specie (Nicole et al., 2001). The bacterium is a gram negative rod and it is a facultative anaerobe whose cell measures approximately 2.0 x 0.5Â µm (Nicole et al., 2001). When this bacterium is outside the host’s body, it is able to survive for some period of time which has made it to be used as indicator of

Stress modern life Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Stress modern life - Essay Example n’s immediate surround has many stressful factors, among which there can be distinguished three main areas serving as a source of stress, namely: family, university, and money. Facing the need of a continual solution of numerous questions and problems associated with family, university and money, people stay in a constant state of nervous tension, which eventually overgrows into stress or more serious medical problems. â€Å"Of course, not all stress is caused by external factors. Stress can also be self-generated†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Smith et al., 2015), for stressful situations happen around humans as well as inside of them. Everything is interdependent in people’s life, and different drivers of stress are not an exception in this regard. Just so the first type of stress, university stress, may include numerous reasons of personal character, such as challenges of learning process, family problems, relationship problems, lack of money, drug use or misuse, and so on. Most people believe that stress causes only negative effects without consideration of the aspect that â€Å"Stress is able to stimulate men’s activities as it increases their energy potential and aggravates feelings and emotions† (Shah & Shah, 2015), which is extremely useful during public speaking or a defense of some kind of research study, for example. Nevertheless, if to talk about unhappy circumstances, which pres ent in students’ life during a particular period of time, then they bring only negative effects of stress at physiological and psychological levels, such as general physical strain and excitement (that makes all internals to function in an emergency mode), anxiety, oppression, dissatisfaction, aggression. All these factors are complicated by troubling feelings, challenging searches of escaping from the situation, and finally avert students’ thoughts from the learning process and make the whole situation of numerous stressful factors to unite in one huge stress without its visible solution. As a

Movers and Shakers in Education Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Movers and Shakers in Education - Essay Example Socrates believed in pursuit of the facts and truth. He campaigned for a liberal education in order to arrive at this truth. He was a proponent of the academic freedom. This concept is still enshrined in higher learning institutions nowadays in American education. The Socratic Method, which is a dialogue based technique of teaching, forces learners to think critically as well as deeply. It was and still is the best technique to test and teach students (Socrates 2). Socrates symbolized excellence teaching and an ideal tutor. He once stated that there is no worth of living a life that has not been examined. Socrates lived through scientific explosions and intellectual knowledge. He witnessed the development of architectural splendor as well as unrivaled theater. Interpretation of the beliefs of Socrates and his contribution to educational thought was hampered by the abundance of writings whereby he had the leading role, but not a paucity of evidence. Some of these writings included dia logues by Xenophon and the Isocrates. He also had the Evidence from Aristotle and Early Dialogues of Plato (Socrates 2). Plato’s early dialogue was the most intellectual challenging writing and it is due to this fact that it was regarded an educational ideal for so many years. Though he never propounded a theory or doctrine, his impact on education is notable and significant. First, the technique that was his trademark for performing dialectical exchanges with the interlocutors and outdoing them in verbal contest has occupied its place among the learning methods as the Socratic teaching technique in today’s American education. This method is not only a technique of defeating opponents in a verbal contest but also a way of motivating interlocutors to scrutinize their sincerely held moral doctrines and beliefs (Socrates 3). Secondly, rather than placing education as a method of acquiring skills and information, he makes virtue the main aim of education. He indicates that it is not necessarily right to base a virtuous life on such things as habit, the didactic lectures of teachers or the unthinking approval of the societal values. Teachers lecturing and the students passively gaining knowledge would not affect the human soul on its own. To emphasize this rejection of the teacher-centered form of education, he declares that he is not a teacher (Socrates 3). Socrates was reluctant to accept official learners or receive any form of payment from the interlocutors. He advocated for knowledge that would help people attain a good and virtuous life. He ranked success and honor to be the initial requirements, then pleasure and thirdly, knowledge. He states that knowledge is the only thing that guarantees happiness. He asserts that virtue is knowledge (Socrates 4). Desiderius Erasmus on the other hand, was an influential humanist of the Renaissance. He widely influenced the children’s proclivity towards education especially in their tender age. He left human nature’s scientific inquiry and promoted teaching students important matters of life via literature. He also stressed the significance of a good teacher. He stated that the tutors should not be restricted by dogmatic interests ,instead they should have a wide outlook as well as knowledge base (Desiderius 3). This Desiderius’

'How has the study of literature changed over the last 100 years' Essay

'How has the study of literature changed over the last 100 years' - Essay Example Literature had and always will define the life style of people in any nation at all. It used to be written by people who felt for the society, who wanted to improve the society or define the society’s good points and bad points. They were also the ones understood the need of the society. The people of the societies, usually American, and English in general were the ones who used to like parties, and social dinners. They usually were people who lived in the countryside, were ruled by the kings and queens, fought wars on the horses, were pirates, sailed in ships for long journeys lasting for days, liked romance, long walks on the grass in the evening, horse-riding, playing the piano, writing and reading poetry, and dancing. They were also the people who ballet danced. Quite a handful was able to go to educational institutions – colleges and universities. War was prevalent in most of the countries and continents over the capture of land power and wealth. These wars were fo ught on horse- backs, with swords and spears, and took days and days on end to end. The people who went to war had little or no hope of returning. And the people who stayed back awaited their return without hope. There was no contact or correspondence during that time-frame. People had to wait days for a letter to arrive. And to feel connected many wrote and read literature which described to them, battles and sea, and different places, just so they would feel connected and belonging. All these events gave rise to the fashion of writing and reading literature and poetry, ads the society was taken over by pain, loss, hurt, wait, anticipation , romance, tranquility, so almost of the accounts were written down so people would entertain themselves in time of loneliness and pain. These account of literature and poetry defined it all to them. The lonely housewives and the growing up teenage girls used to read romance novels and it used to help them fantasize about a prince charming that w ould come one day and lift them off their feet and sweep them away with him. The sailors used to study literature on their time away from home so that they didn’t feel the absence of home and their wives. All this was provided to them via literature. With the passage of time the people who went to the universities and colleges discovered new ways of communication. The telephone was discovered and was becoming common-place. People now did not have to wait for days o talk to loved ones. Literature was now only left to describe places and romance and battles. Soon the telephone turned into hand held cell-phones, and alongside, the computer technology came into being. People relied less and less on literature to tell them about battles. The computer became abundant and the people found it easy to what videos from all around the world, instead of reading them from a book. Social parties were growing lesser as the class of rich people started to fall in number and blended into the middle class. People did not go for long wars, too far off places. Wars were also not fought on horse backs and certainly not with any swords and knives, but instead with nuclear numbs. These were, very literally, machines of death. So much so that people did not like to write or read about it. Literature was now only limited to romance. By the turn of the century, electronic media became the soul of the people. Whatever was required was found either on a computer, or on a high-speed internet cable, or in a smart-phone. People who liked to

The Value of Social Entrepreneurship Term Paper

The Value of Social Entrepreneurship - Term Paper Example Social entrepreneurship is specifically designed to target the social problems and identify innovative and effective ways of dealing with them. Government and the society encourage businesses directed at addressing the needs of the society. This paper provides a review of literature to define the term â€Å"social entrepreneurship†, explores the ways in which it creates value for the society and finally discusses the impact of social entrepreneurship on business. Background There has been a lot of research on social entrepreneurship and its impacts on microeconomics and business administration lately particularly after the founder of the Grameen Bank, Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in the year 2006. Nevertheless, the research to date has generally been confined to defining social entrepreneurship as a phenomenon (Pariyar and Ward, 2005, p. 1) or to the specific case studies. The existing literature does not provide a comprehensive insight into the relationship betwee n economic development policies and social entrepreneurship. This imparts need for research on the significance of social entrepreneurship for the economic prosperity and its implications for the policy makers. Literature Review Definition of Social Entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurship has been largely identified as an emerging field. Although it has been attempted to be defined various times, yet a common definition has not been agreed upon (Austin et al., 2006, p. 1). The term social entrepreneurship â€Å"combines the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination commonly associated with, for instance, the high-tech pioneers of Silicon Valley† (Dees, 2001, p. 1). Attempts of defining social entrepreneurship date back to Jean-Baptiste Say, the French economist who attempted to define the term with respect to its use in the early nineteenth century. According to Jean-Baptiste Say, a social entrepreneur is somebody wh o tends to create value by transferring the economic resources from an area of low productivity to a place where the yield is greater and the productivity is higher (Martin and Osberg, 2007, p. 2). Joseph Schumpeter’s definition of the social entrepreneur is one of the most frequently used definitions of the term. Joseph Schumpeter defined an entrepreneur as a creative force that drives economic prosperity, thus serving as a change agent. Conventionally, an entrepreneur is understood as someone who establishes a new business, though this interpretation of the term reflects a loose application contrary to the richness of its history and the significance of its meaning. Although numerous definitions have been traditionally proposed for entrepreneur, the term social entrepreneur is relatively newer and thus, has not been defined as much. Definitions proposed to date differ from one author to another depending upon the context in which social entrepreneurship has been defined. Co nditions vary from one country to another, and accordingly, the definitions of social entrepreneur. One of the most frequently used definitions of social entrepreneurship is the one proposed by Gregory Dees et al. who refer to social entrepreneurship as a change agent which, [a]dopts a mission to create and sustain social values, [r]ecognizes and relentlessly pursues new opportunities to serve that mission, [e]ngages in a

Supply Chain Design Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Supply Chain Design Paper - Essay Example This can be seen as both advantageous and disadvantageous. Advantages of Riordan’s manufacturing strategy Increases quality There is one major advantage with regard to this manufacturing strategy is the ability to increase the precision of the manufacturing process. Highly customised goods processes make it easier to increase quality as the employees will master the functions and ensure they are able to produce perfect products. Meeting individual needs of individual customers Customisation means that each customer can get a product that directly and closely meets their needs (Fogliatto & Silveira, 2011). However, firms involved in mass manufacturing find it harder to be able to customise their products to individual customer needs. However, with competition increasing and making it harder for firms to compete for the customers, it is necessary to increase the rates of satisfaction in customers. Mass customisation is an attempt to make mass production as customer customised as possible. It is looking at the needs of the customer as closely as possible and making sure that customers will get a product which is as close to their needs as possible. Mass customisation therefore increases customer satisfaction and this makes the firm more competitive in the market. Disadvantages Increased costs Customisation makes it is easier to deliver to the customers products they want but at an increased cost. In manufacturing, the biggest issue is that defects costs the firm a lot. It is the dream of every manufacturer to reduce the defect rate to as low as it can be possible so as to help the firm will not have losses. Every defective product is a loss to the firm because defective products cannot be sold. Mass customisation has the disadvantage of increasing the defect rates and therefore increasing the losses associated with the defects. Apart from increased defects rates making costs to go higher, mass customisation increases the cost of producing a single product ( Chandra & Kamrani, 2011). In other words, even in the absence of the issue of defects rates, customized manufacturing is not as cost effective as the mass production. Increasing the costs will mean that the firm will have to increase the prices of the product, and this may deny the firm the competitive edge in the market. Cannot be achieved wholly Mass customisation is usually a compromise that the firm has to make, and there is never a time where the firm will be able to fully customize the products. In regard to this, firm has to understand that not all products can be customised. In fact, as Blecke (2005) says, not all products need to be customized. Mass customisation only works where the product end customer is a mass buy. In cases where the end buyer is the individual, it becomes much harder to mass customize, and it becomes very impossible to meet the individual needs of millions of customers. Mass customisation is therefore an idea that is simple in theory and difficult in p ractice. In this regard, it is important to be able to understand that mass customisation may only be a hype which needs to be looked at critically. Flowchart Metrics to evaluate performance Issue Concern Impact Meeting customer needs It meets the customer needs High Cost management The costs associated with is are not prohibitive High Applicability It is applicable High Relevance It is relevant for the product High Market outlook It improves the market outlook Medium In the above metric, the most important thing is to determine whether the costs incurred in

Against School Essay Example for Free

Against School Essay Against School Gattos opinion on school is extremely intense and straight forward. For the most part I agree with his standing point on the subject of schooling. I agree with his arguments of how we have become a society that completely relies on technology to keep us from being bored, and this notion teaches us to be absent minded rather than creative. I also agree that keeping kids â€Å"locked up† in a building for about seven hours a day gives us no room to grow individually and learn from life experiences. Not only are students the ones in jeopardy because of this confined structure, but the teachers are as well. It’s almost like this narrow minded school system we abide by is just a dark cloud that hovers over us and imprints this idea that there is no other way to do things. When you think about it, school closely resembles what prison is made out to be. A bunch of unhappy people who would rather be anywhere but there. This is NOT what education should be about. We should enjoy learning, not think of it as a chore or something to get over with so that we can move on to the next thing in life. Which is what? More work? We need to focus on training our brains to engage in activities, enjoy the moment, be curious, and to discover new wonders, not new worksheets. I remember being a kid, gazing out the window on a car ride home, letting my imagination run wild, as fast as the car was going. Now whenever I drive for long periods of time, I lean over to look at what my little brother is doing. He’s constantly staring at some sort of computer screen. I even attempt having a conversation with him, asking him if he has any homework he needs help with but all I get in return is the same absent- minded response that I receive every day after school, â€Å"Nope, I already did my homework at school. † I’m always worried that he’s not getting an education, but instead is just receiving a â€Å"schooling†. He never seems engaged in his homework, but is more interested in what video game he can play as soon as he’s done. What ever happened to picking up a book and actually exercising the brain to imagine impossible things such as dragons and fairies? Does the board of education honestly think that they are tricking everyone into thinking that you will learn better off of a simple worksheet rather than actually going out and doing hands on interactions? Why do they restrict us? It’s almost like they emphasis conformity. It’s such a contradicting setting, school is. They put so much pressure on us to be individual and be completely yourself, yet they don’t allow us freedom to do so. I think we all stay so indifferent to the subject that it’s only getting worse. And the more we stay indifferent about it, the more the problem will escalate. It’s a vicious cycle that has to be stopped.

Narrative Essays Are a Great Read Essay Example for Free

Narrative Essays Are a Great Read Essay Narrative essays and Descriptive essays can be similar but they are different in nature. The narrative essay â€Å"I Want a Wife† is more compelling than the descriptive essay â€Å"Homeless† because the narrative essay has a point of view, uses humor and satire, and uses tone and language that can draw the reader in. â€Å"Narration is storytelling from the perspective of a narrator and the story may be true, false, imaginary, or a combination. A narration can be about past, present, or future events, and it can be short or the length of a novel† (Connell Sole, 2013, sec. 6.3). A narrative can draw in the audience by telling the reader the story just how it happened or how they pictured it to be without losing someone in thought because they may not understand what they mean when they are using words to describe it a certain way. â€Å"Description is a pattern of writing that can be defined as painting pictures with words† (Connell Sole, 2013, sec. 6.4). A descriptive essay uses very expressive words to describe specific details. See more: what is narrative writing The reader will have to use the five sense in order to understand what the writer is trying to convey and may get lost especially if the reader doesn’t understand one of those descriptive words. The two essays in this paper that are being compared and contrasted are â€Å"Homeless† by Anna Quindlen and â€Å"I Want a Wife† by Judy Brady. Both essays are being told by the author but through someone else’s eyes but on what the author sees. The beginning paragraph from the narrative essay â€Å"I Want a Wife† reads, â€Å"Not too long ago a male friend of mine appeared on the scene fresh from a recent divorce. He had one child, who is, of course, with his ex-wife. He is looking for another wife. As I thought about him while I was ironing one evening, it suddenly occurred  to me that I, too, would like to have a wife. Why do I want a wife† (Brady, 1971)? This paragraph started off the essay with author’s point of view because she too is a wife. The author was able to identify this by what she does as a wife, how she acted and how she is treated. This can also be the point of view of a man because some men may feel that this is what a wife should do or how a wife should act or maybe someone else who is a wife, because it’s what they do. She made the essay seem like a wife is such a huge deal and that they have such a big job to complete throughout each day. This essay makes the reader stop and think about if this is the way they want their wife to be or if they want to be this way if they are a wife. The descriptive essay â€Å"Homeless†, the author tells her point of view because of a homeless lady she wanted to ask questions to. She perceived her point of view about homeless people from a portrait the lady showed her and what she sees when she looks at the lady and the picture. Both essays have a point a view a reader may agree or disagree with. Not everyone sees a wife as a person who does everything for the household, such as cook all meals, clean the whole house, take care of the kids, and take care of the man. Back in 1971 when the essay was written this may have held true, but in 2014 there are house-holds where the woman is the bread winner and the man will stay home and take care of everything. There are also other relationships where the house hold is 50-50. The husband and wife share duties. As far as homeless people, someone’s point of view may be different than when the author said: â€Å"People find it curious that those without homes would rather sleep sitting up on benches or huddled in doorways than go to shelters† (Quindlen, n.d. para. 7). That was her point of view of what she thinks other people think but in reality, the homeless people may not be able to get shelter so they have no choice but to sleep on benches. With these two essays, the point of view is stronger in the narrative essay beca use most people are wives, or they have a wife and can see this essay as true. The descriptive essay, not everyone is homeless or they may not be around homeless people or know how they interact so they may not understand the point the author is trying to make. The tone of â€Å"I Want a Wife† is written in a humorous, ironic mood. This is what makes this essay enjoyable to read and it’s not boring to the reader. The essay has a â€Å"sarcastic tone which is produced when someone uses heave-handed verbal irony. Verbal irony occurs  when one expresses the opposite of what one actually means (Connell Sole, 2013). The narrative essay is also of great humor and satire. To any woman reader and maybe some men, they may look at this essay and laugh. The reader may sense the sarcasm in the author’s words. For example, the author says â€Å"If, by chance, I find another person more suitable as a wife than the wife I already have, I want the liberty to replace my present wife with another one† (Brady, 1971, para. 8). This paragraph alones makes you mad but makes you laugh. The whole essay in itself is also written in sarcasm. The writer depicts what a wife should be but is sarcastic in her approach of how she writes it. She always started off with â€Å"I want a wife who will†, and then talks about what she would want her wife to do if she wanted a wife, and how a wife should act. If you did not know the author, you would have th  ought this was written by a man. At the end of the essay, Brady (1971) states â€Å"My God, who wouldn’t want a wife?† shows that this whole essay was of great irony and satire because she talks about what she wants in a wife when she is a wife. This quoted sentence shows exaggeration, just like the rest of the essay. There was no irony or sarcasm or anything to make me laugh in the descriptive essay â€Å"Homeless†. Because of the nature of the essay, there wouldn’t be any humor or satire since it could be considered a sad essay. The authors tone in â€Å"Homeless† is very serious, yet tranquil. It is serious because the subject is also very serious subject, but serene because she knows that there is a solution for these problem s. Quindlen uses this tone to get through to the reader in order to deliver the purpose. The tone is also sad because of the problems of homelessness in the world today. The reader may feel a sense of sympathy when reading this essay because it can be controversial. There is some hyperbole language the author is using in homeless like: â€Å"It was like a thousand houses in a hundred towns, not suburb, not city, but somewhere in between, with aluminum siding and a chain-link fence, a narrow driveway running up to a one-car garage, and a patch of backyard (Quindlen, n.d. para. 2). Brady also uses different figurative language such as exaggeration and repetitiveness in her essay. Through the language you often felt the emotion of the essay especially if you are a wife because you may think about if you have done the things she is stating a wife does. This essay has an emotion appeal to it. It â€Å"has a purpose, its honest and not attempting to mislead, and not used just for  effect or for gratuitous reasons† (Connell Sole, 2013, sec. 7.3). It is not making personal attacks on wives, but showing how a wife is treated as such and how they are not appreciated. The narrative essay gave a more clear understanding as to the point the author was trying to get a cross. The narrative essay also used a descriptive writing pattern. The language was carefully and particularly chosen and it also evoked emotions to the reader. The narrative essay was of great humor and satire but it also made you think about life as a wife, as to where the descriptive essay was a serious essay that talked about a world issue and the attempt to take action to solve that problem. It lacked the senses a descriptive should have. There was no emotion and no feelings relating to the topic, because the descriptive essay was more of a journalistic essay that talked about problems that needed to be solved. It did not have many words to paint the picture of how homeless people live and what they look like, or how they smell how they get by day to day. The narrative essay had this creative tension that kept the reader interested in what a man or another woman may think of what a wife could be. It kept the writer of this essay interested because she is too, a wife. References Brady, J. (1971). I want a wife. Retrieved from http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/everythingsanargument4e/content/cat_020/Brady_I_Want_a_Wife.pdf Connell, C. M., Sole, K. (2013). Essentials of college writing (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Quindlen, A. (n.d.). Homeless. Retrieved from http://pers.dadeschools.net/prodev/homelesstext.htm

Importance of Organizational Behaviour on Teamwork

Importance of Organizational Behaviour on Teamwork According to Keith Davis organizational behavior is the study and application of knowledge about how people act within organizations. It is human tool for the human benefit. It applies broadly to behavior of people in all type of organization such as business, government, schools, etc. it helps people, structure, technology, and the external environment blend together in to an effective operative system. Fred Luthans defines organizational behavior as understanding, predicting and controlling human behavior at work. [http://www.mbatown.com] Stephen Robins defines organizational behavior as a field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups, and structure have an organization for the purpose of applying such knowledge improving an organizations effectiveness. According to Stephen Robbins, four elements make up the Organizational Behavior life cycle. They are Leadership, Employees of the Company, Organization Behavior Guidelines and time frame, Organizational Framework. Organizational Behavior is an important aspect to maintain interaction levels amongst employees in the company and also to enhance healthy relationships between them. Other attributes like leadership qualities of the employees, openness to discuss problems between the top level and ground level employees, challenge-initiative are all embedded in to this basic concept of Organizational Behavior to help the business in achieving its strategic and sometimes its business objectives. What Case Study Says The General Electric(GE), the conglomeratecorporation incorporated in the State of New York, USA, is famous for its organizational culture. In GE, the management philosophy followed by the management is to Encourage employees to share their views in a collaborative culture, Vest greater responsibility, power, and accountability with front-line employees, Eliminate wasteful, irrational, and repetitive steps in the work process (which would come to light through employee feedback), Dismantle the boundaries that prevent thecross-pollination of ideasand efforts and they consider customers and community as the emperor. They gave former importance to team job and gave respect to each other. All these optimistic aspects helped the company to get strong faithfulness of millions of employees during the long 120 years since the Company was founded by Thomas Edison. Jeffrey Immelt managed the whole company in a well-known style that has been very legendary till now. In 2000 to till now, when GE passed away correspondingly, along with the obituary wordings it was noted by writers, that the founders legacy was not the reason for the huge growth of GE-but it was the one and only GE Way. But after the merger of GE with ITT Corporation,Ling-Temco-Vought,Tenneco, the things misrepresented upside down. Former GE people like former dissection heads, managers, engineers, and all the employees says about the GE Way as something special. General Electric usually visited the corporation halls, interrelate with community and staff about their projects, their troubles etc. They keep in mind that at time everybody valued everybody else. The actual issues started when John Francis Welch Jr, was hired from outside as GEs Chairman and CEO. He stuck hard to the productivity of the company. A background of fear started among the staffs which never be real before. The main complaints against him were valuing money more than people, maltreatment lay-offs and creating a culture which is inequitable to the staffs. His intentions didnt match with GEs visions. They saw revenue only as a bludgeon to achieve other objectives which are given equal value. The other objectives include welfare of the employees, customers etc. The above case was all about GE Way. It is a across the world held opinion that GE Way played a critical role in Companys achievement. Critics may say that to support an excellent corporate civilization, the company should be at its superior times. But people of GE who have experienced GE Way will never agree this because GEs most struggling times were also the times when GE Way was established at its best. [http://www.paloaltoonline.com] 1) The contribution, motivation, rewards and roles of individuals within these groups and teams According to Stephen P. Robbins, motivation is the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational goals, conditioned by the efforts ability to satisfy some individual need. Fred Luthans views motivation as a process that starts with a physiological or psychological deficiency or need that activates behavior or a drive that is aimed at a goal or incentive. Each and every function of life is accompanied with one or other type of motivation. There are two main kinds of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic. Internal motivation is known as intrinsic motivation. When external factors compel the person to do something, then it is extrinsic motivation. [http://www.elmotivator.com/] [http://www.mbatown.com] Elton Mayo has the opinion that a employee having societal links at the place of work will be motivated more. Mayo believed that employees can also be motivated by acknowledging their social needs and making them feel important among others. This is what is done by General Electric in the case of GE Way. The employees who have skilled the actual GE Way says that everyone is valued by everybody else which means all the employees are given significance and also the opportunity to articulate their thoughts and views. Employees were given liberty to make decisions on the work and superior concentration was paid to relaxed work groups. This model is named as Hawthorne effect by Elton Mayo. [http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles] [http://ezinearticles.com/] In the case study, General Electric were very victorious in inspiring their employees by simply being down to earth. They never forget to visit their employees, to interact with them and to know their troubles and also to find answers. From all these illustration we can say motivation is what propels life. In everything we do motivation plays a major role. To care about output, learning, means, employment, achievement, victory, breakdown, etc motivation should be there An example for motivation, in management and organizational behavior: Example: Under-performing of employees which resulted in performance outcome A unexpected collapse in the profits was experienced by Company A. The companys management executive found out that this returns fall is as a result of under-performing of their employees. The performance of the employees was extremely much under the expectations of the management. This resulted in a rapid action from the companys part by firing about 6 employees and a new batch of people was hired. The company unsuccessful to understand in an earlier stage that the managers incapability was the basis cause of under-performance of the employees. The manager unsuccessful to provide them safer working conditions and this de-motivated the employees which resulted in decrease of productivity. This incident really opened their eyes which made them to execute strategies which help the company as well as employees to come from Under performance era. [http://www.org-behavior.com] The motivation process is demonstrated through several theories. They are as follows: Need-based theories: Need based theories include Maslows need hierarchy, McGregors Theory X and Theory, Herzbergs two-factor theory, Alderfers ERG theory and McClellands need theory Process based theories include Expectancy theory, Goal-setting theory, Reinforcement theory, Attribution theory Individual-organizational goal-congruence theories consists of Exchange, Accommodation, Socialization, Identification Maslows Need Hierarchy is all about a hierarchy of five basic needs which includes Physiological needs: hunger, thirst, shelter etc. Safety needs: security and protection from physical and emotional harm, Social needs: affection, belongingness, love, acceptance, and friendship, Esteem needs: internal esteem and external esteem, Needs for self-actualization: the drive to best realize ones potential. Alderfers ERG theory talks about three types of needs-Existence needs consisting of physiological and safety needs, Relatedness needs including the desire for maintaining important interpersonal relationships: social needs, and the external components of the esteem needs and Growth needs: an intrinsic desire for personal development: the intrinsic component of esteem, and self-actualization. McGregors theory X and theory Y Theory X has the assumption that employees dont like work, and they are lazy, not willing to take responsibility, and not motivated. Theory Y has the assumptions that employees like work, are creative, responsibilities seekers, and are self motivated. Herbergs two-factor theory talks about two contrasting views of satisfaction and dissatisfaction and it also talks about two factors-motivational factors and hygiene factors. McClellands Need Theory deals with the need for achievement. In other words it talks about a drive to excel, to set a higher goal, to seek higher responsibility, and to strive to succeed. All these theories more or less deals with what all factors create motivation in people and also the influence of motivation in an business. In the case of GENERAL ELECTRIC (GE), earlier the company was very good in mounting employee morale and thereby improving the efficiency of the operations of the company. But after the merger, the things totally fell upside down. The new top level authorities intense only on the profitability and not on the employee morale. This paved the way for dissatisfaction in employees which negatively affected the productivity of the company. Reward system consists of financial rewards and employee benefits, which is collectively known as total remuneration. They also include non-monetary rewards such as appreciation, promotion, praise, achievement, responsibility and personal growth. Recent studies and researches on reward system shows that reward criteria of the organizations, both monetary and non-monetary rewards have great influence on the employees and performance and the performance of the employees. As an answer to the question, why reward system is required, we can find out a number of reasons like it can improve organizational effectiveness, it is capable of achieving integration, motivate the employees, compete in the labor market, increased commitment towards work, it can attract employees having fair and improved skills, improved quality, develop team working. Singh et.al. (1977) in a study of organizational culture and its impact onmanagerial remuneration concluded that the demands for money was significantly influenced by the quality of organizational culture and that it can substantially be reduced by improving the quality of organizational culture. Findings such as those suggest that satisfaction, task involvement, demand for money and commitment are largely determined by organizational culture. Steve Williams and Fred Luthans (1992) stated that, the choice of reward interacting with feedback had a positive impact on task performance. According to Theodore R. Buyniski (1995),Despite the tendency in recent years to down grade the importance of money as an organizational reward, there is ample evidence that money can be positively reinforcing for most people. Teams are also important in an organizational context because it bring together people with different skills and experiences that enable the organization to quickly respond to innovation, changes in the business environment, and changes in the customers need faster and more effectively. Teams also solve problems quicker because of increased communication (Katzenbach Smith, 1999). The positions that are defined by a set of expectations about behavior of any job incumbent are termed as Roles. A set of tasks and responsibilities that may or may not be spelled out is accompanied with each and every role. Since money is being paid for the performance of the roles, there is prestige attached to a role, and a sense of accomplishment or challenge, roles have a powerful effect on behavior. In the context of the case of GENERAL ELECTRIC(GE), even though reward plays a vital role, the morale of the employees was more affected by changes in the psychological environment of the organization and also sudden change in the culture of the organization. As they were practicing a different culture of informality, they find it difficult to a survive the new environment which is so formal and which gave no importance to their opinions. When an organization gives importance to the views and opinions of employees, they feel it better to work in such conditions because it is human nature to wish to be recognized. Better performance will be the result if the individuals are given some roles to perform. [http://www.indianmba.com] [Steve Williams Fred Luthans (1992), The Impact of Choice of Rewards and Feed Back on Task Performance, Journal Of organizational Behavior. Vol. 13, P: 653-666] [Katzenbach, J.R. Smith, D.K. (1999). The Wisdom Of Teams. New York: HarperBusinees] [http://www.nwlink.com] (b) Management and leadership relating to both groups and teams Alan Keith stated that, Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen. Tom DeMarco says that leadership needs to be distinguished from posturing. Northouse says that leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Mary Parker Follett defined management as the art of getting things done through people. Setting a new direction or vision for a group to accomplish the objectives of that group is known as leadership. But management is the controlling body or directing body of people and resources available in a group according to already established values. Even the terms management and leadership are often confused, they are actually different, but interrelated. The GENERAL ELECTRIC(GE) Way dealt with the legendary management style of two leaders Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard who through their leadership skills and qualities, developed the organization as a single f amily giving respect to each other. It is evident from the growth of GENERAL ELECTRIC(GE) that they were very successful in managing the people. Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus (1997) said leadership is like the Abominable Snowman, whose footprints are everywhere but who is nowhere to be seen. Leadership is everywhere but no one seems to be able to determine or figure out what makes up good leadership. It has been discussed by Bass in his book a study by H.L. Smith and Krueger (1933) in which they researched various primitive cultures around the world and finally reached a conclusion that leadership exists among all people, regardless of their culture, race or beliefs. Even though if societies do not have established or elected leaders, chiefs, or rulers, someone always exists who initiates a process and plays a critical role in the decision making process of a group (Bass, 1990). Hewlett and Packard found out that leadership qualities are lying hidden in each and every individual and thus they developed a culture of respecting each other developing a sense of integrity in the organization. According to Hollander, leadership is a process that involves three main components. One is the leader, the second is the employees, and the third is the culture of the organization. If the relationship between these three components is not compatible then in a long term perspective leadership will fail and so will the team. The first component of leadership is the leader. A leader must possess certain beliefs, perceptions, characteristics, and skills for good leadership to occur in teams. A leader must hold the Wallenda factor closely. The Wallenda factor is the ability to only think about succeeding, and concentrating on the task at hand and not even thinking about failing. The Wallenda factor was named after a famous tightrope walker Karl Wallenda who fell to his death. Karl Wallenda was preparing for his most challenging stunt of his life. But what he could think for 3 months before stunt was about failing, instead of working hard for the stunt. Checking and supervising the const ruction of his rope, he has never done it before and due to the thoughts of failing he checked it for the first time. (Bennis Nanus, 1997). The willingness to share power and control with the team should be a quality of the leader. Acting like a traditional boss is not good for a leader; he should be like a player or coach to the team. As already seen in the case of GENERAL ELECTRIC(GE), leaders must be there for support and encourage employees to solve problems on their own. Hewlett and Packard were typical leaders in the sense that they regularly visited company halls to interact with people and to solve their problems. GENERAL ELECTRIC(GE) Way, as the employees feel was a life and the leaders were like colleagues not bosses. They treat employees like equals and there were nothing that could be communicated only to managers and not to employees. [http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk] [Bass, M.B. (1990). Bass Stogdills Handbook of Leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press] [Bennis, W. Nanus, B. (1997).Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. New York, NY: HarperCollins] [www.sagepub.com] [Hollander, E.P. (1978). Leadership Dynamics. New York: The Free Press] RESOURCES QUANTITY GOALS OBJECTIVES SCHEDULE QUALITY Boundary Management Chart Harvey Robbins created a chart that helps leaders and the team members to know their boundaries specifically. This chart is having goals and objectives in the middle box, resources in the box above it and quality in the box below it. The quantity box is to the left of goals and objectives and to the right is the schedule box. When a team member becomes more skilled the leader will put his or her name in one of the boxes and then that team member will be responsible for that job. The other boxes deal with being in charge of the quality of the product produced, the quantity of the product produced, and in charge of the resources used to produce the product. Other responsibilities assigned to other employees could be added to the chart if needed. The only box, according to Harvey Robbins, that is not negotiable is the center box: goals and objectives. Leaders are not ready to completely give up control of goals and objectives because they must make sure the team members goals and objectives are matching with the organizations goals and objectives. But the team members will be given the opportunity to involve in decision-making (H. Robbins, personal communication, September 15, 1999) An important element of good leadership is trust. Trust can be earned through many ways. In case of GENERAL ELECTRIC(GE), one way of creating trust was sharing of information and access to upward communication. A second was allowing team members to take risks without fear of punishment. Instead of firing or giving punishments the culture in GENERAL ELECTRIC(GE) was to give reassignments of jobs from which they can learn their mistakes. c) Group structures, goals and objectives. The group structures are important since it plays a vital role in determining the productivity of a group. A group can do better than the collective effect of employees working independently. A successful group leader can lead a group to success. Different organizations structure their groups differently based on their goals and objectives. Groups should not be over crowded with skilled people, at the same time should not lack skills and talents. A group lacking skilled personnel may fail to achieve the said objectives. Goals and objectives provide the team members with the means of doing an act, and the end result will be their successful accomplishment. The groups goals, work plans, procedures, resources etc should be successfully arranged to get good results. When the work is carried out in well managed groups, the groups will enjoy operational and managerial freedom, which can increase their satisfaction towards work. The members of the group should be aware of his/her contribution towards the group and it is being valued, each individual starts viewing the group as an attractive entity. Well managed group structures enable the employees to work in co-operation. The statements that describe about the vision to be accomplished, or the results of any action that will be achieved in the future are known as goals and objectives. Goals provide a wide context of what the vision is and what is it trying to achieve. Objectives are more statements that describe in a narrow context i.e. specific, tangible products, deliverables and fruits that will be delivered as a result of the action. Compared to objectives goals are high level statements. Goals may include more than one objective to achieve since it is at a higher level. To be more precise, achievement of many objectives may result in the accomplishment of a goal. Generally goals cannot be measured. Goals are defined as long-term aims, in which validation is possible in the future while objective accomplishment is a step by step process and can lead to the successful accomplishment of a goal. What the action is trying to achieve is what that matters in objectives. The objectives are concrete statements which should be written at a lower level. Then only it will be possible to evaluate at the conclusion of a goal to check whether it was achieved or not. Compared to goal statements, objectives should not be vague. An excellent objective will be specific, measurable, attainable/achievable, realistic and time-bound. Even though goals and objectives are often used interchangeably, there is a main difference in their level of concreteness. Goals are less structured compared to objectives which are more concrete. In the case study Hewlett and Packard were having clear cut objectives and goals which never hampered the satisfaction of the employees and customers. They considered profitability as a tool to enable other objectives which are equally important to them. But the problems started when the management failed to align the objectives of the organization and the objectives of the employees together. [http://books.google.co.in/books] [www.askscs.com] [www.articlesnatch.com] CONCLUSION Organizational behavior is so important because it studies or investigates about the impact of individuals and groups on behavior within organizations and it is used for the purpose of applying such knowledge towards improving the effectiveness of the organization. Organizational behavior provides the managers and leaders of the organization, the way through which they should travel and also make their employees travel to achieve organizational goals and objectives. For managers to build up a better work related understanding of themselves and their followers it is important to learn about organizational behavior in todays business environment. As the definition says, a manager has to get his things done through others; the organizational skills become a valuable talent or asset for him. The role of the managers has become more sensitive due to the changing nature of todays business environment. It is now essential to be familiar with handling new work forces, dealing with the complication of new environment and so on. For this, business people have to develop their information about attitude and behavior of individuals, and groups in organizations. In any organization or company, motivation and communication are two important elements in determining the success of the company. Based on motivation itself many theories have been developed to study behavior and characteristics of employees. The internal theory focuses on the differences within the individual that give rise to motivation and behavior. There are also theories about relation between personal needs or desires and organizational needs. The process theory focuses on the relationship of the employees with the company. The external theories focus on the various components in the environment making it a basis explanation of the behavior of the employees at work. Communication is the so important since it is the basis of all activities and it is used by all the employees regardless of their position whether upper or lower for informing about what is going on in the organization or company. An important motivating factor for employees is harmonious relationship in Maslows th eory, which is a type of affiliation. The prior position in determining the satisfaction of the employees is occupied by working environment of the company. The employees when given roles to perform and rewards for their performance can perform better. This is the reason for many companies setting up teams to work and develops a healthy competition among the teams. Management and leadership also play an important role in the ultimate success of the company. Both these terms are essential because one without the other will make the operations of the business incomplete. Leaders can make sure that the team possesses clearly defined goals that match with the overall vision, goals and objectives of the company. Leaders and managers are concerned with effectiveness which will be reflected in the companys operations. Conclusively, OB can create an environment having happy moments of bonding together that can make each employee more intact that can help to maintain teamwork.