Reference no: EM13740277

1. Share an example of a common barrier to effective communication.

In your professional experience, give an example of how active listening may have failed or hurt you - or the reverse, you failed to effectively respond to and/or support the needs of a peer by not actively listening yourself.

2. It seems common in many of today's workplaces that people don't actually talk to one another frequently. We rely on e-mail or the even less rich communication channel of text messaging. The benefits of moving lots of information quickly around an organization and between individuals are real. However, people can too frequently hide behind their computers and send messages electronically that they might otherwise censor or rethink in face-to-face communication. What approaches would you recommend or implement as a new manager to improve communications without abandoning the use of e-mail?

3. The traditionalist view of conflict is the belief that all conflict is harmful and must be avoided. The managed-conflict view of conflict is the belief that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any group. The current view is the interactionist view of conflict or the belief that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but also that it is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively. Select one view and share a thorough example of your experience.

4. Review individual differences of personality and gender influence negotiations. Personality and gender can both influence negotiations. Personality traits like extroverts and agreeable people are weaker at distributive negotiation. In contrast, disagreeable introverts are best at this type of negotiation. Intelligence is also a weak indicator of bargaining. Now consider effectiveness. With gender, men and women negotiate the same way but may experience different outcomes. Women and men take on gender stereotypes in negotiations such as tender and tough. In addition, women are less likely to negotiate. Share a thorough example of how you or someone you know may have been affected.

5- It is easy and tempting to set up your own blog, write about your experiences and impressions, and then share your thoughts with others online. So, why not do it? Catherine Sanderson, a British citizen living and working in Paris, might have asked this question before launching her blog, Le Petite Anglaise. At one point it was so "successful" that she had 3,000 readers. But the Internet diary included reports on her experiences at work-and her employer, the accounting firm Dixon Wilson, wasn't at all happy when it became public knowledge. Even though Sanderson was blogging anonymously, her photo was on the site, and the connection was eventually discovered. Noticed, too, was her running commentary about bosses, colleagues, and life at the office. One boss, she wrote, "calls secretaries ‘typists.'" A Christmas party was described in detail, including an executive's "unforgivable faux pas." Under the heading "Titillation," she told how she displayed cleavage during a video conference at the office. It's all out now. News reports said that one of the firm's partners was "incandescent with rage" after learning what Sanderson had written about him. Now Sanderson is upset. She says that she was "dooced"-a term used to describe being fired for what one writes in a blog. She wants financial damages and confirmation of her rights, on principle, to have a private blog.

Question - Who's in the Right? Would you agree with the observer who asks: "Say you worked for a large corporation, and in your spare time you wrote an anonymous ‘insider's view' column for the Financial Times. Would you expect anything less than termination upon discovery?" Or would you agree with another, who asks: "Where does the influence your employer has on your day-to-day life stop?" Just what are the ethics issues here-from the blogger's and the employer's perspectives? Who has what rights when it comes to communicating in public about one's work experiences and impressions?

6-The Wall Street Journal reports that younger workers are at greater risk of layoffs because many employers use a "last in/first out" rule when cutting back staff. This is true even though the younger workers tend to earn less than their older counterparts and may even be outperforming them. One reason is conflict avoidance; who wants to face an age discrimination lawsuit? Another is the emotional toll that making layoff decisions places on managers; it just seems easier to let go the younger person, who has few complicating personal and family situations.

Question . Are managers doing the right things when they lay off younger workers first, even when they are high performers? Is it correct to take "personal and family" factors into account when making decisions on who gets to keep their jobs and who doesn't? Is it fair that younger workers have more to fear about keeping their jobs because some managers are unwilling to face possible age discrimination claims from older workers? Provide a rich explanation of each.