COGNITIVE REPAIRS:
HOW ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICESCAN
COMPENSATEFOR
INDIVIDUAL SHORTCOMINGS
ChipHeath,RichardP. Larrick, andJoshuaKlayman
ABSTRACT
The literaturein cognitive psychology has described a varietyof shortcomings that
preventindividuals from learningeffectively. We review this literature and provide
examplesofa numberoforganizational practices that may effectivelyrepairthecog-
nitive shortcomingsof individuals. We call these practicescognitiverepairs. We
then discusssix tradeoffs that affect the success of cognitive repairs.We close by
consideringhow a cognitive perspective might benefitthosewho studyorganiza-
tional learning and those who manageit.
Research inOrganizational Behavior, Volume 20, pages 1-37.
Copyright Š 1998 hy JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN: 0-7623-0366-2
1
CHIP HEATH, RICHARD P. LARRICK, andJOSHUA KLAYMAN CognitiveRepairs 3
INTRODUCTION
In afamous speech, Hamletdeclares,âWhat a pieceof work is man.How noble in
reason,how infinite in facultiesâ (Hamlet, II, 2). An observer whosummarizedthe
psychologyof the late twentiethcenturywould probably choose very different
phrases to describe the humanconditionâperhaps,âWhat fools these mortals beâ
(Midsummer NightâsDream, III, 2).
Are peopleâinfinite in facultiesâ and ânoble inreasonâ?HerbertSimon won a
Nobel prize for arguingthat social science mustunderstandthe waysthat human
facultiesare limited. Instead of being infinite in faculties,Simonâs humans could
be only âboundedlyrationalâ because theircognitive abilitiesâtheir ability to
perceive,remember,andprocessinformationâwere restricted. Well, then, ifpeo-
ple arenot infinite in faculties,a.re they ânoble inreasonâ?Cognitive psycholo-
gists havespent30 years examining the actualprocessesthat people usewhen
they collect information, combineit, anddraw inferences about their world(Nis-
bett & Ross, 1980; Kahneman,Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Holland,Holyoak,Nis-
bett, & Thagard,1986).Insteadof depicting people as ânobleâ (or magnificent) in
reason, this researchhas arguedthat peoplereasonin ways that producesystem-
atic errors. A pessimistic modern Hamlet might combine the observations of these
two research streams and describe humans as equipped with primitive hardwnre
andbuggy software.
However, outsidershave not alwaysacceptedthe pessimistic description of
human faculties and reason that is found in the research literature.As one skeptic
put it, âIf we are so stupid,how did we get to the moon?â (Nisbett & Ross,1980).
How should we resolve the apparent discrepancy betweenthe pessimisticliter-
atureon human shortcomings and the optimistic evidence of humanaccomplish-
ment? One way is todismiss the laboratory research. Someresearchershave
argued that the shortcomings that have beendocumentedin the lab areso minor
that they do not constitute mistakes ofany real consequence(Funder, 1987;
Cohen,1981).Others havearguedthat individuals areless likely to make errors in
natural environ.
COGNITIVE REPAIRS:
HOW ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICESCAN
COMPENSATEFOR
INDIVIDUAL SHORTCOMINGS
ChipHeath,RichardP. Larrick, andJoshuaKlayman
ABSTRACT
The literaturein cognitive psychology has described a varietyof shortcomings that
preventindividuals from learningeffectively. We review this literature and provide
examplesofa numberoforganizational practices that may effectivelyrepairthecog-
nitive shortcomingsof individuals. We call these practicescognitiverepairs. We
then discusssix tradeoffs that affect the success of cognitive repairs.We close by
consideringhow a cognitive perspective might benefitthosewho studyorganiza-
tional learning and those who manageit.
Research inOrganizational Behavior, Volume 20, pages 1-37.
Copyright Š 1998 hy JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN: 0-7623-0366-2
1
CHIP HEATH, RICHARD P. LARRICK, andJOSHUA KLAYMAN CognitiveRepairs 3
INTRODUCTION
In afamous speech, Hamletdeclares,âWhat a pieceof work is man.How noble in
reason,how infinite in facultiesâ (Hamlet, II, 2). An observer whosummarizedthe
psychologyof the late twentiethcenturywould probably choose very different
phrases to describe the humanconditionâperhaps,âWhat fools these mortals beâ
(Midsummer NightâsDream, III, 2).
Are peopleâinfinite in facultiesâ and ânoble inreasonâ?HerbertSimon won a
Nobel prize for arguingthat social science mustunderstandthe waysthat human
facultiesare limited. Instead of being infinite in faculties,Simonâs humans could
be only âboundedlyrationalâ because theircognitive abilitiesâtheir ability to
perceive,remember,andprocessinformationâwere restricted. Well, then, ifpeo-
ple arenot infinite in faculties,a.re they ânoble inreasonâ?Cognitive psycholo-
gists havespent30 years examining the actualprocessesthat people usewhen
they collect information, combineit, anddraw inferences about their world(Nis-
bett & Ross, 1980; Kahneman,Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Holland,Holyoak,Nis-
bett, & Thagard,1986).Insteadof depicting people as ânobleâ (or magnificent) in
reason, this researchhas arguedthat peoplereasonin ways that producesystem-
atic errors. A pessimistic modern Hamlet might combine the observations of these
two research streams and describe humans as equipped with primitive hardwnre
andbuggy software.
However, outsidershave not alwaysacceptedthe pessimistic description of
human faculties and reason that is found in the research literature.As one skeptic
put it, âIf we are so stupid,how did we get to the moon?â (Nisbett & Ross,1980).
How should we resolve the apparent discrepancy betweenthe pessimisticliter-
atureon human shortcomings and the optimistic evidence of humanaccomplish-
ment? One way is todismiss the laboratory research. Someresearchershave
argued that the shortcomings that have beendocumentedin the lab areso minor
that they do not constitute mistakes ofany real consequence(Funder, 1987;
Cohen,1981).Others havearguedthat individuals areless likely to make errors in
natural environ ...
COGNITIVE REPAIRS:
HOW ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICESCAN
COMPENSATEFOR
INDIVIDUAL SHORTCOMINGS
ChipHeath,RichardP. Larrick, andJoshuaKlayman
ABSTRACT
The literaturein cognitive psychology has described a varietyof shortcomings that
preventindividuals from learningeffectively. We review this literature and provide
examplesofa numberoforganizational practices that may effectivelyrepairthecog-
nitive shortcomingsof individuals. We call these practicescognitiverepairs. We
then discusssix tradeoffs that affect the success of cognitive repairs.We close by
consideringhow a cognitive perspective might benefitthosewho studyorganiza-
tional learning and those who manageit.
Research inOrganizational Behavior, Volume 20, pages 1-37.
Copyright Š 1998 hy JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN: 0-7623-0366-2
1
CHIP HEATH, RICHARD P. LARRICK, andJOSHUA KLAYMAN CognitiveRepairs 3
INTRODUCTION
In afamous speech, Hamletdeclares,âWhat a pieceof work is man.How noble in
reason,how infinite in facultiesâ (Hamlet, II, 2). An observer whosummarizedthe
psychologyof the late twentiethcenturywould probably choose very different
phrases to describe the humanconditionâperhaps,âWhat fools these mortals beâ
(Midsummer NightâsDream, III, 2).
Are peopleâinfinite in facultiesâ and ânoble inreasonâ?HerbertSimon won a
Nobel prize for arguingthat social science mustunderstandthe waysthat human
facultiesare limited. Instead of being infinite in faculties,Simonâs humans could
be only âboundedlyrationalâ because theircognitive abilitiesâtheir ability to
perceive,remember,andprocessinformationâwere restricted. Well, then, ifpeo-
ple arenot infinite in faculties,a.re they ânoble inreasonâ?Cognitive psycholo-
gists havespent30 years examining the actualprocessesthat people usewhen
they collect information, combineit, anddraw inferences about their world(Nis-
bett & Ross, 1980; Kahneman,Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Holland,Holyoak,Nis-
bett, & Thagard,1986).Insteadof depicting people as ânobleâ (or magnificent) in
reason, this researchhas arguedthat peoplereasonin ways that producesystem-
atic errors. A pessimistic modern Hamlet might combine the observations of these
two research streams and describe humans as equipped with primitive hardwnre
andbuggy software.
However, outsidershave not alwaysacceptedthe pessimistic description of
human faculties and reason that is found in the research literature.As one skeptic
put it, âIf we are so stupid,how did we get to the moon?â (Nisbett & Ross,1980).
How should we resolve the apparent discrepancy betweenthe pessimisticliter-
atureon human shortcomings and the optimistic evidence of humanaccomplish-
ment? One way is todismiss the laboratory research. Someresearchershave
argued that the shortcomings that have beendocumentedin the lab areso minor
that they do not constitute mistakes ofany real consequence(Funder, 1987;
Cohen,1981).Others havearguedthat individuals areless likely to make errors in
natural environ.
COGNITIVE REPAIRS:
HOW ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICESCAN
COMPENSATEFOR
INDIVIDUAL SHORTCOMINGS
ChipHeath,RichardP. Larrick, andJoshuaKlayman
ABSTRACT
The literaturein cognitive psychology has described a varietyof shortcomings that
preventindividuals from learningeffectively. We review this literature and provide
examplesofa numberoforganizational practices that may effectivelyrepairthecog-
nitive shortcomingsof individuals. We call these practicescognitiverepairs. We
then discusssix tradeoffs that affect the success of cognitive repairs.We close by
consideringhow a cognitive perspective might benefitthosewho studyorganiza-
tional learning and those who manageit.
Research inOrganizational Behavior, Volume 20, pages 1-37.
Copyright Š 1998 hy JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN: 0-7623-0366-2
1
CHIP HEATH, RICHARD P. LARRICK, andJOSHUA KLAYMAN CognitiveRepairs 3
INTRODUCTION
In afamous speech, Hamletdeclares,âWhat a pieceof work is man.How noble in
reason,how infinite in facultiesâ (Hamlet, II, 2). An observer whosummarizedthe
psychologyof the late twentiethcenturywould probably choose very different
phrases to describe the humanconditionâperhaps,âWhat fools these mortals beâ
(Midsummer NightâsDream, III, 2).
Are peopleâinfinite in facultiesâ and ânoble inreasonâ?HerbertSimon won a
Nobel prize for arguingthat social science mustunderstandthe waysthat human
facultiesare limited. Instead of being infinite in faculties,Simonâs humans could
be only âboundedlyrationalâ because theircognitive abilitiesâtheir ability to
perceive,remember,andprocessinformationâwere restricted. Well, then, ifpeo-
ple arenot infinite in faculties,a.re they ânoble inreasonâ?Cognitive psycholo-
gists havespent30 years examining the actualprocessesthat people usewhen
they collect information, combineit, anddraw inferences about their world(Nis-
bett & Ross, 1980; Kahneman,Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Holland,Holyoak,Nis-
bett, & Thagard,1986).Insteadof depicting people as ânobleâ (or magnificent) in
reason, this researchhas arguedthat peoplereasonin ways that producesystem-
atic errors. A pessimistic modern Hamlet might combine the observations of these
two research streams and describe humans as equipped with primitive hardwnre
andbuggy software.
However, outsidershave not alwaysacceptedthe pessimistic description of
human faculties and reason that is found in the research literature.As one skeptic
put it, âIf we are so stupid,how did we get to the moon?â (Nisbett & Ross,1980).
How should we resolve the apparent discrepancy betweenthe pessimisticliter-
atureon human shortcomings and the optimistic evidence of humanaccomplish-
ment? One way is todismiss the laboratory research. Someresearchershave
argued that the shortcomings that have beendocumentedin the lab areso minor
that they do not constitute mistakes ofany real consequence(Funder, 1987;
Cohen,1981).Others havearguedthat individuals areless likely to make errors in
natural environ ...
Here is an in-depth presentation that overviews twenty two (22) qualitative data methods that can be used in marketing research. For more great FREE resources, join us on facebook today at www.facebook.comb2bwhiteboard.
Or visit our website: www.b2bwhiteboard.com
Leadership effectiveness a multi-factorial model dr. m. roussety mba, m led,...jameskandi
Â
Dr. Maurice Roussety is an Executive Consultant at DST Advisory and Lecturer in Small Business, Franchising and Entrepreneurship at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. Maurice holds a PhD from the Griffith University in Intellectual Property and Franchise Goodwill Valuation. He also holds a Masterâs degree in Leadership and a Master of Business Administration.
Resource Parts I, II and III of the Wren (1995) text, SAS Central.docxcarlstromcurtis
Â
Resource:Â
Parts I, II and III of the Wren (1995) text, SAS Central: Critical Thinking, AES Presentation
Create
 an analytical framework to facilitate your analysis of historical leadership models in the Week 3 assignment. For this week, you will simply need to create and complete the visual framework.
To create the framework, choose three of the models described in chapters 10 -17 of Wren Part III (assume each chapter describes a different leadership model). Then, choose three to five generic processes of leadership. Â One component or process must be the leader/follower exchange - how the leader and followers interact, or their relationship to each other. Choose two to four other processes leaders engage in. To identify processes, you might think about these sentences: "How does ________ happen in this model?" or "What does _______ look like in this model?" (Note: you are not simply askingÂ
whether or not
 the process is part of the model. So, not a yes/no question.)
The analytic framework is a visual representation of components of the models that will allow you to analyze the similarities, differences, gaps, etc. in Week 3. A matrix framework is easy to construct and use - see the Assignment Materials for a visual of the framework you can use.
Create
 a 6- to 10-slide MicrosoftŽ PowerPointŽ presentation that includes a brief description of each model/theory and your analytical framework. Use these design criteria:
Four to six bullet points per slide,
Six to eight words per bullet - not full sentences,
Each bullet point containing a fact or assertion should also have a citation to literature,
Speaker notes
 in full sentences contain an expanded version of bullets on slides
 and also have citations as necessary, and
Reference slide with a minimum of four sources (one can be Wren).
Format
 your citations and references consistent with APA guidelines.
1. SAS Central: Argument Construction: Critical Thinking
What Is Critical Thinking?
In the SAS doctoral program, you will have the opportunity to develop and extend your critical thinking skills. You will be encouraged to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize as an integral aspect of your thinking. These thinking operations might be applied to analyzing the literature, developing questions, solving a problem, creating a new model, or deciding upon a course of action.
Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2009), two long-standing and respected scholars of critical thinking, crafted the following definition: Critical thinking is the act of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it (p. 4).
Paul and Elder (2009) also suggest that critical thinking entails a commitment to overcoming our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
Other recent views of critical thinking critique the overemphasis on the cognitive dimension of critical thinking (sometimes referred to as the Cartesian duality of âI think, therefore I amâ). Researchers such as Klein (1999) remind us of the role of i ...
Critical management studies
and âmainstreamâ organization
science
A proposal for a rapprochement
Max Visser
Nijmegen School of Management, Institute of Management Research,
Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose â The purpose of this paper is to propose a rapprochement between the field of critical
management studies (CMS) and what is constructed here as the âmainstreamâ of organization theory
and research.
Design/methodology/approach â The paper contains a comparative analysis of relevant literature
from the fields of organization theory, political science and political psychology.
Findings â It is found, first, that at least four instances of âmainstreamâ theory and research more or
less share CMS assumptions; second, that CMS and âmainstreamâ may benefit from mutual contact
(using the example of the âpower eliteâ discussion in the 1950s and 1960s); third, that CMS and
âmainstreamâ may benefit from âmainstreamâ operationalization of CMS-concepts (using the example
of the development of the F-scale in the 1930s and 1940s).
Originality/value â The paper ranks among the first to search for convergences between two fields
that seem firmly divided in both theoretical and institutional terms.
Keywords Critical management, Organizational theory, Management power
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Since the 1970s a field of organization studies has emerged that explicitly takes a
critical stance towards modern practices of management and organization and to
(what is constructed in this paper as) the âmainstreamâ[1] of scientific theory and
research on these practices (Grey and Willmott, 2005a). Given this dual purpose of
critiquing management and the studies thereof, this field has appropriately labeled
itself as critical management studies (CMS).
Although the field of CMS is not easily defined and demarcated, some common lines
of thought can be discerned. Put briefly, CMS scholars argue for a critical conception of
management âin which research is self-consciously motivated by an effort to discredit,
and ideally eliminate, forms of management and organization that have institutionalized
the opposition between the purposefulness of individuals and the seeming givenness
and narrow instrumentality of work-process relationshipsâ (Alvesson and Willmott,
1992, p. 4). This givenness (or naturalness) of relationships needs to be critically
examined (or de-naturalized), because what is treated as natural or given often masks
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm
The author thanks Jos Benders, Yvonne Benschop, Rene ten Bos, Hans Doorewaard,
Erik Poutsma, and the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their critical (both with and
without capital C) and stimulating comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
IJOA
18,4
466
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis
Vol. 18 No. 4, 2010
pp. 466-478
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1934-88.
Dna Research Paper
Essay about Organizational Structures
Research Methods Essay
Educational Research
Methodology of Research Essay examples
Structure and Agency Essay
Sampling Methods Essay
Research Paper On Pcos
Essay about Structuralism
Fundamentals of Research Essay
Towards a Relational Paradigm in Sustainability Research, Practice, and Educa...Zack Walsh
Â
Relational thinking has recently gained increasing prominence across academic disciplines in an attempt to understand complex phenomena in terms of constitutive processes and relations. Interdisciplinary fields of study, such as science and technology studies (STS), the environmental humanities, and the posthumanities, for example, have started to reformulate academic understanding of nature-cultures based on relational thinking. Although the sustainability crisis serves as a contemporary backdrop and in fact calls for such innovative forms of interdisciplinary scholarship, the field of sustainability research has not yet tapped into the rich possibilities offered by relational thinking. Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to identify relational approaches to ontology, epistemology, and ethics which are relevant to sustainability research. More specifically, we analyze how relational approaches have been understood and conceptualized across a broad range of disciplines and contexts relevant to sustainability to identify and harness connections and contributions for future sustainability-related work. Our results highlight common themes and patterns across relational approaches, helping to identify and characterize a relational paradigm within sustainability research. On this basis, we conclude with a call to action for sustainability researchers to co-develop a research agenda for advancing this relational paradigm within sustainability research, practice, and education.
Common misconceptions of critical thinkingSHARON BAILIN, R.docxclarebernice
Â
Common misconceptions of critical thinking
SHARON BAILIN, ROLAND CASE,
JERROLD R. COOMBS and LEROI B. DANIELS
In this paper, the ÂŽrst of two, we analyse three widely-held conceptions of critical
thinking: as one or more skills, as mental processes, and as sets of procedures. Each
view is, we contend, wrong-headed, misleading or, at best, unhelpful. Some who write
about critical thinking seem to muddle all three views in an unenlightening meĂlange.
Apart from the errors or inadequacies of the conceptions themselves, they promote or
abet misconceived practices for teaching critical thinking. Together, they have led to
the view that critical thinking is best taught by practising it. We oĂer alternative
proposals for the teaching of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is a subject of considerable current interest, both in terms
of theory and pedagogy. A great deal is written about critical thinking,
conferences on the subject abound, and educational initiatives aimed at
fostering critical thinking proliferate.1 It is our view that much of the
theoretical work and many of the pedagogical endeavours in this area are
misdirected because they are based on faulty conceptions of critical think-
ing. Critical thinking is frequently conceptualized in terms of skills, pro-
cesses, procedures and practice. Much of the educational literature either
refers to cognitive or thinking skills or equates critical thinking with certain
mental processes or procedural moves that can be improved through
practice. In this paper we attempt to explain the misconceptions inherent
in such ways of conceptualizing critical thinking. It is important to note
that much of the literature contains a pervasive miasma of overlapping uses
of such terms as skill, process, procedure, behaviour, mental operations,
j. curriculum studies
, 1999, vol. 31, no. 3, 269Âą283
S haron Bailin, a professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6, is interested in philosophical inquiries into critical
thinking, creativity and aesthetic education. Her publications include Reason and V alues:
New Essays in Philosophy of Education (Calgary, AB: Detselig, 1993), co-edited with John P.
Portelli.
Roland Case, an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University,
conducts research in social studies and legal and global education. His most recent book is
The Canadian Anthology of Social S tudies: Issues and S trategies (Burnaby, BC: Faculty of
Education, Simon Fraser University), co-edited with Penney Clark.
Jerrold R. Coombs, a professor in the Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia,
has published extensively on ethical issues in education and the development of competence
in practical reasoning. His publications include Applied Ethics: A Reader (Oxford: Black-
well, 1993), co-edited with Earl R. Winkler.
L eRoi B. Daniels, a professor emeritus in the Faculty of Education, University of British
Columbia, is ...
Common misconceptions of critical thinkingSHARON BAILIN, RLynellBull52
Â
Common misconceptions of critical thinking
SHARON BAILIN, ROLAND CASE,
JERROLD R. COOMBS and LEROI B. DANIELS
In this paper, the ÂŽ rst of two, we analyse three widely-held conceptions of critical
thinking: as one or more skills, as mental processes, and as sets of procedures. Each
view is, we contend, wrong-headed, misleading or, at best, unhelpful. Some who write
about critical thinking seem to muddle all three views in an unenlightening meĂ lange.
Apart from the errors or inadequacies of the conceptions themselves, they promote or
abet misconceived practices for teaching critical thinking. Together, they have led to
the view that critical thinking is best taught by practising it. We oďż˝ er alternative
proposals for the teaching of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is a subject of considerable current interest, both in terms
of theory and pedagogy. A great deal is written about critical thinking,
conferences on the subject abound, and educational initiatives aimed at
fostering critical thinking proliferate.1 It is our view that much of the
theoretical work and many of the pedagogical endeavours in this area are
misdirected because they are based on faulty conceptions of critical think-
ing. Critical thinking is frequently conceptualized in terms of skills, pro-
cesses, procedures and practice. Much of the educational literature either
refers to cognitive or thinking skills or equates critical thinking with certain
mental processes or procedural moves that can be improved through
practice. In this paper we attempt to explain the misconceptions inherent
in such ways of conceptualizing critical thinking. It is important to note
that much of the literature contains a pervasive miasma of overlapping uses
of such terms as skill, process, procedure, behaviour, mental operations,
j. curriculum studies, 1999, vol. 31, no. 3, 269Âą 283
S haron Bailin, a professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6, is interested in philosophical inquiries into critical
thinking, creativity and aesthetic education. Her publications include Reason and V alues:
New Essays in Philosophy of Education (Calgary, AB: Detselig, 1993), co-edited with John P.
Portelli.
Roland Case, an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University,
conducts research in social studies and legal and global education. His most recent book is
The Canadian Anthology of Social S tudies: Issues and S trategies (Burnaby, BC: Faculty of
Education, Simon Fraser University), co-edited with Penney Clark.
Jerrold R. Coombs, a professor in the Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia,
has published extensively on ethical issues in education and the development of competence
in practical reasoning. His publications include Applied Ethics: A Reader (Oxford: Black-
well, 1993), co-edited with Earl R. Winkler.
L eRoi B. Daniels, a professor emeritus in the Faculty of Education, University of British
Columbia, ...
Here is an in-depth presentation that overviews twenty two (22) qualitative data methods that can be used in marketing research. For more great FREE resources, join us on facebook today at www.facebook.comb2bwhiteboard.
Or visit our website: www.b2bwhiteboard.com
Leadership effectiveness a multi-factorial model dr. m. roussety mba, m led,...jameskandi
Â
Dr. Maurice Roussety is an Executive Consultant at DST Advisory and Lecturer in Small Business, Franchising and Entrepreneurship at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. Maurice holds a PhD from the Griffith University in Intellectual Property and Franchise Goodwill Valuation. He also holds a Masterâs degree in Leadership and a Master of Business Administration.
Resource Parts I, II and III of the Wren (1995) text, SAS Central.docxcarlstromcurtis
Â
Resource:Â
Parts I, II and III of the Wren (1995) text, SAS Central: Critical Thinking, AES Presentation
Create
 an analytical framework to facilitate your analysis of historical leadership models in the Week 3 assignment. For this week, you will simply need to create and complete the visual framework.
To create the framework, choose three of the models described in chapters 10 -17 of Wren Part III (assume each chapter describes a different leadership model). Then, choose three to five generic processes of leadership. Â One component or process must be the leader/follower exchange - how the leader and followers interact, or their relationship to each other. Choose two to four other processes leaders engage in. To identify processes, you might think about these sentences: "How does ________ happen in this model?" or "What does _______ look like in this model?" (Note: you are not simply askingÂ
whether or not
 the process is part of the model. So, not a yes/no question.)
The analytic framework is a visual representation of components of the models that will allow you to analyze the similarities, differences, gaps, etc. in Week 3. A matrix framework is easy to construct and use - see the Assignment Materials for a visual of the framework you can use.
Create
 a 6- to 10-slide MicrosoftŽ PowerPointŽ presentation that includes a brief description of each model/theory and your analytical framework. Use these design criteria:
Four to six bullet points per slide,
Six to eight words per bullet - not full sentences,
Each bullet point containing a fact or assertion should also have a citation to literature,
Speaker notes
 in full sentences contain an expanded version of bullets on slides
 and also have citations as necessary, and
Reference slide with a minimum of four sources (one can be Wren).
Format
 your citations and references consistent with APA guidelines.
1. SAS Central: Argument Construction: Critical Thinking
What Is Critical Thinking?
In the SAS doctoral program, you will have the opportunity to develop and extend your critical thinking skills. You will be encouraged to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize as an integral aspect of your thinking. These thinking operations might be applied to analyzing the literature, developing questions, solving a problem, creating a new model, or deciding upon a course of action.
Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2009), two long-standing and respected scholars of critical thinking, crafted the following definition: Critical thinking is the act of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it (p. 4).
Paul and Elder (2009) also suggest that critical thinking entails a commitment to overcoming our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
Other recent views of critical thinking critique the overemphasis on the cognitive dimension of critical thinking (sometimes referred to as the Cartesian duality of âI think, therefore I amâ). Researchers such as Klein (1999) remind us of the role of i ...
Critical management studies
and âmainstreamâ organization
science
A proposal for a rapprochement
Max Visser
Nijmegen School of Management, Institute of Management Research,
Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose â The purpose of this paper is to propose a rapprochement between the field of critical
management studies (CMS) and what is constructed here as the âmainstreamâ of organization theory
and research.
Design/methodology/approach â The paper contains a comparative analysis of relevant literature
from the fields of organization theory, political science and political psychology.
Findings â It is found, first, that at least four instances of âmainstreamâ theory and research more or
less share CMS assumptions; second, that CMS and âmainstreamâ may benefit from mutual contact
(using the example of the âpower eliteâ discussion in the 1950s and 1960s); third, that CMS and
âmainstreamâ may benefit from âmainstreamâ operationalization of CMS-concepts (using the example
of the development of the F-scale in the 1930s and 1940s).
Originality/value â The paper ranks among the first to search for convergences between two fields
that seem firmly divided in both theoretical and institutional terms.
Keywords Critical management, Organizational theory, Management power
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Since the 1970s a field of organization studies has emerged that explicitly takes a
critical stance towards modern practices of management and organization and to
(what is constructed in this paper as) the âmainstreamâ[1] of scientific theory and
research on these practices (Grey and Willmott, 2005a). Given this dual purpose of
critiquing management and the studies thereof, this field has appropriately labeled
itself as critical management studies (CMS).
Although the field of CMS is not easily defined and demarcated, some common lines
of thought can be discerned. Put briefly, CMS scholars argue for a critical conception of
management âin which research is self-consciously motivated by an effort to discredit,
and ideally eliminate, forms of management and organization that have institutionalized
the opposition between the purposefulness of individuals and the seeming givenness
and narrow instrumentality of work-process relationshipsâ (Alvesson and Willmott,
1992, p. 4). This givenness (or naturalness) of relationships needs to be critically
examined (or de-naturalized), because what is treated as natural or given often masks
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm
The author thanks Jos Benders, Yvonne Benschop, Rene ten Bos, Hans Doorewaard,
Erik Poutsma, and the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their critical (both with and
without capital C) and stimulating comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
IJOA
18,4
466
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis
Vol. 18 No. 4, 2010
pp. 466-478
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1934-88.
Dna Research Paper
Essay about Organizational Structures
Research Methods Essay
Educational Research
Methodology of Research Essay examples
Structure and Agency Essay
Sampling Methods Essay
Research Paper On Pcos
Essay about Structuralism
Fundamentals of Research Essay
Towards a Relational Paradigm in Sustainability Research, Practice, and Educa...Zack Walsh
Â
Relational thinking has recently gained increasing prominence across academic disciplines in an attempt to understand complex phenomena in terms of constitutive processes and relations. Interdisciplinary fields of study, such as science and technology studies (STS), the environmental humanities, and the posthumanities, for example, have started to reformulate academic understanding of nature-cultures based on relational thinking. Although the sustainability crisis serves as a contemporary backdrop and in fact calls for such innovative forms of interdisciplinary scholarship, the field of sustainability research has not yet tapped into the rich possibilities offered by relational thinking. Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to identify relational approaches to ontology, epistemology, and ethics which are relevant to sustainability research. More specifically, we analyze how relational approaches have been understood and conceptualized across a broad range of disciplines and contexts relevant to sustainability to identify and harness connections and contributions for future sustainability-related work. Our results highlight common themes and patterns across relational approaches, helping to identify and characterize a relational paradigm within sustainability research. On this basis, we conclude with a call to action for sustainability researchers to co-develop a research agenda for advancing this relational paradigm within sustainability research, practice, and education.
Common misconceptions of critical thinkingSHARON BAILIN, R.docxclarebernice
Â
Common misconceptions of critical thinking
SHARON BAILIN, ROLAND CASE,
JERROLD R. COOMBS and LEROI B. DANIELS
In this paper, the ÂŽrst of two, we analyse three widely-held conceptions of critical
thinking: as one or more skills, as mental processes, and as sets of procedures. Each
view is, we contend, wrong-headed, misleading or, at best, unhelpful. Some who write
about critical thinking seem to muddle all three views in an unenlightening meĂlange.
Apart from the errors or inadequacies of the conceptions themselves, they promote or
abet misconceived practices for teaching critical thinking. Together, they have led to
the view that critical thinking is best taught by practising it. We oĂer alternative
proposals for the teaching of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is a subject of considerable current interest, both in terms
of theory and pedagogy. A great deal is written about critical thinking,
conferences on the subject abound, and educational initiatives aimed at
fostering critical thinking proliferate.1 It is our view that much of the
theoretical work and many of the pedagogical endeavours in this area are
misdirected because they are based on faulty conceptions of critical think-
ing. Critical thinking is frequently conceptualized in terms of skills, pro-
cesses, procedures and practice. Much of the educational literature either
refers to cognitive or thinking skills or equates critical thinking with certain
mental processes or procedural moves that can be improved through
practice. In this paper we attempt to explain the misconceptions inherent
in such ways of conceptualizing critical thinking. It is important to note
that much of the literature contains a pervasive miasma of overlapping uses
of such terms as skill, process, procedure, behaviour, mental operations,
j. curriculum studies
, 1999, vol. 31, no. 3, 269Âą283
S haron Bailin, a professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6, is interested in philosophical inquiries into critical
thinking, creativity and aesthetic education. Her publications include Reason and V alues:
New Essays in Philosophy of Education (Calgary, AB: Detselig, 1993), co-edited with John P.
Portelli.
Roland Case, an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University,
conducts research in social studies and legal and global education. His most recent book is
The Canadian Anthology of Social S tudies: Issues and S trategies (Burnaby, BC: Faculty of
Education, Simon Fraser University), co-edited with Penney Clark.
Jerrold R. Coombs, a professor in the Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia,
has published extensively on ethical issues in education and the development of competence
in practical reasoning. His publications include Applied Ethics: A Reader (Oxford: Black-
well, 1993), co-edited with Earl R. Winkler.
L eRoi B. Daniels, a professor emeritus in the Faculty of Education, University of British
Columbia, is ...
Common misconceptions of critical thinkingSHARON BAILIN, RLynellBull52
Â
Common misconceptions of critical thinking
SHARON BAILIN, ROLAND CASE,
JERROLD R. COOMBS and LEROI B. DANIELS
In this paper, the ÂŽ rst of two, we analyse three widely-held conceptions of critical
thinking: as one or more skills, as mental processes, and as sets of procedures. Each
view is, we contend, wrong-headed, misleading or, at best, unhelpful. Some who write
about critical thinking seem to muddle all three views in an unenlightening meĂ lange.
Apart from the errors or inadequacies of the conceptions themselves, they promote or
abet misconceived practices for teaching critical thinking. Together, they have led to
the view that critical thinking is best taught by practising it. We oďż˝ er alternative
proposals for the teaching of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is a subject of considerable current interest, both in terms
of theory and pedagogy. A great deal is written about critical thinking,
conferences on the subject abound, and educational initiatives aimed at
fostering critical thinking proliferate.1 It is our view that much of the
theoretical work and many of the pedagogical endeavours in this area are
misdirected because they are based on faulty conceptions of critical think-
ing. Critical thinking is frequently conceptualized in terms of skills, pro-
cesses, procedures and practice. Much of the educational literature either
refers to cognitive or thinking skills or equates critical thinking with certain
mental processes or procedural moves that can be improved through
practice. In this paper we attempt to explain the misconceptions inherent
in such ways of conceptualizing critical thinking. It is important to note
that much of the literature contains a pervasive miasma of overlapping uses
of such terms as skill, process, procedure, behaviour, mental operations,
j. curriculum studies, 1999, vol. 31, no. 3, 269Âą 283
S haron Bailin, a professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6, is interested in philosophical inquiries into critical
thinking, creativity and aesthetic education. Her publications include Reason and V alues:
New Essays in Philosophy of Education (Calgary, AB: Detselig, 1993), co-edited with John P.
Portelli.
Roland Case, an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University,
conducts research in social studies and legal and global education. His most recent book is
The Canadian Anthology of Social S tudies: Issues and S trategies (Burnaby, BC: Faculty of
Education, Simon Fraser University), co-edited with Penney Clark.
Jerrold R. Coombs, a professor in the Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia,
has published extensively on ethical issues in education and the development of competence
in practical reasoning. His publications include Applied Ethics: A Reader (Oxford: Black-
well, 1993), co-edited with Earl R. Winkler.
L eRoi B. Daniels, a professor emeritus in the Faculty of Education, University of British
Columbia, ...
This is a presentation by Dada Robert in a Your Skill Boost masterclass organised by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan (EFSS) on Saturday, the 25th and Sunday, the 26th of May 2024.
He discussed the concept of quality improvement, emphasizing its applicability to various aspects of life, including personal, project, and program improvements. He defined quality as doing the right thing at the right time in the right way to achieve the best possible results and discussed the concept of the "gap" between what we know and what we do, and how this gap represents the areas we need to improve. He explained the scientific approach to quality improvement, which involves systematic performance analysis, testing and learning, and implementing change ideas. He also highlighted the importance of client focus and a team approach to quality improvement.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
Â
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Â
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
Â
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
Â
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
Operation âBlue Starâ is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Students, digital devices and success - Andreas Schleicher - 27 May 2024..pptxEduSkills OECD
Â
Andreas Schleicher presents at the OECD webinar âDigital devices in schools: detrimental distraction or secret to success?â on 27 May 2024. The presentation was based on findings from PISA 2022 results and the webinar helped launch the PISA in Focus âManaging screen time: How to protect and equip students against distractionâ https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/managing-screen-time_7c225af4-en and the OECD Education Policy Perspective âStudents, digital devices and successâ can be found here - https://oe.cd/il/5yV
How to Split Bills in the Odoo 17 POS ModuleCeline George
Â
Bills have a main role in point of sale procedure. It will help to track sales, handling payments and giving receipts to customers. Bill splitting also has an important role in POS. For example, If some friends come together for dinner and if they want to divide the bill then it is possible by POS bill splitting. This slide will show how to split bills in odoo 17 POS.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
Â
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasnât one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
Cambridge International AS A Level Biology Coursebook - EBook (MaryFosbery J...
Â
Adaptors And Innovations Styles Of Creativity And Problem Solving
1. BOOK REVIEWS zyxwvutsrqp
book concern the various cognitive aspects of
the interaction between humans and complex
computer-based systems.The comprehensive
treatment of these issues illustrates both the
importance and diversity of the expanding
multi-disciplinary areas of cognitive engi-
neering pioneered by Professor Rasmussen.
The organization of the book is in four
main parts and comprises twenty chapters,
contributed by Rasmussenâs international
colleagues from academia and industry. Ne-
ville Moray provides an illuminating pro-
logue, and Bill Rouse offers an epilogue, both
in praise of Rasmussenâs critical contribution
to the area. Finally, Rasmussen modestly
asks the question âCognitive engineering, a
new profession?â,and gives us his thoughts on
likely future trends in cognitive engineering.
The first of the four main sections of the
book deals with âSkills, Rules and Knowl-
edgeâ, and consists of five chapters by
Sanderson and Harwood, Reason, Wirstad,
Bainbridge and Pederson. Of course, these
contributions relate to Rasmussenâs concept
of SRK (Skills-Rules-Knowledge)based be-
haviour. Of great interest to those concerned
with models of human cognitive and
performance characteristics, is the chapter by
James Reason entitled âFramework models
of human performance and error zyxwvu
:a consumer
guideâ. Within this chapter, Reason bravely
attempts to cont.rastseveral global models of
human performance, including Rasmussenâs
contributions to the debate.
Section 2 ofzyxwvuts
Tasks, Errors and Mental
Models, focusses upon âComplexity and cog-
nitive tasksâ. There are six chapters in this
section, all of which provide valuable insight
into the topic of complexity in human-system
interaction, contributed by Leplat, Brehmer,
Woods, Sheridan, Wahlstorm, and Pejtersen.
Thomas Sheridanâs contribution in this
section of the book is particularly thought-
provoking. He deals with the difficultissue of
human and computer roles in supervisory
control (the allocation of function problem).
This chapter includes discussion of âdegrees
of computer aidingâ, and ends with such
questions as âHowtrustworthy have the man-
machine behavioural products of our deliber-
ations become?â.
âErrorsand Faultsâ are the themes for the
third section of the book which offers
contributions from Green, Swain and Wes-
181
ton, Taylor, Carnino and colleagues, and
Johannsen. As one would expect, most of this
section deals with human responsibility ana-
lysis (HRA) probabilistic risk assessment
(PRA) and related techniques.
Of course, this section of the book does not
fail to remind us of such disasters as those
that occurred at Three Mile Island, Flixbor-
ough, Seveso, Bhophal and Chernobyl.
The final part of the book covers theoreti-
cal and methodological issues, and includes
âMental models and model mentalityâ (Hol-
langel), âSystem concepts and the design of
man-machine interfaces for supervisor con-
trolâ (Lind), âModelling humans and mach-
inesâ (Manacini), âVerbal reports : a problem
in research designâ (Praetorius and Duncan).
Goodestein et al. have done well to put
together such a comprehensive and well-
organized text; there are no significant gaps
apparent within the book. Also, the blend of
the contributions will appeal to many
readers, as the contributors come from those
with varied backgrounds (i.e. industrial engi-
neers, cognitive psychologists, mathemati-
cians) and from those working within many
applied fields (ranging from nuclear power
plants and the process industries, to library
retrieval systems).
Despite the brevity of some contributions,
Tasks, Errors and Mental Models is an
excellentand enjoyablebook for anyone with
an interest in cognitive engineering and the
current issues that dominate the field.
GRAHAM JOHNSON
Adaptors and Innovations: styles zy
of creativity
and problem solving, Kirton, M. J. (ed).
London: Routledge 1989. Hardback zy
f35.00.
This book brings together work done by
Michael Kirton and a range of international
contributors in extending and applying his
Adaption-Innovation Theory, first proposed
in 1976after 1961 studies into the ways new
ideas are developed and implemented in
organizations. The theory states that an
individualâs preferred cognitive style, as
reflected in his or her approach to creativity,
problem solving and decision making, is
unrelated to his or her cognitive level as
measured for instance by IQ or creativity
R&D Management zyxwvutsrq
20, 2, 1990
2. 182
tests. Cognitive style is measured by KAI
(Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory), a
32 item self report instrument which asks
respondents to indicate on a five point scale
how easy or hard it is for them to present
themselves consistently in ways described by
the items. High scorers are termed âinnova-
torsâ; they prefer âdoing things differentlyâ,
restructuring problems and frameworks, and
breaking boundaries, in contrast to low
scoring âadaptorsâ who prefer âdoing things
betterâ within existing frameworks and boun-
daries. Crucially,Kirton argues that adaptors
and innovators, who may have mutually
hostile perceptions of each other and find it
hard to work together, can both be equally
creative, but in different ways. In increas-
ingly turbulent and uncertain environments,
organizational effectivenesswill require both
styles.
Though the book contains chapters which
range from quite abstract sociobiological
speculation by van der Molen to detailed
empirical studiesof consumer innovativeness
by Foxall, for this reviewer the most interest-
ing chapters are by Kirton and de Ciantis on
cognitive climates, Goldsmith on the rela-
tionships between KAI scores and personal-
ity variables, Schroder on the relationships
between managerial competencies and cogni-
tive style,and Kirton himself on the theory of
cognitive style and on the behaviour of
adaptors and innovators at work.
Kirton reviews the evidence for the reli-
ability and validity of the KAI and its
independence from measures of intelligence
and level of creativity. This establishes the
KAI asmeasuring zyxwvuts
style, not level or capacity.
Within the âcreativityâliterature however the
distinction between style and level has not
always been maintained, and creativity tests
often do not correlate very well with each
other. One of the other contributors, Gold-
smith, has shown elsewhere (Goldsmith and
Matherly, 1987) that KAI scores correlate
positively with two tests purporting to mea-
sure cognitive level. Perhaps the KAI is
related to measures of level of creativity, or
perhaps many âcreativityâ tests may in fact
measure style rather than level. Another
problem occurs over the validity and factor
structure of the scale, with doubts having
been expressed over its supposed undimen-
sional nature by Payne and others (Payne,
1987).
Book Reviews
With regard to personality, Kirton and
Goldsmith review evidence showing that
adaptors tend to be more left brain domina-
ted, more dogmatic, more intolerant of
ambiguity, more introverted, more conscien-
tious, more anxious, more emotionally sub-
dued and more risk aversive than innovators.
Kirton sees these cognitive styles as stable
and hard to change by training. They are
assumed to be the product of broader, more
general personality traits. However, individ-
uals can operate against their preference
through using various coping strategies. This
if required to be maintained however, is
likely to lead to stress, absenteeism and
quitting.
These distinctions between innovators and
adaptors seem to resemble other distinctions
currently fashionable in the management
literature, such as those between entrepren-
eurial/intrapreneurial managers and bureau-
cratic managers or between leaders and
managers (e.g. Zaleznik).
It would be interesting to see more data on
the links with personality characteristics as
measured by the currently fashionable
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or the
occupational personality questionnaire
(OPQ). It seems as if research scientists are
skewed towards the âinnovativeâ pole, as
compared to managers. Lynda Gratton
(Gratton, 1987) has argued that the charac-
teristics which make for a high performing
research scientist (e.g. introversion, intuition,
thinking, perceiving) may well be the oppo-
site of a high performing R&D manager who
needs coaching, motivating, delegating and
teambuilding skills (e.g. extraversion, sens-
ing, thinking, judging). Promoting an effec-
tive scientist to a managerial position may
thus be an ineffective strategy, causing the
organization to gain a poor manager and lose
a good scientist. She argues for other ways of
assessing managerial potential, for example
though assessment centres, and the use of
dual career ladders to attract and retain good
scientists.
Little evidence is presented in the book of
the predictive validity of the KAI in terms of
effective work performance. A suggestive
chapter by Schroder does however explore
the links between cognitive style and mana-
gerial competencies,those characteristics that
are related to effective or superior perform-
ance. The identification and development of
R&D Management zyx
20,zy
2, 1990
3. BOOK REVIEWS zyxwvutsrqp
managerial competencies is a currently fash-
ionable area, given the interest of CMED and
the Management Charter Initiative. Follow-
ing Boyatzisâs pioneering work, Schroder
presents a set of competencies necessary for
effective performance and describes how
assessment centres were used to measure
these. Correlations between KAI scores and
assessorratings of competencies were all very
low and non significant (except for the
competence âconcept formationâ) supporting
the view that KAI style is independent of
competency. Managers with different styles
seem to possess the same competencies and
similar levels of competence, but express the
competencies in different ways.
This raises an interesting OD, HRM and
team-building challenge, if organizations are
to successfully integrate equally competent
but stylisticallydiverse adaptors and innova-
tors. Schroder also describes an experiment
which shows that teams equal in status,
experience and competence but differing
greatly on cognitive style tended to approach
similar problems in very different ways.
Managers may need to receive training in
the appreciation of differences in working
styles and the management of conflict,
though some conflict is likely to aid innova-
tion. KAI may help in matching people to
jobs more effectively; Kirton for example
argues that people who do not âfitâ the
cognitive climate found in the organization
are more likely to report stress and to quit,
though some may act as potent agents for
change. He also argues that an initial pure
âresearchâ orientation in R&D may require
individuals high on âinnovationâ, but as a
project moves towards design and production
more adaptive personnel may be needed.
Innovativeness in R&D is reported as related
to project quality but not to successin budget
or scheduling terms. Management may need
to plan proactively for shifts in personnel to
occur as a reward for success,sothat these are
not seen as punishments for not being
adaptive enough.
This demonstrates the potential scope and
range of what appears at first sight to be a
rather narrow and limited instrument and
theory. Adaption-Innovation seems to have
promise in helping us to better understand
stress and organizational and occupational
cultures as well as in aiding managers in
selection, team-building and the manage- zyxwv
RdiD Management 20, 2, zyxwvuts
1990
183
ment of change and conflict. For this reason
the book makes interesting reading, despite
the rather casual proof-reading and occa-
sional absence of references and the lack of
evidence on how effectivelythe KAI predicts
actual job performance. For example, there
seems to be no evidence of how KAI scores
might relate to team roles, as identified for
example by Belbin, or even more crucially to
team performance, beyond Schroderâs rather
anecdotal discussion. Since much innovation
occurs in teams, this relative absence of
discussion of the value of the KAI for
predicting team or workgroup innovation is
notable, especially in the light of the recent
work done by Sheffield researchers on deve-
loping a measure of work-role innovation
(West, 1987) and on the analysis of factors
facilitating innovation at both the individual
and group levels (e.g. West and Farr, 1989,
Anderson, 1989).
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, N. (1989) âWork group innovation: current research
concernsand future directionsâ.Paper presented at 4th West
European Congress on the Psychologyof work and organisa-
tion, Cambridge, UK, April. zyxw
GOLDSMITH,
R. E. zyxwv
& MAMHRLY,T. A. (1987) âAdaption-
Innovation and Creativity: a replication and extensionâ.
British Journal zyxwv
of Social Psychology, 26, 79-82.
GRATTON,
L. (1987)âHowcan we predict managerialpotential in
research scientists? Research zyxw
and Dewlopment Management,
17, 2, April.
PAYNE,
R.(1987) âIndividual differences and performance of
R&D personnel:some implicationsfor managementdevelop
mentâ. R&D Managemenr, 17, 153-161.
WEST,M. (1987) âA measureof role innovation at workâ. British
WEST,M. & FARR,
J. (1989)âInnovationat Work: Psychological
PAUL ILES
JOUWWIO
f Social PSyCholOgy, 26, 83-83.
Perspectivesâ.Social Behauiour, 4, 15-30,
Creativity at Work. Tudor Rickards. Gower,
1988. Hardback âŹ22.50.
âThis book is aimed at a wide audience,
consultants, researchers, trainers, students
and professionals with responsibilities for
assisting and directing changeâ. Even aca-
demics might be contained within these
categories, but even if they are not they, like
the others, would gain something from
Rickardsârefreshing approach. He avoids the
controversies on the nature of creativity or
intellect or process or indeed anything else