Impact of Teamwork on Organisational Problem Solving

Impact of Teamwork on Organisational Problem Solving Can Groups and Teams be seen as the silver bullet to solve organisational problems? Reflect critically on this issue drawing on theory and research. Introduction In recent years, the implementation of groups and teams has become more commonplace in firms: 78% of US workplaces use teams (Allen and Hecht, 2004) and 72% of UK organizations involve their core employees in formal teams (Kersley et al., 2013). However, scholars have generally been divided about the effectiveness of teams in solving challenges in the workplace, with varying empirical results and evidence. Despite their popularity, are groups and teams always beneficial to workplaces? In observing the drawbacks of implementing teams, it is suggested that alternative factors are equally important in solving organizational problems. This essay attempts to show that teams are not the silver bullet for all organizations by critiquing populist theories on benefits of teams, discussing additional problems that may arise from teams and lastly, by questioning the assumptions of this essay. Although Katzenbach and Smith (1993a, p.45) defined team as a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable and working group as a small number of people working in a collaborative style with individual input and accountability, I will use groups and teams interchangeably and not draw a distinction between the two terms for the most part of this essay. This is in line with many writers (e.g. Allen and Hecht, 2004), who regarded them as the same and that teams are two or more people working interdependently towards achieving a common goal. Section 1: Critiquing popular theories on benefits of teams Historical view of teams: Sociotechnical systems theory (STS) The term STS was originally coined by Emery and Trist (1960) to describe systems which involve a complex interaction between people, machines, and the organizations external environment; it was about utilizing the human and technical aspects to make an organization more effective. STS was the basic foundation for the empowerment of teams, arguing that as workers gain more autonomy over their jobs, team members can make greater use of their skills and judgment to better tackle organizational problems (Cohen et al., 1996). Groups were suggested as an alternative to routine Tayloristic and Fordist frameworks by reducing boredom and by allowing workers to be more involved and interested in their tasks. This works in theory, but teams may not be that autonomous or beneficial in practice. Murakami (1997) studied the introduction of teams in fourteen car plants worldwide and although teams were given some autonomy about work distribution and internal leadership, he found that managerial power in the most important areas of car production remained unchallenged. Barker (1993) argued that while teams may appear to give workers more autonomy over their jobs, groups may represent a more subtle and intensive form of control as team members can control each others actions through surveillance or social pressures. Besides that, research has indicated that in becoming group members, individuals often lose their problem-solving facilities, become emotionally segregated and blame others for their failure (Wells, 1980 cited in Sinclair, 1992, p.616). In line with that, Naquin and Tynan (2003) agreed that teams receive joint credit for successes but often blame team failure on an individual member , leading to conflict within the group. Dunphy and Bryant (1996) argued that the implementation of self-managed teams shifts the burden of problem-solving from managers to employees, leading to intensification of work and heightened stress levels. This is in line with Rothschild and Whitt (1986) who revealed that groups can often be a source of stress rather than satisfaction and have a negative effect on employees well-being. Nevertheless, even if some workers enjoy their job more through teams, there is no evidence that this will always lead to improved performance. Some researchers have suggested that job performance leads to job satisfaction but not the reverse (Bagozzi, 1980). And even if it does improve individual performance, it may not necessarily lead to organizational effectiveness in solving problems (Sinclair, 1992). Belbins Team Roles Another theory which popularized team effectiveness was Belbins model of team roles. Belbin identified nine team roles/ contributions that are seen to be crucial for organizational effectiveness (Belbin, 1993). Each team role is considered important because it helps to provide a good balance for achieving tasks. The essential contributions are solving problems, exploring resources, coordinating tasks, imparting drive, evaluating information, developing team members, implementing ideas, perfecting details, and providing knowledge. Some modern workplaces form teams on the basis of Belbins team profiles as they supposedly allow organizations to recognize and use others strengths to best advantage (Belbin, 2014). To a certain extent, Belbins model of teams and team roles may appear to solve certain organizational problems. For example, problems at organizations may occur due to ambiguity and role conflict. When there is role ambiguity, workers are uncertain which responsibilities they should tackle, leading to anxiety. This may also lead to conflict if one worker believes that another is impinging on their role, putting newcomers in a difficult position as they are apprehensive of taking on tasks (Slaughter and Zicker, 2006). By clearly defining team roles using Belbins model, organizations may be able to avoid some of these problems. However, Belbins model has been re-examined with mixed results. For example, Fisher (1996) argued that Belbin team roles have little psychometric support and that it is unreliable to use it as the basis for team roles. Another criticism is that Belbin insinuated that there are only a limited number of ways in which people can usefully contribute to teams when in practice, roles are complex and varied. Imposing team roles onto people and expecting them to contribute to workplaces in a certain way may lead to stereotyping. For example, an individual who is actually more efficient working alone may be accused of being a bad employee just because they are not a team player (Sewell, 2001). Apart from that, Belbins original research mainly focused on upper-management level executives in Britain in the 1970s, consisting mostly of middle-class white men. This does not mean that Belbins theory of teams and team roles cannot be applied to other cultures, but it could be biased as the research was based on a specific demographic. Katzenbach and Smiths Wisdom of Teams Katzenbach and Smith (1993a) argued that teams will always outperform individuals when teams are properly understood and supported. They suggested that the mutual accountability, commitment, and skills of team members will encourage open discussions and critical problem-solving. The better teams will move beyond individual responsibilities and pursue team performance goals like increasing work quality or responding to customers faster, reducing inefficiency problems. Storey (2007) argued that this theory adopts a unitarist view of management where employees and managers are constantly in pursuit of higher productivity, which may not always be true in practice. The main critique is that Katzenbach and Smith wrote from their personal work experiences (Wilson, 2013). Their research had no solid empirical evidence and while they claimed to collect information through interviews, they did not divulge how they analyzed the data. They were also inclined to ignore public service sector or third sector examples, which could make their findings biased. Additionally, this theory played down the intrinsic qualities of organizational problems such as job satisfaction or workers feelings and personal motivations. Metcalf and Linstead (2003) argued that this approach is masculinist as it adopted a view that only emphasized better performance, with the soft components such as sensitivities and feelings of members being marginalized. However, to successfully solve organizational problems, we should consider both masculinist and soft aspects as organizational problems can be related to both. Hence, this theory fails to explain why teams would be the solutio n to all challenges. Section 2: Problems that arise from implementing teams Social loafing Secondly, teams should not be seen as a panacea because they may cause even more organizational problems. One of the problems that arise from teams is social loafing, colloquially known as free riding or laziness. Simply stated, it refers to a situation in which certain members of a group exert less effort than the others (Clegg at al., 2016). Primarily, people exert less effort in groups as they feel less accountable when they know other members will compensate by exerting additional effort on their behalf (Harkins and Szymanski, 1989). Ezzamel and Wilmott (1998) observed workplace social loafing in a company they dubbed StichCo. When teams were introduced to StitchCo, the younger and more inexperienced workers with no responsibilities were less pressured to increase their wages through bonuses. They were seen to reap the advantages of a shared team bonus, working below the minimum level of efficiency while older workers overcompensated for their lack of efforts. This created resentment and conflict among those workers who were working harder. Although challenges occur when implementing team roles as discussed earlier, one way of countering social loafing is by ensuring that team members have clear responsibilities and accountability. Theoretically, one would assume that social loafing would be much less likely to exist in work teams because team pressures can be a powerful source of conformance. Sewell (1998) pointed out that non-performing team members may be pressured to perform or leave through immense social pressures. Hence in some ways, conformance and cohesion can cancel out social loafing. Groupthink Nevertheless, cohesion in groups are not always beneficial to organizations as it may cause another problem: Groupthink. Janis (1982) coined the term Groupthink when he studied historical situations where teams with prestigious and well-educated members make disastrous decisions, such as the Bay of Pigs incident. One key characteristic of Groupthink is when members choose to stand by decisions that the group has committed itself to, despite evidence that these decisions are bad or disturbing the conscience of its members. Janis argued that the more cohesive the group, the more likely it is for each member to avoid creating disunity. It is not so much that the members are afraid of revealing their objections, but that they will readily accept the majority decision without scrutinizing its pros and cons. Groupthink also brings about risk shift, an illusion of invulnerability and enthusiasm for a decision that polarizes the group towards higher risk. For example, in May 2015, six banks were fined a total of $5.7 billion for manipulating foreign exchange markets. The traders appeared to reinforce each others belief that they were not going to be arrested, allowing them to knowingly break the law (King and Lawley, 2016). The concept of groupthink therefore undermines one of the main argued benefits of teams: workers sharing multiple perspectives to examine potential risks and to better solve problems. However, Janis argued that this does not mean all cohesive groups suffer from groupthink and that mild Groupthink may not necessarily influence the quality of a groups decision. Furthermore, there are ways to avoid Groupthink: the team might encourage people to voice their opinions by establishing that any critique of the teams decision is encouraged or some members may be assigned to analyze all decisions in a critical way. Alternatively, the organization may set up several independent groups working on the same problem and compare the decisions reached. Section 3: Questioning the assumptions of this essay Groups vs Teams We will now discuss if it is possible for teams to be the silver bullet when they are defined correctly or implemented in the right settings. One of the main assumptions of this essay is that groups and teams are the same. However, Katzenbach and Smith (1993b) argued that while many workplaces claimed to use teams, in practice, teams are uncommon as most workers are in what they called working groups. Working group members mostly work independently and focus on individual performance whereas high performance team members focus everything on the team. Since team members rely on each other and focus on team outcome rather than individual needs, they can exploit each others strengths to better tackle challenges. So perhaps, the failure of teams found by researchers such as Hackman (1998) were due to people using the term team too loosely in the workplace, when they were in fact, the failure of working groups. Katzenbach and Smith (1993b) argued that it is important to distinct working groups and teams so that managers can make better decisions about whether, when, or how to encourage and use teams. By properly defining teams, we can learn when they should be seen as a solution to organizational problems. Size of teams and organizational context This essay also used Allen and Hechts definition of a team: two or more people working interdependently towards achieving a common goal (2004). This definition is quite vague, when in workplaces, the size of a team is very important and should be defined according to the task. For example, larger teams may be inefficient for routine tasks due to overcrowding, but they are good for complex tasks as smaller teams will not have enough resources or abilities (Clegg at al., 2016). Nevertheless, Laughlin (2011) found that high ability individuals can outperform groups composed of two, three, four or five low ability members. So while team size definitely has an effect on team performance, more research needs to be done to fully understand how different factors mediate the effect of team size on effectiveness. This brings us to the next assumption of this essay: groups and teams are not the silver bullet for all organizations. However, teams can be very effective if they are used in the suitable organizational context. Wright Cordery (1999) proposed conditions for teams to succeed and fail in outperforming other organizational frameworks and there is evidence that system-wide changes are better at solving organizational problems than individual changes (Bacon Blyton, 2000). Thus, it is critical to recognize that effective problem-solving does not magically occur simply by introducing teams; time, high-level resources, and revamped support structures need to be in place to create a high performance team-based organization. Only then, perhaps teams can be perceived as a silver bullet to organizational problems, although creating the perfect setting for every task would be nearly impossible. Conclusion In a nutshell, this essay argued that teams are not the panacea by examining opposing views and limitations of popular theories such as STS, Belbins team roles, and Katzenbach and Smiths Wisdom of teams. It also discussed additional problems that may arise and questioned the assumptions of this essay to demonstrate the pros and cons of teams in different situations. Due to the word limit, this essay did not discuss all the challenges which would prevent teams from working effectively (e.g. resistance to teams, leadership of teams). Nevertheless, the original essay question remains important as teams can be effective or destructive depending on how and where they are implemented, so they should not be used sweepingly across organizations. Instead, future research on teams should be done in various industrial settings to properly define teams and to examine other factors which would affect their effectiveness in problem-solving. References Allen, N.J. and Hecht, T.D., 2004. The romance of teams: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), pp.439-461. Bacon, N. and Blyton, P., 2000. High road and low road teamworking: Perceptions of management rationales and organizational and human resource outcomes. Human relations, 53(11), pp.1425-1458. Bagozzi, R.P., 1980. Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: An examination of their antecedents and simultaneity. The Journal of Marketing, pp.65-77. Barker, J.R., 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative science quarterly, pp.408-437. Belbin, R.M., 1993. Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Belbin UK, 2014. How toà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Use Belbin to Increase Employee Engagement. [pdf] Cambridge: Belbin. Available at: http://www.belbin.com/media/1173/belbin-howtousebelbintoincreaseemployeeengagement-oct2014.pdf> [Accessed 23 December 2016] Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. Pitsis, T., 2016. Managing Organizations. Fourth edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. and Spreitzer, G.M., 1996. A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human relations, 49(5), pp.643-676. Dunphy, D. and Bryant, B., 1996. Teams: panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance?. Human relations, 49(5), pp.677-699. Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L.,1960. Socio-technical Systems. In C.W. Churchman M. Verhurst (Eds), Management Science, Models and Techniques, Vol. 2, pp.83-97. London: Pergamon Press. Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H., 1998. Accounting for teamwork: A critical study of group-based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.358-396. Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K. and Sharp, G., 1996. Further evidence concerning the Belbin team role self-perception inventory. Personnel review, 25(2), pp.61-67. Hackman, J.R. and Tindale, R.S., 1998. Why teams dont work. Theory and research on small groups. New York: Plenum Press Harkins, S.G. and Szymanski, K., 1989. Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(6), pp.934-941. Janis, I.L., 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (Vol. 349). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 1993a. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K., 1993b. The discipline of teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S., 2013. Inside the workplace: findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Routledge. King, D. and Lawley, S., 2016. Organizational behaviour. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laughlin, P.R., 2011. Group problem solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Metcalf, B. and Linstead, A., 2003. Gendering Teamwork: Reà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Writing the Feminine. Gender, Work Organization, 10(1), pp.94-119. Murakami, T., 1997. The autonomy of teams in the car industry a cross national comparison. Work, Employment Society, 11(4), pp.749-758. Naquin, C.E. and Tynan, R.O., 2003. The team halo effect: why teams are not blamed for their failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), pp.332-340. Rothschild, J. and Whitt, J.A., 1989. The cooperative workplace: Potentials and dilemmas of organisational democracy and participation. CUP Archive. Sewell, G., 1998. The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative science quarterly, pp.397-428. Sewell, G., 2001. What Goes Around, Comes Around Inventing a Mythology of Teamwork and Empowerment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(1), pp.70-89. Sinclair, A., 1992. The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization studies, 13(4), pp.611-626. Slaughter, J.E. and Zickar, M.J., 2006. A new look at the role of insiders in the newcomer socialization process. Group Organization Management, 31(2), pp.264-290. Storey, J.W. (2007) Human resources management: A critical text. Third edition. London: Cengage Delmar Learning. Wilson, F.M., 2013. Organizational behaviour and work: a critical introduction. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, B.M. and Cordery, J.L., 1999. Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), pp.456-463.

Society and the Roles We Play/Zimbardo and the Hoax

Psych 333: Social Psychology Society and the Roles We Play/Zimbardo and the Hoax As social human beings we encounter the powerful effects of roles every day. Whether you’re an experienced doctor or a propane truck driver, your roles are much more than just a small piece of a big picture. Our roles are in nature a social element that when used correctly can slightly or completely alter another’s. When used maliciously our roles can not only psychologically damage an individual or a handful of people, but also the masses.Adolf Hitler’s role as a chancellor changed the roles of normal German soldiers to genocidal henchmen which in turn changed the Jews’ roles as a race of beautiful people to what seemed like verminous animals needing extermination. The dynamics of social roles are not always this drastic but when they are, our life as we know it changes. To see how similar a real life tragedy and a staged study are with damaging effects of roles, it is import ant to analyze the Stanford Prison Experiment and a very horrible real life tragedy comparatively.In order to explain such a socially fascinating phenomenon as the Stanford Prison Experiment led by Zimbardo, we must first see what social psychological factors were at play. First it is important to know that all participants in this experiment including the prisoners, the guards, and the confederates gave their full consent to participate. This is important because the main method of this experiment would make the participants take on different roles. This method helped determine the purpose of this experiment which is whether or not the participants’ would perceive their roles as pretending or reality.This perception was shown through behavior from both prisoners and guards as a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is evident because the reciprocal behaviors expressed by the prisoner participants and the guard participants would amplify each other’s behavior. An increase of aggression causes an increase in submissiveness which in turn amplifies aggression and continuous into a vicious cycle. The experiment has been argued to have been unsuccessful; however the experiment contained a high amount of experimental realism. Although the experiment was unethical it yielded fascinating results from both the prisoners and the guards.First I believe it is important to analyze the behavior exhibited by the participants in the experiment. Prior to the experiment, the participants were in fact informed about the nature of the experiment and the moment they were arrested they would assume their roles as prisoners. A majority of the experiment was done inside of the prison. It was during this time that the prisoners displayed many social psychological behaviors that result from playing a submissive role. The progression of the experiment’s time also caused some of these interesting behaviors to amplify.It is important to understand that the underlining qualit y that the prisoners in this study exhibited was learned helplessness. This is predominantly evident when the prisoners’ acts of rebellion toward the guards diminish. This leaved the prisoners with an overall sense of helplessness. They were more likely to submit to the hostile and aggressive demands of the guards. Although some of the demands of the guards such as doing countless numbers of pushups would seem unethical in a real prison, even a participant assuming a false role as a prisoner follows such preposterous demands.What is more perplexing about this study was the fact that these participants in fact knew that they were not really guilty of any crime but as the experiment progressed and the guards became more aggressive the inmates displayed very passive behavior because they knew that their behaviors could not change the current predicament that they were in. Another remarkable concept that helped reinforce the participants’ roles as prisoners was the Saying- Becomes-Believing Effect. In one instance the participant known as prisoner 8612 would either rebel or would show what would be seen as undesirable behaviors in the guards’ eyes.After doing this the guards would have the inmates punished and also have them chant â€Å"Prisoner 8612 was bad†. The prisoners seemed to show a certain degree of animosity towards prisoner 8612 and eventually led to his outright emotional breakdown and made him to truly believe that he was a bad prisoner. This again shows the strength of learned helplessness in social cognition. Prisoner 8612 believed he was a bad prisoner; therefore he became a bad prisoner. The only thing more fascinating than the growing submission of the prisoners had to be the increasing aggression by the prisoners.It is a confounding concept that in most prisons, the idea that prison guards act more harshly towards an inmate because they are in fact psychologically feeding off of the prisoners’ submissiveness. Th e guards in the study were introduced exactly as the prisoners were to the study’s nature just as different roles. Their roles would begin the moment they arrested the prisoners. Upon arriving to the prison however, the guards would assume an entirely different role than a prisoner.These soon-to-be tyrants would use one of the most powerful social psychological weapons in their armory: deception. The Stanford Prison guards used deception in a number of ways during this study. In the experiment they introduced the privilege cell and the penalty box to the prisoners. The privilege cell was a much nicer cell than the ones given to the rest of the prisoners. When the guards put certain prisoners in the privilege cell this deceived the other prisoners into believing that this prisoner was good which in turn caused the prisoners to be more behaved.The same deception was used in punishing the prisoner with the penalty box which was a small broom closet sized room which would be used to keep the prisoners when they were bad. Another method of deception that the guards inflicted was towards the family of the prisoners. The guards forced the prisoners to write to their families constantly that everything was going well in the prison. Along with these letters the prisoners would also force the prisoners to identify themselves as their assigned numbers rather than their actual names.I confounding factor that also helped in the amplifying aggression of the guards towards the prisoners was their act of justification. It is rather odd that regular people who for the most part did not assume any kind of authoritative role use authority in such a severe way. When questioning the severity of their actions towards the prisoners justified their actions by telling themselves that they are being told to be this way towards the prisoners and also that the prisoners’ behaviors caused them to bring the consequences upon themselves. The experiment seemed so real that it c ould not even complete the full desired duration.This experiment will always be remembered as one of the biggest contributions to social psychology because it showed the powerful effects of submissiveness vs. authority. It was because of this experiment also question and reevaluate what is and isn’t ethical in social psychology experiments. It also shows us how people whether they are in positions of authority or not can manipulate this powerful psychological element against others causing not only psychological and emotional ramifications, but also legal ones as well. This was seen in one of the cruelest hoaxes ever played.The hoax that I am describing was one that went from what seemed to be a mean prank call, to dozens of legal repercussions and countless victims of emotional and psychological distress. These calls were made by David R. Stewart. Although Stewart seemed like a man of average intelligence, it wouldn’t be unfair to consider him to be a social psycholog ical genius. Stewart’s calls as a person in a position of authority not only manipulated his victims but also tormented them with a number of social psychological weapons but also used the psychological factors of his victims against themselves.He was sometimes able to take two innocent people and make one a victim of sexual assault and the other a victim in a single phone call. In order to analyze how Stewart was able to succeed at this it is important to see what psychological factors were in play both in the mind of Stewart and his victims. First, Stewart assumed a role of authority as a police officer, corporate employee, or federal officer. This role helped Stewart claim legitimacy to his victims. Although this would seem like enough to control his victims he also used a factor that was possessed not by him but by his victims.Stewart attacked those who worked in the food industry. This may seem odd but it is fact a very intelligent group of people to attack because peopl e in the food industry are trained to be more obedient than others traditionally would. Society’s schema of the food industry portrays it in such a fashion that the number one priority of the industry’s employees is customer satisfaction. In order to achieve customer satisfaction the employees must obey the customer’s wishes. When the employee is on this type of a mindset it isn’t unfair to say that their vulnerability to authority would also heighten.The heightened obedience to authority also arises from another social schema of law enforcement. We tend to live in the illusion that because law enforcement has a higher authority than civilians do, we must do everything they tell us to. This schema is also the reason police often get a confession or information leading to a confession from people because although individuals have the right to remain silent, police use authority to trick them into confessing. The perplexing aspect of this event is not just the acts themselves that were performed, but the fact that the acts grew more and more sexually perverse.Although the act of the hoax itself was perplexing, it is even more fascinating on how the public criticized the whole phenomenon. This alone had so many interesting psychological happenings. Even news broadcasters like Fox-TV called the â€Å"victims† of this hoax were â€Å"colossally stupid†. Another made a statement quoting â€Å"They had the critical ability to decide whether to carry out their orders†. Statements like these show both a hindsight bias and a self-serving bias. People claim that they would never perform perverse and lewd acts on another because an authoritative figure told them to do so.The self-serving bias is the fact that they believe they would personally behave more favorably and the hindsight bias is the fact they claim they would have behaved differently after they heard of the incident. Although people harshly criticized the victim s Stewart did in fact con two thirds of the people he called. This proves an interesting argument because people who read this story will most likely claim that they will never behave in such the fashion the victims did, but because of these social biases it is impossible to know if one would truly fall for a hoax like that.Many look at Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s studies and see the obvious social psychological connection between both. What is interesting is how this real world hoax and the two above studies have very predominant similarities. Both instances involve two different groups of normal people assuming a role and watch how their roles completely change their lives. In both situations people who would never normally behave to the roles they were given behave exactly to their roles. In both situations the submissiveness of one person amplifies the aggression and authority of another.In both situations the victims’ roles caused long term psychological and e motional distress. It shows us a society full of schemas that is naturally obedient in following orders whether we believe them to be right or wrong. So in essence these incidents are very relevant to each other and also to social psychology as a field. It is relevant to how we think, how we behave, and how we interact with others. The average person would say that Zimbardo’s study was obviously unethical. This is true because it is unethical.The American Psychological Association provides the Institutional Review Boards to keep experiments ethical and protect the participants in this study. The fact that participants in the study underwent emotional distress proves that the study was unethical. In hindsight, if Stewart’s hoax was indeed replicated it would be terribly unethical to say the least. It is because Zimbardo’s study being so similar to the hoax that roles become psychological damaging. In Zimbardo’s experiment, the participants felt the effects of a six day role long after the study.In Stewart’s hoax, just a few minutes or hours changed some of the victims involved for the rest of their lives. Although it is fair to challenge ourselves as psychologist, experiments with the psychological severity of the Stanford prison experiment are not needed because we know the social psychological implications of role playing. This analysis fits very well with the social psychological perspective. Roles, schemas, and biases show the dynamic of the human’s psychological potential.You do not have to be a PhD psychologist to manipulate more than sixty average people to perform sexual or lewd acts on other innocent people. It also does not take a PhD psychologist to give average people a role that is unordinary to them and watch them change as a person. What seems like simple terms in social psychology can be used as powerful and manipulative weapons in psychological warfare. These concepts also help realize the importance of the roles that we play every day and how they can change the social world as we know it.

Qar Reading Strategy

Grade Level(s)| K-3| When? | Literary Focus| Before| Fluency| During| Comprehension| After| Vocabulary| | Writing| | Oral Language| Q. A. R. (Question-Answer-Relationships) Question-Answer Relationships, or QAR, is a reading comprehension strategy developed to aid in the approach that students take when reading texts and answering questions about that text. Students learn to categorize types of questions which in turn help them know where to find information. It encourages students to be active, strategic readers of texts. QAR  outlines  where information can be found â€Å"In the Text† or â€Å"In my Head. It then breaks down the actual question-answer relationships into four types: Right There, Think and Search, Author and Me, and On My Own. (Fisher, D. , Brozo, W. G. , Frey, N. , & Ivey, G, 2011, pg. 81) STEP-BY-STEP and EXAMPLE Chosen text: Frog and Toad Together, by Arnold Lobel 1. Hook/Engagement–Begin by reviewing what students have already learned about how to ask questions as a way to understand the meaning of texts. For example using this reading asks them to talk about the kinds of questions they can ask before, during, and after reading. Next, introduce the idea that there are two kinds of questions you can ask about texts.Explain to students that an â€Å"In the Text† question is a question that students can find the answer to by looking in the book that they are reading. An â€Å"In My Head† question is a question that requires students to think about what their own knowledge is to answer the question. Review a book that you have recently read aloud with students. Write the example below on a piece of chart paper or on the blackboard. Choose a few â€Å"In the Text† and â€Å"In My Head† questions about the book that obviously belong to one category or the other, and have students tell you in which column to write the question.When you give students a literal question, have them show you where they fo und the answer in the book. When you ask them an â€Å"In My Head† question, go through the book with them and show them that they couldn't find the answer in the book. Have them give answers to the â€Å"In My Head† questions and explain how they answered them ( thinking about what they have learned that is not in the book). Here are some examples of the two types: â€Å"In the Text† questions| â€Å"In my Head† questions| What is the title of the book? What is the author's name? How long is the book? | Do I like the title? Have I read any other books by this author?How long will it take me to read this book? | Explain that they are going to learn more and ask these types of questions about a new book you are going to read together. 2. Measurable Objectives–Explain that you are going to read the first three chapters of Frog and Toad Together aloud to them, and they are going to help you make a list of â€Å"In the Text† and â€Å"In My Hea d† questions. Then, they are going to help you answer the questions and see how these types of questions will help them to understand the story. 3. Focused Instruction–Review with students the four types of questions explained in the QAR Strategy.Explain that there are two types of â€Å"In the Text† questions and two types of â€Å"In My Head† questions. Draw a copy of the QAR table on chart paper or on the blackboard or use an overhead projector. The table should look something like this: â€Å"In the Text† questions| â€Å"In My Head† questions| Right There| Think and Search| Author and Me| On my Own| Read the first chapter, â€Å"A List,† from Frog and Toad Together aloud to students. Next, write the questions listed below under the â€Å"Right There† heading. Read the questions aloud, look through the chapter, show the students where you found the answer, and then think aloud the answer. . Right There i. What is the first t hing Toad writes on his list? â€Å"When I turn to page 4, I see that the first thing Toad writes on his list is ‘Wake up. ‘† ii. Who is the friend Toad goes to see? â€Å"When I turn to page 9, I see that Toad goes to see Frog. † Next, write these questions under the â€Å"Think and Search† heading. Read the questions aloud and then think aloud the answers. b. Think and Search iii. What caused Toad to forget what was on his list? â€Å"I read that Toad's list blew away and Frog did not catch it, so that is why Toad couldn't remember what was on his list. iv. How did Toad finally remember what was the last thing on his list was? â€Å"Frog reminded Toad that it was getting dark and they should be going to sleep – the last thing on Toad's list. † Next, write these questions under the â€Å"Author and Me† heading. Read the questions aloud and then think aloud the answers. c. Author and Me v. What do you think of Toad's list? †Å"I think that writing a list of things to do is a good idea. But, Toad could have left off some things, like waking up or getting dressed, because he doesn't need to be reminded to do that. † vi.Did you agree with the reason Toad gives for not chasing after his list? â€Å"No. I think that he should have chased after his list, even if it that wasn't one of the things on his list. He couldn't have written that on his list anyway because he didn't know the list would blow away. † Next, write these questions under the â€Å"On My Own† heading. Read the questions aloud and then think aloud the answers. d. On My Own vii. Have you or somebody in your family even written a list of things to do? â€Å"Yes. I have written a list of things that I have to do on a weekend day because that is not like a school day.On weekends, I do lots of different things, so I have to write a list to remind myself of all the things I have to do. † viii. What would you do if you lost your to-do list and couldn't find it? â€Å"I would look for it for a while and if I couldn't find it, I'd write a new list of things to do. † 4. This would be followed up with guided practice, independent practice, assessment, and the reflecting/planning. References Fisher, D. , Brozo, W. G. , Frey, N. , & Ivey, Gay. (2011). 50 Instructional Routines to Develop Content Literacy. Boston:Pearson.

How To Research Latino Ancestry and Genealogy

Indigenous in areas from the southwestern United States to the southern tip of South America and from the Philippines to Spain, Hispanics are a diverse population. From the small country of Spain, tens of millions of Spaniards have emigrated to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Central and South America, Latin America, North America, and Australia. Spaniards settled the Caribbean islands and Mexico more than a century before the English settled Jamestown in 1607. In the United States, Hispanics settled in Saint Augustine, Florida, in 1565 and in New Mexico in 1598. Often, a search for Hispanic ancestry leads ultimately to Spain but is likely that a number of family generations settled in the countries of Central America, South America or the Caribbean. Also, as many of these countries are considered melting pots, it is not uncommon that many individuals of Hispanic descent will not only be able to trace their family tree back to Spain, but also to locations such as France, Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Portugal. Begin at Home If youve spent any time researching your family tree, this may sound cliche. But the first step in any genealogy research project is, to begin with, what you know - yourself and your direct ancestors. Scour your home and ask your relatives for birth, death and marriage certificates; old family photos; immigration documents, etc. Interview every living relative that you can find, being sure to ask open-ended questions. See 50 Questions for Family Interviews for ideas. As you collect information, be sure to organize the documents into notebooks or binders, and enter the names and dates into a pedigree chart or genealogy software program. Hispanic Surnames Most Hispanic countries, including Spain, have a unique naming system in which children are commonly given two surnames, one from each parent. The middle name (1st surname) comes from the fathers name (apellido paterno), and the last name (2nd surname) is the mothers maiden name (apellido materno). Sometimes, these two surnames may be found separated by y (meaning and), although this is no longer as common as it once was. Recent changes to laws in Spain mean that you may also find the two surnames reversed - first the mothers surname, and then the fathers surname. Women also retain their maiden name when they get married, making it much easier to track families through multiple generations. Know Your History Knowing the local history of the places where your ancestors lived is a great way to speed up your research. Common immigration and migration patterns may provide clues to your ancestors country of origin. Knowing your local history and geography will also help you determine where to look for the records of your ancestors, as well as provide some great background material for when you sit down to write your family history. Find Your Familys Place of Origin Whether your family now lives in Cuba, Mexico, the United States or another country, the goal in researching your Hispanic roots is to use the records of that country to trace your family back to the country of origin. Youll need to search through public records of the place where your ancestors lived, including the following major record sources: Church RecordsThe records of the Roman Catholic church represent one of the best sources for locating a Hispanic familys place of origin. Local parish records in Hispanic Catholic parishes include sacramental records such as baptisms, marriages, deaths, burials, and confirmations. Particularly valuable are marriage records, in which the town of origin is frequently documented for the bride and groom. Many of these records are kept in Spanish, so you may find this Spanish Genealogical Word List to be helpful in translation. A vast majority of these Hispanic parish records have been microfilmed by the Family History Library in Salt Lake City and you can borrow the ones you need through your local Family History Center. You may also be able to obtain copies by writing directly to the local parish where your ancestors lived.Civil or Vital RecordsCivil registration is the record kept by local governments of the births, marriages, and deaths within their jurisdictions. These records provid e excellent sources for information such as the names of family members, dates of important events and, possibly, the familys place of origin. In the United States, more recent vital records are usually maintained at the state level. In general, civil records date back to the early 1900s in the United States; 1859 in Mexico; 1870s-1880s in most Central and South American countries; and 1885 in Puerto Rico. Civil or vital records are typically kept at the local (town, village, county or municipal) level in the local court, municipal office, county office or Civil Registry office. Many have also been microfilmed by the Family History Library (see church records).Immigration RecordsA number of immigration sources, including passenger lists, border crossing records, and naturalization and citizenship records, are also useful for identifying the place of origin of an immigrant ancestor. For early Spanish emigrants, the Archivo General de Indias in Seville, Spain, is the repository for Sp anish documents dealing with the Spanish colonial period (1492-1810) in the Americas. These documents often include the birthplace of each individual recorded. Ship arrivals and passenger lists provide the best documentation of immigrants who came to the Americas after the middle of the nineteenth century. These records, kept at major North, Central, and South American ports, can usually be found in the National Archives of the country in question. Many are also available on microfilm through your local family history center. Tracing your Hispanic roots may, eventually, lead you to Spain, where genealogical records are among the oldest and best in the world.