Recent orders

Critical Evaluation of the Collaborative Grant Submission

Critical Evaluation of the Collaborative Grant Submission

Introduction

When interacting with refugees and migrants in whatever capacity, it is very necessary to talk in an understandable and kind manner. Communication is the process of sharing information, thoughts, and ideas with another person or group of people (Renzaho et al., 2011). Verbal or nonverbal exchanges may both be considered forms of communication. Because it serves as the cornerstone for developing constructive relationships with other people, efficient communication is an absolute need. When it comes to assisting refugees and migrants, effective communication, which can be achieved through the application of a variety of communication skills and techniques, has the potential to create more effective social and political settings, which has the potential to lead to improved results and the accomplishment of objectives (Savic et al., 2013). Effective communication can be achieved by applying a variety of communication skills and techniques. In this essay, the strengths and weaknesses of the refugee and migrants social project will be evaluated with a specific focus on social differences amongst the main participants. Overall, where cultural differences emerge in a social setting, speaking for other people becomes a problem that must be addressed through communication.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Grant Proposal

The lobbying method that the initiative employs, as well as the manner in which it comprehends the cultural disparities that arise while dealing with refugees and immigrants, are the campaign’s greatest strengths. In spite of the fact that the number of services available in Australia to assist refugees and immigrants is expanding, there are still not that many of them. When working directly with refugees, case workers, program coordinators, and other professionals often have to communicate to service providers about translation, equal rights, and being sensitive to diverse cultures (George, 2012). This may be accomplished in a wide variety of settings. Even though there are laws in place to safeguard and assist individuals such as refugees, the great majority of service providers are still unaware of the rights that refugees are entitled to. When speaking with aid workers, refugees are often placed in precarious circumstances due to linguistic and cultural issues. As a result, aid workers frequently hurry refugees through the system without giving them any care, which may put them in danger. People who work directly with refugees in Australia will need to take the time to explain both their rights and the responsibilities of the people who are helping them, regardless of the nature of the issue at hand, whether it be an overpayment of welfare benefits, not having an interpreter at a doctor’s appointment, or something else. The grant application, taken as a whole, demonstrated how essential it is to have improved procedures and strategies for advocacy work, which may be aided by communication.

In the grant proposal, another emergent strength is the emphasis placed on how important the role of Australia’s host communities is in aiding refugees and other migrants in settling into their new homes. In Australia, there hasn’t been a lot of research done that focuses on how different refugee community organizations help those who come to Australia for humanitarian reasons to adjust to life there. Community organizations are essential in the early periods of settlement, when newcomers are trying to orient themselves in their new homeland and figure out how to go about their daily lives (Parker, 2000). Because of this, they are able to empathize with and have a better understanding of the many living situations that are associated with humanitarian and refugee admissions.

Lastly, there is a notable strength embedded in the way the grant proposal makes use of statistical data and factual information relating to refugees and migrants in Australia. In the process of data collection and reporting, the type of results presented aid in understanding the most appropriate tests and evaluations to conduct. Consequently, data interpretation and presentation of the findings becomes a less arduous task. It also reduces susceptibility of statistical work to errors and biases (Fronek & Chester, 2016). By including statistics in the form of numbers and facts in the grant proposal, the project not only added value but also introduced levels of realism. The impact is that the proposed issues made the concepts more manageable for the target audience to understand and process. The use of data and statistics to represent the situation of refugees and migrants made the arguments and positions more compelling. The use of statistics also enabled the grant proposal to draw broad conclusions about a smaller group based on the findings of a larger one. For example, it allowed the initiative to deliver relevant information pertaining to the wellbeing of the refugees and migrants in Western Sydney as indicative of the whole country.

The project proposal for the grant has a significant flaw in that it does not identify the community structures that are required to assist refugees and migrants in Australia in participating in social activities. This is a significant issue because these community structures are required to help these individuals. These structures are necessary in order to aid refugees and migrants (Hamilton, 1997). The possibility that refugees communities will be able to restore their right to self-determination is increased by the formation of community structures and support networks. Recent research conducted with new and emerging refugee communities, for example in Melbourne, found that developing internal strength and sustainability rather than remaining dependent on governments and organizations was a much-wanted and stated goal for communities that had previously been forced to rely on others (Kanai, 2021). It is important to strengthen and define community structures so as to support refugees and migrants.

Within the context of the grant proposal project, there is no consideration of the many ethnic community structures that are brought into play while working with migrant and refugee communities in Australia. It should not come as a surprise, given the degree to which people are socially and culturally intertwined, that the structures that constitute ethnic communities are still applicable several decades after the land was first settled. For example, children of Vietnamese migrants and refugees will still most probably associate with their indigenous Vietnamese ethnic organisations, although their reasons for connecting to these organisations may be very different from those of their parents. According to the findings of research carried out by Alcoff (1991) on the subject of how to assist refugees in feeling as though they belong, it is essential for refugees to form friendships with individuals who are of the same ethnicity as them in order for them to feel as though they belong and are at home in their new environment. In addition, a significant number of people who migrate to Australia for humanitarian reasons or as refugees originate from collectivist countries, which are characterized by a strong emphasis placed on the goals of the family or group. It makes a lot of sense to found organizations with the purpose of assisting people in cooperating with one another. Yet, this element in a need for a group approach was lacking in the grant proposal.

Beliefs, Values, and Ethics Embedded in the Project

When we first started working on our grant proposal, it was immediately obvious that morals and ethics played a significant role in ensuring the overall dependability of the content that was presented. The field of social work places a strong emphasis on ethics and values for a number of different reasons, both philosophical and practical. The project did an excellent job of exhibiting fundamental values since it adhered to the idea that data should be presented accurately and evaluated in an objective manner. The expression of the members’ ethical beliefs in a wide range of roles, situations, and activities served as the driving force behind the judgments and actions of the members of the organization. People’s ability to differentiate between facts and opinions was facilitated by the existence of morality and ethics, which was beneficial to the project. When presented with ethical issues or conflicts, it was essential to have a solid understanding of the ethics that underpin social work, to have a high degree of self-awareness as a practitioner, and to use thoughtful and comprehensive frameworks when thinking about one’s various options. Individuals that worked on the project and contributed were conversant with ideas such as self-determination, confidentiality, informed consent, competence, and conflicts of interest since the initiative was mainly concerned with people, particularly migrant and refugee communities. They were also aware of the ways in which these standards may be called into question or maintained in the real world. They were also able to make judgments with ease on how to deal with ethical difficulties by using critical thinking, consultation, and research, and they proved that they were capable of completing the last part of the decision-making process.

Conclusion

The grant proposal project was not without its ups and downs as reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of the project. Major highlights include the fact that it was able to showcase the cultural disparities that arise while dealing with refugees and immigrants. Another emergent strength is the emphasis placed on how important the role of Australia’s host communities is in aiding refugees and other migrants in settling into their new homes. The grant proposal made use of statistical data and factual information relating to refugees and migrants in Australia, thus increasing the reliability of the report. However, it lacked a definition of social structures and a lack of consideration on the ethnic composition of Australian communities. Overall, the project was well presented and easy to understand.

References

Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural critique, (20), 5-32.

Fronek, P., & Chester, P. (2016). Moral outrage: Social workers in the Third Space. Ethics and Social Welfare, 10(2), 163-176.

George, M. (2012). Migration traumatic experiences and refugee distress: Implications for social work practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 40(4), 429-437.

Hamilton, P. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (Vol. 2). Sage.

Kanai, A. (2021). Intersectionality in digital feminist knowledge cultures: the practices and politics of a travelling theory. Feminist Theory, 22(4), 518-535.

Parker, J. (2000). Social work with refugees and asylum seekers: a rationale for developing practice. Practice, 12(3), 61-76.

Renzaho, A. M., Green, J., Mellor, D., & Swinburn, B. (2011). Parenting, family functioning and lifestyle in a new culture: the case of African migrants in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Child & family social work, 16(2), 228-240.

Savic, M., Chur‐Hansen, A., Mahmood, M. A., & Moore, V. (2013). Separation from family and its impact on the mental health of Sudanese refugees in Australia: a qualitative study. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 37(4), 383-388.

Developmental Psychology Journal Analysis

Developmental Psychology Journal Analysis

Student’s Name

Institution of Affiliation

Date

Question 1: Title of the article and author:

Title – The cultural (mis) attribution bias in developmental psychology in the United States.

Authors – José M. Causadias, Joseph A. Vitriol, and Annabelle L. Atkin.

Question 2: Institutions of location

José M. Causadias is an associate professor at the School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University.

Joseph A. Vitriol is a Senior Researcher in the Political Science Department at Stony Brook University.

Annabelle Lin Atkin is an assistant professor at Purdue University in human development and family studies.

Question 3: What age groups are they looking at?

There are no specific age groups focused in the article, as the study focuses on providing evidence for cultural (mis)attribution bias in developmental psychology in the United States: the tendency to see minorities as members of a group whose development is shaped primarily by culture and to perceive Whites as independent individuals whose development is largely influenced by psychological processes.

Question 4: Is this an experiment, a correlational study, or some other type of study?

The study is both an experiment and a correlational study. A correlational study involves examining the relationship between multiple dependent variables without manipulating any of the variables. Based on this, the findings of the relationship among the variables do not provide information regarding the causal relationship between the variables being investigated. The study involves archival research design in that it involves the search for and extracting information and evidence from past research on developmental psychology. The study investigated bias using peer-reviewed developmental research conducted in the United States in the last decade, which included a total of 640 articles. The study is also an experiment in that it conducted an experiment and a survey with developmental psychologists in the United States where it involved a total of 432 participants in providing raw data for analysis. Experimental research adheres to a scientific research design and includes such features as a hypothesis, variables that can be manipulated by the researcher as well as variables that can be measured, calculated, and compared. All these are characteristics embodied in the two studies in that they involved research questions, hypotheses, as well as data analysis. Based on this, the research qualifies to be both a correlational and experimental study.

Question 5: Summary of what is being done in the study

The article looks at the plight of diversity and inclusion in developmental sciences. There are two major goals of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), which are part of its strategic plan to pursue diversity. The two goals include; encouraging the consideration of the role of culture as essential in supporting diversity as it is essential in shaping human development and promoting diversity through inclusion of underrepresented groups. However, the emphasis on the goals of diversity and inclusion is articulated to focus on the significance of culture in the development of racial minorities, but not on how culture shapes the development of whites, which leads to cultural misattribution. Based on this, the article aims to provide evidence regarding cultural misattribution bias between the whites and racial minorities, which involve the perception that the development of minorities is influenced by social-level cultural processes while perceiving Whites as autonomous and independent actors whose development is influenced by individual-level psychological processes and not cultural processes. To help in the provision of evidence, two major studies were used in which bias in developmental research was investigated in the United States by the use of experimental, archival, and correlational methods. The first study involved journal analysis and focused on proving the hypotheses based on two major questions. The first question focused on determining the degree that the developmental studies of culture, ethnicity, and race differed from comparison studies. The second question focused on determining the degree to which the sample composition found in each of the studies deviated from what would have been expected from a random sample drawn from the United States population. The second study involved an experiment and survey with the psychologists. The second study involved two different studies, with both aimed at examining if the responses from the experiment and the survey were moderated by ethnicity of the participants, thus determining if both groups perceived culture had a larger role in the development of minorities which would support the cultural misattribution bias.

Question 6: Summary of the results

The results of the study are divided into two parts based on the two studies. The first hypothesis used the t-test to examine the mean differences, with the findings revealing differences of large magnitude with developmental studies of culture, race, and ethnicity with significantly higher percentages (67%) compared to non-culture-ethnic-race studies. The results of the second hypothesis indicate that studies in culture, race, and ethnicity in the United States were overrepresented among the minority groups. The results of the second research study were divided into two. The results involving the experiment with psychologists indicate that the participants of the study described a sample composed of minorities compared to whites as more appropriate for the study of the role of culture in development. Also, the results indicate that developmental psychologists rated a sample composed of minorities more approvingly for a study on the role of culture in development compared to noncultural developmental studies. The results from the second study involving a survey with developmental psychologists revealed that both white and minority participants reported that culture, race, and ethnicity, as well as group membership and social identity, tend to be more influential on the development of minorities compared to whites. In the same context, the results indicated that the participants of the study believed that personality, but not cognitive factors are more influential for the development of whites compared to minorities in the United States. In response to the question as to whether the researchers should recruit whites for reasserting questions that help examine the effects of culture, race, and ethnicity of development, the participants reported that minorities were more appropriate than whites for such studies examining the effect of culture, race, and ethnicity on development. Based on the study findings, it can be summed that both white and minority developmental psychologists tend to undermine the role of psychological processes while exaggerating the role of culture, race, and ethnicity in shaping the development of minorities. However, these developmental psychologists tend to overemphasize the role of the psychological process while undermining the role of culture, race, and ethnicity in the development of whites.

Question 7: One other question raised by the study

Based on the article, there are various questions that emerge from the study results. One of the questions that I would like to investigate is: Is cultural (mis)attribution bias involving the effect of culture, race, and ethnicity to minorities versus whites consistent with stereotypical representations of non-prototypical members of American society.? I think this to be an important question that requires further investigation because the two studies have produced similar results, that culture, race, and ethnicity tend to affect the development of minorities while having minimal impact on the development of whites. I believe that all individuals are equal and are affected the same by the culture in which they grow from childhood. If a minority’s psychological development will be affected by their culture, race, and ethnicity, then the same case, though at different levels, will happen to whites. Children are a product of the environment, which means the interaction with people close to them, including culture, race, and ethnicity, will have a higher role in influencing a child’s cognitive development. There is no special child, whether from a minority or white background, and thus, with developmental psychologists suggesting that culture, race, and ethnicity only tend to influence the development of minorities, while the development of Whites is influenced by individual psychological processes is a mere exaggeration. This can only be true if the Whites have no culture, which is next to impossible. Therefore, I would like the question “Is cultural (mis)attribution bias involving the effect of culture, race, and ethnicity to minorities versus whites, consistent with stereotypical representations of non-prototypical members of American society,” considering that most of the developmental psychologists are white.

Reference

Causadias, J. M., Vitriol, J. A., & Atkin, A. L. (2018). The cultural (mis) attribution bias in developmental psychology in the United States. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 59, 65-74.

Developmental Psychology Journal Analysis (2)

Improving Engagement Course Project

Part One—Conduct a Self-assessment

In this part of the course project, you will further your understanding of engagement and engagement behaviors by completing a self-assessment.

Instructions:

Choose a situation in which you were highly engaged. It may be your current job role and position or a previous one.

Contrast this experience with a situation in which you were neutral or actively disengaged.

Describe the two situations, highlighting how different they felt, as well as the different outcomes associated with the high versus low levels of engagement (for you, your work group, and/or the organization).

Complete the grid below: The Experience of Being Engaged

Engagement Indicator

In the spaces below, describe your experience with each indicator shown in the column at left.

What did you feel?

How did you behave?

Which of your actions demonstrated your engagement?

Employees who are engaged look forward to going to work every day.

I work in the United States Department of State where an involved with issuing identification documents. Getting out of bed is not a drag. I look forward to start the day to go to my workplace and meet my colleagues

Employees who are engaged feel energized from doing something that they personally value. I value my job and thus, I gout of my way to help the applicants get their forms filled which leaves them happy. If the applicant require the documents urgently, I have to work extra harder and assure them that they will get the documents in a few days. I feel obligated to give the best to my clients as it is a job that I like most.

Employees who are engaged don’t get discouraged when confronted by obstacles; they want to try harder.

I love my job; it is a passion. However, just like any other customer service, you may encounter different kinds of people that may discourage you. It is a position that has lots of hurdles as some applicants may be hard to deal with. Despite the challenges, I have never thought of quitting, and still treated those applicants with respect.

For employees who are engaged, time seems to pass quickly. Most of the time am so busy such that I do not recognize as time pass. Being busy makes the time fly faster, and loving the job makes it difficult to notice that time has passed too fast.

During that period of engagement with your work, how engaged were the people around you?

Describe the behaviors you observed from your colleagues:

I have noticed several times that some of my colleagues are not engaged, with some having no engagements at all. While I would even assist the applicants to fill their documents, some of my colleagues would not do it. They simply do what their job description states and nothing more. Sometimes they cant event extend their time to help those on the queue but would rather ask them to come the next day.

How do you know that others were engaged? Describe the behaviors you observed from your colleagues:

Some other colleagues would help the applicants fill in the application documents, and also helped those in the queue rather than asking them to report the next day.

What factors do you think contributed to your engagement in this instance? Try to identify as many relevant factors as you can. Having an excellent relation and understanding of what I am expected to do at work

Having a great understanding that serving others is a passion

Having a great understanding on the significance of being honest and transparent

Complete the grid below: The Experience of Being Disengaged (or Neutral)

Disengagement Indicator

In the spaces below, describe your experience with each indicator shown in the column at left.

What did you feel?

How did you behave?

Which of your actions demonstrated your disengagement?

When you are disengaged, you are robotic, apathetic, or detached. Sometimes I handle many clients and I get exhausted. Fatigue makes me feel like not going to work the next day. I feel detached from work, however, I don’t let this feeling to weigh me down.

When you are disengaged, you are withdrawn, burned out, or show no effort. Handling many clients makes me feel drained, and I cannot wait for the day to be over.

When you are disengaged, you go through the motions of work without giving of yourself. Being disengaged by exhaustion makes me only to be physically there, but just putting in my time and going through the motions.

When you are disengaged, you show a failure to develop close, constructive relationships at work. Exhaustion makes me feel out of place, I just want to relax, and thus, I can go to work and not make effort to mingle, even going to lunch together with my colleagues.

When you are disengaged, you show a lack of vigilance for quality; you are satisfied with “good enough.” Regardless of whether am engaged or not, I would not lack vigilance for quality. I always give my best and work myself out to get the job done.

When you are disengaged, you hide your true identity, perspective, capacity, and creative thoughts. I do not hide my true identity. Yes, I do struggle when am disengaged, but this does not make me loose who I am.

How disengaged were the people around you? How do you know?

Describe the behaviors you observed from your colleagues:

Some of my colleagues are highly disengaged, especially if they are exhausted. They can even redirect the applicants to the next colleague to catch a breath.

What factors do you think contributed to your disengagement in that instance? Try to identify as many relevant factors as you can. Poor leadership

Lack of training

Pay and recognition

Dead end job

Part Two—Conduct a Needs Assessment

In this exercise, you will reflect on the existing workplace factors that may be at the root of suboptimal levels of engagement.

Instructions:

Think about a work situation in which you yourself have been involved and experienced a low level of engagement (or even disengagement). Alternatively, identify a work group about which you have a lot of knowledge and that you have observed to be suffering from suboptimal levels of engagement.

Using the questions below as a guide, reflect on which issues associated with the three different drivers of engagement—psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability—may represent potential explanations for the suboptimal levels of engagement.

At the bottom of the worksheet, summarize your hypothesis about the two or three factors you believe might be most important to address in an effort to increase engagement.

I. Briefly describe the work situation you have chosen to examine in this exercise:

The work situation I have chosen is the same job that I hold. Lack of better pay and recognition sometimes made me disengaged. Having to deal with a lot of pressure at work with no motivation.

II. Psychological Meaningfulness

Questions: Describe your observations:

How meaningful or rewarding is the work itself? Is there significant variety, challenge, significance, and clarity associated with the tasks that make up the relevant job(s)?

The work is both meaningful and rewarding despite the numerous challenges such as lack of better pay and recognition and having to deal with rude applicants. Doing the work is fulfilling as it is passion.

How is the level of fit between employees’ (or your) knowledge, skills, and abilities and the demands of the job? All the employees have similar qualifications as described by the job description. Thus, the level of fit between employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities and the demands of the job are high.

How strongly do employees (or you) identify with the values and mission associated with the job and with the broader organization?

The mission of the organization is to Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community. We strongly identify with the mission associated with the job as we try to provide services that benefit the American people.

Do employees (or you) have opportunities to make decisions that impact the way the job is done? What about input into decisions that impact the broader organization?

We do not have a direct say about what should be done in the organization, but we have the privilege to air our opinions through a suggestion box.

Do employees (or you) receive the feedback needed to understand how well they are doing on the job and which they can use to continually improve their performance and redirect their energies?

We receive feedback needed to understand how well we are doing on the job through employee performance evaluation.

What is the quality of interactions among employees (or between you and your coworkers) like? Do people share information and coordinate well with each other? Do they help each other? Do they engage in meaningful interactions that are personally rewarding?

We do interact with my colleagues at various levels. We interact and share information that is helpful to each other. The quality of interaction is high as we can engage at any time of the day at work.

Do employees (or you) feel appreciated and valued for the work that they do? Most of us do not feel appreciated and valued at work, and this contributes to most colleagues becoming disengaged at work.

III. Psychological Safety

Questions: Describe your observations:

Do employees (or you) feel safe in expressing their views or ideas?

Most of the employees feel safe in expressing their opinions and ideas

Are there risks associated with taking initiative by expressing disagreement or trying to make changes/improvements to the way things are done?

No, our superiors are always open to new ideas, but most of them are departmental

Can employees (or you) rely on being treated fairly?

Yes, absolutely!

Does it seem certain employees have privileges (e.g., access to resources and opportunities) that others don’t?

All employees are treated equally and no one is entitled to privileges

Does the manager play favorites?

No, we are a very closely knit team with everyone treated equally

Does the manager trust employees (or you), for example to be able to make good decisions or to act in the best interest of the organization? Yes, all the employees are trusted to make right decisions which are to the best interest of the organization

Do employees (or you) trust the manager? Do they trust management in general?

Yes, we all trust the manager as he is open and treats us equally

Do managers’ actions align with their words (i.e., do they do what they say they will do)?

Yes, managers to keep their word and every time they promise something, they make sure they have delivered.

Are some employees (or you) working against negative or erroneous stereotypes?

No, everyone in the team is treated equally and thus, there is no stereotyping

Is there a norm for people to be open to learning, especially from mistakes and each other? Yes, everyone learns depending on the situation at hand. For example, conflict resolution when dealing with rude applicants

IV. Psychological Availability

Questions: Describe your observations:

Are employees (or you) under significant levels of stress resulting from long working hours, intense pressures to deliver (results, deadlines), being understaffed, or difficult working conditions?

Employees are not under significant level of stress resulting from long working hours, intense pressures to deliver. However, if one of the team members calls in sick, we have to cover and do extra work but this doesn’t make it stressful as we understand the conditions

Are employees (or you) experiencing strain on the job as a result of feeling like they lack the preparation, skills, or confidence to do what is being asked of them?

No, we are all qualified for the job and thus, we give our best. There is no strain on the job resulting from feeling lack of preparation, skills and confidence.

Are there any other significant sources of frustration or anxiety that may be causing emotional exhaustion among employees?

No, the team is happy, content and in good spirits.

Are employees being supported to meet their non-work needs? For example, being given flexibility in when/where they do some of their work, or having a manager and coworkers who are sympathetic to the challenges associated with juggling multiple roles?

Yes, the employees are supported to meet their non-work needs. The managers and co-workers are sympathetic and thus, understands what an employee is going through. As a result, an employee can be given some days off to take care of their issues.

Do employees have the opportunity to experience meaningful sources of engagement in their non-work lives?

Yes, the employees have an opportunity to experience meaningful sources of engagement in their non-work lives as they may take paid leaves to work on their projects

Part Three—Report Work Group Survey Results

Now you will further your understanding of engagement by examining a group. Use the Survey Your Work Group tool to find out how engaged the employees say they are.

Distribute the following survey questions to employees in any team or work group. You may find it most appropriate to collect responses anonymously. Add up the scores received from everyone. A 3 is a neutral score. In general, the higher the score, the higher the level of engagement is indicated.

Survey Instructions:

Please answer the following questions on a scale of 1-5, where 1 indicates your strong disagreement and 5 indicates your strong agreement.

Statement 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Somewhat Disagree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 4 Somewhat Agree 5 Strongly Agree

1. Time goes by quickly when I am at work. x

2. Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything else. x

3. I really put my heart into my job. x

4. I don’t even get discouraged when I’m confronted by obstacles; they just make me want to try harder. x 5. I look for ways to expand my skills. x

6. I anticipate opportunities to take action. x 7. I get so involved in what I’m doing that people can’t easily distract me. x

8. I trust that I’m being treated fairly by my organization and my managers. x

9. I trust my management team. x

10. I feel energized from doing something that I personally value. x

11. I look forward to going to work every day. x

12. I’m so passionate about my work that it doesn’t feel like work. x

13. I dedicate a lot of energy to my work, but it doesn’t feel like a burden. x

14. I work hard and I perform well, but I am not exhausted by it. x

15. I feel like I am investing my hands, my head, and my heart in my work. x

Totals: 73

Complete the grid below

Summary: Offer your summary:

What were the results of the work group that you chose to survey?

4.87

Were you surprised by your survey results? No, the team works well whether they are under pressure or confronted by obstacles despite a few colleagues who are often disengaged. All the rest of the team remain to be engaged at all levels.

Part Four—Choose Strategies for Improving Engagement

Management strategies based on the drivers of engagement are outlined below. They all relate to the conditions for engagement and are all within the sphere of influence of individual line managers. Which ones do you think will be most helpful to your efforts in improving engagement in your workplace?

Take note: One reason engagement efforts may be disappointing is that some companies try to transform a lot of cultural dynamics all at once. Professor Nishii recommends that managers will get better results when they start with a few smaller successes, which then provide a basis for expanding. Consider the management strategies listed below. Choose the ones that you think will yield the best results for your needs.

Complete the grid below.

Engagement-Driven Management Strategies Is This a Good Choice for Us? Notes:

Managers can take time to understand their employees, such as by having informal conversations at the beginning of meetings and approaching conversations like they are valuable, not a waste of time. Yes ☐

No ☐ I feel that leadership styles suit differently to different kinds of people. With managers understanding their employees, they develop trusts and makes the employees feel valued and thus, they will gave the best for the organization

Managers can provide opportunities for people to interact informally. Yes ☐No ☐ I do believe that too much work can ruin the opportunity to know and understand colleagues better. Paid vacations can help enhance interactions

Managers can show concern when people are dealing with personal issues or working too hard; they can be human. Yes ☐No ☐ Employees are humans and have emotions. They undergo various problems at personal level. Employees with personal difficulties exhibit high levels of stress which decreases their productivity levels. Showing concern will make the employee feel valued and this may work for the long-term benefit of the organization.

Managers can pay close attention to the way jobs are designed: do employees have meaningful opportunities and means to coordinate and support each other? Yes ☐No ☐ I feel that employees give their best when they are least supervised and monitored. Being trusted by the manager can help increase their confidence and improve their productivity

Engagement-Driven Management Strategies Is This a Good Choice for Us? Notes:

Highly engaged organizations implement highly visible mechanisms for recognizing and rewarding employees who demonstrate strategically focused behavioral engagement. Managers can implement these mechanisms. Yes ☐No ☐ I do believe that recognition and rewarding of employees plays a crucial role to their engagement. The more rewarding and recognition is done to an employee, the more they will contribute towards the success of the organization.

Managers can communicate to employees that the organization recognizes them as individuals and values their specific contributions. Yes ☐No ☐ Every deserves to be recognized for their contribution in the organization. Lack of recognition reduces motivation and the overall productivity. It is therefore essential to have the managers continuously communicate to the employees and let them know they are appreciated.

Managers can demonstrate they trust employees to put their full energy and commitment to work; without it, people spend energy protecting themselves. Yes ☐No ☐ Employees who feel trusted have high productivity rate compared to those who don’t feel trusted. Less supervision by managers means more trust, commitment and thus, high productivity.

Line managers can influence psychological safety by treating employees fairly, such that employees don’t feel vulnerable and unsupported by their manager and organization. Yes ☐No ☐ All employees need to be treated fairly and equally. No one deserves to be privileged in the organization as it creates a division between the employees. Also, favoring some employees make others feel like they are not valued and thus, doesn’t give their best.

People care more about whether the process is fair than about the outcome. If they feel that the process is fair, then they can live with the decision. Managers can demonstrate the fairness of decisions being made. Yes ☐No ☐ All decisions made by the managers in an organization need to be fair and representative of the diversity and inclusivity of the organization. Failure to give fair treatment may result to resentment among the employees.

Engagement-Driven Management Strategies Is This a Good Choice for Us? Notes:

Managers can build in resources for employees. The negative relationship between job demands (workload, stress-inducing physical environment) and work engagement is weaker when employees have many resources.

Yes ☐No ☐ With available resources, employees do not have to struggle to deliver quality outcomes. Therefore, with managers providing adequate resources they can create a comfortable working environment to achieve the success of the organization’s goals.

Managers can offer resources, such as supervisory support, opportunities to be innovative, appreciation and respect, and skill variety.

Yes ☐No ☐ Appreciation is key to promoting innovation in an organization. Managers should adopt a leadership style that encourages the employees to learn on the job, promoting creativity and innovation. However, close supervision may not work to provide a creative and innovative environment.

Conclusions

Summary: Offer your conclusions:

Summarize your hypothesis about the two or three factors you believe might be most important to address in an effort to increase engagement.

Good management arises from effective leadership. Leadership that promotes fairness and inclusivity among the employees can increase engagement.

Employee participation provides room for the organization to have ideas and opinions in first hand on what the employees are going through in the organization. Having the employees provide their opinions can help in increasing their trust and value to the organization, and this helps to increase engagement and overall productivity.

Frequent recognition of the employees through rewards based on performance can help them feel appreciated and hence, increase employee engagement.

What are your recommendations for improvements?

The management in the organization needs to treat all employees fairly and equally such that none will feel discriminated. Also, employees need to be given a platform to air their grievances and contribute through providing meaningful opinions that can help advance the interests of the organization. Also, employees need to be continuously recognized and rewarded to make them feel valued and as part of the organization.

To submit this assignment, please refer to the instructions in the course.