Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

SCOM 500 (Weeks (Week 1 ((Week 2)), Week 5 (Terms (Social Constructionism…

- - - - Week 2
  - - - Trait Theory
        
        Trait theory (also called dispositional theory) is an approach to the study of human personality. Trait theorists are primarily interested in the measurement of traits, which can be defined as habitual patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion.[1] According to this perspective, traits are relatively stable over time, differ across individuals (e.g. some people are outgoing whereas others are not), and influence behavior. Traits are in contrast to states which are more transitory dispositions.
        In some theories and systems, traits are something a person either has or does not have, but in many others traits are dimensions such as extraversion vs. introversion, with each person rating somewhere along this spectrum.
      - Situational Theory
        
        The fundamental underpinning of the Situational Leadership Model is that there is no single "best" style of leadership. Effective leadership is task-relevant, and the most successful leaders are those who adapt their leadership style to the Performance Readiness (ability and willingness) of the individual or group they are attempting to lead or influence. Effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influenced, but it also depends on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished.[3]
        The Situational Leadership Model rests on two fundamental concepts; leadership style and the individual or group's Performance Readiness level.
      - Contingency Theory
        
        Combination of both Trait and Situational theories??
        A contingency theory is an organizational theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation. A contingent leader effectively applies their own style of leadership to the right situation.
      - Leadership
        
        The Social Construction of Leadership
        
        Dualistic ontology (Sandberg, 2001) is the idea that there are two entities, the subject and the object, that are separate and independent of each other. When leadership is the issue, the two entities are usually a person perceived as a leader and the person perceiving the individual. The separation of the two entities allows the researcher to explore independent qualities or attributes of both parties.
        
        Objectivistic epistemology is the notion that beyond human consciousness there is an objective reality. Hence, social construction is not the completely illusory approach that it is often misrepresented to be. Social constructionists believe that there is a reality and that it is through people’s interpretation that meaning comes (Sandberg, 2001).
        
        Individualistic epistemology: Assuming that the individual is the prime creator of knowledge about reality in this way is termed individualistic epistemology, which is Sandberg’s (2001) third common feature.
        
        The fourth common feature of social constructionist approaches is the role of language as a mirror of objective reality (Sandberg, 2001). Put simply, this is the idea that language can represent or mirror reality in an objective fashion. All of these are embodied in Grint’s (1997) approach.
      - Social Constructionism
        
        Has roots in Symbolic Interactionism: people act toward things based on the meaning those things have for them, and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation.
        
        Versus Essentialism
        Essentialismis the view that every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function.[1] In early Western thought Plato's idealism held that all things have such an "essence," an "Idea" or "Form". Likewise, in Categories Aristotle proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it "... make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing".[2] The contrary view, non-essentialism, denies the need to posit such an "essence'".
        Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning. Plato's Socrates already questions the notion by suggesting, in the Parmenides, that if we accept the idea every beautiful thing or just action partakes of an essence in order to be beautiful or just, then we must also accept the "existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt".[3] In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin;[4] the role and importance of essentialism in biology is still a matter of debate.[5] In gender studies the essentialist idea that men and women are fundamentally different continues to be a matter of contention.[citation needed]