DQ #1: Why do organizations miss the point when they focus on surface level behaviors?

Surface-level diversity is a reality for organizations and a vital value in the society (Tsui et al.,
1995), it merits investigating the components that would help with checking these negative consequences
for group working (Mohammed and Angell, 2004).

Heterogeneity at a surface level behavior can be characterized as contrasts among members of the
group in plain, natural qualities or characteristics about biology that are regularly reflected in physical
elements. Such characteristics are age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Social consensus can ordinarily be expected
for each of these demographic characteristics (Jackson et al., 1993). One's age (inside some range), sex,
and race/ethnicity are for the most part evident to and settled upon by observers.

Age - O'Reilly and colleges (1989) found that group heterogeneity as for age was related with bring
down levels of integration in social, which thus was related with turnover. The more distant group
individuals were from different individuals regarding age, the more probable they were to leave. Zalesny
and Kirsch (1989) found that heterogeneity in age was inconsequential to bosses' appraisals of
subordinates' execution however adversely identified with associates' evaluations of performance of co-
workers. Heterogeneity in age was decidedly connected with group turnover in the Jackson et al. (1991).

Sex - Judge and Ferris (1993) found that superior subordinate age differences is significantly
affected preferring of the supervisors’ and ensuing appraisals of the performance of subordinates.

Race / ethnicity – As indicated by Kraiger and Ford's (1985), meta - analysis of research from 1966
to 1981 showed that rater ratee ethnic likeness was related with higher performance evaluations. Pulakos
and co-authors' (1989) meta-analysis showed little and conflicting impacts of ratee-rater racial similarity
crosswise over performance measurements. According to Tsui and O'Reilly (1989), ethnic heterogeneity
was not related with appraisals of the superior of sub-ordinates' effectiveness however; was insignificantly
identified with supervisors’ liking of subordinates (Harrison, 1998).

According to above mentioned factors, organizations miss the point when they focus on surface
level behaviors.
DQ #2: What are the motivations of the people that you work with? (this is an exploratory activity –
learn about others strategically)

Managing a group of people with different personalities is a problem which is facing by many
Myanmar companies. When managing or leading a team, it's important to know what motivates employees,
how employees respond to feedback and praise, and what tasks fit them well. Therefore it is important to
identify employees motivating drivers (McCelland and Litwin 1967). This can help the management of the
company to give praise and feedback effectively, assign suitable tasks to employees, and keep them
motivated (Raven and Stephenson 2001). David McCelland identified three motivators that he believed all
people have: a need for achievement, a need for affiliation, and a need for power (McCelland and Litwin
1967). People will have different characteristics depending on their dominant motivator. McCelland's
theory can help to identify the dominant motivators of people on the team. According to McCelland’s
theory, it is important to examine team to determine which of the three motivators is dominant for each
person. It can probably identify drivers based on personality and past actions (McCelland and Litwin
1967). Then, based on the driving motivators of the workers, leadership style can be restructured and
project assignments can be assigned around each individual team members (McCelland and Litwin 1967).

DQ #3: Since learning is a conscious action, what are some regular learning activities you engage in
and how do you incorporate that into your Being?

According to life experience, motivation guides behavior with regards to specific objectives for me.
Social cognitive theorists suggest that people set objectives for themselves and direct their behavior
consequently.

Expectancy theory (or expectancy theory of motivation) proposes an individual will behave or act
in a certain way because they are motivated to select a specific behavior over other behaviors due to what
they expect the result of that selected behavior will be (Vroom and Jago 1988).

As for myself, I set goal for my career development to motivate myself. Firstly, I set achievable
goals lead to better performance by showing feedback on the achievement of goal .My motivation to
support for my parents welling determines the objectives concerning the career that I strive for (Vroom and
Jago 1988). Therefore, motivation impacts the people who make the choices —for example, whether to get
promotion in three years through Business Degree or whether we can save enough money to get home loan
to buy an apartment.
 References

Harrison, D, A (1998), Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of Surface- and deep-level
diversity on work group cohesion, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1, 96-107, p. 1- 3,
[Link] (Assessed date on 1 August 2017)

Jackson, S, E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Gooper, D. M., Julin, J, A and Peyronnin, K (1991) Some
differences make a difference: Interpersonal dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of
recruitment, promotion, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 675-689

Jackson, S. E., Stone, V. K., & Alvarez, E. B (1993), Socialization amidst diversity: Impact of
demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior, vol. 15: 45- 109, Greenwich, GT: JAI Press

Judge, T, A, and Ferris, G, R (1993), Social context of performance evaluation decisions, Academy of
Management Journal, 36: 80-105

Kraiger, K, and Ford, J, K (1985), A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70: 56-65

McClelland, D.C., & Litwin, G. (1967). A Brief Scoring Manual for Achievement Motivation. Boston,
MA:McBer & Co.

Mohammed, S and Angell, L (2004), Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining the
moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Published online in Wiley Inter Science ([Link]). DOI: 10.1002/job.293,
[Link] (Assessed date
on 1 August 2017)

O'Reilly, G. A., Ill, Galdwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P (1989), Work group demography, social integration,
and turnover, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 21-37

Pulakos, E, D, Oppler, S, H, White, L, A, and Borman, W, C (1989), Examination of race and sex effects
on performance ratings, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 770-780
Tsui, A, S, and O'Reilly, C, A., III (1989), Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of
relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 402-423

Raven, J., & Stephenson, J. (Eds.). (2001). Competence in the Learning Society (pp. 225235). New York:
Peter Lang.

Tsui, A. S, Egan, T. D., and Xin, K, R (1995), Diversity in organizations: lessons from demography
research. In M. Chembers, S. Oskamp, and M. A. Costanso (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New
perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 191–219), London: Sage Publications

Vroom, V. H. & Jago, A. G. (1988) . “The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations”.
Prentice-Hall.

Zalesny, M, D., & Kirsch, M. P (1989), The effect of similarity on performance ratings and interrater
agreement, Human Relations, 42: 81-96