Organizational-Behavior Dumps With Exact Questions and Answers

In the context of global operations, teams are often physically dispersed across different time zones and geographic locations. To maximize participation, organizations rely onvirtual teamtechnologies. Usingonline computer technologies and/or phone communication(such as video conferencing, instant messaging, and collaborative platforms) allows for real-time or near-real-time interaction that bridges the physical distance. These technologies enable members to share ideas, provide immediate feedback, and engage in the "give-and-take" necessary for effective decision-making.

While unilateral messaging (Option C) or physical mail (Option D) might transmit information, they lack the interactive richness required to sustain high levels of participation and engagement. Effective global leadership involves selecting the communication channel that best balances the need for speed with the need for social presence. By utilizing synchronous online tools, global teams can simulate the "face-to-face" experience, which helps in building the rapport and trust that are often difficult to establish in a virtual environment. This approach ensures that all members, regardless of their location, have an equal platform to contribute to the team's objectives.

Group Cohesivenessis the degree to which members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group. When a group is "working in different directions," it lacks the unity and shared purpose characteristic of cohesive teams. To increase cohesiveness, Organizational Behavior literature suggests several specific strategies.

One effective method is toPhysically isolate the group. By providing the group with its own workspace or isolating them from other units, the members are forced to interact more frequently with one another rather than with outsiders. This increased interaction often leads to a stronger shared identity and a "we-feeling" that helps align their efforts. Other common ways to increase cohesiveness include making the group smaller (not larger, which refutes option C), increasing the time members spend together, and increasing the status of the group or the difficulty of gaining admission. While option A (increasing difficulty of membership) is a valid way to increase cohesiveness, the provided source materials and the context of members "working in different directions" prioritize physical isolation as a primary structural intervention to foster unity. Creating more rigid roles (Option D) might help with clarity but does not necessarily increase the emotional and social attraction (cohesion) between members.

The link between performance evaluation and motivation is best explained throughExpectancy Theory. According to this theory, an individual's motivation to exert effort depends on three relationships: Effort-Performance, Performance-Reward, and Rewards-Personal Goals. For an employee to be motivated, theymust have confidence that the effort they exert will lead to a favorable performance evaluation(the Effort-Performance relationship).

Image of Vroom's Expectancy Theory

If an employee believes that no matter how hard they work, the evaluation process is biased, based on luck, or uses unclear criteria (like personality traits rather than measurable behaviors), their motivation will suffer. Furthermore, the employee must believe that a good evaluation will lead to organizational rewards (such as a bonus or promotion) and that those rewards will satisfy their personal goals. If any of these links are weak—for instance, if the evaluation process is perceived as unfair—the entire motivational chain is broken. Therefore, the perceptual process is central to this relationship; it is not the objective reality of the evaluation that motivates, but the employee's perception of its fairness and accuracy.