ELECTRONIC AGC FORM SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

SECTION 1: STUDENT TO COMPLETE

NAME: I.D. No: ENROLMENT/START DATE : 05/2008 LOCAL RESOURCE CENTRE

PROGRAMME: MBA Distance Learning

MODULE: Foundations of Knowledge

MODULE CODE: MN7200/D

STUDENT DECLARATION: In submitting work to the University you are agreeing to the following statement: I declare that this assignment is my own work, that all sources of reference are acknowledged in full and that it has not been submitted for any other course.

SECTION 2: TUTOR TO COMPLETE: COMMENT & GENERAL ASSESSMENT

Presentation shows a polished, coherent structure. Thoughts and ideas are clearly expressed. Fluent academic writing style. Presentation carefully and logically organised. Thoughts and ideas clearly expressed. Presentation satisfactory showing organisation and coherence. Language mainly fluent. Presentation shows an attempt to organise in a logical manner. Meaning apparent, but language not always fluent. Presentation is disorganised. Purpose and meaning of assignment is unclear and/or is poorly expressed.

Presentation of assignment and clarity of expression

X
Attention to the purpose of the assignment Has addressed the purpose of the assignment comprehensively and imaginatively. Has addressed the purpose of the assignment coherently and with some attempt to demonstrate imagination. Has address the purpose of the assignment. Some of the answer responds to the purpose of the question. Answer fails to address the question set.

X
The assignment demonstrates application of critical analysis. Arguments are well integrated. Clear application of theory through critical analysis of the topic area. Demonstrates some critical analysis of relevant theory. Limited evidence of critical analysis. Tendency towards description. Lacks critical analysis of theory. Purely descriptive.

Critical analysis of literature/theory

X
Illustrations: Use of examples/evidence. Appropriate examples are fully and reliably integrated and evaluated. Some use of examples. Well integrated and evaluated. Some use of examples. Some integration and evaluation attempted. A little use of examples. Little integration and evaluation. Very little use of examples. No evaluations.

X
Analytical and clear conclusions well grounded in theory and literature showing reflection upon key issues. Good understanding shown in summary of arguments based in theory/literature. Some evidence of the conclusion being supported by theory/literature. Limited conclusions only partially grounded n theory/literature. None or unsubstantiated conclusions.

Conclusions.

X
Comments (first and second markers):

Paul - This is a very good review of the Porath & Erez paper demonstrating sound evaluation of its merits and of the underlying research. Your submission has a logical flow though a few headings might improve the layout - and your writing style is concise and fluent. You have clearly understood the studys objectives as well as the underlying assumptions and have considered in some depth the relationship between this research and previous work in the field. Your review of the main arguments of the paper was systematic and combined a commentary on what the authors had done and found, with some critical discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of their efforts. At times, you needed to present clearer evidence for some of your criticisms (even allowing for the word limit). You also raised some important ethical concerns about their methods. You provided some well-considered conclusions to your review and highlighted the limitations of the research, especially the extent to which its findings might be applicable to other settings. A particular strength was the use of professional insights from the police service to reinforce your

arguments here. One unanswered question is: who was the target audience for this study and who is likely to act upon its findings? You might also consider what proving a hypothesis means in the context of this type of research! Your references are appropriately formatted both in the citations and in the final listing. Overall, a very good start to your MBA: Good luck with the rest of the course!

Tutor marking this assignment

Date of marking (dd.mm.yyyy)

Mark Awarded

Grade Awarded

Anonymised

29.08.2008

72%

Porath and Erez (2007) sought to examine via empirical testing any correlation between complex cognitive [creative and flexible] tasks and helpfulness, and how these are influenced by direct, indirect and perceived rudeness. This quantitative research relied upon a voluntary university student cohort as the participatory group, tested in differing manufactured scenarios. Tests were conducted using various research methodologies including one-way analysis of variance [ONOVA] with rudeness manipulation as the independent variable and multivariate analysis of variance [MANOVA], during three studies that tested five associated hypotheses (fig 1). Seven endogenous variables: task performance; creativity; flexibility; helpfulness; negative affect; memory recall and desire for revenge formed the dependant variables, with ancillary use of unsighted independent markers for parts of the study. Other academic models were applied to the assessments conditions and principles. Kanfer and Ackermans (1989) Resource Allocation Model that focuses on goal setting and cognitive affects has clearly influenced the hypotheses testing, through similarity in approach as to the implications on cognitive behaviour and the cohorts exposure to rudeness in simulated tasks. Weiss and Cropanzanos (1996) Affective Events Theory that suggest that negative events and mood is exponentially more detrimental on performance than that of positive events, further underpinned the philosophy used [and cited] in the analytical research process.

The study was articulated to the cohort against a backdrop of an opaque cover story with an inducement of course credits for participation. Diener and Crandall cited in Bryman and Bell (2007) outline four underlying ethical principles of business research, one of which focuses on informed consent, the principle means that prospective research participants should be given as much information as might be needed to make an informed decisionto participate in a study Bryman and Bell (2007:137). It could be argued that the focus of the preliminary explanation to the cohort, the independent markers and the subsequent exposure was not truly transparent and therefore not informed. Disappointingly some rude manipulations and variables were unimaginative: the amount of pencils and books collected and returned to the experimenter post manipulation as an assessment of helpfulness (5), or creative and flexible endogenous variables based on the application of a brick (1), did not instil confidence in operational transferability of the ensuing data. Fig 1. Porath and Erez Investigated Hypotheses 1. Those exposed to rudeness would perform less well in complex, creative and flexible tasks. [Proved] 2. *Negative affect [Not Proved] 3. *A desire for retribution [Not Proved] 4. *Disruption to memory recall [Proved] 5. That exerted rudeness would reduce helpfulness from an individual. [Proved] *Mediating factors between task performance and rudeness. Source: Porath and Erez (2007:1184) It could be argued that in proving three of the five hypotheses in the manner chosen the resultant success were hollow, as greater robustness was necessary. The complexity of the research findings precludes a fully extrapolated review here, although several key areas from its findings will be outlined in greater depth.

What is rude? Are they [the authors] shaping their assumptions based on a western cultural interpretation or perspective? Clearly there are many factors in determining what is and what is not rude, based on individual, social, cultural or other influences, Hooker (1998); this was not explicitly made, merely inferred in this study. Could it be argued that the research may have been more credible if it was replicated in differing social or cultural settings and then triangulated? What is task performance? What is helpfulness? Greater clarity was necessary to These areas were again unclear from a philosophical or practical perspective creating subjectivity and interpretation. express any assumptions and rationalise why the positive effects of rudeness would not be substantially progressed or aligned. The Japanese hate confrontations. It can therefore pay foreigners to stage them when polite and prolonged discussion has failed to yield results. Economist (1993: 85)

Occupational realities make this study less palatable for those who are actively engaged with rudeness on a daily basis. Elements of society do in part contradict the suggestion outlined in this study, as there is a paradox in their assumptions that rudeness adversely affects task performance. Taken together, our three studiesof rudeness lead us to conclude that rudeness is harmful to task performance. Porath and Erez (2007: 1192) For the United Kingdoms Police Service a substantial amount of its daily performance management, measurement and recording is inextricably linked and reliant on its exposure to rude and confrontational situations, Home Office (2007); importantly this is not only routinely observed by an individual officer, but as a team with differing compositions. Thus a wider team, and or individual correlation was significantly missing from an operational policing comparison in this context or other wider organisational disciplines or settings, moreover, this study did not acknowledge any such team implication. Would the cohorts reactions have been similar if the rudeness manipulation occurred within an established group setting, applied at differing points and times along

Tuckmans, forming, storming, norming and performing process of task completion? Tuckman (1956) The pattern of interpersonal relationships is referred to as group structure and is interpreted as the interpersonal configuration and interpersonal behaviors of the group at a point in time, that is, the way the members act and relate to one another as persons. Tuckman (1965:385) Tuckman (1965) clearly articulated through wider academic research and model application that there is an inextricable link between task performance, success and wider team or task variables. Wider experimentation of these factors in this study would have constructed the arguments more convincingly, as it could be argued that the Porath and Erez (2007) study is too insular in its focus on individual perception of rudeness. Therefore [without more] this research adds very little value to what is already known or presumed. It was conceded by the authors that there was a lack of supporting research for this study and although this should not have precluded the evaluation, it may have been indicative as to wider academic appetite for the theme. Individual and team interpretation, coupled with tolerances of circumstance will determine in part what is deemed rude and therefore its consequential impact on performance. Additional factors such as the operating environment, socio-economic, organisational expectations and cultural attitudes could challenge the findings of this research. It is also noteworthy that rude behaviour is not always seen or recognised as unacceptable by the perpetrator, however in a commercial business setting customers who experience rudeness, take their currency elsewhere. Humphries (2000) The hypothesis testing within the constraints of a rather antiseptic environment, has critically failed to deliver wider generic transferability or credibility, creating more uncertainty than clarity, more paradox than panacea.

References Bryman, A, and Bell, E. (2007) Business Research Methods, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Economist. (1993) When rudeness pays, Vol. 327 Issue 7813, p.85-85, 1/3p. Home Office. (2007) Police Performance Assessment Framework, retrieved 7th July 2008, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/performance-andmeasurement/performance-assessment/assessments-2006-2007/. Hooker, J. N. (1998) The polite and the rude, retrieved 29th June 2008, http://web.tepper.cmu.edu/jnh/courtesy.doc Humphries, A.C. (2000) Rudeness: The hidden cost to business, Business and Economic Review, retrieved 5th July 2008, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5313/is_200010/ai_n21461423/pg_2 Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P.L. (1989) Motivation and Cognitive Abilities: An Integrative/Aptitude-Treatment Interaction Approach, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), p.657. Porath C. L, and Erez, A. (2007) Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): p.1181-1197. Tuckman, B.W. (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), p.384-399. Weiss, H.M, and Cropanzano, R. (1996) Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B.M. Straw & L.L.Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, vol. 18: p.1-74. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.