Plan for Positive Influence

Plan for Positive Influence

Plan for Positive Influence

This paper is about conceiving a design for affirmative influence. In this paper the dissimilarities in mind-set, strong sentiments, feature, and standards will be discussed. In this paper there will be a consideration on how these dissimilarities leverage behavior. Finally there will be a consideration on how the dissimilarities can be competently directed into the design to positively leverage the team.

The underlying question is, “Why do members of organizations engage in acts that constitute deviance from an acceptable mode of employee behavior?” Among scholars of management ethics, there is an ongoing debate as to whether the decision to misbehave (e.g., to make an unethical decision) is more a function of “bad apples” or of “bad barrels.” (Robbins, Judge, 2007) argue that neither the individual nor the organizational and societal perspectives alone fully explain organizational misbehavior. Most, indeed, propose explanations that integrate both perspectives (e.g., Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). That is, organizational misbehavior is a function of the person and of circumstances.

Robbins and Judges (2007), states that an mind-set displays how persons seem about something. Attitude is displaying your sentiments about certain thing or someone. There are three major constituents of an attitude. These constituents are behavioral, cognitive, and affective (Robbins, & Judge, 2007, p. 74-75).

Emotions are a kind of feeling that an one-by-one has in the direction of certain thing or someone. Emotions can be shown through how and one-by-one feels when they glimpse certain thing he or she likes or detests or how he or she feels when they glimpse someone. For demonstration, a partner strolls in the shop where and one-by-one works their strong sentiments would be joyous because he or she would be pleased to glimpse his or her partner (Ivancevich, Konopaske, Matteson, ...