Get 20% Off + $20 Signup Bonus ! Limited Time, Hurry !
Get 20% Off + $20 Signup Bonus ! Limited Time, Hurry !
Securing Higher Grades Costing Your Pocket? Book Your Assignment at The Lowest Price Now!
loader
Add File

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Stuck on Your Question?

Get 24x7 live help from our Top Tutors. All subjects covered.

loader
250 words

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Students Who Viewed This Also Studied

1 Page

Hi i need to be this time perfect, because last time i got 55 out of 200 in assignment 1 of this subject. so i need perfect work..it's a masters degree subject.. 1762704156.dox is assignment one rem ...

Type

Thesis

Subject

36 Pages
Management

This is part 2 of the development of your business plan, which is based upon assessment 1 research and analysis. It is about your market entry and growth strategies and how you mobilise your resources ...

Type

Thesis

Subject

6 Pages
management of information security

The key concepts and frameworks covered in modules 1–4 are particularly relevant for this assignment. Assignment 2 relates to the specific course learning objectives 1, 2 and 3:   analy ...

Type

Assignment

Subject

3 Pages
business

Social Media: Bringing Us Together or Tearing Us Apart? This topic requires you to critically evaluate the role of social media in forging human relationships. While some have applauded the advent o ...

Type

Assignment

Subject

Essay

Question

Answered

Section A - Short essay questions Read the following article and choose 3 of the 6 questions to answer. Do not answer all of the questions. Use the article as a basis for your answers but include discussion from the subject text and other sources as needed to support your discussion. You should appropriately reference any sources used. Answers should be no longer than 600 words each. (Total 60 marks) Article details Bang, Henning (2012). What prevents senior executives from commenting upon miscommunication in top management team meetings? Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management7.2 189-208. Introduction It is Monday morning and the weekly meeting in the top management team (TMT) has just started. The vice president (VP) of Human Resources (HR) presents the first item on the agenda, which is discussing a draft of the new HR strategy of the company. The group members have all read the draft, which was sent to them on Friday, and prepared some comments on what they approve of, and what they would like have amended. The VP of HR invites the group to give their comments on the draft, and says that the group should feel free to comment upon whatever aspect they like, so they can develop a HR strategy which will reflect the viewpoints of all members of the TMT. The discussion starts with one person focussing on misspellings in the draft, the next person commenting upon the strategic implications of the proposed HR strategy, and the third person focussing on sentences he disagrees with. Then the group goes into a long and detailed discussion of one of the sentences which is particularly problematic to some of the group members. After ten minutes of quarrelling over the wording of this sentence, some of the group members look terribly frustrated, and a couple of other members have backed off from the discussion and started reading the papers for the next agenda issue. The boss does not intervene, but lets the discussion carry on. In spite of great frustration among many of the group members, no one shares their frustration or comments upon the way the group discusses the issue. The discussion continues in the same unstructured manner, jumping from topic to topic for the next 30 minutes. The case closes with the VP of HR thanking the group half-heartedly for their views, telling them that she will try to incorporate at least some of their comments in the next draft of HR strategy. The situation described above should be familiar to most organizational managers. [33] Mosvick and Nelson (1996) have studied what managers and professionals experience as the most personally bothersome problems that take place in meetings. Two of the most frequently reported problems were "Getting off the subject" and "No goals or agenda." For the sake of brevity in the further discussions of these key meeting problems - unclear or no goals and getting off the subject - the term "miscommunication" will be used to incorporate both issues. GB 512 Business Communication Page 3 of 3 A number of studies have confirmed the importance of goal clarity and staying on track in groups (e.g. [1] Amason et al. , 1995; [14] Di Salvo et al. , 1989; [22] Hertel et al. , 2004; [28] Locke and Latham, 1990; [34] Myrsiades, 2000; [37] Nixon and Littlepage, 1992; [45] Weingart and Weldon, 1991). [6] Bang et al. (2010) studied communication in top management meetings, and found a strong and positive relationship between stating a clear goal for each issue, keeping the discussion focussed and team effectiveness. Thus, it seems fair to assume that team effectiveness in management meetings is dependent on the goals for each issue being clearly stated, so that the participants in the meeting know the purpose of discussing the issue, and that the discussion sticks to the topic. But, as [33] Mosvick and Nelson (1996) have documented, having no goal and getting off the subject are still among the most frequently reported problems in meetings. A possible way to solve this problem would be for the group members to speak up when they experienced the goal as unclear or when the discussion wandered off track. The executives could voice their concern, voice being defined as "the discretionary verbal communication of ideas, suggestions, or opinions with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning" ([32] Morrison et al. , 2010, p. 183). However, according to theories of organizational voice and silence, people are often reluctant to voice their concerns (e.g. [12] Detert and Burris, 2007; [13] Detert and Trevino, 2010; [20] Greenberg and Edwards, 2009; [26] LePine and Van Dyne, 1998; [29] Milliken et al. , 2003; [30], [31] Morrison and Milliken, 2000, 2003; [32] Morrison et al. , 2010). [31] Morrison and Milliken (2003) say that people in organizations often "choose the safe response of silence, withholding input that could be valuable to others or thoughts that they wish they could express" (p. 1353). The theory of Action Science (e.g. [2], [3], [4] Argyris, 1990, 1992, 1993; [5] Argyris and Schön, 1996) predicts that managers often will remain silent if the topic is experienced as embarrassing or threatening. [2] Argyris claims that "whenever human beings are faced with any issue that contains significant embarrassment or threat, they act in ways that bypass, as best they can, the embarrassment or threat" (1990, p. 25). Hence, to the degree that commenting openly on miscommunication during a management meeting is experienced as embarrassing or threatening, executives will be reluctant to do it. What thoughts, beliefs and perceptions do executives have, that can give us a deeper understanding of their decision to remain silent when they experience miscommunication in management meetings? [29] Milliken et al. (2003) interviewed 40 employees to shed light on when and why they felt unable to speak openly or honestly to a superior about an issue that concerned them. They found that "being silent about issues and problems at work is a very common experience" (p. 1459). The two main classes of reasons for remaining silent were feelings of fear and feelings of futility: (1)] fear of being labelled or viewed negatively, of damaging the relationship, of retaliation or punishment or of having a negative impact on others; and (2)] feelings of futility, in the sense that speaking up will not make a difference or that the recipient will not be responsive. GB 512 Business Communication Page 4 of 4 Also, [29] Milliken et al. (2003) identified three additional reasons for not speaking up about problems: individual characteristics (lack of experience, lack of tenure), organizational characteristics (hierarchical structure, unsupportive culture) and poor relationships with supervisors. Despite a growing body of research on employee voice, most of this research has focussed on voicing "up the hierarchy" ([32] Morrison et al. , 2010), and the subjects of study have mainly been lower level employees instead of top executives of the organization. This is also a fact with the [29] Milliken et al. (2003) study referred to above. There are no empirical studies of how executives at the top of the organization think and behave when they experience miscommunication during the management meeting. Most previous studies of employees' reasons for not voicing their concern have had a general approach to the research question, looking for reasons across different settings and groups (e.g. [12] Detert and Burris, 2007; [26] LePine and Van Dyne, 1998; [29] Milliken et al. , 2003; [32] Morrison et al. , 2010; [38] Premeaux and Bedeian, 2003). According to [32] Morrison et al. (2010), there is a lack of empirical research on voice behaviour within specific work groups. In addition, they claim that we need "a more fine-grained analysis of voice behaviour" (p. 191). This study is an attempt to fill the gaps identified above. The study focusses on the lack of voice behaviour at the top of the organizational hierarchy, in a specific work group setting (a TMT meeting), where the group members know each other fairly well, and where they experience communicational problems which prevent the meeting from functioning effectively. The main research question is what prevents executives from speaking up about miscommunication in TMT meetings? What implicit beliefs and assumptions do they hold that make it difficult for them to speak up? More specifically, I will test the generalizability of [29] Milliken et al. 's (2003) finding that the two most common reasons for employees not to raise their issues, are fear of negative repercussions for speaking up, and that speaking up would not make a difference. Do executives have other reasons for being silent when experiencing miscommunication in the meeting? Finally, I want to explore if executives experience the same barriers against speaking up about miscommunication when directing the comments toward their boss, their fellow colleagues or their subordinate managers in the TMT. 2. Method To get "inside" the executives' heads and explore how they perceive and think when they experience miscommunication, I interviewed a selection of executives who had been participating in a study of team effectiveness in TMTs ([6] Bang et al. , 2010). The executives: the sample consisted of 21 executives from seven different TMTs - three executives from each TMT. The CEO of the organizations (Level 1 managers), who were also the leaders of the TMT, were always interviewed. The two additional executives from each TMT (Level 2 managers) were either randomly selected or chosen because they had indicated dissatisfaction with the communication in the group during the previously mentioned study of effectiveness in TMTs. GB 512 Business Communication Page 5 of 5 The seven TMTs were all from organizations in the public sector based in Oslo, Norway. The TMTs ranged in size from five to 11 members (mean: eight members). The organizations covered a broad spectre of branches, such as health, education, research, financial services, commodity trade and agriculture. The informants' ages varied from 39 to 63 years (mean: 51 years), and there were nine women and 12 men in the sample. Only one of the seven CEOs was a woman. The researcher: I am a licensed psychologist and a specialist in organizational psychology. I have over 20 years of experience with team training, organization and management development, and couples therapy. My theoretical and practical background as a psychologist is mainly based on Action Science Theory (e.g. [5] Argyris and Schön, 1996), cognitive-behavioural approaches to therapy (e.g. [7] Beck, 1995) and systemic family therapy (e.g. [24] Keeney, 1983; [44] Watzlawick et al. , 1974; [47] White and Epston, 1990). Interviews: guided by recommendations for interviews in qualitative research ([25] Kvale, 1996; [40] Rubin and Rubin, 2005), the 21 executives were invited to an intensive, open-ended inquiry into the main question of the study: "What prevents you from speaking up when you experience the goal of discussing an issue as unclear, or experience that the discussion wanders off track during the management meeting?" The purpose of the interview was clearly stated to the informants, to ensure that they knew what kind of information I was looking for. Each interview lasted on average one hour, and was conducted in the executive's office. The interviews were tape recorded, and later transcribed verbatim by a research assistant. One of the tapes (a CEO interview) was damaged after the interview, and could therefore not be transcribed. One informant did not believe that there was any need for commenting upon the goal or discussion during the management meeting, because he experienced most meetings as clearly focussed and on track. Hence, the interview with him did not yield any information regarding the research question. The final sample for analysis consisted of 19 interviews, and included six CEOs and 13 Level 2 managers. 3. Analyses Even though there are prior empirical studies which have suggested possible reasons why people refrain from speaking up in organizations (e.g. [12] Detert and Burris, 2007; [13] Detert and Trevino, 2010; [16] Edmondson, 2003; [29] Milliken et al. , 2003; [31] Morrison and Milliken, 2003), they have all studied voice behaviour among non-managers toward managers higher up in the hierarchy. [32] Morrison et al. (2010) claim that "findings from research on voice to a higher authority cannot necessarily be generalized to voice directed at fellow work-group members" (p. 183). Because there are no prior studies on how and why executives at the top of the hierarchy refrain from speaking up when experiencing miscommunication in management meetings, I chose to analyse the data based on principles from Grounded Theory ([17] Glaser, 1998; [18] Glaser and Strauss, 1967; [42] Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Each of the 19 interviews was divided into different meaning units. A meaning unit is a unit of analysis, consisting of words, sentences or paragraphs containing aspects related to each other GB 512 Business Communication Page 6 of 6 through their content and context" ([19] Graneheim and Lundman, 2004, p. 106). When identifying meaning units, I looked for passages in the interviews that shed light on the research question: "What prevents people from speaking up in the management meeting, when they experience the goal of discussing an issue as unclear, or when the discussion wanders off track?" Accordingly, all the meaning units might be regarded as responses to this question. I identified 194 meaning units from the 19 interviews. An example of a meaning unit was: "I believe the most important reason for not speaking up is that you're afraid of hurting others. And it feels uncomfortable to step in and say 'now you're being too long, get to the point'." Each meaning unit was shortened into a summary consisting of one to three sentences, capturing the essence of the meaning unit - a condensed meaning unit ([19] Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). They were as far as possible written in the interviewees' own words. The condensed meaning units served as raw data for the coding process. The condensed meaning units were analysed for common threads, and categorized into thematic clusters whenever feasible, creating three levels of categories: main categories, subcategories and properties of categories. An example can illustrate the relationship between these levels of categories (see Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). One of the main categories was named perceptions of oneself. This category contained statements where the informant attributed reasons for not speaking up to characteristics of him or herself. My personality and communicational incompetence were two examples of such aspects of oneself, which serve as subcategories under the main category perceptions of oneself. Examples of properties connected to the subcategory my personality, were polite, friendly and cowardly. These properties were experienced as specific aspects of one's personality that made it difficult for a person to speak up when experiencing miscommunication. The coding process was not a linear one; I moved back and forth between properties, subcategories and main categories, and made constant comparisons between the different elements of the data, both across interviews and within one interview. This process resulted in a model, which was constantly revised as further comparisons of the different data elements gave rise to new ways of putting the categories and their properties together. The model emerging from this process consisted of nine main categories (four basic beliefs and five perceptions), 25 subcategories and 226 properties. The reason why there were more properties than meaning units (194 meaning units), was that one meaning unit was sometimes categorized in more than one category. All of the meaning units were categorized into the model. To check the degree to which my categorizations of meaning units would be interpreted similarly by another rater, a researcher not involved in the research project was invited to go through all my categorizations. He was asked to review each condensed meaning unit in each category, and to underline portions of the meaning unit that signified a fit with the category. If he disagreed with my categorization of a meaning unit, or had another suggestion for the categorization, he was asked to make a remark about it. This process resulted in 96 percent agreement (217 of 226 properties) GB 512 Business Communication Page 7 of 7 between me and the other researcher concerning categorization of condensed meaning units into categories, subcategories and properties. After discussing the basis of the disagreements, seven of the properties were either removed or placed into other categories. The final version of the model consisted of nine main categories, 25 subcategories and 222 properties. 4. Results I identified four basic beliefs which the executives described as preventing them from speaking up when they experienced the goal as unclear or the discussion as wandering off track. One of these beliefs (the core belief) was shared by both the CEOs and the Level 2 managers, while the three other beliefs were held solely by the Level 2 managers. In addition, I found five perceptions the executives had about themselves, others or the situation that also contributed to their silence in the management meeting. These five perceptions were all based on the core belief that speaking up is a negative act which might elicit undesirable consequences. Hence, they can be seen as secondary mechanisms preventing executives from speaking up in the management meeting. In the following, I will outline the four basic beliefs and the five perceptions, and give examples from the interviews to illustrate the content of the beliefs and perceptions. Executive names are fictitious, but their positions, gender and ages are real. 4.1 Four basic beliefs that prevent executives from speaking up 4.1.1 Basic belief I (the core belief): speaking up about miscommunication during the management meeting is a negative act of behaviour which will probably elicit undesirable consequences This belief was selected as the core category of the study, meaning "the main theme, for what appears to be the main concern of, or problem for, the people in the setting" ([41] Strauss, 1987, p. 35). A core category appears frequently in the data, is central in the way that it accounts for a large portion of the variation in a pattern of behaviour, and relates easily to many of the other categories found during the analysis ([42] Strauss and Corbin, 1998). When observing the way the informants - both the CEOs and the Level 2 managers - talked about the act of speaking up, I was struck by the negative connotations in their description of what it would imply to comment upon miscommunication in the management meeting. They seemed to equate speaking up with criticizing and confronting people. Ken (CEO, age 61) said: "I am afraid that it could be perceived as negative and arrogant, and that it would be to pinpoint a weakness. And pinpointing weaknesses is negative, right?" Nine informants (five CEOs) expressed a personal belief in the value of letting people talk the way that feels natural to them, and in refraining from interrupting or commenting upon their communication, even if they experienced the talk as diverted or too detailed. As Martin (CEO, age 56) said: "I am particularly concerned with narratives. If people are not allowed to tell their stories, they will not experience themselves as grounded in the reality they actually belong to. And what's even worse - they might tell these stories in other settings, where they can be given a more negative angle, which is something I definitely will try to avoid." GB 512 Business Communication Page 8 of 8 Closely connected to the belief that speaking up is a negative act of behaviour, was the assumption that speaking up would probably elicit undesirable consequences. Nearly all of the informants (18 of 19) said that they expected negative consequences if they commented upon miscommunication. A total of 14 informants (four CEOs) said that it would have negative consequences for themselves. Other group members might react with negative sanctions, like verbal attacks, unpleasant responses, showing dislike for or making it difficult for the commenting person to carry out the work. The group leader was experienced as being in an extraordinarily powerful position to expose members of the group to negative consequences, like being deprived of work tasks, transferred to another position in the organization, being ridiculed or otherwise treated negatively. As Vicky (VP, age 53) said: "If the boss is unable to answer, or if he thinks he has already answered me, he can become quite ironic toward me. He might react with laughter and a disrespectful comment, like 'Do you think we will answer all your questions?'" The executives also expressed a fear of being perceived negatively by other members of the group, including being perceived as arrogant, stupid, bitchy or as showing disrespect. Vicky (VP, age 53) continued: "I am afraid that my colleagues would think that I'm not paying attention, and that that's the reason why I'm asking stupid questions. You should have understood it, right? When you're still asking questions, you put your neck out." A total of 14 informants (six CEOs) said that commenting upon miscommunication probably would have negative consequences for other group members. Speaking up might be experienced as negative by the person who was spoken to, and therefore elicit negative emotions or reactions. People might, for example, become irritated, insecure, defensive, feel rejected or embarrassed, cry or feel hurt. As Amy (VP, age 39) told me: "I am afraid of hurting the other [...] . Sometimes a person presents a matter that is poorly prepared, and it is too easy and facile. The quality is too low, to put it that way. But I suppose it would be offensive to say so." In all, eight informants (five CEOs) expressed concerns for the quality of the work process if they were to comment upon miscommunication during the management meeting. They were worried about people becoming demotivated, thereby functioning less effectively in the management group. This consequence was partly mediated through another consequence described earlier. If people felt hurt, criticized or attacked, they might behave in ways that were detrimental to the work process, like clamming up, decreasing their effort or turning sour. As Martin (CEO, age 56) said: "When Mary starts talking about an issue, I know that I will be sitting there for two-three minutes. I know the conclusion and I know that I have to suffer through. Sometimes I have stopped her, and then she clams up. You can just see that the screen goes mentally black." A total of five informants (two CEOs) expressed concern for the relationship between them and other members if they commented upon miscommunication. The relationship with the person who was the target of the comments might deteriorate, or the comment might create tensions between groups in the organization. GB 512 Business Communication Page 9 of 9 Finally, three informants (two CEOs) saw commenting upon miscommunication as something that would be uncomfortable for the whole management group, and that it might easily create a tense and unpleasant atmosphere in the group. As Chris (VP, age 49) said: "I think the group would feel uncomfortable if one should always be on track, making comments like 'What are we going to do now?' or 'Now we are not where we have said we should be'." The next three basic beliefs were mentioned by the Level 2 managers, but not by any of the CEOs. 4.1.2 Basic belief II - we have no tradition for speaking up when experiencing miscommunication in our management meetings In all, nine out of 13 Level 2 managers said that they had no tradition for having this kind of communication during the meeting, and that it therefore would feel awkward or unnatural to comment upon other group members' communication. It was as if there was an informal code of conduct in their management group, implying that "You don't comment upon miscommunication during the management meeting". This norm was not explicitly stated in the group, but was deduced by the lack of comments about miscommunication. Some of the informants also said that if they felt an urge to comment upon miscommunication, they did it privately after the meeting, certainly not during the meeting. Chris (VP, age 49) said: "I think that long before I joined the management group, a practice or modus operandi for how to run the meeting was established, and I adjust to this standard. I have no wish or need to challenge this. We have no culture in our management group for giving personal feedback to each other, or how we see each other." 4.1.3 Basic belief III - it is futile to speak up Five of the Level 2 managers said that they did not think it would help to speak up, or that it felt so heavy and burdensome, that they refrained from doing it. Some of the executives said for example that they found it futile to tell another person that he is digressing from the topic, because they had given him this feedback lots of times earlier without any change in his behaviour. Ann (VP, age 46) said: "Something has changed inside me, a kind of resignation [...] . In the beginning I said things - I'm certain of that. But then I was brushed aside, you know. The point is that you learn that it is futile to say anything, because the boss decides anyhow." 4.1.4 Basic belief IV - it is not a part of my role in the TMT to speak up In all, four Level 2 managers saw their role and status in the group as an obstacle to speaking up about miscommunication. They were either newcomers in the group, they felt uncertain if it was a part of their role to comment upon miscommunication, or they saw it as the group leader's responsibility to do so. Amy (VP, age 39) said: "When you are a newcomer in the group, you are cautious and perceptive, and try to get acquainted with the management group. You try to see how things work. That is an obstacle." Alison (VP, age 45) emphasized the boss's responsibility for speaking up when group members miscommunicate: "Why should I speak up? My boss is usually very quick to tell a certain person in the group when he finds him too long-winded. If the boss doesn't speak up, I start to wonder if maybe the boss finds it interesting. And I certainly find it more difficult to raise objections to what the boss finds interesting, than to oppose colleagues at my level in the management group." GB 512 Business Communication Page 10 of 10 4.2 Secondary mechanisms that prevent executives from speaking up I identified five perceptions executives held about themselves, others or the situation, that also contributed to their silence when experiencing miscommunication. These perceptions differ from the basic beliefs by presupposing the core belief; that is, they are all based on the basic assumption that speaking up about miscommunication is a negative act that probably will elicit undesirable consequences. The five perceptions are about other group members, themselves, the relationship between them and other group members, group norms in the management meeting and the issue that is discussed in the meeting. Both the CEOs and the Level 2 managers held these perceptions. 4.2.1 Perceptions of others: there are aspects of certain other members of the management group which make it difficult to comment upon their communication Nearly all of the informants (12 Level 2 managers and six CEOs) talked about the difficulty of speaking up in relation to certain members of the management group. Aspects of the other members' role and status, personality, talents, and transitory states and needs were mentioned as barriers. A total of 14 informants (two CEOs) saw the other person's role and status as important when they considered if they should comment upon miscommunication during the management meeting. Two subcategories were identified: whether the other person was the group leader, and whether the other person was a newcomer in the management group. By far the biggest subcategory was where the other person was the boss. This seemed to make a huge difference. It is much more difficult to comment upon miscommunication to your boss, than to a fellow group member. The informants emphasized the boss's formal authority. The boss had the highest rank in the group, and also in the organization, thus it felt uncomfortable and unnatural to comment upon his or her way of communicating. In addition, negative reactions from the boss were much more unpleasant than the same reactions from a colleague. Alison (VP, age 45) explained: "The boss has a couple of issues which are very near to his heart. When he starts talking about them, he goes on and on forever. Then I would like to say: 'Oh, now you're harping on the same string'. But I don't say it. It has to do with my respect for the boss. We feel pretty respectful toward what he says. He has a huge authority, and that's important." A total of 12 informants (six CEOs) talked about other group members' personality as an inhibitory factor for commenting upon miscommunication. Some group members were experienced as particularly vulnerable, and were therefore expected to get easily hurt by comments about their way of communicating. Other group members were perceived as being very aggressive when they were being criticized, and it was therefore experienced as dangerous to speak up if they miscommunicated. Ann (VP, age 46) talked about the difficulty of commenting on the communication of her boss: "I have not yet decided on a diagnosis, but I have thought about it. Do you understand what I mean? I experience my boss as extraordinarily smart and really dangerous. I feel completely terrorized inside when I'm together with the boss in the management group. I am two different persons depending on the leader's presence in the group." Yet, other group members were experienced as having a personality that made it impossible for them to speak in other ways GB 512 Business Communication Page 11 of 11 than they did. Their way of expressing themselves were so intertwined with their personality that it seemed to be impossible to change it. George (CEO, age 48) said: "It is about personality. Some people just have a need for messing around with their thoughts before they get back on track again. They get almost into a state of stress if we continue too quickly on a very goal oriented track." Some group members were so frequently criticized for the way they communicated, that it felt malicious to criticize them any more. Amy (VP, age 39) explained: "The account for commenting upon the way people speak is already emptied by the boss. He has commented on certain other people's communication so frequently that they have got red faces, and then you don't want to embarrass them in front of the boss." A total of five informants (two CEOs) talked about certain talented group members who were so skilful in other areas related to the work, that their miscommunication was tolerated. As Tess (CEO, age 57) said: "She is really going at it, and she is just a marvellous person. Well, so if she is a bit too detailed, it doesn't matter. I become tolerant and generous toward her." In all, four informants (two CEOs) sometimes experienced members of the TMT as being in a certain state, had certain needs, or that they were in a life situation that made it difficult to speak up if they miscommunicated. These states and needs were transitory, but the duration could vary to a considerable extent; the boss's mood might vary from issue to issue on the agenda, and a person experiencing a personal life crisis might stay in this state for months or even longer. As Peter (CEO, age 61) said: "We have a person who is in a very special and difficult life situation. When she is talking and presenting her views in the management meeting, she is obviously not up to level. Even if there is every reason to tell her that she is off track, that she focusses too heavily on certain things, or that she does not manage to see things in the right context, I don't say it." 4.2.2 Perceptions of oneself: group members perceive themselves in ways that make it difficult for them to comment upon miscommunication during the management meeting In all, 14 of the 19 informants told about characteristics of themselves which made it hard for them to comment upon miscommunication. They mentioned aspects of their personality, lack of competence and transitory personal states as barriers. A total of nine informants (three CEOs) perceived themselves as having a personality which made it difficult for them to speak up. The personality descriptions ranged from positive ones (being polite, friendly, considerate, patient and respectful) to more negatively loaded ones (being a coward, fearful, introverted and having authority anxiety). Three informants (two CEOs) said that they did not know how to frame the message in a constructive way if they were to comment upon miscommunication. Tess (CEO, age 57) told me: "I struggle with how to say it in a way that motivates her [...] . I stop myself from commenting in a way that makes her give up." Finally, two informants (no CEOs) mentioned transitory factors, like sometimes feeling tired or stressed, which could prevent them from commenting upon miscommunication. For example, Ann GB 512 Business Communication Page 12 of 12 (VP, age 46) explained that earlier she commented more frequently upon miscommunication than she had done the last weeks: "It might have something to do with me feeling very tired and unwell recently." 4.2.3 Perceptions of the relationship: there are aspects of the relationship between me and certain group members which make it difficult to comment upon their communication during the management meeting In all, eight informants (two CEOs) experienced the quality of the relationship between them and other group members as something that could prevent them from commenting upon miscommunication. Three different subcategories were identified: relationships that were too insecure, too conflicting or too close. Totally, four informants (no CEO) talked about how an insecure relationship or a lack of interpersonal trust among the group members may prevent them from commenting upon miscommunication during the management meeting. Altogether, four informants (one CEO) mentioned explicitly that they had a conflicting relationship with certain members of the management group, and that this made it difficult to comment upon miscommunication from these persons. Johanna (VP, age 39) said: "The kind of relations we have with each other means a lot. If we are in a stage where we cooperate well together and the relationship is good, we become more tolerant when people speak up. If we have been fighting the last two or three meetings, we become more careful with each other." Tess (CEO, age 57) mentioned a very different reason for not speaking up, also grounded in the relationship. She felt that the members of her management group were too close to her, and that made it difficult to comment upon miscommunication. She said: "We talk a lot together, and have got very close to each other. I have to create more professional space between me and them. I am afraid of hurting my closest colleagues who are working together with me." 4.2.4 Perceptions of cultural norms: there are cultural norms in the management meeting which makes it difficult to comment upon miscommunication during the meeting In all, seven informants (four CEOs) talked about certain cultural norms and beliefs in the management meetings which influenced the likelihood that they would speak up when experiencing miscommunication. Altogether, five informants (four CEOs) expressed a firm belief in the importance of creating room for some diversions and small talk during the discussions in the management meeting. They expressed concerns that the discussion might become too narrow, and that the management meeting also had a social function which was taken care of through allowing humour, small talk or talk about topics not directly related to the agenda. In these instances, they would not even consider commenting upon miscommunication, because they thought that a certain level of diversions and small talk had a positive function for the group. GB 512 Business Communication Page 13 of 13 Totally, three informants (no CEOs) experienced an unspoken norm in their management group which all group members were loyal to, stating that "We should be polite and respectful in the way we communicate with each other". This norm made it difficult for group members to speak up about miscommunication, since this was seen as "not being polite and respectful to each other." As Larry (VP, age 51) said: "The management group is not a place for the big fights. I think it has to do with culture. It's a place where you listen to each other and get some information you might use." 4.2.5 Perceptions of the issue: aspects of the specific issues on the agenda might prevent people from commenting upon miscommunication A total of seven informants (three CEOs) saw the lack of speaking up about miscommunication as connected to certain characteristics of the issue under discussion. The five aspects of the agenda issues were identified which might lessen the probability that a person commented upon miscommunication: issues that were perceived as important to other group members, issue complexity, boring issues, issue progression and time pressure. In all, four informants (one CEO) mentioned the difficulty of commenting upon miscommunication if they thought that the issue was important to other members of the management group. Even though they themselves might find the discussion off track or too detailed, it did not feel right to comment upon this. Three informants (one CEO) talked about the difficulty of commenting upon miscommunication if the issue was so complex or far from their own area of responsibility, that they did not really understand the discussion. It is difficult to label something as a digression if you do not know the topic or have problems understanding what is being said. Henry (VP, age 49) said: "When something seems unclear, it might be that I don't understand the problem, combined with me not having a role in discussing the problem. That's why I failed to raise those questions." Two informants (no CEOs) said that sometimes they did not comment upon miscommunication in the meeting because they found the issue boring or emotionally uninteresting. Speaking up about miscommunication requires a certain level of engagement, and for boring issues one might not bother to speak up due to a lack of emotional investment in the issue. Two informants (one CEO) said that whether they commented upon miscommunication or not depended on what stage the discussion had reached. They experienced it as easier to speak up about miscommunication when an issue was about to come to a conclusion, than if it had been in the early stages of the discussion. Larry (VP, age 51) explained: "You have to be careful with commenting upon the communication if the issue discussion is in an early stage. I think it might be perceived as too critical, and that would not be beneficial. It would not contribute to a solution in that particular group." Two informants (one CEO) mentioned time pressure as a factor influencing whether they would comment upon miscommunication or not. However, time pressure might both increase and decrease the probability for people to speak up. If you were under heavy time pressure, the GB 512 Business Communication Page 14 of 14 acceptance for diversions might be smaller than if you had oceans of time. Hence, the probability of speaking up increases. On the other hand, with a lot of time pressure, the group leader could directly or indirectly express that there was no time for comments about the way the group communicates. As Gary (CEO, age 45) said: "If I think we are under time pressure or if we have a lot of important issues left on the agenda, I communicate very clearly that now I don't want any kind of communication about the way we communicate. I think that might prevent people from commenting." 5. Discussion The results of the interviews indicated that four basic beliefs were operating in the TMT preventing the executives from voicing their concerns when they experienced miscommunication during the management meeting. One of these beliefs - the core belief - was that commenting upon miscommunication during a top management meeting is untimely and even damaging - for oneself, for other group members, for relationships, for the group as a whole and for the work being done. This belief was experienced as the main reason for not voicing their concerns when miscommunication happened in the meeting, and was shared both among the CEOs and the Level 2 managers. The other three basic beliefs were only held by the Level 2 managers: they did not have any tradition for speaking up in the group, it was futile to speak up, and speaking up was not a part of their role in the management meeting. The results from the study both confirm and broaden [29] Milliken et al.'s (2003) findings that fear of negative consequences from speaking up and feelings of futility are the two main reasons for not speaking up. First, similar to [29] Milliken et al. (2003), I found that fear of negative consequences (or more precise - a strong belief in the negative consequences of voice behaviour, and an urge to avoid these consequences) was by far the most pervasive reason for being silent. The TMT members feared that speaking up would make other team members view them negatively, that they could be punished or that it would damage the relationship. However, this belief might also lead to empathic emotions (to speak up would be hurtful to the other, would make me feel sorry for the other, or the other might get embarrassed), effectiveness concerns (the work process will suffer, people will clam up or decrease their participation in the meeting) or concerns about how to protect one's selfimage (speaking up is not consistent with being a polite, nice, friendly and respectful person). Second, the present study shows that employees at the bottom of the hierarchy are not the only ones who experience fear of consequences and feelings of futility when considering to speak up about problems. Senior executives at the top of the organizational hierarchy also report similar reasons for being silent when they experience miscommunication. However, the CEOs and the Level 2 managers only shared the belief that speaking up was a negative act which probably would elicit undesirable consequences. The Level 2 managers held three additional beliefs which prevented them from voicing their concerns, indicating that there might be other barriers for voicing behaviour sideways and upwards in a TMT compared to speaking up downwards. Third, there are at least two more reasons for not speaking up besides the fear of consequences and the feelings of futility. The Level 2 managers refrained because they often did not have a tradition GB 512 Business Communication Page 15 of 15 for this kind of communication in the management group. Some informants said that the way the management meeting was held was firmly established a long time ago, and that they had never commented upon each other's way of communicating. They seemed to refer to a descriptive norm for what to say and not to say in the meeting ([222] Hogg and Vaughan, 2011). Descriptive norms ("is" norms) merely describe behavioural regularities in a group, meaning a way of behaving that has characterized the group for a long period of time, and is therefore considered the natural way to behave in the setting. Descriptive norms are not necessarily followed by sanctions when violated - the group is just not used to other ways of behaving. In addition, many of the executives did not see it as part of their role to speak up when miscommunication happened in the group. Rather, they saw it as the group leader's role to address this problem. The executives also held five perceptions that made it even more difficult to speak up. These perceptions centred around five areas: perceptions of other group members, perceptions of themselves, perceptions of the relationship between them and other group members, perceptions of cultural group norms in the management meeting and perceptions of the issue that was discussed during the meeting. These perceptions had in common that they presupposed the core belief; they have no meaning unless it is assumed that speaking up is a negative act which probably would elicit undesirable consequences. Hence, they could be seen as secondary barriers to voice behaviour, similar to what [29] Milliken et al. (2003, p. 1468) called "factors exogenous to the decision process, but as having an effect on how an employee will view the potential outcomes associated with raising a concern." These perceptions can amplify the core belief, by strengthening the belief that speaking up is a negative act which probably will elicit undesirable consequences. Let me give an example. The more vulnerable you perceive a fellow group member to be or the worse your relationship to that person is, the more serious you would expect the negative consequences of speaking up to him or her to be. The five perceptions can also moderate the relationship between the core belief and the urge to speak up when experiencing miscommunication. For example, if you believe that speaking up is a negative act of behaviour, the likelihood that you would voice your concern would probably decrease with the degree that you perceive yourself as being very polite, friendly or "a coward." Similarly, the more problematic you perceive the other person or your relationship to be, the stronger the tendency to withhold behaviour that might elicit negative consequences would be. How the executives perceive the group norms in the management meetings can also encourage or discourage voicing. Even if the executives saw voice as a negative act with possible undesirable consequences, they might still have spoken up in the meeting, if the group norms communicated that it was legitimate and even desirable to comment upon miscommunication during the meeting. However, if executives experience the group norms as requiring that one should be polite and respectful to the colleagues during the meeting, it would probably become much more difficult to speak up. GB 512 Business Communication Page 16 of 16 The relationship between the basic beliefs and the perceptions is illustrated in Figure 2 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] beneath. What conditions could increase the probability that the executives speak up when experiencing miscommunication, and decrease the risk of eliciting negative consequences when doing so? I suggest two factors as being especially important: the level of team psychological safety in the TMT ([8] Carmeli, 2007; [15] Edmondson, 1999), and the behaviour of the TMT leader ([16] Edmondson, 2003; [27] Lipshitz et al. , 2007; [36] Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006). [15] Edmondson (1999) defines team psychological safety as "a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking [...], a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up. This confidence stems from mutual respect and trust among team members" (p. 354). Edmondson argues, in line with Argyris and Schön (1996), that learning behaviour in teams, which involves asking questions, seeking feedback and reflecting on the process and results of the team, easily creates feelings of embarrassment and threat. However, she claims that team members might be willing to risk embarrassment and threat if they feel psychologically safe in the team. In her study of 51 organizational teams, she found robust support for a positive connection between team psychological safety and learning behaviour ([15] Edmondson, 1999). Both the quantitative and qualitative data of her study indicate that teams characterized by high levels of learning behaviour, also have high levels of mutual respect and interpersonal trust among the members, and that the team members feel safe when taking interpersonal risks such as admitting failures, giving each other feedback and commenting upon the process of the team. The finding that team psychological safety is positively associated with learning behaviour is supported in a number of other empirical studies (e.g. [8] Carmeli, 2007; [9] Carmeli et al. , 2009; [10] Carmeli and Gittell, 2009; [36] Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006). Hence, I posit that TMTs characterized by high levels of team psychological safety will be more willing than those with low team psychological safety to engage in two types of learning behaviour: (1)] to speak up when experiencing the goal as unclear or the discussion as wandering off track; and (2)] to openly discuss their assumptions about the consequences of commenting upon miscommunication during the management meeting. Unfortunately, this study has no data on the level of psychological safety in the TMTs. However, I find it reasonable that if the TMT members feel psychologically safe toward each other, they may find it less dangerous to speak up about miscommunication even if they experience it as a negative act. Also, team psychological safety can stimulate the group members to an inquiry into the validity of their assumptions and perceptions, helping them to openly discuss and test whether it is actually futile, dangerous or not allowed to speak up when experiencing miscommunication during the management meetings. This kind of open inquiry seems especially important when addressing the consequences of speaking up about the TMT leader's communication, since my findings suggest GB 512 Business Communication Page 17 of 17 that speaking up is much more difficult toward a superior than toward a fellow team member. Future studies should test the effect of team psychological safety on voicing behaviour in TMTs. The TMT leader (the CEO of the organization) has a special role and responsibility in the management group when it comes to creating conditions that foster team effectiveness, team psychological safety and team learning ([16] Edmondson, 2003; [21] Hackman, 2002; [27] Lipshitz et al. , 2007; [36] Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006). Most of the Level 2 managers interviewed mentioned that they regarded it as the CEO's responsibility to clarify the goal for each of the agenda items, to monitor the discussion and to intervene if the discussion wandered off track. If the CEO did not intervene in a discussion when appropriate, group members often refrained from saying anything, because they saw it as the CEO's responsibility to do so. This understanding of who is responsible for what during the management meeting might, however, create a dilemma for TMTs. Who should be responsible for speaking up when the CEO is the one who is side-tracking the discussion, or when the CEO does not discover that the discussion is becoming irrelevant? According to [23] Katzenbach and Smith (1993), one of the key distinguishing features of a real team is that all members hold each other accountable for the processes and results of the team. Transferred to the setting of a TMT meeting, this means that not only the CEO, but all members of the TMT should take responsibility for both the clarification of the goal when discussing an agenda issue, and for keeping the discussion focussed on the topic. As the head of both the organization and of the TMT, the CEO is an important role model for the kind of behaviour that is allowed and encouraged during the management meeting. This is crucial when it comes to norms regulating learning behaviour in the TMT, because such behaviour often triggers feelings of embarrassment and threat ([2] Argyris, 1990). As indicated from the interviews, several of the Level 2 managers expected negative sanctions, criticism and ridiculing from the CEO if they asked for a clarification of the goal or commented upon the way the discussion was proceeding. Some of these expectations were based on actual experiences, and others were "feared possibilities," based on inferences and fantasies about their group leader. Perhaps the CEOs were not aware of how important even small sanctions, comments and non-verbal cues from them can be for the type of learning climate developing in the management meeting? [36] Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) found that "training leaders to invite team members' comments and to appreciate those comments overtly" (p. 958) is crucial for fostering psychologically safety and subsequently a learning climate in cross-disciplinary teams. The fear of being sanctioned by the CEO can also make it difficult to comment upon the CEO's communication. The CEOs were (rightly) perceived as having more power than the other members of the TMT. In my interviews, group members emphasized three power bases ([39] Raven, 1992) that were particularly salient in their CEOs: the CEO's formal authority (legitimate power), and his/her capacity to reward (reward power) or punish (coercive power) the group members. These three sources of power were considered as mostly stemming from the formal position of the power holder. In addition, the respondents gave examples of how the CEO's personality or way of behaving can add to their power. As Nelly (VP, age 48) said: "It is especially difficult to tell the boss that he is off track. The reason is partly that he is the CEO of the organization, and that he is an authoritative GB 512 Business Communication Page 18 of 18 and strong person, combined with me having a slight authority anxiety. Also knowing that he is sort of a grumpy type, it becomes difficult to approach him about such matters." 5.1 Methodological limitations and future research A qualitative interview study where the informants' answers are coded into categories will always be vulnerable to the question: "Would another interviewer get the same answers, and would another coder end up with the same categories?" The answer is obviously "no." The interaction between the interviewer and the informants and between the coder and the interview material will be unique in each instance, even if one uses well-documented methods to decrease the subjective researcher bias during the interviewing and coding process, such as following the prescriptions from Grounded Theory analysis. However, I agree with [25] Kvale (1996) that the point is not whether two researchers will get exactly the same answers or end up with the same codes, but rather whether the answers and codes are a reliable representation (of probably many) of what is happening in the particular field focussed on in the study. It would be interesting to see similar studies done by other researchers in other settings. For example, in situations such as management meetings in the private sector, at lower levels in the organizations, in project groups or in group meetings, to find out if these groups make similar assumptions about the consequences of commenting on miscommunication during in a meeting. Another limitation is the generalizability of the findings in the study. The sample I collected the data from consisted of only seven TMTs, all from the public sector located in Oslo, Norway. Will the same beliefs and perceptions dominate TMTs located in the private sector? And will these beliefs and perceptions characterize TMTs outside Norway? Future studies should increase the number of groups and decrease the number of executives interviewed from each group, include groups from the private sector and from other countries, to see if the present findings apply to TMTs in general. The current study can also be criticized for not using theoretical sampling during data collection. According to [18] Glaser and Strauss (1967), "theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyses his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory, whether substantive or formal" (p. 45, original italics). I first interviewed all the executives, and then started coding the material. Although [18] Glaser and Strauss (1967) state that it is possible to do Grounded Theory analysis without theoretical sampling, I have missed the opportunity to have my data collection "controlled by the emerging theory," and to focus my questions in the subsequent interviews in certain directions, depending on the data I needed to saturate the categories of the analysis. Theoretical sampling makes it easier to go deeper into categories where data is lacking, and to skip questions about categories that seem to be saturated. The categories I have found might therefore be less saturated than if I had used theoretical sampling. This study illustrates how the beliefs and perceptions held by the executives function as important inhibitors of team effectiveness and learning behaviour in the TMTs. I agree with West and colleagues ([11] Carter and West, 1998; [43] Tjosvold et al. , 2004; [46] West, 1996), that the GB 512 Business Communication Page 19 of 19 capacity of a team to reflect upon its goals, strategies and processes, and adapt them to internal and external circumstances, is a prerequisite for organizational learning to occur, and subsequently, for effective team performance. Identifying, challenging and changing beliefs and perceptions that might prevent learning behaviour is especially important in TMTs, because they are responsible for making decisions that affect both organizational members, customers and often also the society at large ([35] Nadler et al. , 1998). Future studies should focus on how management groups could make it safer to discuss, challenge and change these assumptions, to enable team learning to happen. It would, for example, be interesting to explore if the degree of team psychological safety ([15] Edmondson, 1999) would affect the executives' willingness to speak up when they experience the goal as unclear or the discussion as wandering off track. Finally, the way the managers frame their message when they comment upon miscommunication during the management meeting could be worth exploring (e.g. framing the voice consistently with Model II behaviour, see [5] Argyris and Schön, 1996). There are probably ways of speaking up that might be less anxiety provoking, and which may lessen the executives' beliefs that speaking up will inevitably elicit undesirable consequences. 5.2 Conclusion and practical implications So what prevents executives from speaking up about miscommunication in TMT meetings? The results from the present study indicate that executives find it difficult to voice their concern when they experience the goal as unclear or when the discussion wanders off track during the meeting. The main reason for remaining silent in this situation is that they see commenting upon miscommunication as a negative act which will probably elicit undesirable consequences - both for themselves, for others and for the performance of the TMT. This belief was widely held among the executives, both among the CEOs and the Level 2 managers. The Level 2 managers experienced three additional reasons for not speaking up in the management meeting: They had no tradition for doing so in their TMT, they sometimes found it futile to voice their concerns, and they did not see speaking up as their responsibility or part of their role in the TMT. Interestingly, none of the CEOs mentioned these three barriers. Both the CEOs and the Level 2 managers held a set of perceptions about themselves, fellow group members, the management group and the agenda issues, which reinforced the belief that speaking up would elicit undesirable consequences. These perceptions also reduced the likelihood that they would comment upon miscommunication during the management meeting. The present study indicates that barriers to voice behaviour not only exist at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy, but also in the executive suite. Some of the barriers are mainly experienced in sideways and upwards communication, but the main barrier - seeing commenting upon miscommunication as a negative act of behaviour - applies for communication in all directions within the TMT. The main implication for executives is to be aware of how frequently they refrain from speaking up about factors that might help the management team to function more effectively. They often assume that speaking up would be experienced as a negative act by their fellow team members. GB 512 Business Communication Page 20 of 20 Hence, the TMT is deprived of a chance to learn and perform better. However, assumptions and perceptions are not always the same as reality. What you assume to be the consequences of speaking up is not necessarily what will actually happen when you do so. TMTs should therefore make it legitimate to discuss and test these assumptions, so they can be verified or adjusted. To be able to freely discuss the assumptions, there has to be a certain level of team psychological safety and interpersonal trust between the members of the TMT. As the leader of the TMT, the CEO has a special responsibility for making it safe for the members to speak up during management meetings. Therefore CEOs should be aware of the way in which they speak, respond to other members and behave in the TMT. Specifically, CEOs should actively reinforce learning behaviours like asking clarifying questions, commenting when discussions wander off track, and giving feedback on miscommunication. These approaches, maintained and developed, would probably make

Essay

Answer in Detail

Solved by qualified expert

Get Access to This Answer

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque. Amet dictum sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque vitae. Elit at imperdiet dui accumsan. Nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum vitae sapien pellentesque. Imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien et ligula. Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas maecenas pharetra convallis posuere. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Tellus pellentesque eu tincidunt tortor aliquam. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit. Nec feugiat in fermentum posuere urna. Vel orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Ultricies tristique nulla aliquet enim tortor at auctor urna. Orci sagittis eu volutpat odio facilisis mauris sit amet.

Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed nisi. Pharetra et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor vitae. Morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed. At consectetur lorem donec massa sapien faucibus et. Nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus. Duis at tellus at urna condimentum mattis pellentesque. Vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius duis at. Justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo. Convallis a cras semper auctor neque. Tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus. Tortor consequat id porta nibh.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque. Amet dictum sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque vitae. Elit at imperdiet dui accumsan. Nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum vitae sapien pellentesque. Imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien et ligula. Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas maecenas pharetra convallis posuere. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Tellus pellentesque eu tincidunt tortor aliquam. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit. Nec feugiat in fermentum posuere urna. Vel orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Ultricies tristique nulla aliquet enim tortor at auctor urna. Orci sagittis eu volutpat odio facilisis mauris sit amet.

Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed nisi. Pharetra et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor vitae. Morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed. At consectetur lorem donec massa sapien faucibus et. Nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus. Duis at tellus at urna condimentum mattis pellentesque. Vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius duis at. Justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo. Convallis a cras semper auctor neque. Tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus. Tortor consequat id porta nibh.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque. Amet dictum sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque vitae. Elit at imperdiet dui accumsan. Nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum vitae sapien pellentesque. Imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien et ligula. Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas maecenas pharetra convallis posuere. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Tellus pellentesque eu tincidunt tortor aliquam. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit. Nec feugiat in fermentum posuere urna. Vel orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Ultricies tristique nulla aliquet enim tortor at auctor urna. Orci sagittis eu volutpat odio facilisis mauris sit amet.

Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed nisi. Pharetra et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor vitae. Morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed. At consectetur lorem donec massa sapien faucibus et. Nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus. Duis at tellus at urna condimentum mattis pellentesque. Vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius duis at. Justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo. Convallis a cras semper auctor neque. Tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus. Tortor consequat id porta nibh.

249 More Pages to Come in This Document. Get access to the complete answer.

Students prefer to buy homework online from MyAssignmenthelp.com because they find our services most effective and reliable in every aspect. Our services prove to be the best solution for students who often search, can someone do my homework for me or can experts write my homework for me. Being a reputed homework help website, we have introduced the safest money transferring modes for making payments. This is why students don't have to ask is it safe to pay someone to do my homework.

More Essay: Questions & Answers

Q

Hi i need to be this time perfect, because last time i got 55 out of 200 in assignment 1 of this subject. so i need perfect work..it's a masters degree subject.. 1762704156.dox is assignment one remai ng are helping documents ...

View Answer
Q

Management

This is part 2 of the development of your business plan, which is based upon assessment 1 research and analysis. It is about your market entry and growth strategies and how you mobilise your resources to launch the business. Marks will be awarded as below: Ø  Consistency/originality of ...

View Answer
Q

management of information security

The key concepts and frameworks covered in modules 1–4 are particularly relevant for this assignment. Assignment 2 relates to the specific course learning objectives 1, 2 and 3:   analyse information security vulnerabilities and threats and determine appropriate controls that can be a ...

View Answer
Q

business

Social Media: Bringing Us Together or Tearing Us Apart? This topic requires you to critically evaluate the role of social media in forging human relationships. While some have applauded the advent of social networking sites in bringing people together, others have voiced concern over the increas ...

View Answer

Content Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this content and no longer wish to have your work published on Myassignmenthelp.com then please raise the content removal request.

Choose Our Best Expert to Help You

5% Cashback

On APP - grab it while it lasts!

Download app now (or) Scan the QR code

*Offer eligible for first 3 orders ordered through app!

screener
ribbon
callback request mobile
Have any Query?