I have to answer the questions below in 250 words each. I had to place 4 individuals in a group and determine their 4 Personality Type Letters by having them complete the short Cognitive Style Inventory© at http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html. Each group member completed the Cognitive Style Inventory and provided me with their 4 Personality Type Letters as follows:
Group Member#1 - ENFJ
Group member#2 - INTP
Group Member#3 - ISTJ
Group Member#4 - ENTP
Based on Engleberg and Wynn's (2007) description of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in chapter 11 and the 4 Personality Type Letters which I have been reading, I don't fully understand these questions below:
1)Discuss incentives/motivators for each team member's personality type above.
2)Design two incentives/motivators created specifically for your group's dynamics.
Be sure to reference text readings to support your reasoning.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 17, 2018, 12:29 am ad1c9bdddf
Let's take a closer look. Be sure to read your chapters, which are referred to in this response.
1) Discuss incentives/motivators for each team member's personality type above.
The following information is taken from ch.11, p. 300-301. It is just a matter of sorting the information relevant to each of the letters for each member. Perhaps, reading it first will be helpful. Also see the chart of strategies on p. 302, which matches your members' personality type with motivation strategies based on Jung's theory. In this response, any direct quotes are enclosed in quotation marks and the chapter is cited at the end of the paragraphs with the page number.
1. Group Member#1 - ENFJ
For this member, you use a combination of motivators for extrovert, intuitive, feeling and judging personality traits. You can motivate this extrovert by providing them, along with all group members, with the "meeting agendas well in advance." Being an extrovert, this member "may need time to collect information that supports" her or his "already formed ideas." (ch11, p. 300).
To motivate this intuitive member, she or he will remain motivated if her or his creative and big-picture ideas are given serious consideration by other group members. During a discussion, there will be both sensors and intuitives, so it is about balance. First give the sensors "uninterrupted time to share relevant information" and then, "let the intuitives "loose" to use that information as a springboard for new ideas or innovative solutions." In the group, this member is a feeler, so "should be given time to discuss personal perspectives, but also reminded that disagreements can help a group reach good, people-focused decisions." As a judger, this member will take her or his "responsibility seriously and will get a job done." You ...
Discussion Question: Use of hypotheses and hypothesis testing
See attached article.
Review the following articles given under your week 1 Articles - Electronic Reserve Readings link, and write a short synopsis (200 -300 words) of the main points and learning takeaways. In your response, refer to your Seward text readings for week 1, to support your analysis.
THE PURPOSE OF HYPOTHESES
Hypotheses are the central tool of scientific observation. Because the core method of scientific investigation is the comparison of expectations against observations of the world, scientists need to make clear statements about their expectations. A hypothesis is a concise, falsifiable statement that is subjected to observational testing as part of a scientific investigation.
Scientific research generally starts with a question about the observable world. In the social sciences research questions focus on human behavior—especially behavior related to groups (e.g., communities, countries, or societies). The scientific method says nothing about the origins of these research questions (just as it says nothing about the content of the areas of research). The scientific method simply requires that a scientist state an answer to this question (the hypothesis) that can be tested with observations (hypothesis testing).
There is a bewildering array of potential research questions—and thus hypotheses—in the domain of social science. Hypotheses can focus on expectations about voting behavior, the tendency of nations to go to war, or the factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency or to decisions about where to live (among many, many other hypotheses).
The purpose of the hypothesis is to ease the task of testing an expectation with observations of the world. A good hypothesis, then, is one that is easily tested. The ease of testing contributes to a second key aspect of the scientific method: reproducibility of testing. A clearly worded hypothesis can be tested repeatedly by a scientist and, maybe more important, by other scientists (King, Keohane, and Verba 1994, pp. 28-29).
Consider the following example. A social scientist may hypothesize that smaller class sizes in secondary schools will lead to higher performance on standardized tests. Because it is easy to observe the number of students in a class and the standardized tests scores are also easily observable (though there may be questions of the validity of the test as a measure of "intelligence" or even "academic achievement"), this hypothesis is easy to test. The test itself is also easy to replicate by the original social scientist or by other investigators. The hypothesis is sufficiently clear that any observer would be able to tell whether people in the smaller classes actually performed better on standardized tests. The judgment, then, is not a product of the specific observer but is instead independent of the identity of the scientist (a subject of some controversy that is discussed in a later section).
(see attached file for remainder of the article)View Full Posting Details