Georgia College & State University

About: Georgia College & State University is a education organization based out in Milledgeville, Georgia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Higher education. The organization has 950 authors who have published 1591 publications receiving 37027 citations.

A Qualitative Analysis of Sources of Teacher Stress: Consequences for Performance

Abstract: The amount of qualitative research in which teachers subjectively describe the meaning of work stress is limited. This article presents data drawn from a qualitative study of teachers’ perceptions of work stress. Linkages between teacher stress and teacher performance are firmly established. The study data are discussed in terms of the Performance Adaptation Syndrome (PAS), a term developed from the data to describe the deleterious effects of prolonged work stress on the instructional ability of teachers.

Sharing knowledge through intranets: a study of organizational culture and intranet implementation

Abstract: Explores factors affecting the implementation of intranets, which are the technology upon which many knowledge management (KM) systems are built. Because intranets facilitate the sharing of employee knowledge, many believe that organizational culture influences intranet implementation. The results of this study found that intranet implementation is facilitated by a culture that emphasizes an atmosphere of trust and concern for other people (ethical culture), flexibility and innovation (developmental culture), and policies, procedures and information management (hierarchical culture). Management should ensure that the proper values are in place to optimize intranet implementation and to facilitate knowledge sharing.

Message Framing and Persuasion: A Message Processing Analysis

Abstract: Previous research has indicated that the way in which a message is framed affects the amount of persuasion it elicits. Various processes have been suggested to account for the differential persuasiveness of negatively (or loss-) framed messages versus positively (or gain-) framed messages. The authors hypothesized that differential processing of negatively and positively framed messages is a factor that contributes to the differential persuasiveness that has been observed. Experiment 1 demonstrated that message frames are consequential in determining the extent to which a message is scrutinized. Experiment 2 provided evidence for a mechanism by which this occurs. Specifically, by manipulating the expected framing and the actual framing of messages, the authors found that either negatively or positively framed messages could lead to more extensive processing, depending on which was less expected.

Need for Cognition and Choice Framing Effects

Abstract: Two experiments tested the hypothesis that framing biases in decision making would affect more strongly individuals with relatively low levels of need for cognition (NC). Participants were classified as high or low NC based on responses to a standard scale and subsequently were exposed to one of two framings of a choice problem. Different choice problems were used in each experiment, modeled after those developed by Kahneman and Tversky. Experiment 1 employed a monetary task and Experiment 2 a medical decision-making task. Consistent with expectations, framing effects on choice were observed in both experiments, but only for low NC participants. High NC participants were unaffected by problem framing, showing that they were less susceptible to attempts to alter their frame of reference.

Coping with paradox: Multistakeholder learning dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems

Abstract: A notable feature of paradox is recognition that seemingly contradictory terms are inextricably intertwined and interrelated—holding out the hope that something new can be learned from the cognitive tension contained within. Aram has characterized the central concern of the business and society field as the paradox of interdependent relations. Our study argues that this and related paradoxes can be addressed by engaging with others and trying to gain shared insight via an interactive, developmental, exploratory sensemaking process that can inform the governance of stakeholder networks. We advocate multistakeholder learning dialogues (MSLDs) as a means for both scholars and practitioners to construct meanings that can guide joint efforts to cope with messy problems that help shape complex, paradoxical relationships within stakeholder networks.