Keberkesanan Amalan Pengurusan Perundingan dalam Organisasi Pendidikan

The study is on negotiation management practices in educational organisation. The respondents were lecturers in Institut Bahasa Melayu Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur and questionaire was used as research instrument. The objectives of the study are to identify which negotiation practice and conflict manageme...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Jamaliah, Ngah Dimin
Format:	Thesis
Language:	eng eng
Published:	1999
Subjects:	LB Theory and practice of education
Online Access:	https://etd.uum.edu.my/567/1/JAMALIAH_BT._NGAH_DIMIN_-_Keberkesanan_amalan_pengurusan_perundingan_dalam_organisasi_pendidikan.pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/567/2/1.JAMALIAH_BT._NGAH_DIMIN_-_Keberkesanan_amalan_pengurusan_perundingan_dalam_organisasi_pendidikan.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-uum-etd.567
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection	UUM ETD
language	eng eng
topic	LB Theory and practice of education
spellingShingle	LB Theory and practice of education Jamaliah, Ngah Dimin Keberkesanan Amalan Pengurusan Perundingan dalam Organisasi Pendidikan
description	The study is on negotiation management practices in educational organisation. The respondents were lecturers in Institut Bahasa Melayu Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur and questionaire was used as research instrument. The objectives of the study are to identify which negotiation practice and conflict management styles frequently used , to see whether there is any relationship between conflict management styles and negotiation styles, to find out whether differences exist between demographic factors and negotiation styles and to see whether there is any relationship between power elements, skills and behaviour over negotiation styles. Results indicate that conflict management styles do not have any significant relationship with negotiation styles and respondents preference are ’Data Base’ behaviour with means value (4.20) followed by flexible behaviour (means value 3.96), helpful (mean value 3.65), aggressive (mean value 3.12), controlling (mean value 2.7 1) and avoidance (mean value 1.85) is the least used behaviour. For negotiation styles, avoidance is the most preferred (mean value 3.66) followed by accomodation (mean value 3.47), collaboration (mean value 3.10), compromise (mean value 2.95) and the least practised is competition (mean value 2.89). Demographic factors; gender, educational level and tenure do not show any significant difference with negotiation styles but there exists significant difference when compared by age. Power elements, skills and behaviour are also found not related significantly to negotiation styles.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	masters
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Jamaliah, Ngah Dimin
author_facet	Jamaliah, Ngah Dimin
author_sort	Jamaliah, Ngah Dimin
title	Keberkesanan Amalan Pengurusan Perundingan dalam Organisasi Pendidikan
title_short	Keberkesanan Amalan Pengurusan Perundingan dalam Organisasi Pendidikan
title_full	Keberkesanan Amalan Pengurusan Perundingan dalam Organisasi Pendidikan
title_fullStr	Keberkesanan Amalan Pengurusan Perundingan dalam Organisasi Pendidikan
title_full_unstemmed	Keberkesanan Amalan Pengurusan Perundingan dalam Organisasi Pendidikan
title_sort	keberkesanan amalan pengurusan perundingan dalam organisasi pendidikan
granting_institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department	Sekolah Siswazah
publishDate	1999
url	https://etd.uum.edu.my/567/1/JAMALIAH_BT._NGAH_DIMIN_-_Keberkesanan_amalan_pengurusan_perundingan_dalam_organisasi_pendidikan.pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/567/2/1.JAMALIAH_BT._NGAH_DIMIN_-_Keberkesanan_amalan_pengurusan_perundingan_dalam_organisasi_pendidikan.pdf
_version_	1747826945417019392
spelling	my-uum-etd.5672013-07-24T12:07:54Z Keberkesanan Amalan Pengurusan Perundingan dalam Organisasi Pendidikan 1999-11-10 Jamaliah, Ngah Dimin Sekolah Siswazah Graduate School LB Theory and practice of education The study is on negotiation management practices in educational organisation. The respondents were lecturers in Institut Bahasa Melayu Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur and questionaire was used as research instrument. The objectives of the study are to identify which negotiation practice and conflict management styles frequently used , to see whether there is any relationship between conflict management styles and negotiation styles, to find out whether differences exist between demographic factors and negotiation styles and to see whether there is any relationship between power elements, skills and behaviour over negotiation styles. Results indicate that conflict management styles do not have any significant relationship with negotiation styles and respondents preference are ’Data Base’ behaviour with means value (4.20) followed by flexible behaviour (means value 3.96), helpful (mean value 3.65), aggressive (mean value 3.12), controlling (mean value 2.7 1) and avoidance (mean value 1.85) is the least used behaviour. For negotiation styles, avoidance is the most preferred (mean value 3.66) followed by accomodation (mean value 3.47), collaboration (mean value 3.10), compromise (mean value 2.95) and the least practised is competition (mean value 2.89). Demographic factors; gender, educational level and tenure do not show any significant difference with negotiation styles but there exists significant difference when compared by age. Power elements, skills and behaviour are also found not related significantly to negotiation styles. 1999-11 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/567/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/567/1/JAMALIAH_BT._NGAH_DIMIN_-_Keberkesanan_amalan_pengurusan_perundingan_dalam_organisasi_pendidikan.pdf application/pdf eng validuser https://etd.uum.edu.my/567/2/1.JAMALIAH_BT._NGAH_DIMIN_-_Keberkesanan_amalan_pengurusan_perundingan_dalam_organisasi_pendidikan.pdf application/pdf eng public masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia Ahmad Mahdzan Ayob (1992), Kaedah Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Kuala Lumpur, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Atkinson, J., (1984), Manpower Strategies for Flexible Organizations, Personnel Management, August, pp.28-31. Bruins J. (1994), Social Power and Influence Tactics : A Theoretical Introduction. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55. No. 1, pp. 7 - 14. Bui , K. T., Raven, B. H., & Schwarzwald, J. (1994), Influence Strategies In Dating Relationships : The Effects of Relationship Satisfaction, Gender, and Perspective. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Vol. 9, pp. 429- 442. Calero H. and Morrison F. William, (1994), The Human Side Of Negotiations, Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. Clark , R. A., & Delia , J. G. (1976), The Development of Functional Persuasive Skills In Childhood and Early Adolescence . Child Development. Vol. 47. Pp. 1008- 1014. Clegg, H., (1994), Trade Unionism Under Collective Bargaining , Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 29, No.2, pp. 198-204. Covey R. Stephen, (1996), Geven Habits of Highly Effective People, Fireside, Simon & Chuster Inc. New York. Cowan, G., Drinkard, J., & MacGavin, L. (1984), The Effects of Target, Age, and Gender On Use of Power Strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 47, pp. 139 1-1398. Deutsch, M., (1973), The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven, C.T : Yale University Press. Dreher, G. F ., Dougherty, T. W., & Whitely , W. (1989), Influence Tactics and Salary Attainment : A Gender Specific Analysis. Sex Roles, Vol. 20. Pp. 535-550. Edwards, P.K., (1990), Conflict at Work, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, London. Fuller G. [1991), The Negotiatior's Handbook. New Jersey : Prentice Hall. Gallie, D., (1992), In Search of The New Working Class, Cambridge University Press, London. Goffman, E. (1969), Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia, PA : University of Philadelphia Press. Gottlieb Marvin and Healy J. William, (1990), Making Deals : The Business of Negotiating, New York Institute of Finance. Harris L. George and Walker A. Michael, (1995), Negotiations : Six Steps To Success, Prentice Hall Inc. Haselett, B. (1983), Preschooler's Communicative Strategies in Gaining Compliance From Peers : A Development Study. Quarterly Journal of Speech , Vol. 69, pp. 84-99. Henderson, B. (1973), The Nonlogical Strategy. Boston, MA : Boston Consulting Group. Jankowski A. Mark and Shapiro M. Ronald, (1998), The Power of Nice : How To Negotiate So Everyone Wins- Especially You, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. John R. Calvert, (1996), Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector in Canada,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38. No. 3., pp. 19-26. Jordan, E. , Cowan, A., & Roberts, J. (1995), Knowing The Rules : Discursive Strategies in Young Children's Power Struggles. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp.339-358. Kilmann, R. H. & Thomas, K. W. (1977), Developing A Force -Choice Measure Of Conflict-Handling Behavior : The MODE instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Vol. 37. Pp. 309-325 Kipnis , D., & Lane , W. P. (1962), Self Confidence and Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 46, pp. 29 1-295. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt (1985), The Language of Persuasion. Psychology Today. Vol. 19, pp. 40-46. Kirchler, E. (1992), Adorable Women , Expert Man : Changing Gender Images of Men In Management. European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 22. Pp. 363-373. Kolb. D. & Coolidge. G. (1991), Her Place At The Table: A Consideration of Gender Issues In Negotiation. In J. Z. Rubin And J. W. Breslin (Eds)., Negotiation Theory and Practice (pp.261-277), Cambridge, MA : Harvard Program On Negotiation. Kolb . D. (1983), Strategic and Tactics of Mediation. Human Relations. Vol. 36. No.3. pp. 247-268. Koslowsky, M., & Schwarzwald, J. (1993), The Use OF Power Strategies To Gain Compliance: TestingAspect of Raven's (1988) Theory In Conflictual Situations. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 21. Pp. 135-144. . . .. .... (1999), Gender, Self-Esteem, and Focus of Interest in The Use of Power Strategies by Adalescents in Conflict Situations. Journal Of Social Issues, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 15-32. Lewicki , R. J., Literrer Joseph A., Minton John W., Saunders David M., (1994), Negotiation . Sydney: IRWIN. Second Edition. Lewicki , R. J. (1992), Negotiating Strategically. In A. Cohen, (Ed), The Portable MBA In Management (pp. 147-189) . New Tork , NY : John Wiley and Sons. Lewin . K. (1941), Analysis of The Conceptc Whole, Differentiation And Unity. Journal in Industrial Relations. Vol. 18. pp. 226-261. Lscroix, R., (1996), Strike Activity in Canada, Employee Relations Journal, Vol. 35. No.3. pp. 56-63. Manimaran, P. S. (1992), Penyelesaian Konflik Dalam Organisasi. Latihan Ilmiah Sarjana Muda Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Meyers, R. (1981), Macro Organizational Behaviour, Glenview III, Scott Foresman. Neale, M. &, Bazerman , M . H. (1992), Negotiating Rationally : The Power and Impact of The Negotiator's Frame . Academy of Management Executive. Vol. 6. No. 3. pp.42-51. Noraishah Ahmad Tajudin, (1991), Perundingan Berkesan, Kertas Pembentangan Seminar, Centre for International Relations 86 Diplomacy (CIRAD), National Institute of Public Administration . Panitch, L., (1997), From Free Collective Bargaining to Permanent Exceptionalism, Employee Relations Journal, Vol. 47, No. 7, pp.74-80. Pinkley, R. L. [1990), Dimension of Conflict Frame : Disputant Interpretations of Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 75, pp.117- 126. . .... ... ... .. . ., (1992), Dimensions of Conflict Frame : Relations to Disputant Peroeptions and Expectations. The International Journal of Conflict Management. Vol. 3. Pp. 95-113. Pruitt , D., G. & Rubin , J. Z. (1986), Social Conflict : Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement. New York : Random House. Raven . B.H. (1992), A Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence : French and Raven Thirty Years Later . Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Vol. 7, pp. 2 17-244. Raven , B. H. & Rubin, J. 2. (1973), Social Psychology : People In Groups. New York :John Wiley and Sons. Rubin, J. 2. & Brown , B. R. (1975), The Social Psychology of Bargaining And Negotiation. New York NY : Academic Press. Robinson Colin, (1995), Effective Negotiating, Kogan Page Limited : London. Salancik , G. R. (1977), Who Gets Power And How They Hold On To It : A Strategic Contingency Model of Power. Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 5. pp. 13-21. Shahibudin Ishak (1997), Pengurusan Konflik Dikalangan Pendidik Di Daerah Alor Setar, Kedah. Tesis Sarjana Sains Pengurusan Universiti Utara Malaysia. Shalev, M., (1995), Industrial Relations Theory and Industrial Conflict, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 23, pp.39-45. Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H. & Cheraskin, L. (1992), Businee On A handshake. Negotiation Journal. Vol. 8. Pp. 365-377. Stephen . W. G.& Stephen. C. W. (1996), Intergroup Relations. Dubuque. LA : Brown & Benchmark Publishers. Schoonmaker A. N . (1989), Negitiate To Win : Gaining The Psychological Edge. NewJersey : Prentice Hall. Thomas K. W. (1992), Conflict and Negotiatien Processes In Organizations. In M.D. Dunnette and L. H. Hough , Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology. Vol. 3. Pp. 65 1-718. 2nd. Edition. Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press. Thompson L. (1998), The Mind And Heart Of The Negotiator. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Turin Ahmad (1995), Gaya Pengurusan Konflik Dikalangan Guru-Guru Sekolah Menengah Daerah Kota Setar, Kedah. Tesis Sarjana Sains Pengurusan, Universiti Utara Malaysia. Watson, C. & Kasten , B. (1988), Separate Strength s? How Men and Women Negotiate. New-ark, NJ : Centre for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Rutgers University. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence Tactics and Objectives In Upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 132-140. Yukl , G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of Influence Tactics Used With Subordiates, Peers and The Boss . Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 77, pp. 525-535.

Keberkesanan Amalan Pengurusan Perundingan dalam Organisasi Pendidikan

Similar Items