Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Toxic workplace

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hello Magnolia, I am writing the page on Emotional Intlligence, but I have also had more than a passing interest in psychopaths in the workplace and done some research which might be useful for your page. Two papers spring to mind- Managing Psychoipathic Employees by Mitchell Langbert and Corporate Psychop[aths and Organisational type by Clive Boddy. Both are recently (2010) and both are available through the Ucan Search function on the library page. Hope this helps. Regards Ray 06:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC) By the way, the above post suggesting a couple of papers to help your web page was me, Ray. I forgot to log in so here is my proper sgnatureU112052 06:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Headings[edit source]

Note that in the document you sent me, the headings were not created using styles (Heading 1, Heading 2, etc.) so these have not come through as wiki headings. You would need to edit these in yourself as per Help:Headings. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Subtitle and focus questions[edit source]

I recommend developing a specific subtitle and introducing some focus questions in the Introduction which clearly identify the goals of the chapter. These goals should clearly relate back to motivation and emotion self-help book theme. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Emphasis[edit source]

The second half of the current draft seems to drift into bullet-point lists and legal information. In redrafting, I'd recommending reducing this emphasis and instead emphasising relevant psychological theory and research about the emotional impact of bullying and what can be done about it from a psychosocial point of view, with pointers towards how further support can be obtained. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a tantalising chapter. It is a wonderfully applied, relevant topic. There are some really engaging, real-life examples. There is detailed coverage of relevant theory. There is limited use of research. There is too much unedited focus on legal perspectives and much content is self-plagiarised. Some aspects of APA style can be improved.

Theory[edit source]

  1. The main theoretical perspectives used are not explained up front, but appear to be social, neurophysiological and psychophysiological, and psychopathological. Perhaps also consider cognitive perspectives. The medico-physiological listings are some overdetailed/excessive in places.
  2. The chapter contained some legal material, which was very interesting and relevant, given the chapter a real-life, fascinating perspective. However, in other places, the legal material looks like an unedited and irrelevant cut and paste from somewhere else (e.g., Medical tests).

Research[edit source]

  1. Reeve (2009) was over-cited; try to use primary sources
  2. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  3. Some statements were unreferenced - see the [factual?] tags

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Much of the psychological about motivational and emotional aspects of a toxic workplace are well-expressed, using many vivid and relevant examples, and well-supported by relevant citations. More of the legalese and neurophysiology could be tempered, however, in order to develop a shorter, more focused chapter.
    2. The chapter could have benefited from a more developed Introduction and Summary, with clear focus questions (Introduction) and a clear take-home self-help message for each focus question (Summary).
    3. Some text appears to be have been plagiarised without acknowledgement from other sources e.g., - even if you wrote this previously and gave yourself permission, the source of the text should still be acknowledged, rather than presented at original text. The other consequence of this, is that the current chapter reads like a mish-mash of the previous legal content and the current psychological focus on emotional aspects of a toxic workplace.
    4. Some of the bullet-points should have been in full paragraph format.
    5. Getting open comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
  2. Learning features
    1. Examples of bullying excellent
    2. K-M Events Chart excellent
    3. Limited use of interwiki links?
  3. Spelling, grammar and proofreading
    1. Generally, very well written.
  4. APA style
    1. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
    2. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    3. In-text citations:
      1. et al - et al.
      2. (Author year) -> (Author, year)
    4. When there are three or more authors, subsequent citations should use et al. e.g., Smith, Bush and Western (2001) and then in the next paragraph cite Smith et al. (2001).
    5. Reference list is in very good APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via login to the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener. If you wish to dispute the marks, see the suggested marking dispute process.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a problematic presentation mainly because there was no audio. The recommended and demonstrated tool was not used ( Use of other tools/platforms is at own risk Frowny.svg.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Structure and content look engaging.
  2. Connection between work-place bully types and research/theory literature?

Communication[edit source]

  1. The slides looked interesting, creative etc. but audio was needed.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. This assignment hasn't been submitted on Moodle Frowny.svg
  2. Production quality was poor mainly because there was no audio Frowny.svg
  3. What was the source for the images? Were the images used with permission? (Otherwise this would be copyright violation).
  4. Provide a link to the chapter.
  5. Consider releasing the presentation under a Creative Commons Attribution license.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[]