Reflect on a recent communication interaction and to practice perception checking. Provide parenthetical in-text citation of course textbook. Review the discussion criteria prior to posting (listed in course syllabus, and ‘important information for course’ module.
The first part of this discussion is to discuss a recent communication that you experienced and describe the perception checking process (that you went through with the person you communicated with. 1) Perception check:
Step 1: Describe the behavior or situation without evaluating or judging it. Step 2: Think of some possible interpretations of the behavior, being aware of attributions and other influences on the perception process. Step 3: Verify what happened and ask for clarification from the other person’s perspective. Be aware of punctuation, since the other person likely experienced the event differently than you. The second part of this discussion requires you to reflect on perception checking and challenges.
2) Which step of perception checking do you think is the most challenging and why?
employees to remain at work but fail to take steps to support their productive capacities and minimize their vulnerabilities may experience adverse impacts on quality, productivity, workers’ compensation and other insurance costs. On the other hand employers who promote and support the work ability of employees as they age may gain in safety, productivity, competitiveness, and sustainable business practices. There are several possible reasons why employers have been slow to anticipate and meet the needs of an aging workforce. First, some of the actions that that have been suggested— such as phased retirement programs—might require complex changes in pension law, benefits agreements and personnel policies. Second, many employers still harbor false beliefs that older workers are less reliable, less productive, less safe and more expensive than younger ones [Wegman, 1999]. Third, some employers are insuffiently informed about laws governing workplace bias and equal opportunity and are fearful that measures perceived to favor older workers might open them to charges of discrimination. Two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions should mitigate these fears, but knowledge of them is not widespread [General Dynamics, 2004; Smith, 2005]. In combination these decisions make it clear that while age sometimes does affect an individual’s capacity to do certain types of work, employers may attend to the special needs of older workers without providing equivalent assistance to relatively younger workers. Thus, it is permissible to treat older workers preferentially in comparison to younger workers, but it is not permissible to deny them advantages or privileges extended to younger workers. It is important to note, however, that programs and policies which most effectively meet the needs of an aging workforce are not just programs for older workers but are those starting when workers are young in order to prevent or slow the effects of aging at work. Fourth, while there is strong evidence to support the implementation of some of the interventions discussed in this paper (e.g., ergonomic measures to prevent musculoskeletal disorders and clinical preventive services to reduce disability from cancer and cardiovascular disease), the evidentiary is limited and unknown to most employers. Research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various program designs together with a substantial effort to disseminate results and recommendations to employers and employee organizations References Quinn J. 2002. Changing retirement trends and their impact on elderly entitlement programs. In: Altman SH, Shactman DI, editors. Policies for an aging society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p 293-315. Kaglic R. 2005. 2005 Washington State Labor Market and Economic Report. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Employment Security Department. Bailey S. 2006. Data projections from Washington State Office of Financial Management, adjusted by Washington State Employment Security Department. Private correspondence. Briley T, Hutson T. 2002. Who will care for you: Washington hospitals face a personnel crisis: Washington State Hospital Association. Burtless G. 2005. Can rich countries afford to grow old? In An Ageing Society. Research Centre on Financial Economics. Portugal: Lisbon. ADEA. 1967. 29 USC section 621 et seq. 1967 as amended by Public Law 95-256 (1978) and Public Law 99-592 (1986). PPA. 2006. Pension Protection Act of 2006 Public Law 109-280 section 905. Coy P, Brady D. 2005. Old. Smart. Productive. Business Week. National Research Council, Committee on the Health and Safety Needs of Older Workers. 2004. Health and safety needs of older workers. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Toossi M. 2005. Labor force projections to 2014: Retiring boomers. Mon Labor Rev 128:25–44. Salthouse TA. 1984. Effects of age and skill in typing. J Exp Psychol Gen 113(3):345–371. National Research Council, Committee on the Health and Safety Needs of Older Workers. 2004. Health and safety needs of older workers. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Meinz EJ, Salthouse TA. 1998. The effects of age and experience on memory for visually presented music. J Gerontol B Psychol Soc Sci 53(1):P60–P69.>GET ANSWER