User talk:MGMT90018 2015S2 (Upward Feedback)/sandbox

Hey team,

I've started to populate the various sections that we've decided on.

I think it's important we beef up the "history" section and introduction. I haven't come across much to really give me an idea of why Upward Feedback is becoming more prominent in psychology, except for a snippet here and there, so perhaps we try the library/a wider variety of sources.

I've also put brackets to remind myself where to cite -- feel free to do the same.

Let's still use the Google Doc as well.

735251MGMT (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Jenai735251MGMT (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the way this page is organized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_behavior#Overview

It is obvious far too detailed for us, but I like that it has everything broken down and organized. That way you can read as much or as little as a reader's research requires. Thoughts? Perhaps something we can emulate?

735251MGMT (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Jenai735251MGMT (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I've added some information to the theories, results and strengths/limitation section of the page with citation and have signed my posts next to it. I will try find some articles for the history section and other parts of the page that will have limited information. Also under the results section I've put some of the information in dot points and I think it will be good if we can try and be creative in the way in which we present the information so it looks eye catching to the reader. Vanessa 746620MGMT (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, Just letting you know that I have just added some more information about the limitations of upward feedback. Will keep researching for more articles. Martha585669MGMT (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey everyone! So i've been researching more about upward feedback in terms of the impact it has on different organisations. I've come across an article that compares the difference between 360 degree feedback and upward feedback which i think it might be interesting to investigate. We can have a section that compares both approaches whether which would be better? At the moment i'm summarising the 2 articles i found and will upload onto the page by this week. Joel563013MGMT (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, so to summarise our meeting from this morning - we have separated the work: Jenai - overview & history, Theoretical framework: Vanessa, Applicability/results (with subheadings): me, strengths: Martha, limitations: Joel... We also decided to create a 'see also'section. Most importantly lets make sure we help one another out if you find interesting things, and also keep track with references. And Martha I think it's a good idea to touch upon the where upward feedback lies in the broader performance appraisal process. Adele 586503MGMT (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Sounds good. Make sure that we have most of our parts at September 10th. We can meet afterwards to polish up everything or add in more details if necessary. Joel 563013MGMT (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey everyone, with the theories section that I am working on, I think that we should put a subheading for each of the different underlying theories just so it looks neater and more structured. Let me know what you think. Thanks Vanessa 746620MGMT (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys it's important that we put it into more neutral language, instead of argumentative - so let's try and work on this over the next couple of days 586503MGMT (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Group,

Quick reminder for tomorrow: finish citations for our assigned sections. Read over your section and gather your thoughts on organization, structure, etc. We'll meet for an hour or two tomorrow to edit the entire piece and make sure we have it to a point that we're comfortable with. Good team work with passing on the articles! See you guys tomorrow! 735251MGMT (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Martha, Adele -- I think we should move away from using the word "theories" as a sub-heading. Let's rephrase it to really reflect what's being spoken about. Thoughts?735251MGMT (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

735251MGMT (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Adele -- I've made changes through my section -- approved nearly all the changes and made some additional checks also. Thanks so much for doing this -- you've been great!

In terms of the other sections:

1) I think we should rename "Influencing factors shaping successful UF" -- it's just too long and something you'd never see on another page. Maybe, "Influencing Factors"

I think we need to have one or two lines at the beginning of the section that tells you what's coming….it's hard to see the direct relation between whats being discussed and UF.

2) Vanessa -- the theories section is really information packed and that's awesome but I'm concerned that its not clearly related to UF. Perhaps the sentences need restructuring or something. I would sit with the section and just think "what is it that i'm trying to say about these "theories" that relates to UF and then make that relation very clear and concise when you write. Does that make sense?

3) We need to remove "theory" from goal setting, control, social exchange, etc. Part of what we discussed last week.

4) I think the outcomes section needs to be split into tinier paragraphs or subtitles or something. Let's discuss when we meet or on the group chat. 735251MGMT (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jenai, I'll look into it. Would a better title be 'Factors influencing upward feedback'?746620MGMT (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)