DOCUMENT RESUME PS 006 525 AUTHOR TITLE
DOCUMENT RESUMEED 078 911PS 006 525AUTHORTITLEPUB DATENOTEJohnson, David W.Interpersonal Skills for Cooperative Work.29 Mar 7327p.; Paper presented at the biennial meeting of theSociety for Reseatch in Child Development(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 29, 1973)EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSMF- 0.65 HC Not Available from EDRS.Affective Behavior; Communication (Thought Transfer);*Communication Skills; Emotional Response;*Interaction; *Interpersonal Competence;Interpersonal Relationship; Social Adjustment;*Social Behavior; Speeches*CooperationIDENTIFIERSABSTRACTCooperation among individuals depends upon both thegoal structure of the situation and the cooperative skills of theindividuals. Since cooperation is probably the most important andbasic form of human interaction, the skills of cooperationsuccessfully are some of the most important skills a person needs tomaster. Cooperative skills include the skills of: (1) self-disclosingto and building trust with others; (2) communicating effectively withothers; (3) influencing and supporting others; and (4) managingconflicts constructively.A3asic to the establishment andstabilization of cooperation are the skills of communicatingcooperative intentions and expectations and building trust. Effectivecommunication depends upon both sending and receiving skills and thebuilding of trust depends upon the skills of reciprocating a person'sdisclosure of information, ideas and feelings, and the communicationof acceptance of his disclosures.[Not available in hard copy due tomarginal legibility of original document.] (Author)
FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPYOcPAETMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION a WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OPEDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINAT.NG IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE'ENIT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEC JCAT. N POSITION OR POLICYInterpersonal Skills For Cooperative Work*David W. JohnsonUniversity Of MinnesotaIntroductionThere is probably no set of skills more important to ahuman being that the skills of cooperative interaction.Thevast majority of human interaction is cooperative interaction.Without cooperation among individuals no group, family, organization, or school would be able to exist,Without high levels ofcooperation there would be no coordination of behavior.No twoindividuals could communicate with each other or interact withoutcooperating to form a common language and agreed upon norms forbehavior.Occupations, education, exchange of goods and services,or any other type of coordinated human action would not existwithout cooperation.111) pet!ti.71qEven in fighting wars and conducting com-tnere are vast underpinnigs of cooperative(NIagreements concerning how the competition or conflict will beconducted and what are the ways in which antagonists can expresstheir hostility towards each other.Cooperation is the most im- portant and most basic form of human interaction and the skillscooperating successfully are some of the most important skillsuofa person needs to master.*Paper presented at the 1973 meetings of the Society For ResearchOn Child Development, Philadelphia, March 29.
David W. Johnson-2-DefinitionsThere are two approaches to defining cooperation, oneevolving from the intrinsic motivation viewpoint of Kurt Lewin(1935) which postulates that a state of tension within anindividual motivates movement toward the accomplishment ofdesired goals, and the other evolving form the extrinsic motivation viewpoint of behavioral learning theory which postulatesthat individuals respond to reinforcing consequences in theirexternal environment.These two approaches are not necessarilyincompatible; while some extrinsic rewards, such as money, mayreduce a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task in thefuture, other extrinsic rewards, such as positive feedback, mayincrease a person's future intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971).Deutsch (1949a, 1962) defines a cooperative social situation as one where the goals of the separate individuals are solinked ttiethar that there is a positive correlation betweentheir goal attainments; under purely cooperative conditions,an individual can obtain his goal if and only if the-otherperson with whom he is linked can obtain tfictx goats.Deutschnotes that from his definition of cooperation it follows thatwhen any individual behaves in such a way as to increase hischances of goal attainment, he increases the chances that theother members with whom he is linked will also achieve their goals.He states that the psychological consequences of such a state of
David W. Johnsonaffairs are:-3-(1) substitutability - -the actions of members ina cooperative relationship are interchangeable in the sense thatif one member has engaged in a certain behavior there is noneed for others within the relationship to repeat the behavior;(2) positive cathexis--if the actions of one member in a :-.00per-ative relationship move the individuals towards their goal, hisactions (and he as a person) will be favorably evaluated by theothers; and (3) inducibility--if the actions of a person in acooperative relationship move the others toward their goal, theothers will be receptive to his attempts to induce them toengage in behavior that will facilitate his actions.ForDeutsch it is the drive for goal accomplishment which motivatescooperative behavior.Kelley and Thibaut (1969) define a cooperative structureas one where the individual's rewards are directly proportionalto the quality of the group work.From their point of view itIt tr.6 tewara aiscrloution that motivates individuals ca behavecooperatively.Even if a situation is structured cooperatively, a personmust make a decision to engage in cooperative behavior.Following the theorizing of Scheff (1967) and Boyle and Bonacick(1970), it may be assumed that the decision to engage in cooperative behavior is based upon (1) the expected probability of goal
David W. Johnson-4-attainment resulting from cooperative behavior, (2) the sizeofthe perceived risk that someone will exploit one's cooperativebehavior, resulting in a decreased probability of goal attainment, and (3) the temptation to exploit the other persons'cooperative behavior for one's own benefit.The smaller thegain and the larger the risk and temptation the lower will bethe motivation to engage in cooperative behavior.Each personmust assess the gain, risk, and temptation factors in thesituation and anticipate how the other individuals are assessingthe same factors.Once the decision is made, stable cooperationdepends upon (1) mutual intentions to behave cooperatively andmutual expectations that the other individuals in the situationwill also behave cooperatively, (2) effective communication ofthese expectations and intentions, and (3) trust that the otherindividuals will behave cooperatively and will not exploit one'scooperative behavior.Mete has been a great deal of research concerning theoutcomes of cooperative situations compared to competitive andindividualistic situations.That research will not be discussedin this paper, but interested readers are referred to a recentreview by Johnson and Johnson (1973).
David W. JohnsonInterpersonal Skills Necessary ForCooperative InteractionBefore cooperative skills are discussed the author wishesThe author's stance is that the onlyto make a basic point.reason for engaging in theorizing and research is to affect theway in which personsinteract.At some point theories andresearch findings must be translated into interpersonal behaviorand in making recommendations concerning interpersonal behaviorthe social scientist should utilize existing empirical knowledge.This paper is an attempt to take the empirically validatedtheory in the area of cooperation and translate it into astatement concerning the interpersonal skills Necessary toinitiate and maintain stable cooperative interaction.Even if situations are clearly structured cooperativelyand the persons involved make a decision to engage in cooperative behavior, they must have the skills necessary to interactcooperatively with others.The interpersonal skills necessaryfor cooperative interaction do not appear magically in indivi111)duals as a result of the situational structure; they have to(NIbe learned.Cooperative skills are learned the way any skillis learpAd; the nature and effectiveness of the behavior isC131)demonstrated through modelling, the person is reinforced forengaging in the behavior; and the norms of the person's referencegroup must support the behavior.V)As part of learning coopera-tive skills the person must be interpersonally effective.064Interpersonal effectiveness may be defined as the extent towhich the consequences of a person's behavior match his intentions (Johnson, 1972a).When a person interacts with other
David W. Johnson-b-individuals he has no choice but to make some impact upon them;sometimes he makes the impact he wants but other times he mayfind that others perceive and respond to his behavior differently than he intended.All cooperative skills depend upon theperson's ability to have the impact upon others he intends.In order to interact cooperatively with others, a personhas to have skills in the following areas (Johnson, 1972a):(1) self-disclosing to and building trust with others, (2)communicating effectively with others, (3) influencing andsupporting others, and (4) managing conflicts constructivelywith others.The specific interpersonal skills focused uponin this paper, however, are the skills involved in communicationand trust.Communication SkillsA major difficulty in discussing communication skills isthat there are a multitude of definitions for the concept ofcom4unication and little agreement about which definition ismost useful.Dance (1970), for example, did a content analysisof 95 definitions of communication which he found publishedin several diverse fields; he derived 15 distinct conceptualcomponents of communication.He notes that the variety ofdefinitions has led different theorists and researchers indifferent and sometimes contradictory directions and concludesthat the concept of communication is overburdened and a family
David W. Johnson-7-of concepts which could replace it needs to be created.In summarizing several of the definitions of communicationJohnson (1972a, 1973a) states that'because (if there is perceptual engagement) we continuously affect one another (altering perceptions, dispositions, and expectations), interpersonalcommunication can be defined very broadly as any behavior,verbal or nonverbal, that is perceived by another person.Interpersonal communication, however, is more commonly definedas a person sending a message to a recipient(s) with a consciousintent to affect the latter's behavior.Effective communicationcan then be defined as existing between two persons when thereceiver interprets the sender's message in the same way thesender intended it.This definition of communication doesnot mean there is always a temporal sequence of events wherebya person thinks up a a message, sends it, and someone elsereceives it.Communication among individuals is a process inwhich everyone recellici, sends, interprets, and infers allsimultaneously and there is no beginning or end.It should beadded that all communication involves the transmission amongindividuals of symbols to which certain meanings are attached.These symbols can be either verbal or nonverbal.The exchangeof ideas and experiences among individuals is possible onlywhen both have adopted the same conventions for relating aparticular graphic, nonverbal, or spoken symbol to a particularconceptual experience.
David W. Johnson-8-While there is considerable research on various aspectsof interpersonal communication, the conceptual confusion inthe field makes it difficult to directly link much of theresearch with specific communication skills.Most appliedapproaches to interpersonal communication, however, emphasizesending and receiving skills.in this paper.A similar approach will be takenThere is empirical support that skill in sendingmessages so that they are accurately understood consists of(Johnson, 1972a, 1973a, 19736):1.Increasing the serial and simultaneous redundancyof the message by using more than one channel ofcommunication and repeating the message more thanonce.2.Making the message complete and specific, includingclear statements of all necessary information concerning the referent of the message and the intentionbehind the message.3.Clearly "owning" your message by using personalpronouns such as "I" and "my"; this includes clearlytaking responsibility for the ideas and feelingsone expresses.4.Ensuring that the verbal and nonverbal messages allcommunicate the same message.S.Asking for feedback concerning the reception of thecontent of the message and the inferred intentionsbehind the message.
David W. Johnson.g.Being skilled in sending messages is only half of effectivecommunication; one must also have receiving skills.The skillsinvolved in receiving messages deal with providing feedbackconcerning the reception of the message.In providing feedbacka person communicates his understanding of the message and hisintention of wanting to correctly understand the other'smessages.A variety of studies have demonstrated the importanceof communicating the intent to correctly understand, notevaluate, a person's messages, (see Rogers, 196S and reviewsby Strupp 4 Bergin, 1969, Traux 4 Carkhuff, 1967).The basic skill involved in receiving messages is paraphrasing accurately the content and feelings of the messagein a nonevaluative way (Johnson, 1972a).All the researchconducted on Rogerian counseling is relevant in validating theeffectiveness of this skillalthough most of the research iscorrelational and has little validity due to questionablemethodology.'Le sturigast evidence concerning the effectsof this skill come from a series of experimental studiesconducted by Johnson (1971a).The results of his studies indicatethat accurate paraphrasing (compared with inaccurate or incomplete paraphrasing) induces cooperative behavior betweennegotiators (Johnson, 1966, 1967, 1971b), clarifies misunderstandings concerning negotiators' positions (Johnson, 1966, 1967,1968), increases understanding of the other's position (Johnson,1966, 1967, 1968, 1971c), increases one's ability to perceive
David W. Johnson-10-the issue from the other's frame of reference (Johnson, 1972b),results in a reevaluation of the issue and a change of attitudeconcerning the issue (Johnson, 1966, 1967, 1971c), and resultsin the person engaging in accurate paraphrasing being perceivedas attempting to understand the other's position, as an understanding person, as willing to compromise, as cooperative,and as trustworthy (Johnson, 1966, 1967, 1971b).Thus there isconsiderable evidence that accurately paraphrasing the contentand feelings of a message in a nonevaluative way facilitatescommunication and the development of cooperative interactionamong individuals.Skill in accurately paraphrasing the content and feelingsof another person's message is undoubtedly related to thepsychological ability to take the role of the other in thesituation, for it results from (and facilitates) being able tocorrectly infer the other's intentions and the other's framemierence.Kest :19;1; aotes that the ability to formhypotheses concerning what is in another person's mind isbasic to establishing cooperative interaction and is a basiccognitive ability necessary to develop moral judgment.Flavell(1971) concluded from the research on the development of theability to make inferences about others that being able totake into account the perspective of others in thinking about.an issue is an important and basic part of social-cognitivegrowth.Thus training in receiving skills such as paraphrasing
David-11-Johnsonbecomes part of providing training for the general social cognitive development necessary for cooperative interaction.Specific exercises and instructional experiences for/skill development in communication skills can be found inJohnson (1972a).r-TrustTrust is a necessary condition for stable cooperation andeffective communication.The higher the trust the rare stablethe cooperation and the more effective the communication.Several behavioral scientists have stressed the importance oftrust for cooperative interaction.Deutsch (1962) states thatall cooperation rests upon the ability of individuals to trustone another and that the initiation of cooperation requirestrust whenever the individual, by his choice to cooperate,places his fate partly in the hands of others.clrr:17doiGibb (1964)iarlts of research studies that trust is aprecondition for the flow cf feelings, formation of goals, andthe implementation of influence mechanisms within work groups.Rogers (1951, 1961), Gibb (1964), and Blocher (1966) have allstressed the importance of trust in helping relationships.Friedlander (1970) conducted a study of industrial decisionmaking groups, focusing upon members' perceptions of trust vs.competitiveniss within each group.He found that group trustwas the best predictor in his study of eventual group accomplishment.Workgroups in which members had high trust in one another
David W. Johnson-12-prior to a training program reached greater degrees of groupeffectiveness and had more worthwhile meetings after thetraining program was completed; conversely, groups in whichmembers felt competitive with one another prior toringprogram were less effective and had less worthwhile meetingsafter the training.Walton and McKersie (1965) state on thebasis of their review of the literature that trust is a precondition for effective interpersonal and group problem solving.Deutsch is the only one of the above individuals, however, whodirectly dealt with the concept of trust or who presented aclear conceptualization of trust.Deutsch (1957, 1958, 1960, 1962) conducted a series ofstudies on the development and maintenance of trust whichindicate that trust is developed and maintained the more effectiveend complete the communication, the more the individuals believethat the others have nothing to gain from untrustworthy be:levier, the more tney perceive that they are able to exertsome control over the other's outcomes, the more the other'scooperative behavior is perceived as being conditional upon theexistence of mutual trustworthiness, and the more they haveexperienced benevolent rather than malevolent treatment fromthe others in the past (a finding corroborated by Schlenker,Helm, and Tedeschi, 1973).Deutscn found that trust, whileoften very difficult and time-consuming to build, is very easilyand quickly destroyed by exploitative behavior,Similarly,1:elley and Stahelski (1970) demonstrated that a person who
David W. Johnson-13-beL.ns to behave competitively in a cooperative group canquickly d',oall trust and force the other members intoequally competitively behavior.The situational variablesDeutsch found to affect trust were;1.The opportunity for each person to know what theother person will do before he commits himself irreversibly to a trusting choice;2.The opportunity and ability to communicate fully asystem for cooperation which defines expectations,intentions, mutual responsibilities, and also specifiesa procedure for handling violations and returning toa state of equilibrium with minimum disadvantage ifa violation occurs;3.The power to influence the other person's outcomeand hence to reduce any incentive he may have toengage in untrustworthy behavior.Garfinkel 0.963) notes that individuals routinely engagein trusting behavior without full consciousness of the risksinvolved; it is only when their trust has been violated thatthey fully realize thelr vulnerability and the risks they havetaken.Driving down a highway, for example, is routine behaviorfor most people and the underlying trust in others to obey thetraffic rules is often not consciously thought of until someonebegins driving on the wrong side side or in an erratic manner.
David W. Johnson-14-Deutsch (1962) in a prior discussion of this point noted thatthe only alternative available for individuals who are willingto adhere to the rules and normative expectations for behaviorwhen they are confronted with someone who violates the rulesis to attempt to develop the conditions under which mutualadherence to the rules will occur.Trust and communication are interdependent in the sensethat trust cannot be developed without communication and communication is affected by the level of trust existing amongindividuals.Several studies have indicated that communicationwill not be as effective under low trust conditions as it isunder high trust conditions (Mellinger, 1956; Deutsch, 1957, 1962;Deutsch & Krauss, 1962; Krauss & Deutsch, 1966).In a recentstudy Schlenker, Helm, and Tedeschi (1973) found that in communicating with highly trustworthy individuals subjects morefrequently and more truthfully announced their cooperativeintentions aad laicl) used evasive repl.,es.Previous studies(Gahagan & Tedeschi, 1968; Schlenker, Helm, Nacci, & Tedeschi,1972) similarly found trends that indicated that a person'strusthworthy behavior prompts subjects to reciprocate by announcing their own cooperative intentions.Schlenker, Helm, andTedeschi (1973) also found that the subjects responded tountrustworthy persons with evasive communications, dishonestyin their communications, and noncooperation.In all the writings on trust there are many elements
David W. Johnsonemphasized.-15-Initial expectancies, predictability of behavior,consistency of behavior, vulnerability, risk, confidence in theother's intentions and motives, rules and other normativeexpectations, and receiving information from another person, allare discussed as being part of "trust".The most complete con-ceptualization of trust, however, was made by Deutsch (1957,1962).From his and the writings of others trust may be defined.as including the following elements:1. Theperson is in a situation where a choice to trustanother person can lead to either beneficial or harmful consequences for his needs and goals.There issome realization that there is a risk involved in trusting.2. You realize that whether the beneficial consequencesor the harmful consequences take place depends uponthe future behavior of another person.3. )(au expect to suffer more if the harmful consequencesresulted than you will gain if the beneficial con:-.sequences resulted.4. You feel relatively confident that the other personwill behave in such a way that the beneficial consequences will result.Thus the mother who leaves her child with a babysittermakes a trusting choice because the mother presumably:(1) isaware that her choice could lead to harmful or beneficial con-
David W. Johnson-16-sequences, (2) realize that the consequences of her choicedepend upon the behavior of the babysitter, (3) would expectto suffer much more if her trust in the babysitter were violated (and her child is harmed) than she would gain if hertrust were fulfilled (she is free to go shopping), and (4)feels relatively confident that the babysitter will behave insuch a way that the beneficial consequences will result.One of the criticisms which can be made of Deutsch'siz(and everyone else's) conceptualoption of trust is that it isdifficult to operationalize in an applied situation.Untilreceetly, there has been little attempt to relate conceptualizations of trust to specific interpersonal skills (Johnson,1972ae Johnson 6 Noonan, 1972).Since the disclosure of ideasand feelings relevant to the accomplishment of cooperativegoals is essential to cooperative interaction and the buildingof trust (Argyris, 1965) and since any fears of rejection oreiploetatien mezt be elinimized (Johnson, 1972a), the skillsrelevant to the development and maintenance of trust are (1)Leif-disclosure skills and (2) the skills involved in communicativg acceptance.The above definition of trust suggests that the conditionsunder .which a choice to disclose the ideas and feelings relevantto accomplishing cooperative goals will result in increasedtrust are:1.awareness that the choice to disclose could lead to
David W. Johnson-17-facilitation of goal accomplishment or to the harmfulconsequences of either exploitation by a more competitively oriented person or rejection and ridicule;2.the realization that the consequences of the choicedepend upon the behavior of the other person;3.expectations that one will suffer more if one's trustis violated (and one's disclosures are exploitedor rejected) than one would gain if one's trust isfulfilled (and goal accomplishment is facilitated); and4.a relatively confident feeling that the other willbehave in such a way that the beneficial consequenceswill result.In a trusting situation the person behaving cooperativelyis dependent upon the others not to take advantage of hisvulnerability.Vulnerability exists when a person has taken arisk that exposes him to harmful consequences, such as exploitatton or tejeccioa.cco.,.1e of the cooperators vulnerability,the others in the situation temporarily have power over hisfeelings and future gains.Trust is build when the others donot exploit the cooperator's vulnerability or reject andridicule his cooperative behavior; trust is destroyed when theothers use their power to harm the cooperator.The steps in building trust are for (1) a person to takerisk with disclosing his information, ideas, or feelings, (2)the other persons in the situation to respond with acceptance,and/or (3) the other persons in the situation to reciprocate
Wavid W. Johnsonthe disclosures.-18-By definitio.1 trust begivistakes a risk by disclosing his infermatJol-, Ideas,or flingabout the cooperative twA, ta& accol,piishmr:Itpor;,goal, or the way in which the incvlduals are wo:.kinr.The next step is for the other individuals ip chcrespond with acceptance.vooizother.sttnAcceptance is the v.ey to reduc:nganxety and fears about vulnerabi7ity.DefenFivfear and distrust are cne of twe, .ommon blocks t.fe,-.11r.s ofc.)o7:rativeinteraction and the developmew;ICS5);if the person risking discic,sLre doeqot:nfuture he will not trust the others ay.I will notfurther disclosvres.Rogers (1951.; Lreyeitcd:that a person's acceptance by ethers i5 an essentialof successful personal problem solving.Studios byand Taylor) Altmar, and Sorzentin,3 (19651(190,iicale thatpositive accepng reactions d--.) iicrea!,,1 the ft.f.:c1.!,!epth of :!iscio6tres,dJohnsc.:-! ,u, 2,con-nstudy in which acceptance of disc:lsur-s was cyn'rejection of disclosures; theyasz-!:!,u;i:-.(1 a ip.uch highe,trust and perceptions of Iiri1 3r:.w Leng de'e;:Tod aPi ,erttained in the accepting conditior.studies it may be concluded thatOn cheperonsf111,1 (,!orsMOF'," when the others respond to Cry: perl.on's d1cA:it,,.cceptance.The reciprocation of disc!o u.estbthirstep!.:1
David W. Johnson-19-building and maintaining trust in a cooperative situation.This involves the syndoir response of disclosing one's infor4-mation, ideas, and feelings in a way which builds or elaboratesupon the previous speaker's disclosures, recognizes theirvalidity, or in some way uses them to generate further progresstowards the accomplishment of the cooperative goal.Socialpenetration theory (Altman & Taylor, in press; Taylor, 1968)and social exchange theory (Homans, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)suggest that reciprocity is rewarding.Several studies havemanipulated level of disclosure; results indicate that highlydisclosing confederates elidit greater subject disclosurethan do low disclosing ccnfederates (Taylor, 1964; Chitticl5Himelstein, 1967; Murdoch, Chenowith, & Riseman, 1969).Wcrthy, Gary, and Kahn (1969) found that as a person increasedthe intimacy of his disclosures the other individuals in thesituation responded with increasingly intimate disclosures.fhe nterviewer who discloses elicits greater disclosuresfrom respondents and is rated as more trustworthy (Drag, 1968)and more positively in general (Jourard & Friedman, 1970)than the interviewer who does not disclose.Johnson and Noonan(1972) conducted a study in which a trained confederateeither reciprocated or did not reciprocate a subject's disclosures;they found that the subjects trusted and liked the confederatesin the reciprocation condition much more than did the subjectstn the nonreciprocation condition.On the basis of these studies
David W. Johnson-20-it may be concluded that a person will trust other ingividualsmore when they reciprocate (in a syndetic manner) the person'sdisclosures.Building and maintaining trust, therefore, depends uponthe skills involved in disclosing information, ideas, andfeelings and in expressing acceptance,Most individuals receivea great deal of training concerning how to organize inforsatienand ideas so that they can be communicated effectively.Johnsonr,I972a) notes that more personal disclosures of feelings andibservations depend upon an individual's self-awareness and self-acceptance and he presents a series of exercises to increase aperson's self-awareness, self-acceptance, and disclosure skills.The communication of feelings is a neglected area in most educe'Lional programs; Johnson (1972a) states that the effectivecommunication of feelings depends upon the skills of verballydescribing the feelings clearly and accurately and of makingone'nonverbal messages eongruent with sucn veroal descriptions.he presents a training program for developing sk;Ils in expressingFeelings.On the basis of Johnson's (1971b) that trust is in-creased in a negotiating situation as a person is warm, engagesin accurately paraphrasing of the other's position ants feelings,and proposes compromises, Johnson (1972a) and Johnson and Noonan(1972) operationalized the expression of acceptance as theexpression of warmth towards and interest in a person's dis-
David W. Johnsonclosures.-
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 078 911 PS 006 525 AUTHOR Johnson, David W. TITLE Interpersonal Skills for Cooperative Work. PUB DATE 29 Mar 73 NOTE 27p.; Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the. Society for Reseatch in Child Development (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 29, 1973) EDRS PRICE MF- 0.65 HC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS
CESSNA 525, 525A & 525B ATLAS WINGLET MAINTENANCE MANUAL SUPPLEMENT TAG-1100-0101 Effectivity: 525-0001 TO 525-0701, 525-0800 & ON 525A-0001 TO 525A-0300 & ON 525B-0001 TO 525B-0451 & ON 22-50 Page 9 G 2. Applicability Make Model Serial Number Cessna 525 525-0001 to 525-0701 525-0800 and on. Cessna 525A 525A-0001 to 525A-0299 525A-0300 and on.
29 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 45 0 0 1.525 46 0.00064856 0.083149 1.525 47 0.0025977 0.16675 1.525 48 0.0060637 0.27761 1.525 49 0.011479 0.41664 1.525 50 0.019063 0.55567 1.525 51 0.028812 0.69425 1.525 52 0.040727 0.83328 1.525
Handy 200 0700 006 003 ESAB 200 0333 249 001 Handy 300 0700 006 016 Caddy Arc 251i Werkstückkabel 300A, 35 mm2, OKC 50, 3m 0700 006 902 Netzkabel mit Stecker300A, 35 mm2, OKC 50,3m 0700 006 903 Werkstückkabel 300A, 35 mm2, OKC 50, 5m 0700 006 888 Netzkabel mit Stecker300A, 35 mm2, OKC 50, 5m 0700 006
KI 525 Maintenance Manual Part Number: 006-15620-XXXX For each revision, add, delete, or replace pages as indicated. REVISION No. 7, July 2001 Revision 7 creates a new stand-alone manual for the KI 525 which was extracted from revision 6 of the KCS 55/55A maintenance manual, (P/N 006-05111-0006). Any revisions to the KI 525, be-File Size: 2MBPage Count: 130
Colour Black, green, white REMABOND ADHESIVE SYSTEMS REMABOND Adhesive Systems 525 2619 525 1067 525 2602 Ref. No. Designation Colour Content Qty Qty/palett 525 2592 C E M E N T S C 4 0 0 0 black 350 g (390 ml) 20 1000 525 2602 C E M E N T S C 4 0 0 0 black 700 g (780 ml) 10 490 525 2619 C E M E N T S C 4 0 0 0 black 4.5 kg (5 l) 1 80
Jul 21, 2017 · InteGrade power cable 2.5m(98") white 9290 006 44514 InteGrade cable 1m(39") white angle 9290 006 44714 InteGrade cable 2.5m(98") white angle 9290 006 44914 InteGrade spacer cable 0.5m black 9290 006 45014 InteGrade spacer cable 0.5m white 9290 006 45114 InteGrade extension cable 1.5m(59")black 9290 008
N10-006 Exam Dumps N10-006 Exam Questions N10-006 VCE Dumps N10-006 PDF Dumps Back to the Source of this PDF and Get More Free Braindumps -- www.comptiadump.com A. CAT5e cable B. Coax cable C. Fiber Optic cable D. CAT6 cable Answer: C QUESTION 1323 Joe, and administrator, is setting up three
3 W h ic p e r s o n , w hic t h i n g ? Write the number of the people and things in the picture on page 2. 1 the woman with long hair 6 the parrot which is on the rock 2 the woman with a parrot on her shoulder 7 the biggest cloud 3 the boy in an orange T-shirt 8 the smallest cloud 4 the taller boy 9 the boat with a sail 5 the parrot on the boat 1 0 the boat which has the boys in it
