Rsponse to the article: "Interrelations Among a Channel Entity's Power Sources: Impact of the Exercise of Reward and Coercion on Expert, Referent, and Legitimate Power"

          This article was published in the Journal of Marketing Research in February of 1986 by John F. Gaski, a professor of Marketing at Notre Dame.  This article was of particular interest to me because I can atest to its findings based on me work experience.  The article is an emperical study based on the Ravenand French framework (5 bases of power). It examined the relationship between the use of coercive and reward power and their affect on legitimate, referent, and expert power.  The study found that when managers use coercive and reward power, it actually hurts and undermines legitimate, referent, and expert power.  At my job, I feel as though my managers ONLY use coercive and referent power.  It has created a bad environment as people do not like or respect the management team, they lie to get away with things for fear of getting in trouble, and they are not committed or dedicated to the job because they do not feel valued.  I enjoyed this article because it re-iterated what I already believed and what we learned in class.  Our book discusses the 3 reactions to power from employees: committment, compliance, and resistance.  Employees who are committed are highly motivated by requests that are important to the leader, is dedicated to the organization and applies great effort.  Employees who are compliant simply do what they need to do to get by; they don't go the extra mile and are not especially motivated by management or exert extra effort.  Those who are resistant reject or fight the manager's wishes.  The book discusses a framework introduced by Gary Yukl; the framework points out that when managers exercise coercive power, committment is very unlikely, compliance is possible, and resistance is likely.  When reward power is exercised, committment is possible, compliance is likely, and resistance is also possible.  This framework supports the findings from the article and thus it can be concluded that exercising reward or coercive power should not be used regularly and should be the last resort.  The other forms of power will be much more beneficial to the organization  

Response to Stacy's post "Employee's Attitudes"

          In Stacy's post, she mentioned that  in an article she found, the researchers labeled the 5 most common reasons for negative employee attitudes as:
-excessive workload
-concerns about leadership effectiveness
-anxiety about job and financial security
-lack of challenging work, boredom, frustration
-insufficient recognition
          When I read these reasons, I identified with all of them and can understand why they are the most common reasons for negative attitudes from employees.  I think it all goes back to what my Professor adamantly stressed in my first management class: that managers must never forget that their employees are their biggest assests.  Managers should be aware that negative attitudes from their employees result in a hostile work environment and will ultimetly affect productivity, therefore, keeping employees happy is extremely important.  In other words, managers should use the human resource appraoch to management.  This means that they must understand that their employees are capable and willing to make genuine contributions.  People want to feel useful; they want to feel like they are significant and that they can make a difference.  They also want security and to be treated with respect.  When this doesn't happen, they feel undervalued, frustrated, unmotivated, and will therefore exhibit poor performance.  Managers must remember this if they are going to create a lasting, profitable, organization and must remember that their employees are their biggest assets! 

Response to the case "Justice for Walmart Employees" a the end of chapter 14

          At the end of chapter 15, this case regarding Walmart Workers, particularly women, is introduced.  The case explains the lawsuit brought against Walmart, accusing it of discriminatory practices.  Apparently, women are paid less than men and are not promoted nearly as much as men.  Women make up 2 thirds of Walmart's workforce but only 1 third of management.  They are also receive far fewer promotions despite their higher performance ratings and seniority.  To stop this, a lawsuit has been brought against Walmart.  However, Walmart is delaying the lawsuit for as long as it possibly can and creating ridiculous obstacles to keep the lawsuit from going to court.  Its practices are questionable to say the least.
          According to chapter 15, Walmart is violating several forms of justice.  First, since women perceive to be getting paid significantly less than men, and Walmart employees in general are paid way below the poverty line, it can be argued that Walmart is lacking distributive justice.  This means that rewards and other valued outcomes are not distributed fairly.  In addition, because Walmart is making it nearly impossible for women to carry out a class action lawsuit, it is also lacking procedural justice.  This means that the way Walmart is carrying out their prodecures and arriving at certain outcomes is not fair.  Lastly, Walmart is violating interpersonal justice because they are not treating their employees fairly by paying them so much less than other companies and by not providing adequate benefits or wages. 
          Although Walmart may be getting away with a lot of their unjust practices, they are constantly receiving negative attention.  Managers must be aware that violating these bases of power will result in huge negative repercussions, and perhaps even lawsuits as in the instance of Walmart.  

Response to the case "Heading Off a Permanent Misunderstanding"

          This case was particularly interesting to me because I find myself doing what Mindy Martin did, all the time-that is, I make an assumption about someone else by over analyzing their behavior and jumping to conclusions.  In this case, there wasn't actually a conflict.  According to our textbook, a conflict only exists if both parties perceive it to be a conflict.  Since Al Sharp did not think there was a problem and had no idea what was wrong with Mindy, the situation did not constitute a conflict.  Instead, it was a miscommunication.  Mindy was clearly a little nervous, upset, and insecure about not getting the promotion but it was because she was not given all the facts.  This situation could have been avoided if she had been included in the discussion, or simply been given some feedback regarding the decision.  Instead, she was kept in the dark and not made aware of why she had not received the promotion.  If Sharp or Attridge had explained to her earlier on, the whole misunderstanding could have been avoided.  However, Mindy could have also made an attempt to find out for herself.  Instead, she jumped to conclusions and made assumptions that were not true.  She should have asserted herself and asked Attridge or Sharp why she was not given the promotion.  In conlclusion, I think the entire misunderstanding could have been avoided if either parties had made more of an effort to communicate and get the facts straight.  Had Attridge not stepped in, relations between the two may have gotten so bad that one of them decided to quit their job, others in the office could have been affected by their hostility, and productivity could have suffered as a result.   

Response to "Teams at Evans RV Wholesale Supply and Distribution Company"

For this case, there are a few mistakes Alex has already made in developing a team-based organization.  First of all, this type of decision is not one that can be made quickly, if fact, the planning should take place in two phases: making the decision and preparingfor implementation.  Before making the decision, Alex should have discussed it with top management to establish the leadership for the change, developed a steering committee, and conducted a feasibility study. These steps are neccessary to ensure that the work processes within the company are condusive to team use, that the employees are willing to work in teams, and if managers are willing to learn and apply a hands-off managerial style.  Alex should have addressed these issues before reaching his decision and then prepared for implementation.  This includes: clarifying the mission, selecting the site for the first work team, preparing the design team, planning the transfer of authority, and drafting the preliminary plan.  Alex should have taken all of these steps before deciding to switch to a team-based organization.

If I were a consultant for Alex, I would advise him to go back and go though all of these steps and to then decide if he still wanted to swith to a team based-company.  During the preparation for implementation, I would suggest to him that he develop a mission statement that expresses the purpose of the teams and summarizes the long-range benefits he hopes to gain; this must also be consistent with the company's strategy.  It should also set the parameters and boundaries within which the change will take place. 

Next, I would tell Alex he needs to advise his steering committee to decide where the first team will be implemented.  The best site is one that includes workers from multiple jobs, one where improving performance is feasible,and one where the workers are open to the change. 

After the mission statement has been developed and the initial sites have been chosen, I would tell Alex to advise his steering committe to set up the team that will design the other teams.  This team should be a select group of employees, supervisors, and managers who will work out the staffing and operational details to make the teams perform well.  I would stress to Alex that considering the composition of the teams is one of the most important decisions throughout this process. 

Next, I would advise Alex to transfer authority from managers to team members.  this step can take up to several years and is the most imperative and difficult part and is basically a cultural change for the company. 

The last step I would advise Alex to take is to write a tentative plan for the initial work teams.  This plan is used as a map throughout the transformation and will act as a guiding force.  It should recommend a process for selecting people who will be on the first teams, describe roles and responsilibilites for those who will be affected, explains the training that will be needed, specifically identifies which work processes will be involved, and lays out a schedule for the next two to three years. 

As a consultant I would stress to Alex that this change should not be taken lightly and the entire organization needs to be prepared for this change.

Response to Professor Johnson's Post: 100 years After the Trianlge Factory

There are no words that could possibly describe how upsetting and shocking this video was.  Just as upsetting as the events that were shown and discussed in the video, is the fact that nowhere on television or mainstream news was this mentioned.  As tragic and devastating as this is, one would think that EVERYONE in America should be made to watch this clip from democracy.org.  It comes as no surprise to me that the repercussions of our unaware, materialistic, capitolist, and flat-out selfish country, are plaguing the developing world.  People in America seem to have no idea that everything we own, eat, wear, and touch, came from a place that we know nothing about, where people are forced into the kind of labor discussed in this video.  The lack of knowledge, and care about those who have and are still suffering so that Americans can continue to live easy and convenient lives, is heartbreaking.  I will never understand how the corporations such as Abercrombie, the Gap, etc...can proceed with such little value for human life.  We in America have it so incredibly easy and yet we forget that one of the main reasons we lead such priviledged lives is because we have exploited other countries.  Until there is structural and governmental change, and until our society as a whole changes, nothing will change.  We forget the the clothes on our back, the shoes on our feet, the food we eat, was made somewhere else by somebody.  Until people start to care and demand legislative change, I don't think anything will change.  I think the exploitation that results from American corporations outsourcing to other countries is a direct result of American values (or lack there of).  We always want the most for our money, the best deal for the cheapest, and we want everything right away.  This comes at a cost, maybe not to us, but to humanity.  This video by democracy.org is truely tragic and depressing and yet not many Americans seem to notice or even care about the damage that globalization has brought about.   

Question:  What can be done about this situation?  Do you think anything can be done?  Should there be laws and restrictions regarding labor for American corporations? 

Communication and Facebook

        As a communications major, facebook is a topic that is frequently discussed and came up a lot at the end of chapter 11 in our textbooks on Communication in Organizations.  Facebook has created a revolution in the communications field.  It has enabled people to connect and communicate with people all over the word instantly.  It has also greatly affected the business world.  Businesses are using it to look up prospective employees and to advertise and promote their products.  Although I may be alone in my beliefs, I personally think Facebook has hindered communication in several ways.  I think although people might be communicating more with people that they normally would have, this type of communication is really unauthentic and depersonalized.  I also think its an illusion-by this I mean that I think people try to portray themselves or intend to have others see them in a way that is not really accurate.  Through Facebook, peple try to emulate themselves how ever they wish to be seen; but this might not be very truthful.  People form opinions about others based on snapshots of their lives through pictures and status updates, but this may not be who they actually really are.  I also think that Facebook can misconstrue words.  Since Facebook lacks verbal inflections, tone of voice, and facial expressions, many statements  can be ambiguous and therefore people may interpret them differently.  Also, it can allow people to formulate opinions and ideas about other people based on pictures and statuses that are not an acurate protrayal of who they really are.  In short, although Facebook has opened up a lot of communication, it has also brought with it many obstacles.  I too, have a Facebook, but I never post my status and rarely comment on others to avoid confusion and to remain private.  However, I have found myself forming opinions of others through Facebook.  Although I think there are a lot of uses for Facebook, such as keeping in touch and up to date with people you may not get a chance to talk to or see o na regular basis, I feel that Facebook should be used with caution and people should try to be subjective when looking at it, and remember that it is not an accurate portayal of who people really are.

Improving Upward Communication

          In conjunction with chapter 11 in our books on organizational communication, I read an article I found on EBSCOHOST, published in the Journal of Business Communication titled "Improving Upward Communication," by Robert M. Wendlinger.  The article highlighted the results of a study that examined communication for one year at the Bank of America.  The study found that employees at lower levels did not feel comfortable comunicating with upper management and often avoided it because they felt that upper management didn't care or take them seriously or they were worried about negative repercussions.  This seems to be a common trend in organizations-employees are not encouraged to express their ideas and suggestions with upper management, they do not feel comfortable doing it, or do not think anything positive will come of it.  We can label these feelings and perceptions the employees are experiencing that are hindering communication as noise.  In my own work experience I have also found communication with upper management to be a challenge.  After the study discussed in this article was conducted, an "open-line" program was implemented at the Bank of America.  This program involved a confidential suggestion program in which employees could express their opinions and ideas anonymously.  The program was very successful as employees liked and used it.  They felt that they were better heard and even saw some changes they had suggested implementing.  I think this program was an excellent idea and I think all companies should have a program similar to it.  However, I think upper management also needs to make a committment to being approachablr, to listen to their employees, and to encourage communication.  If this is not done, employees will feel undervalued and the organization may miss out on potentially valuable insights and ideas.   

Response to the article "Nonverbal Language in Cross-Cultural Communication"

          I found this article, retreived from Ebscohost and written by Wang Di-hua LI Hui, to be very interesting as it pertained to chapter 11 on Communication in Organizations.  The discussed the differences in nonverbal communication between cultures.  All cultures use nonverbal communication, however they differ greatly in their use of them.  Studying this is important to organizations that work internationally as misinterpreting these signals or failing to recognize them mey result in a misunderstanding.  Additionally, being able to understand these symbols may reveal motivations, feelings, and intentions that are not blatantly stated. Nonverbal communication can include facial expressions, gestures, body language, body space and eye contact.  The author points out that nonverbal communication is largely out of our control as it is subconcious and is determined by socio-cultural factors.  The author then goes on to describe many differences between several cultures' use of nonverbal communication.  For example, in America, when someone nodds their head up and down, it either means "yes" or they are signaling that they understand something.  However, in the middle east, nodding the head down means the person agrees and nodding the head up means they disagree; in Japan it simply means the person is listening.  In America, a firm handshale is considered a good greeting but in France it is considered rude and rough, a light handshake with very little pressured is prefered.  In Latin America, a strong hug or pat on the back is the common greeting method, and in Ecuador a handshake is a sign of extra special respect.  In India, the namaste greeting is most commonly used and i Japan the bow or several bows is the norm for a greeting.  In America, the thumbs up sign is a positive gesture and signals "cool" or "ok" or "yep, all set;" but in France or Belgium it is a huge insult meaning "you are not worth anything."  the author goes on to give several more examples of differing nonverbal communication across cultures.  I think this topic is very important to organizational theory and behavior because in organizations, there are many times that communication with individuals from other cultures may be required.  Althoug there is a huge focus on lanuage, nonverbal communcation is often forgotten, yet its implications and meaning are hugely important.  Not understanding these differences can result in insults and big misunderstandings, so it is important that we are aware of these differences across cultures.

Response to the article "Why Teams Don't Work" by J. Richard Hackman retrieved from EBSCOHOST

         I found this article to be extremely facinating because it re-iterated what I have believed my entire life-that teams are not as productive, efficient, or effective as individuals.  I am an extremely independant worker and have always despised working in teams; however, as chapter 10 points out, teams can be very beneficial.  This article, written by a J. Richard Hackman, Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at Harvard, points out that from an early age we are told that team work is good and important.  Throughout my college management courses, teamwork has also been taught (chapter 10 on teams for this week of class).  Yet in my college experience, teams NEVER work out; I either wind up doing all the work because I really want an A and have high standards, or I get extremely frustrated with the group and accept work that I know I could have done a better job on if I had done it alone.  According to Hackman, I am not alone in my opinion.  He expresses that teams are very rarely more productive than the individual and that research has shown that most teams can't even agree on what they are supposed to be doing.  He also explains that its a myth that teams are more productive and we are taught this myth throughout school and childhood.  People like to think teams are democratic and effecient-however, all of Hackman's research has proved otherwise and has strongly alluded that individuals by themselves are more effecient.  I completely agree with this article as I have never had a good team experience and will continue to make an effort to avoid group work whenever possible.   

Response to "8 Keys to Innovation: Building Brands by Killing Frogs"

I found this article to be extremely interesting and I agreed with most of what the author was saying.  He explained that innovation is about looking at the broader picture, requires the ability to be able to apply concepts to different situations (analogize), and depends on a person's insights.  I definetly agree that those who are innovative do not think in narrow terms and instead are able to use their insights from all aspects of life.  I also agree that those who are innovative are able to anticipate others' behavior ("theory of mind").  I especially agree with the author that a person's frame of mind determines whether or not they are innovative.  the author stated "Data and even information do not produce insight unless they are combined with a lens, default mode, or frame of reference that act as an organizing principle."  I particularly like this statement because I agree that just facts, data, or any kind of information is only useful to a certain extent unless its combined with insights, creativity, and a frame of mind to draw further conclusions.  This quote reminded me a lot of the article reviews we do in our class (and other classes).  The point of them isn't to just state the facts or the ideas introduced; instead we are supposed to use our personal lens, frame of mind, and our insights to draw further conclusions that aren't spelled out for us.  However, I do not think that innovation, insight, the ability to analogize, thinking in broader terms, and being able to anticipate others' behavior is something that can easily be taught.  I believe it can be taught to some extent but never mastered and instead is something people are either inherently good at or not.  I feel like there are people who either "get it" or don't.

I thought this was an excellent article for Organizational Theory and Behavior because mangement is an area that does in fact require all of the attributes discussed.  Managers who are unable to grasp and practice these concepts are not nearly as successful or enjoyable to work for as those who are. 

I found this article to be VERY intersting and enjoyed reading it.  The author said a lot of things that I have thought about before but had trouble verbalizing and putting into words.  Question for OB students: do you think innovation, a frame of mind, insight, and the ability to think in general terms and apply concepts to different situations is something that can be taught and learned?   

Response to the case "A Difficult Task Force"

         For this formal task group, I think leadership and motivation were the main problems.  The group did not seem to feel committed or motivated toward accomplishing the goal at hand.  If I were a consultant working on this case, there are a few things I would recommend.  According to the four-step framework introduced in chapter 9 of our textbooks, this group is clearly in the first stage of group development: mutual acceptance.  The group members are from diverse backgrounds and locations and do not know eachother well.  However, Jose immediatley jumps into the work.  Perhaps the group members would have been more motivated, stimulated, and more comfortable sharing ideas if they had been allowed to finish the group development process.  If they had been allowed a brief introduction period for the members to mingle and introduce themselves, they may have performed better.  Allowing the group to progress through the stages of development will make the group more productive according to our group.  However, this is a pretty liberal and radical approach.  I think if I had been in Jose's position, like him I would have expected the others to get down to business immediately and when they didn't, I would not have simply allowed them to go play golf before the work was finished.  I think in this case, if Jose did not choose to allow the group to get further in the development process, than he needed to be more firm with them and simply state that the meeting will not be dismissed until the job is finished.  This approach may create some anamosity from some of the members but since everyone at the meeting was of high standing and ranking, it should be expected that they would have acted accordingly.   

Respone to "Job Rotation for the Head Honchos"

     This article did a great job of illustrating the benefits of job rotation.  It discussed several people in upper management/executive positions, switching departments and job titles that were very different than the ones they had previously been performing.  As the article points out, job rotation is an excellent way for employees to gain fresh, new perspectives and insights, as well as giving them an opportunity to explore a field they may enjoy and excel in.  By switching employees around, it gives companys a chance to discover contributions employees can make that may not have been noticed or utilized before.  It also avoids the hassle, risk, and cost of outside hiring.
    In my own work experience I have seen the positive effects from job rotation.  I work in a restaurant and there are sometimes misunderstandings, disputes, "mini-fights," and anamosity between the different positions in the restaurant (servers, bartenders, hosts, cooks).  When someone decides they want to be cross-trained in another position, or if they are asked to work a different position, it is very interesting to watch how they behave after returning to their original job.  For example, the cooks can be very rude to the servers.  One day a cook (Ben) decided he wanted to try serving.  Ben lasted two days before getting overwhelmed, very stressed and confused, and eventually dropped a tray of drinks all over two ladies and then ran in the bathroom and refused to get out for quite some time.  He quit serving and returned to cooking after realizing how difficult the job was.  Needless to say, he is no longer mean to the servers, in fact he is very helpful. 
    Examples like this one happen on a regular basis at my job.  By switching employees around from time to time, it enables them to see things in a way they may not have been able to before; it allows them to gain valuable insights that can help them add greater contributions to the organization.
     Job rotation will not always work.  As our book points out, in jobs that are highly specified and monotonous, job rotation may not have the same benefits.  If an employee has a very boring job or feels that their work is very insignificant, allowing them to perform a differnt, boring, monotonous, and insignificant job is not going to please them or add to their development.  Therefore, I do not think job rotation is always effective; howver, in many situations, especially those that are not entry-level and require decision making and creativity, job roation can be highly beneficial.

"Uncle Sam Wants You"

     For this case, it is clear that motivation from the recruiters is a problem as it seems that many of them are unhappy in their position.  Since the current number of recruits is not optimal, it is clear that this issue needs to be addressed.  However, there are several external factors mentioned that are negatively impacting their productivity.  First of all, the army no longer has a draft, so recruiters have to rely soley on volunteers; and as this case mentioned, the current generation does not have a strong sense of civic duty compared to other generations.  Also, those who are actually voluntering are not committing to the army for very long.  Instead, they are serving as much time as they need to accumulate financial and educational benefits and then leaving.  The workforce is also much more educated than it used to be, therefore people are choosing more sophisticated jobs. 

For this case, there were many problems associated with motivation.  The recruiter's job clearly needs to be redesigned, along with adding incentives.  First of all, the amount of hours they are expected to work needs to be decreased dramatically.  Second, I don't think the recruiters should simply be assigned to this position.  As the case pointed out, many of them feel out of place and don't want to be doing this kind of work, instead they want to use the skills they were trained in for the army.  As one recruiter put it, "I'm a soldier not a salesman.  If I wanted to be a salesman I wouldn't have sifned up."  Therefore, I think only those who volunteer should be expected to be recruiters.  However, to attract more volunteers, the army is going to have to greatly increase the incentives for this position.  This includes promotions since it is clear that this is an important incentive to them.  Also, the expectations (quotas) from the chain of command either needs to be readjusted or the way they are communicating with the recruiters and the pressure they are putting on them needs to be re-evaluated.  Many recruiters felt that you can't simply push people to sign up for the army.  The higher-ups need to understand that the recruiters are doing the best they can and pressuring them to sign more people up does not help, instead it provokes resentment.  I also feel that the targeted demographic for recruitees needs to be revisited.  The case mentioned that the recruiters were trying to fill entry level positions because those in college usually self-select.  However, the case also mentioned that one of the reasons its has become harder to recruit people is because the workforce is becoming more educated and those people are not opting to work in the army.  Therefore, I think it makes sense to target this audience by going to colleges as well to recruit.
     
Do you think different people are motivated by different factors?  Is there a way for employers to address these differences in an attempt to motivate more people?

Enriching Jobs at Standard Decoy

      In this case, it was not merely money that motivated the employees; instead job enrichment motivated them.  Prior to this program, the employees were getting bored with their work and didn't take much pride in it because their tasks weren't very meaningful and they were not even creating a whole product.  
      The "Odd Ducks" program enriched the jobs at Standard Decoy in several ways.  It gave them a chance to express their ideas and creativity about their work and gave them more autonomy by allowing them to create their own pieces of work.  This gave the workers a sense of pride and accomplishment, thus improving motivation.  The success of the "Odd Ducks" program can be explained by the Job Characteristics Theory discussed in our book. 
     This program demonstrated the five characteristics of jobs that enable the three psychological states that lead to greater worker outcomes.  First, it demonstrated skill variety; by creating their own ducks, the workers were able to use a variety of different skills and activities instead of simply working on just a small part.  This also prevented the workers from getting bored from performing the same monotonous tasks over and over.  Second, the program demonstrated task identity by allowing the workers to create a whole, tangible, identifiable piece of work that they could be proud of.  Third, the program demonstrated autonomy because it allowed the workers to work on their own individual projects and at their preferred pace.  Fourth, it demonstrated task significance because it created a market for odd ducks and the workers could sell them and collect half of the money.  Many of the workers also collaborated with others to make the odd ducks.  Lastly, the program demonstrated positive feedback from the managers, buyers, and fellow workers. 
     As the job characteristics theory points out, the existence of all five of these dimensions allows for the three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness of the work, experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work, and knowledge of the actual results of work activities.  Since all 5 core job dimensions were present in the "Odd Ducks" program, the workers were able to experience these psychological states, thus resulting in higher motivation, higher quality work performance, higher satisfaction with their work, and probably lower absenteeism and turnover. 

 

Response to "Does Money Make You Happy?"

I found this article to be very interesting because the quest to make a lot of money seems to be a driving force in my education and work.  The article stated that up money can impact a person's happiness up to $75,000.  This makes a lot of sense to me since that would be an amount that would enable a person to be free from financial worry and still have money left over to be able to do things they enjoyed and to own nice things.  I think the relationship between money and happiness is a complex one.  While money seems so important desirebale, it has always been my experience that the more money I have, the more bills and expenses I seem to have too.  I think the magic number for happiness can vary widely among individuals.  For someone who has had a lot of money their whole lives and is used to living luxuriously, it might take more money to make them happy.  For someone who has struggled and worried over money, less is probably needed to make them happy.  However, I do think in general money makes people happier.  One thing that did catch my attention in this article was that the povertly line for a family of four is $22,050.  I cannot get over how incredibly low that is!  For a family of four that seem nearly impossible for survival.    

How much money would it take to make you happy? 

Should criminal records impact hiring?

During our last Organizational Theory and Behavior class, we discussed the case of theft at the Clarkston Co.  This brought up the subject of peoples' personal records in the workplace.  I decided to blog about this subject because it is one I have a very strong opinion about.  When people apply for a job, they are usually asked on their application if they have a criminal record and most employers conduct background checks.  Many jobs will not hire people with a criminal record, especially if they have a felony.  I personally think that this is extremely unfair and inappropriate.  How can we expect felons to rehabilitate themselves and better their lives if we exclude them from society?  Additionally, I think it is wrong to make it difficult for someone or to not allow them to make a decent living to support themselves.  Of course, I am not saying that we should simply allow hardened criminals to have any job they want.  I believe a felony record should exclude someone from a job if the job pertains to the crime or if they were a violent offender.  Yes, I do think there are certain cases for a criminal record to make an impact, but not nearly to the extent that it does now.  Not only does this kind of exclusion make it hard for criminals to turn their lives around, but many truely are hard-working, effecient, talented workers who do have a lot to offer an organization.  By excluding them from the workplace, organizations are missing out on potentially good employees.  Also, many times, by excluding felons/criminals from the workplace, the people who are associated with the felon/criminal are often negatively affected by this kind of profiling....take me for example:
My boyfriend and I live together.  He has a felony record; none of his crimes were violent, he didn't hurt anyone, he didn't steal anything, he had a drug problem just like millions of other Americans.  He is no fully recovered and doing great...we have a wonderful, healthy life and we are truely happy.  However, he has a felony record.  He was released from jail in May....it is almost March and he still cannot get a jog because of his record.  He is extremely bright, educated. hard working, and reliable.  Yet when he goes to apply for a job, the word "felony" stains his application.  However, we still have bills to pay.  So now the burden has been placed on me.  I have to work extra hours while going to school fulltime so I can pay all of our bills by myself.  I do NOT have a criminal record, and yet I am struggling.
In conclusion, I stongly believe there must be some changes made to how this system works.  First, we cannot expect criminals to better themselves if they cannot even get a job.  Second, organizations are missing out on potentially great workers by partaking in this kind of exclusion.  And lastly, others, who did not commit any crimes are affected by this practice.  Therefore, I truely believe we must stop profiling felons so harshly and making it so hard for them to get jobs. 

"Do you think entrepreneurs have unique personality traits?"

I believe that entrepreneurs do possess certain personality traits.  If I had to label entrepreneurs according to the Myers Brigg index, I would say they are intuitive, thinking, and perceiving.  I left out introvert/extrovert becasue I think entrepreneaurs can be either.  I would label them as intuitive because probably solve problems by looking at different possibilities and ideas and they are interested in things that are new and different.  I would place them inthe thinking category because I tend to think of them as being technical and scientific, they notive inconsistencies and look for logical explanations to problems, and are task oriented.  Lastly, I would place them in the perceiving category because most entrpreneurs seem to enjoy their work and are open to new information. 

Along with these personality traits, there are a few others that come to mind when I think of entrepreneurs.  Innovation and creativity are two traits that I associate with entrpreneurs because coming up with a product or business requires them.  It's tough to think up an idea and putting it in motion is even more difficult, so I would say an entrepreneur must absolutly be innovative and creative.

Determination and ambition are also traits associated with entrpreneurs.  It takes a lot of work to establish and idea, aquire all the neccessary resources, and then put in the time and effort it takes to run a business or design a product; therefore, an entrepreneur must be driven.

Respose to Professor Johnson's Post: Do you think managing in a global work environment requires a different set of managerial skills?

            In response to this question, yes, I do think managing in a global environment requires a different set of managerial skills.  As we have learned, cultures widely vary in their beliefs, customs, traditions, and perspectives.  What may be viewed as an effective management strategy in one culture, may not go over the same in another culture.  Managing at a global level requires knowing and understanding the context you are in and being able to tailor your communication and way of doing things so that you can effectively manage people from different backgrounds.  For example, when someone has done an outstanding job in the workplace in the U.S., it is common for them to be recognized and acknowledged in front of others.  People who are recognized for their efforts are usually happy and proud to be recognized in front of their peers; this is because we live in an individualistic culture, where people define themselves primarily as individuals.  However, in other countries, such as Japan, this kind of personal recognition would be completely embarrassing and looked down on by others because they live in a collectivist culture, where people base their identies by groups or organizations/teams. 
            This is only one example of how greatly views and perspectives about the workplace can differ across cultures.  Different cultures also have different views on appropriate power distance, uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness, and orientations to time.  If a manger can not successfuly understand and respect these differences, communicating, gainging and maintaining respect, and motivating employees will be very challenging, thus productivity will suffer.  Managing in a local environmemt where people speak the same language, celebrate the same holidays, and have the same general perspectives is quite different than managing a bunch of people with completely different backgrounds and belief systems.  Therefore, managers need to be aware of these differenes and understand how to manage them and communicate in a way that will make the organization the most productive. 

Can you recall a time when you worked with someone from a different culture or who spoke a different language?  Were there any differences in how they carried out their work duties or communicated with others? 

Reference: Griffin, R and Moorhead, G.  (2010).  Organizational Behavior.  South-Western: Mason, OH

Respose to Professor Johnson's Post

"Employers are increasingly relying on social networking sites to screen job candidates. Do you think this is appropriate? What are the OB issues? One way to think about this is to ask the following: What individual-level, group level, and organizational outcomes might this practice have? Go to ConsumerAffairs.com for additional information on this practice."

This topic is one that is much debated and it seems that both sides feel pretty strongly.  It absolutley pertains to OB because it's a question of ethics in information technology, discussed in Chapter 2 of our textbook, Organizational Behavior, edition 9 by Griffin Moorhead.  I personally feel that it IS appropriate for employers to use these avenues to get a better idea of who their candidates really are.  Of course organizations want to hire the best person for the job, why wouldn't they?  So I think it's completely fair for them to investigate their applicants via online social networking.  They want to make sure the person they are about to invest a lot of money in is going to be right for the job.  A lot of people feel that employers who do this are violating privacy and feel that they should not be allowed to pass judgement for what they may find on these sites.  However, like the article in Consumer Affairs points out, I think that if people don't want others to see inappropriate pictures of them or if people don't want others to pass judgements on them, they shouldn't post certain things on the internet where it known that virtually nothing is private.  Besides, I don't even understand why people feel the need to post ridiculous pictures of themselves on their facebook/myspace pages anyway...of course people are going to look at these cites and formulate opinions about them...isn't that what these people want?  Why else would they post pictures and status updates for everyone to see?  If people would keep their social networking profile professional and mature, they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

Have you ever looked someone up on facebook to get a better picture of who they really are?  Did you gain helful insights or learn something about the person you didn't previously know?  Do you think employers should be allowed to screen candidates via Facebook or other social networking sites?