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.