MSMC Blog Assignment #8
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 Chapter 14: Blogging
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/28/07
“My experience with blogging”
Visit at two “official” corporate blogs. Describe how each is being used and the “power” being exercised by using the blog. Then reflect on your own experience blogging for this course, responding, and receiving responses. How did/didn’t this process impact your communication skills and your learning of the course content?
Since I have kids of my own, I decided to visit Mattel’s official corporate blog. Mattel has been in the news of late due to the hazardous lead paint found in their toys made in China. I found Mattel’s blog to be teaming with the words “safety”, “3 stage safety checks”, and “voluntary safety recall”. Notice a theme? Mattel’s CEO even has a video message assuaging the public on its dedication to safety. What Mattel is utilizing here is the “expert power” on its expertise or knowledge of the materials used to manufacture toys. Expertise has become one of the most powerful sources of influence as the world has become more technologically oriented (Robbins & Judge 2007). Mattel is using legitimacy and inspirational appeal and personal appeal tactics to persuade the buying public to purchase Mattel toys. Mattel’s CEO Robert Eckert appears as a regular Joe, in an open collar shirt, no tie, beseeching us to trust him once again. He says that Mattel is “one of the most trusted names with parents” and was “working extremely hard to address your concerns and continue creating safe, entertaining toys for you and your children.”
Mattel toys are made in China and sold in Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s corporate blog is spattered with the words “savings”, “low prices”, and “value”. The greater the consumer’s dependency is on savings, the greater the power Wal-Mart exerts over that consumer. The reward power Wal-Mart exerts over the consumer is financial savings. Dependency is increased when the resource you control is important, scarce, and nonsubstitutable (Robbins & Judge 2007). For a family with limited means Wal-Mart is the only game in town where you can feed and clothe your family for $.99 for a lb of ground round and $4.99 for a package of underwear. Wal-Mart is utilizing rational persuasion and exchange power tactics, and quite successfully too.
Before this course I have never read a corporate blog, let along create my own. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a technophobe. I’ve known of its existence and the power it exerts. But since I consider myself a “laggard” and will someday catch on and dive in, there was no hurry to jump on the bandwagon. Since taking this course I’ve created my own blog, received responses (some good, some a blow to my ego, but all positive), I’ve come to the conclusion that blogging is not for the faint of heart. It’s putting yourself out there for public consumption, with all your blemishes. This process has impacted my own communication skills in that I’m learning to be more empathetic towards others, because “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (King James, 2000). I’ve learn to be more forgiving in my responses to the efforts put forth by others. Because whether or not you are addressing a positive or negative aspect of an issue, you have to put your best foot forward, and review your grammar, punctuation, and spelling. All of it reflects on the author’s statements. A well written blog, email, or letter garners respect for the writer, where as a blog, email, or letter filled with grammatical and spelling errors will be dismissed as having been written by an ignoramus.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 The Holy Bible (King James Version 2000) Matthew 7:2
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Blog Assignment #7
MSMC Blog Assignment #7
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 Chapter 13:Ethical Dilemma: Would You Work Here?
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/22/07
“Ethical Leadership or Would You Work Here?”
Would you accept a senior leadership position at a major tobacco company like Philip Morris or R.J Reynolds? What companies, if any, wouldn’t you be willing to work for and hold a leadership position in because you find their products or services to be unsavory or unethical?
People do things in their youth that they would never do in their adulthood. We are not born fully formed, and neither are our ethics and values. Ethics is a question of conduct. Did I conduct myself differently 20 years ago then I do now? Absolutely! Twenty years ago I was smoking a pack a day. I absolutely would have worked for Phillip Morris or R.J. Reynolds for $75,000 a year, let alone $300,000 a year. But would I do so today? As an enlightened citizen of the world, I still might. I might consider my own self interest, the value of the pay to my family, and reconcile my conflicting feelings by donating a portion of it to Cancer Research. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs, or from experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena (Robbins & Judge, 2007).
In 1994, China began the construction of the Three Gorges Project (TGP) on the Yangtze River, the largest dam project in human history. The completion of the project, however, requires the resettlement of at least 1.3 million people from hundreds of villages in twenty counties and many cities in Hubei Province and Chongqing Municipality. Previous studies found that although the designated migrants in China’s Three Gorges region showed strong support for the project, they also expressed concerns about the project’s likely negative impact on their family life. A psychological explanation is proposed to reconcile these apparent contradictory findings. Facing the undesirable relocation that is imposed on them, however, these designated migrants rationalize personal sacrifices by affirming the positive macro-impact of the project. The authors see the latter as a psychological coping strategy used by the designated migrants to resolve the cognitive dissonance of having to act on something despite its undesirable consequences (Xi, Hwang, Feng, Qiao, Cao, 2007).
There are very few entirely “green” companies out there that somebody somewhere doesn’t have an objection to. Ethics are personal and comes in every shade of grey. I take a healthy dose of rationalization every day. When I drive my Lexus that only takes hi-test I am not really supporting the oil companies, I am just getting to my job. When I drop in on McDonalds for a quick lunch I am not really supporting the number one promoter of “fat” and “unhealthy diet” in the world, I am using my time efficiently. When I buy a pack of underwear for $5.99 at Walmart I am not promoting child labor in China, I am merely extending my family’s disposable income further. We all have to sleep at night, somehow.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 Xi, J., Hwang, S.S., Feng, X., Qiao, X, Cao, Y. (2007) Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 50, Issue 2, pp. 323–337, ISSN 0731-1214
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 Chapter 13:Ethical Dilemma: Would You Work Here?
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/22/07
“Ethical Leadership or Would You Work Here?”
Would you accept a senior leadership position at a major tobacco company like Philip Morris or R.J Reynolds? What companies, if any, wouldn’t you be willing to work for and hold a leadership position in because you find their products or services to be unsavory or unethical?
People do things in their youth that they would never do in their adulthood. We are not born fully formed, and neither are our ethics and values. Ethics is a question of conduct. Did I conduct myself differently 20 years ago then I do now? Absolutely! Twenty years ago I was smoking a pack a day. I absolutely would have worked for Phillip Morris or R.J. Reynolds for $75,000 a year, let alone $300,000 a year. But would I do so today? As an enlightened citizen of the world, I still might. I might consider my own self interest, the value of the pay to my family, and reconcile my conflicting feelings by donating a portion of it to Cancer Research. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs, or from experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena (Robbins & Judge, 2007).
In 1994, China began the construction of the Three Gorges Project (TGP) on the Yangtze River, the largest dam project in human history. The completion of the project, however, requires the resettlement of at least 1.3 million people from hundreds of villages in twenty counties and many cities in Hubei Province and Chongqing Municipality. Previous studies found that although the designated migrants in China’s Three Gorges region showed strong support for the project, they also expressed concerns about the project’s likely negative impact on their family life. A psychological explanation is proposed to reconcile these apparent contradictory findings. Facing the undesirable relocation that is imposed on them, however, these designated migrants rationalize personal sacrifices by affirming the positive macro-impact of the project. The authors see the latter as a psychological coping strategy used by the designated migrants to resolve the cognitive dissonance of having to act on something despite its undesirable consequences (Xi, Hwang, Feng, Qiao, Cao, 2007).
There are very few entirely “green” companies out there that somebody somewhere doesn’t have an objection to. Ethics are personal and comes in every shade of grey. I take a healthy dose of rationalization every day. When I drive my Lexus that only takes hi-test I am not really supporting the oil companies, I am just getting to my job. When I drop in on McDonalds for a quick lunch I am not really supporting the number one promoter of “fat” and “unhealthy diet” in the world, I am using my time efficiently. When I buy a pack of underwear for $5.99 at Walmart I am not promoting child labor in China, I am merely extending my family’s disposable income further. We all have to sleep at night, somehow.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 Xi, J., Hwang, S.S., Feng, X., Qiao, X, Cao, Y. (2007) Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 50, Issue 2, pp. 323–337, ISSN 0731-1214
Blog Assignment #6
MSMC Blog Assignment #6
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 Chapter 11:Case 2:The Business of Blogs
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/22/07
“The Business of Blogs”
#1 What aspects of the communication process are blogs most likely to influence and how?
Marshal McLuhan, was the man who coined the phrase "the medium is the message”, meaning that the form of a message (print, visual, musical, etc.) determines the ways in which that message will be perceived. McLuhan argued that modern electronic communications (including radio, television, films, and computers) would have far-reaching sociological, aesthetic, and philosophical consequences, to the point of actually altering the ways in which we experience the world (www.leaderu.com). With blogs, this is absolutely true. With blogging, you can already suppose a few things. The channel is preset and the receiver is also pre-selected to those who are comfortable with the technology, interested in the message, and believe it to be more reliable than formal communiqués issued by top management (Robbins& Judge, 2007). There is no need for filtering down to your select target group since one has to actively look for the blog in order to read it. When non-routine messages are communicated through a channel low in richness, such as a blog, the potential for misunderstanding is huge.
#2 Although the grapevine typically is thought of as occurring within a given organization, blogging is a form of gossip that can reach beyond an organization’s borders. How might blogging change the way that companies are affected by gossip? What can companies do to guard against this?
With blogging, the proverbial genie is out of the bottle. No longer will outspoken negativism be confined to the water cooler, but it now has a tool that speaks to literally millions. There is no guarding against this. That is unless corporations make their employees sign non-disclosure agreements. But even then you still can’t stop people from being what they are, negative, incendiary, and grandstanding. You have to be prepared to spend a lot of time taking your employees to court. What corporations can do, and what many celebrities with their official websites have done is create their own venue to voice their own opinion. Say a Google employee posted a very negative blog on Google’s stance towards homosexuality. Google can utilize its own official blog site to address that very issue.
#3 Although companies would prefer to reduce blogs that speak negatively about them, what about blogs that detail mistreatment of employees or illegal work practices by upper management? Should employees post these types of blogs even though they may be reprimanded or terminated as a result?
This is a no brainer. Off course one should do the right thing and exact change from within. But if still unsatisfied, blogs are the natural medium to voice discontent. It’s free, it’s uncensored, and it reaches millions. Is there a price to pay? Off course. Corporations can hire you, they can fire you, and they can do virtually everything in between to include making your life a living hell before they fire you. That is the gamble you must take in speaking up or remaining the silent majority. Silent Majority is a term first used by the President Richard Nixon in a 1969 speech. It refers to a hypothetical large number of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly (www.watergate.info)
#4 Is it ethical for companies to actively monitor blogs to gain marketing information? In other words, is the monitoring of blogs an invasion of privacy, or are bloggers inviting corporations to gather information because of the public nature of the posting?
Here the question is about ethics. What constitutes good conduct and what constitutes bad conduct? Is it good conduct for a company to monitor every blog to gain marketing information? Absolutely. Last I checked we have a free enterprise system. Is it bad conduct to punish the blogger who slanders and malign the company’s name with falsified information and incorrect data? Absolutely not. The nature of the public posting removes all intention of privacy for the blogger. It’s as if the blogger was shouting fire in the middle of a crowded theatre. The blogger is subjecting himself to a public questioning of the validity of his claims. If the fire proves to be a real threat, then he is absolved of creating a disturbance, and might even be awarded a good citizenship award if lives were saved. But God help him if there is no fire. He is punishable to the full extent of the law for causing a riot. We have to remember, information on blogs can be factual, propaganda, or completely falsified. Remember the old adage, caveat emptor.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 http://www.watergate.info/nixon/silent-majority-speech-1969.shtml
3 www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mcluhan.html
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 Chapter 11:Case 2:The Business of Blogs
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/22/07
“The Business of Blogs”
#1 What aspects of the communication process are blogs most likely to influence and how?
Marshal McLuhan, was the man who coined the phrase "the medium is the message”, meaning that the form of a message (print, visual, musical, etc.) determines the ways in which that message will be perceived. McLuhan argued that modern electronic communications (including radio, television, films, and computers) would have far-reaching sociological, aesthetic, and philosophical consequences, to the point of actually altering the ways in which we experience the world (www.leaderu.com). With blogs, this is absolutely true. With blogging, you can already suppose a few things. The channel is preset and the receiver is also pre-selected to those who are comfortable with the technology, interested in the message, and believe it to be more reliable than formal communiqués issued by top management (Robbins& Judge, 2007). There is no need for filtering down to your select target group since one has to actively look for the blog in order to read it. When non-routine messages are communicated through a channel low in richness, such as a blog, the potential for misunderstanding is huge.
#2 Although the grapevine typically is thought of as occurring within a given organization, blogging is a form of gossip that can reach beyond an organization’s borders. How might blogging change the way that companies are affected by gossip? What can companies do to guard against this?
With blogging, the proverbial genie is out of the bottle. No longer will outspoken negativism be confined to the water cooler, but it now has a tool that speaks to literally millions. There is no guarding against this. That is unless corporations make their employees sign non-disclosure agreements. But even then you still can’t stop people from being what they are, negative, incendiary, and grandstanding. You have to be prepared to spend a lot of time taking your employees to court. What corporations can do, and what many celebrities with their official websites have done is create their own venue to voice their own opinion. Say a Google employee posted a very negative blog on Google’s stance towards homosexuality. Google can utilize its own official blog site to address that very issue.
#3 Although companies would prefer to reduce blogs that speak negatively about them, what about blogs that detail mistreatment of employees or illegal work practices by upper management? Should employees post these types of blogs even though they may be reprimanded or terminated as a result?
This is a no brainer. Off course one should do the right thing and exact change from within. But if still unsatisfied, blogs are the natural medium to voice discontent. It’s free, it’s uncensored, and it reaches millions. Is there a price to pay? Off course. Corporations can hire you, they can fire you, and they can do virtually everything in between to include making your life a living hell before they fire you. That is the gamble you must take in speaking up or remaining the silent majority. Silent Majority is a term first used by the President Richard Nixon in a 1969 speech. It refers to a hypothetical large number of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly (www.watergate.info)
#4 Is it ethical for companies to actively monitor blogs to gain marketing information? In other words, is the monitoring of blogs an invasion of privacy, or are bloggers inviting corporations to gather information because of the public nature of the posting?
Here the question is about ethics. What constitutes good conduct and what constitutes bad conduct? Is it good conduct for a company to monitor every blog to gain marketing information? Absolutely. Last I checked we have a free enterprise system. Is it bad conduct to punish the blogger who slanders and malign the company’s name with falsified information and incorrect data? Absolutely not. The nature of the public posting removes all intention of privacy for the blogger. It’s as if the blogger was shouting fire in the middle of a crowded theatre. The blogger is subjecting himself to a public questioning of the validity of his claims. If the fire proves to be a real threat, then he is absolved of creating a disturbance, and might even be awarded a good citizenship award if lives were saved. But God help him if there is no fire. He is punishable to the full extent of the law for causing a riot. We have to remember, information on blogs can be factual, propaganda, or completely falsified. Remember the old adage, caveat emptor.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 http://www.watergate.info/nixon/silent-majority-speech-1969.shtml
3 www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mcluhan.html
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Blog Assignment #5 Columbus Day Movie
MSMC Columbus Day Blog Assignment
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 “Twelve Angry Men”
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/14/07
“Twelve Angry Men”
I chose the movie “Twelve Angry Men” for my Group Process paper for several reasons. First and foremost, because it is devoid of all what I would call “smoke and mirrors”. It is a raw black and white film shot almost entirely in one set, in one uncut scene, in real time, with no special effects. Secondly, this interacting group cannot help but relate to one another in this cell of a 12’x24’ room in one of the most undesirable conditions, a hot and humid summer night. In other words, it’s a kettle about to boil over. It is the poster boy for the topic we are discussing in class, group processes.
All group members are actors, each playing a role (Robbins & Judge, 2007). The classic archetypes of good vs. evil, of reason vs. emotion, of compassion vs. self-loathing, of gentility vs. crudeness, are all depicted here. In other words, this group of twelve cannot be more diverse. You have the compassionate architect leading the good vs. the self-loathing abusive father leading the evil.
This group of twelve jurors followed the five-stage group-development model by progressing but sometimes regressing to previous stages. Although this group of jurors was trapped in one room for the duration, they still formally assembled, and formally disassembled. A behavioral pattern emerged. Interestingly enough the start of a ball game determined the half way point of the groups time. It was as if the group’s midpoint worked like an alarm clock, heightening member’s awareness that their time is limited and that they need to get moving (Robbins & Judge, 2007). The group moved through the forming stage very quickly, with the foreman taking the lead and setting some basic rules (i.e. seating arrangement). The storming stage was reached just as fast, as one individual stood staunchly against the group, causing conflict. Under unanimous rule, the minority has a relatively strong influence on the group process and outcome. For example, a single individual in the group can (threaten to) block group decisions that run counter to his or her preferences, thereby steering the group process toward his or her preferred outcome (Miller, 1985). This is precisely what occurs. The group is threatened by the lone holdout. There is a battle over control of the group. At the end of the storming stage a clear hierarchy of leadership forms. Like the eternal battle of good vs. evil, two very distinct individuals rise to leadership roles. The norming stage is reached when sides are taken, those for good, those for evil, and the undecided. Close relationships develops within each smaller group and cohesion forms. Some of the undecided are even moved to side with evil in order to conform. The performing stage takes up the rest of the movie, as good and evil battles it out, tempest toss, until finally evil falls under the power of reason, and the group moves into their adjourning stage. The disbanded group members range in emotions from elation at the group’s accomplishments to depression over personal loss. This is a classic movie. Two thumbs way up.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 Miller, C. E. (1985). Group decision making under majority and unanimity
decision rules. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 51–61.
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 “Twelve Angry Men”
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/14/07
“Twelve Angry Men”
I chose the movie “Twelve Angry Men” for my Group Process paper for several reasons. First and foremost, because it is devoid of all what I would call “smoke and mirrors”. It is a raw black and white film shot almost entirely in one set, in one uncut scene, in real time, with no special effects. Secondly, this interacting group cannot help but relate to one another in this cell of a 12’x24’ room in one of the most undesirable conditions, a hot and humid summer night. In other words, it’s a kettle about to boil over. It is the poster boy for the topic we are discussing in class, group processes.
All group members are actors, each playing a role (Robbins & Judge, 2007). The classic archetypes of good vs. evil, of reason vs. emotion, of compassion vs. self-loathing, of gentility vs. crudeness, are all depicted here. In other words, this group of twelve cannot be more diverse. You have the compassionate architect leading the good vs. the self-loathing abusive father leading the evil.
This group of twelve jurors followed the five-stage group-development model by progressing but sometimes regressing to previous stages. Although this group of jurors was trapped in one room for the duration, they still formally assembled, and formally disassembled. A behavioral pattern emerged. Interestingly enough the start of a ball game determined the half way point of the groups time. It was as if the group’s midpoint worked like an alarm clock, heightening member’s awareness that their time is limited and that they need to get moving (Robbins & Judge, 2007). The group moved through the forming stage very quickly, with the foreman taking the lead and setting some basic rules (i.e. seating arrangement). The storming stage was reached just as fast, as one individual stood staunchly against the group, causing conflict. Under unanimous rule, the minority has a relatively strong influence on the group process and outcome. For example, a single individual in the group can (threaten to) block group decisions that run counter to his or her preferences, thereby steering the group process toward his or her preferred outcome (Miller, 1985). This is precisely what occurs. The group is threatened by the lone holdout. There is a battle over control of the group. At the end of the storming stage a clear hierarchy of leadership forms. Like the eternal battle of good vs. evil, two very distinct individuals rise to leadership roles. The norming stage is reached when sides are taken, those for good, those for evil, and the undecided. Close relationships develops within each smaller group and cohesion forms. Some of the undecided are even moved to side with evil in order to conform. The performing stage takes up the rest of the movie, as good and evil battles it out, tempest toss, until finally evil falls under the power of reason, and the group moves into their adjourning stage. The disbanded group members range in emotions from elation at the group’s accomplishments to depression over personal loss. This is a classic movie. Two thumbs way up.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 Miller, C. E. (1985). Group decision making under majority and unanimity
decision rules. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 51–61.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Blog Assignment #4
MSMC Blog Assignment #4
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 Chapter 7:Ethical Dilemma
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/7/07
“Are American CEOs Paid Too Much?”
Is high compensation of U.S. executives a problem? If so, does the blame for the problem lie with CEOs or with the shareholders and boards that knowingly allow the practice? Are American CEOs greedy? Are these CEOs acting unethically? What do you think?
High compensation of U.S. executives is absolutely a problem! Studies show that American CEOs make 531 times the pay of their average hourly employees. In contract, British CEOs made 25 times, Canadians 21 times, and Germans only 11 times as much. To top it off, performance plays no role in compensation either. CEOs are rewarded whether the company does well or not (Robbins & Judge 2007).
Too many companies continue to pay the top brass a king's ransom merely for doing decently - or for seriously screwing up. Home Depot’s CEO, Bob Nardelli has been hammered for accepting a pay package valued at $250 million even though his company's stock has declined slightly under his stewardship. Pfizer’s Hank McKinnell, was even more assertive, dismissing critics who point to his $83 million lump-sum pension, his $16 million in total comp last year, and his stock's 42% decline since he took charge in 2001 as proof of pay for nonperformance (Kirkland, 2006). The CEOs seem to be rewarded—in most cases, quite amply—for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry (Daines & Nair, 2005). Although when the company does well, the compensation seems disproportionately high as well. In 2005, for example, Exxon Mobil reported $36 billion in profits. Its former chairman, Lee R. Raymond, retired that year with a compensation package totaling almost $400 million, including stock, stock options and long-term compensation. Too much? Not to Exxon's investors, who enjoyed a 223% return over the interval, compared to the average 205% return received by shareholders of other oil companies, a premium of about $16 billion. Raymond took home just 4% of that $16 billion (Reich, 2007)
A number of organizations are moving away from paying people based solely on credentials…and toward using variable-pay programs. Instead of paying a person only for time on the job or seniority, a variable-pay program bases a portion of an employee’s pay on some individual and/or organizational measure of performance. Earnings therefore fluctuate up and down with the measure of performance. Today, more than 70% of U.S. companies have some form of variable-pay plan, up from only about 5% in 1970. It is precisely the fluctuation in variable pay that has made these programs attractive to management. It turns part of an organization’s fixed labor costs into a variable cost, thus reducing expenses when performance declines (Robbins & Judge, 2007). I endorse this wholeheartedly.
The economic explanation for sky-high CEO pay does not justify it socially or morally. It only means that investors think CEOs are worth it. As citizens, though, most of us disapprove. About 80% of Americans polled by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg in early 2006 said CEOs are overpaid. The reaction was roughly the same regardless of the respondent's income or political affiliation. But if America wants to rein in executive pay, the answer isn't more shareholder rights. Just as with the compensation of Hollywood celebrities or private-equity and hedge fund managers, the answer -- for anyone truly concerned -- is a higher marginal tax rate on the super pay of those in super demand (Reich, 2007).
American CEOs are the definition of greed and robber barons. There is no social responsibility or empathy to a person whose take home pay is hundreds fold than that of the average worker. Imposing a 90% “windfall tax” on any CEO making in excess of one million dollars a year will clear up our deficit quickly and efficiently. The definition of windfall tax is a tax levied by governments against certain industries when economic conditions allow those industries to experience above-average profits. Windfall taxes are primarily levied on the companies in the targeted industry that have benefited the most from the economic windfall, most often commodity-based businesses. I say extend the windfall tax to individuals who make more than one million dollars a year and use the proceeds to bolster funding for social programs.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 Kirkland, Ric (July 10, 2006). “The Real CEO Pay Problem,” Fortune Magazine
3 Daines, R., Nair, V.B., Kornhauser, L. (February 2005) “CEO Skill and Excessive Pay: A Breakdown in Corporate Governance?” Stanford Graduate School of Business
4 Reich, R (September 14, 2007). “CEOs Deserve Their Pay,” Wall Street Journal
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 Chapter 7:Ethical Dilemma
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/7/07
“Are American CEOs Paid Too Much?”
Is high compensation of U.S. executives a problem? If so, does the blame for the problem lie with CEOs or with the shareholders and boards that knowingly allow the practice? Are American CEOs greedy? Are these CEOs acting unethically? What do you think?
High compensation of U.S. executives is absolutely a problem! Studies show that American CEOs make 531 times the pay of their average hourly employees. In contract, British CEOs made 25 times, Canadians 21 times, and Germans only 11 times as much. To top it off, performance plays no role in compensation either. CEOs are rewarded whether the company does well or not (Robbins & Judge 2007).
Too many companies continue to pay the top brass a king's ransom merely for doing decently - or for seriously screwing up. Home Depot’s CEO, Bob Nardelli has been hammered for accepting a pay package valued at $250 million even though his company's stock has declined slightly under his stewardship. Pfizer’s Hank McKinnell, was even more assertive, dismissing critics who point to his $83 million lump-sum pension, his $16 million in total comp last year, and his stock's 42% decline since he took charge in 2001 as proof of pay for nonperformance (Kirkland, 2006). The CEOs seem to be rewarded—in most cases, quite amply—for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry (Daines & Nair, 2005). Although when the company does well, the compensation seems disproportionately high as well. In 2005, for example, Exxon Mobil reported $36 billion in profits. Its former chairman, Lee R. Raymond, retired that year with a compensation package totaling almost $400 million, including stock, stock options and long-term compensation. Too much? Not to Exxon's investors, who enjoyed a 223% return over the interval, compared to the average 205% return received by shareholders of other oil companies, a premium of about $16 billion. Raymond took home just 4% of that $16 billion (Reich, 2007)
A number of organizations are moving away from paying people based solely on credentials…and toward using variable-pay programs. Instead of paying a person only for time on the job or seniority, a variable-pay program bases a portion of an employee’s pay on some individual and/or organizational measure of performance. Earnings therefore fluctuate up and down with the measure of performance. Today, more than 70% of U.S. companies have some form of variable-pay plan, up from only about 5% in 1970. It is precisely the fluctuation in variable pay that has made these programs attractive to management. It turns part of an organization’s fixed labor costs into a variable cost, thus reducing expenses when performance declines (Robbins & Judge, 2007). I endorse this wholeheartedly.
The economic explanation for sky-high CEO pay does not justify it socially or morally. It only means that investors think CEOs are worth it. As citizens, though, most of us disapprove. About 80% of Americans polled by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg in early 2006 said CEOs are overpaid. The reaction was roughly the same regardless of the respondent's income or political affiliation. But if America wants to rein in executive pay, the answer isn't more shareholder rights. Just as with the compensation of Hollywood celebrities or private-equity and hedge fund managers, the answer -- for anyone truly concerned -- is a higher marginal tax rate on the super pay of those in super demand (Reich, 2007).
American CEOs are the definition of greed and robber barons. There is no social responsibility or empathy to a person whose take home pay is hundreds fold than that of the average worker. Imposing a 90% “windfall tax” on any CEO making in excess of one million dollars a year will clear up our deficit quickly and efficiently. The definition of windfall tax is a tax levied by governments against certain industries when economic conditions allow those industries to experience above-average profits. Windfall taxes are primarily levied on the companies in the targeted industry that have benefited the most from the economic windfall, most often commodity-based businesses. I say extend the windfall tax to individuals who make more than one million dollars a year and use the proceeds to bolster funding for social programs.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 Kirkland, Ric (July 10, 2006). “The Real CEO Pay Problem,” Fortune Magazine
3 Daines, R., Nair, V.B., Kornhauser, L. (February 2005) “CEO Skill and Excessive Pay: A Breakdown in Corporate Governance?” Stanford Graduate School of Business
4 Reich, R (September 14, 2007). “CEOs Deserve Their Pay,” Wall Street Journal
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Blog Assignment #3
MSMC Blog Assignment #3
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 Chapter 3:Ethical Dilemma
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/6/07
“Are Americans overworked?”
Why do you think quality of life is lower in the United States compared to many European nations? Do you think quality of life in the United States would increase if the government required a minimum number of vacation days or limited workweek hours?
I think that United States differs from European countries in our spirit of the pioneer and in our sense of achievement, and entitlement. Historically the United States is a much younger country than any European country and certainly than those of Asia. We are only a little over 200 years old compared to the thousands of year old Europeans and Asians. In those 200 years we have only experienced growth, wealth, and success. Recession, poverty, and failure are mostly foreign to us. In 1776 we beat the English and won our independence. In 1940’s we bounced back from the tragedy of Pearl Harbor and through the Industrial Revolution won the last Great War. Our standard of living has always been higher than those of the European and Asian nations. We seem to know no limits to our growth and success. We “supersize” everything; our homes, our cars, our appetites for excess. In short, our quest for excess has superseded our desire for limits and vacations. The majority of the “Baby Boomers” still make up the majority of our work force and their work ethics prevail.
By comparison the major European and Asian countries have a longer history, and have memories of or still know rule by monarchies, feudal states, wars, shortages, and making do without the aid of a central government due to the nature of its history. As the Chinese say, “Beijing is very far away”, meaning the central government and its laws and wealth do not reach the common man. Europeans have had to make do with a lot less for a lot longer. Europeans typically have a much higher unemployment rate.
The difference between American and European culture can be cited as one of the reasons for the discrepancies measured in quality of life. I would agree with the some of the critics of the worldwide analysis of quality of life that life-satisfaction responses reflect the dominant view on life, rather than actual quality of life in a country. Life satisfaction is seen as a judgment that depends on social and culturally specific frames of reference. The results would seem to reflect how satisfied they are with their how their life turned out than with a standard quality of life. Most differences in life satisfaction across countries can be explained by differences in objective circumstances (The Economist, 2005)
As an American, I define quality of life as the ability to enjoy the fruits of my labor. If I labor too much, I can argue that my quality of life is diminished. But if I labor too little, as in Europe’s high unemployment rate, I can also argue that I have no fruits from my labor, too much leisure time on my hands, and my quality of life is also diminished. I would say that the quality of life in the United States would not increase if the government required a minimum number of vacation days or limited workweek hours. The fruits of my reduced labor would not allow me to obtain the “excesses” that I think I need to improve my quality of life. Lower working hours do not seem to have made French workers happier than other European citizens whose countries have not introduced workweek reduction legislation
in the period (Estevão, M., & Sá1, F. 2006).
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 “The Economist intelligence unit’s Quality-of-Life Index,” The Economist, 2005 (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/Quality_of_life.pdf)
3 Estevão, M., & Sá1, F. (2006). “Are the French Happy with the 35-Hour Workweek?” IMF Working Paper, Western Hemisphere Department+++
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 Chapter 3:Ethical Dilemma
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/6/07
“Are Americans overworked?”
Why do you think quality of life is lower in the United States compared to many European nations? Do you think quality of life in the United States would increase if the government required a minimum number of vacation days or limited workweek hours?
I think that United States differs from European countries in our spirit of the pioneer and in our sense of achievement, and entitlement. Historically the United States is a much younger country than any European country and certainly than those of Asia. We are only a little over 200 years old compared to the thousands of year old Europeans and Asians. In those 200 years we have only experienced growth, wealth, and success. Recession, poverty, and failure are mostly foreign to us. In 1776 we beat the English and won our independence. In 1940’s we bounced back from the tragedy of Pearl Harbor and through the Industrial Revolution won the last Great War. Our standard of living has always been higher than those of the European and Asian nations. We seem to know no limits to our growth and success. We “supersize” everything; our homes, our cars, our appetites for excess. In short, our quest for excess has superseded our desire for limits and vacations. The majority of the “Baby Boomers” still make up the majority of our work force and their work ethics prevail.
By comparison the major European and Asian countries have a longer history, and have memories of or still know rule by monarchies, feudal states, wars, shortages, and making do without the aid of a central government due to the nature of its history. As the Chinese say, “Beijing is very far away”, meaning the central government and its laws and wealth do not reach the common man. Europeans have had to make do with a lot less for a lot longer. Europeans typically have a much higher unemployment rate.
The difference between American and European culture can be cited as one of the reasons for the discrepancies measured in quality of life. I would agree with the some of the critics of the worldwide analysis of quality of life that life-satisfaction responses reflect the dominant view on life, rather than actual quality of life in a country. Life satisfaction is seen as a judgment that depends on social and culturally specific frames of reference. The results would seem to reflect how satisfied they are with their how their life turned out than with a standard quality of life. Most differences in life satisfaction across countries can be explained by differences in objective circumstances (The Economist, 2005)
As an American, I define quality of life as the ability to enjoy the fruits of my labor. If I labor too much, I can argue that my quality of life is diminished. But if I labor too little, as in Europe’s high unemployment rate, I can also argue that I have no fruits from my labor, too much leisure time on my hands, and my quality of life is also diminished. I would say that the quality of life in the United States would not increase if the government required a minimum number of vacation days or limited workweek hours. The fruits of my reduced labor would not allow me to obtain the “excesses” that I think I need to improve my quality of life. Lower working hours do not seem to have made French workers happier than other European citizens whose countries have not introduced workweek reduction legislation
in the period (Estevão, M., & Sá1, F. 2006).
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 “The Economist intelligence unit’s Quality-of-Life Index,” The Economist, 2005 (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/Quality_of_life.pdf)
3 Estevão, M., & Sá1, F. (2006). “Are the French Happy with the 35-Hour Workweek?” IMF Working Paper, Western Hemisphere Department+++
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Blog Assignment #2
MSMC Blog Assignment #2
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
Chapter 2: Case 2 “Professional Sports: Rewarding and Punishing the Same Behavior?” 9/29/07
Question #1
What type of reinforcement schedule does random drug testing represent? Is this type of schedule typically effective or ineffective?
Random drug testing represents an intermittent schedule, since not every instance of drug used is detected, or punished. This type of schedule is typically ineffective. Actually, the word random itself represents no schedule at all. If all the players are randomly tested then the effectiveness of the drug testing is increased. But if only random players are tested, then the drug testing schedule would not apply to all of the players, thus rendering it 100% ineffective towards the players not tested.
Question #2
What are some examples of behaviors in typical organizations that supervisors reward but may actually be detrimental to others or to the organization as a whole? As a manager, what might you do to try to avoid this quandary?
For want of a better word, “snitching” has long been rewarded in all organizations. The military has long prized itself on the cohesion of its organization. The individual is sacrificed for the group and the common good. Although I do not condone the military’s policy on sexual orientation, if say, a soldier’s homosexual orientation was reported to an officer, then the individual “snitching” is rewarded, but the organizational cohesion suffers. As a manager, I would thank the “snitcher” for coming forward, whilst orchestrating opportunities for the identified party to come forward on his own, rather than call him out. If the individual took responsibility for his actions, then the cohesive whole does not suffer, but is made stronger by supporting the weakest link. The “snitcher” receives no positive reinforcement in “snitching”, thus will be less likely to repeat the act.
Question #3
If you were the commissioner of baseball, what steps would you take to try to reduce the use of steroids in baseball? Is punishment likely to be the most effective deterrent? Why or why not?
The superstars in baseball are not unlike the superstars in any athletic field or organization. They are rewarded financially beyond mere mortals. The motivation for steroid use is financial gain. The motivation for most illegal act is financial gain. It is an operant behavior …or learned behavior. The tendency to repeat such behavior is influenced by the reinforcement … Therefore; reinforcement strengthens a behavior and increases the likelihood that it will be repeated. If we remove the reinforcement, i.e. the financial gain, and then there is no motivation. This type of shaping behavior by the withdrawal of something is called negative reinforcement (Robbins & Judge, 2007). This is the most effective deterrent. The reason the players take steroids is athletic success and financial gain. I would fine the athlete one year’s salary for each positive drug test. The dilemma is that the owner and corporate sponsors of the athletes want them to have “super” human prowess, so the public will buy anything these “super” human endorses. If there are no “super” humans, then there are no fans, and then there are no corporate sponsors, and no large pocket owners, and there will be no desire to be “super” humans, and then who would care about a sports game?
Question #4
Is it ever “okay” to allow potentially unethical behaviors, which on the surface may benefit organizations, or persist? Why or why not?
The law is black and white, but the enforcement is always grey. Cops look the other way at jay walkers and small time crooks that pick pocket all the time. But homicide and bank robberies are another thing. Crooks are usually caught and punished to the full extent of the law. Ethics are also black and white, but the enforcement is also grey. The organization’s CEO creates the climate of tolerance or lack thereof by publicizing the organization’s mission, vision, priorities, goals, and objectives. Every organization has a formal written code of conduct that provides functional operational guidelines (Fuqua & Newman 2006). It’s “okay” to me to allow potentially unethical behaviors to persist if it benefits the organization, and the corporate climate is tolerant. If the corporate climate is not, then unethical behaviors will not be tolerated.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 Fuqua, D. R., Newman, J. L. (2006). Moral and Ethical Issues in Human Systems. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 58, No. 4, 206–215
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
Chapter 2: Case 2 “Professional Sports: Rewarding and Punishing the Same Behavior?” 9/29/07
Question #1
What type of reinforcement schedule does random drug testing represent? Is this type of schedule typically effective or ineffective?
Random drug testing represents an intermittent schedule, since not every instance of drug used is detected, or punished. This type of schedule is typically ineffective. Actually, the word random itself represents no schedule at all. If all the players are randomly tested then the effectiveness of the drug testing is increased. But if only random players are tested, then the drug testing schedule would not apply to all of the players, thus rendering it 100% ineffective towards the players not tested.
Question #2
What are some examples of behaviors in typical organizations that supervisors reward but may actually be detrimental to others or to the organization as a whole? As a manager, what might you do to try to avoid this quandary?
For want of a better word, “snitching” has long been rewarded in all organizations. The military has long prized itself on the cohesion of its organization. The individual is sacrificed for the group and the common good. Although I do not condone the military’s policy on sexual orientation, if say, a soldier’s homosexual orientation was reported to an officer, then the individual “snitching” is rewarded, but the organizational cohesion suffers. As a manager, I would thank the “snitcher” for coming forward, whilst orchestrating opportunities for the identified party to come forward on his own, rather than call him out. If the individual took responsibility for his actions, then the cohesive whole does not suffer, but is made stronger by supporting the weakest link. The “snitcher” receives no positive reinforcement in “snitching”, thus will be less likely to repeat the act.
Question #3
If you were the commissioner of baseball, what steps would you take to try to reduce the use of steroids in baseball? Is punishment likely to be the most effective deterrent? Why or why not?
The superstars in baseball are not unlike the superstars in any athletic field or organization. They are rewarded financially beyond mere mortals. The motivation for steroid use is financial gain. The motivation for most illegal act is financial gain. It is an operant behavior …or learned behavior. The tendency to repeat such behavior is influenced by the reinforcement … Therefore; reinforcement strengthens a behavior and increases the likelihood that it will be repeated. If we remove the reinforcement, i.e. the financial gain, and then there is no motivation. This type of shaping behavior by the withdrawal of something is called negative reinforcement (Robbins & Judge, 2007). This is the most effective deterrent. The reason the players take steroids is athletic success and financial gain. I would fine the athlete one year’s salary for each positive drug test. The dilemma is that the owner and corporate sponsors of the athletes want them to have “super” human prowess, so the public will buy anything these “super” human endorses. If there are no “super” humans, then there are no fans, and then there are no corporate sponsors, and no large pocket owners, and there will be no desire to be “super” humans, and then who would care about a sports game?
Question #4
Is it ever “okay” to allow potentially unethical behaviors, which on the surface may benefit organizations, or persist? Why or why not?
The law is black and white, but the enforcement is always grey. Cops look the other way at jay walkers and small time crooks that pick pocket all the time. But homicide and bank robberies are another thing. Crooks are usually caught and punished to the full extent of the law. Ethics are also black and white, but the enforcement is also grey. The organization’s CEO creates the climate of tolerance or lack thereof by publicizing the organization’s mission, vision, priorities, goals, and objectives. Every organization has a formal written code of conduct that provides functional operational guidelines (Fuqua & Newman 2006). It’s “okay” to me to allow potentially unethical behaviors to persist if it benefits the organization, and the corporate climate is tolerant. If the corporate climate is not, then unethical behaviors will not be tolerated.
References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 Fuqua, D. R., Newman, J. L. (2006). Moral and Ethical Issues in Human Systems. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 58, No. 4, 206–215
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)