Happiness of the Employee

http://gulfnews.com/business/opinion/employers-must-create-feeling-of-happiness-1.784694

The above article is a direct reflect of topics we have covered in our class. We have learned how employee responsibility and happiness can make employee's strive for greater results.

Many of the top accelerating companies such as Nike, Apple, and Google realize that their employees are the key to success.  This article states that managers need to realize that not just money or education can benefit their employees.

The main focus is to reassure your employee's that you are noticing the hard work they are putting in.  Especially in the economic time, many people value different rewards.  I do believe an employee should be able to choose a specific reward according to their liking. Treating all employees the same with the same rewards would be bad for the company.  Many managers don't realize this.

How do you guys think would be the best way to distribute rewards on an individual basis for a company? Should they choose from a list or be drawn randomly?  Also, do you guys think that there is anything missing in an employee contract that you wouldn't mind seeing more? By contract I mean job offer.

-Matt Blachowicz

Power Over Principal

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Madoff-Points-Fingers-at-Banks-Wants-to-Teach-Ethics-119537264.html

This article is about how Madoff is getting recruited by top business schools to teach about business ethics.

I feel this is ridiculous.  I understand that he committed and was successful for quite some time in getting away with it. However, how are you going to reward the person, who stole from many patrons, give him the power and gratitude at teaching at pristine business schools.

Our book talks about power as an organizational behavior topic.  By granting someone power in this situation to control, I feel we are in someway ignoring the crimes this guy committed.  The person who finally caught and had enough values and ethical responsibility to report him should be the one teaching the class.

We need to start rewarding people for doing the right thing. By setting up rewards, more people will be motivated to do the right thing when ethical situations come up.  There are many different motivational strategies that involve rewards that could be put into effect.  By having a reward system, we are able to highlight and recognize the people who hold high standard of values.


-Matt Blachowicz

Bases of Power in an Unethical Light

“Wright Medical CEO Resigns After Doctor Kickback Settlement”

Bloomberg: April 5, 2011

By: Alex Nussbaum

Availability: Wright Medical CEO Resigns After Doctor Kickback Settlement

Leaders are always the driving force of an organization. The way these individuals plan, organize, lead, and control the company is indicative their success. Often, such leaders are faced with ethical decisions; since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, companies have been held to higher standards of decision making. 

At Wright Medical, the company came under scrutiny because of allegations that Wright was paying doctors to use its replacement hip and knee devices. Regardless of the case’s outcome, upper management knowingly implemented or turned a blind-eye to the matter. Wright Medical’s leaders used not only legitimate power to enforce these decisions, but they also used reward power in an unethical manner to compensate the doctors to implement Wright’s medical devices.

As we continue to study bases of power in our Organizational Behavior class, we will become more familiar with the sources influencing leaders to use their powers. To further analyze the bases of power in Wright Medical, we can examine how upper management used its legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, information, and referent powers to engage in unethical behavior of paying doctors to use Wright’s products.

Legitimate power and reward power was used in ways indicated above, but coercive power can be viewed as being used to control subordinates. Similarly to Enron or Arthur Anderson, there is simply no way that not one employee at Wright Medical did not know any details about the unethical decisions being made by upper management. Coercive power could have possibly been used to punish an employee for noncompliance or whistleblowing.

Obviously the individuals making the decisions to engage in such behavior had sufficient knowledge and skills, or expert power, and special access to specific information, or information power, which allowed them to implement such decisions. 

Lastly, employees could have viewed these leaders as not only superiors, but also as mentors; the level of respect and admiration among employees gave upper management referent power to implement unethical decisions to pay doctors to use Wright’s products. Regardless of what the leaders of Wright Medical did with the business, their subordinates may have followed simply because they saw their superiors as great leaders.

These categories of power and their uses are important to understand because the connotation of their implementation can have both positive and negative effects. In the case of Wright Medical, those bases of power were used in an unethical manner to increase profitability.

- Jon Worthey

Buffet's Policies: Still Effective?

“Buffet’s Policies Went Unheeded”

The Wall Street Journal: April 6, 2011

By: Leslie Scism, Erik Holm, and Jean Eaglesham

Availability: Buffet's Policies Went Unheeded

Warren Buffet is one of the most successful businessmen of the recent millennium. His business strategy and innovative leadership distinguishes him from his competitors and other such leaders in the industry.

Moreover, Buffet’s policies have become just as revered as the man himself; the insider trading policies and procedures, as noted in a recent memo sent from Buffet to his key directors and officers, reiterated the legal and ethical significance of these policies.

Reminders of the severity of penalties for such behavior were also included: three times the profits earned or losses avoided from his or her investment, a criminal fine of up to $5 million, and a possible jail sentence of up to 20 years (Insider Trading Policies and Procedures Memo, WSJ, 2011). 

David Sokol, Mr. Buffet’s top lieutenant and likely heir to the Berkshire Hathaway throne, left the company shortly after Hathaway acquired a chemical manufacturing firm in which Sokol had recently purchased shares. Furthermore, Sokol advised Buffet and Birkshire Hathaway to buy the company after purchasing those shares, a direct violation of company insider trading policies and procedures.

Was Sokol’s investment a simple mistake or was it intentional? Should Warren Buffet have pressed Sokol for a more sound explanation of his intentions regarding the possible insider trading situation? More importantly, what motivated Sokol to acquire shares of a company his employer was just about to purchase based on his recommendation?

In my opinion, David Sokol made an unethical decision; while he willfully resigned from Birkshire Hathaway, Sokol obviously had an underlying agenda separate from the best interest of the company. Whether this assertion is validated by his need for power as stated in David McLelland’s acquired-needs theory, or the need to achieve self-actualization as stated in Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is debatable.

Buffet noted that Sokol had tried leaving Birkshire Hathaway in several instances before, but Buffet talked him into staying with the company in hopes of further mentoring his future successor. There were obviously reasons for Sokol’s consistent pattern of desire to resign: maybe his work was not stimulating or satisfying anymore; maybe he no longer fit the organizational structure, or maybe Mr. Sokol simply did not think his need for power and self-actualization need could be fulfilled as long as he was employed at Birkshire Hathaway.

This story brings about an interesting topic; certain experiences are meant to challenge and hone an individual’s professional development that creates the schema in which they learn and live. Each step of life can only offer so much until the individual moves on to the next phase and restarts the process. For David Sokol, regardless of the underlying insider trading accusations, he could simply be ready for that next phase. However, the devil’s advocate inside of me wonders if the most powerful man in the corporate world had more of a say in Sokol’s resignation than reported.

The hallmark of this post is to understand the importance of an individual’s needs.  Without the opportunity to fulfill those higher-level needs, employees – like David Sokol – might be more prone to engage in such unethical, and possibly illegal, behavior that proves detrimental to the success of the company.


- Jon Worthey

CSR and Toothpaste?

The following post related to the following link: http://business-ethics.com/2010/12/21/5050-controversial-chemical-poses-disclosure-challenge-for-colgate-palmolive/

Colgate has come under recent fire from the FDA for use a chemical in their toothpaste that has been proven to fight gingivitis, but the effects of that drug on people and the environment is still questionable and has been noted as being harmful. Triclosan, the drug in question, is used in many consumer products including food, clothing, furniture, toys and other products.

Colgate does not currently have a warning label on its toothpaste with the chemical which is dangerous considering they could face litigation's in the future even though the FDA has approved the chemical, they might soon find it necessary to re-evaluate their decision. Colgate does not seem keen on removing the chemical from their product or providing warning labels. I think that as a leader in the industry they should take the initiative to be more socially responsible and warn their customers about the potential dangers of triclosan.

Hypothetically, if I was the CEO of Colgate, I would form a team from members of the R&D department to evaluate and test the chemical triclosan in conjunction with the FDA for its potency and potential harm to humans and the environment. I would have them brainstorm alternatives to the chemical and try to find a less controversial chemical that served the same purpose as Triclosan. In the situation facing Colgate what course of action would you take and how does your decision relate to OB terms and concepts?

Posted By: Grant Luther

The following information is in regards to the linked article about Nike: http://business-ethics.com/2010/01/24/2154-nike-corporate-responsibility-at-a-tipping-point/

In the early 1990s Nike wasn't known for its sustainable corporate initiative  and philanthropic behavior. In fact, it was the exact opposite. Nike was found responsible for running outsourced sweatshops in underdeveloped countries. Ever since the corporate scandal Nike, realizing the error of their ways, shifted gears and engaged in corporate citizenship, which has since, been very successful.

This change has undoubtedly altered the way employees view the company and had positive repercussions. Developing a successful corporate citizenship strategy and a more sustainable supply chain will help to motivate employees to perform well since they will be able to trust the corporation to make ethically sound decisions.

Nike CEO Mark Parker boldly stated, "That its time for the world to shift." "We see sustainability, both social and environmental, as a powerful path to innovation, and crucial to our growth strategies.” That being said, I am wondering what you all have to say about this shift and if Nike is correct that all businesses should be responsible not only for their own benefit, but also that of society. How it could affect the organizational structure of corporations both large and small? What implementations on the culture or organizational behavior need to be made in order to reach a state of corporate citizenship?

Posted By: Grant Luther

Winning at Office Politics

Article link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/03/10/win.office.politics/index.html?iref=allsearch

This article was posted on http://www.cnn.com/ regarding how to win at office politics.  In the article it discusses different ways to be successful at not only your job but also your role in the company.  The points that interested me were the last three, numbers 7-9.  Number 7 says to not align yourself too strongly with one group.  To me this seems pretty important.  For instance, if you align yourself with one group or team and only one, that could be detrimental to your career.  If someone in that group or team does something unethical or illegal, you get lumped into the same category of individuals as that person even if you knew nothing about it.  It’s the old “guilty by association” belief.  However, if you are committed to more than one group, the odds of that same bad egg dragging you down with them are slimmer.  Number 8 says to learn to communicate persuasively.  This could be expanded to learn to communicate effectively.  While the majority of political communication is persuasion, you also have to know how to butter people up.  The last point says to be true to yourself.  This is extremely important.  As the article says, “if you decide the game is one you can’t play, prepare to move on.”  It also says that some companies often promote dishonest or unethical behavior.  If this is something that you simply cannot comply with, and it should be, then it is time for a change of scenery.  The last three points of the article deal with some extremely important ideas on how to deal with office politics and how to succeed.

Posted by: David Ashbeck

Teamwork at its Finest?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574161967309526.html


In the article above it explains how teamwork overseas is the key to success.  You can read the article for yourself and notice the 3 main categories they talk about : Black boxing, communication, and common ground.




Black Boxing - the minimization of employee's from different locations communication
Easing Communication - make it easier for telephone and emails to be used
Common Ground - employee's off shore can expect actions and decisions of employee's onshore through common knowledge.


In the main point in this article is that communication between offshore and onshore employees needs to be improved. Many companies try to separate them but we learned in chapter 8 that communication is the key to business success. Take for example a company that makes computers. The onshore employees make the computers and the offshore employees handle customer service. The offshore employees know what customers call and complain about. If they would communicate with the onshore employees, then the computers would be able to improve and have less calls to the offshore employees.


The one thing to remember is to that different cultures have different meanings for things and employees have to be self conscious. Also note that video conferencing, face-to-face, and telephone are highly ways of information richness.


Now your turn. In what ways do you think would be effective in having onshore and offshore employee's collaborate efficiently? This could range from weekly video conferencing, to written reports. Please comment below.

-Matt Blachowicz

Politicians -- Celebrities or Leaders?

“Analysis: Insiders see patterns in ethical mess”

The Wall Street Journal: March 12, 2011

By: Associated Press

Availability: Analysis: Insiders see patterns in ethical mess

What causes politicians to become corrupt? What is the driving force that motivates these individuals to turn from a career of public service to a life of greed and unethical decision making? As referenced in the above article, politicians in the state of New York, particularly in Albany, have experienced a ravishing of unethical and even illegal decision making. 

“In the last two years, a dozen elected and appointed state officials have been convicted or accused in crimes” says the Associated Press (AP). The article quickly attributes these incidents to theories related to motivation and power needs, and these accusations are, I believe, correct!

Chapter 13 of Organizational Behavior by Taylor Bauer and Berrin Erdogan addresses power and politics. Power is “the ability to influence the behavior of others to get what you want,” as defined in Organizational Behavior, and can attribute severe negative consequences when allocated to unethical individuals. 

Power is a double-edged sword; individuals granted legitimate power can use their abilities to change unfair or inefficient processes within an organization, but on the other hand, those same individuals can be blinded by their capability and use their power for evil. 

The inherent evils of power can be seen throughout history, but for this blog post, I will focus on those situations presented in the above article. 

Headlines of politicians taking bribes, being seduced by power and the “good life,” and thinking themselves above the law have become a mainstay of the 21^st century, although corruption has been around since the ancient days. Aspects presented by the life of a politician that may corrupt his or her presence are the connections with CEOs, subordinates taking orders, giving persuasive speeches and gaining the support of the people, and the eventual feeling of living above the law. 

The corruption that occurs with individuals with power comes after a period of time when they begin constantly experiencing the glamour of the rich and famous and think themselves as entitled to that style of living, regardless of the rules broken along the way.

Referring to Chapter 5 of Organizational Behavior, the theory of motivation most applicable to political corruption is the Acquired-Needs Theory: need for power. This theory can explain why individuals who seek leadership roles are generally so motivated by the legitimate power and influential position they achieve. The obsession with instant gratification in our modern day society creates the subsequent need of material objects, money, and power which often result from corruption. 

This situation is not to say that all politicians experience the urge for corruption, but the leaders who do make unethical and illegal decisions can be attributed to their need for power.

- Jon Worthey

Bad Personality Traits Create Good Leaders

I just read an article about the so-called bad personality traits being useful when it comes to leadership development.  The article was on CNN.com in October of 2010.  In the article it described the study of 900 cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point during their second, third, and fourth year.  The study found that several of the bad personality traits, such as narcissism, being overly dramatic, being critical of others, and being extremely focused with complying with the rules, actually helped with various aspects of leadership development.  Studies have shown that the good personality traits have a positive impact on leadership development, but this was the first study to examine the bad personality traits.  The study’s authors say that the results may be unique to the military and that more studies need to be performed in order to really understand the role of these personality traits in the workplace.  I think that it will apply to more industries other than just the military.  In the business world, a leader has to have a narcissistic sort of personality, to an extent.  That individual has to feel that they are the best, or at least among the best, in order to feel confident about their work and their leadership abilities.  If a person has no level of narcissism in their personality, then their confidence in their abilities will suffer.  This will create a leader with no “backbone” so to speak.  They won’t have the confidence to stand up against adversity and believe that they can succeed.  Obviously, there is such a thing as too much narcissism and this would also create a bad leader.  Also, being critical of others is a necessary personality trait in a successful leader.  Again, this is needed to an extent.  A leader has to be able to critique his/her subordinates in order to make sure that they are performing to the level that they are able.  Once again, too much criticism is not a good thing.  If a leader is too critical, the subordinates will feel that they are being treated unfairly and that the leader is micromanaging.  This article shows that certain personality traits are necessary to create good leaders but that too much of a good thing is not a good thing.

Article Link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/12/dark.side.management/index.html?iref=allsearch

Posted by:  David Ashbeck

Best Buy Gone ROWE

http://biz.yahoo.com/special/allbiz120606_article1.html


This article above describes how Best Buy Inc. has come up with a work environment that is not associated with long hours or early mornings. Instead they offer a no clock policy. Going ROWE means results-only work environment. Employees are free to leave whenever they want, work where ever they can, and show up anytime, as long as the work gets done.


I believe with technology moving at the pace it is, and wireless internet becoming almost secondary nature that many jobs are able to be done not in the office. However, the only question I have is how is an employee to know if they are dedicating too much time to non work activities? What is the level of performance that gets you a warning or perhaps even fired?


Without being negative about a company that looks like it is putting it's employee's first, Best Buy has simply upped the bar on employee consideration. Many people who go into the office everyday dread the morning commute and usually takes them about 30 minutes to actually get into a working state. Imagine now that you get to sleep an extra hour, wake up whenever, and log into work.


Our book in chapter 6 talks about creating a motivating work environment. I believe Best Buy has done so with this ROWE program. They are using goals set by Management by Objectives. By letting everyone at headquarters be on ROWE that are creating goals not just at management level but throughout the company at headquarters.  By letting employee's take control over their time, I believe Best Buy Inc. not only will see positive results in the revenue section, but positive effects on people's lives by making work not a hassle to go to but rather something you do.


-Matt Blachowicz

Case of Benevolence or Biased Behavior?

“Panel Presses SEC on Ethics”

The Wall Street Journal: March 10, 2011

By: Jessica Holzer and Siobhan Hughes

Availability: Panel Presses SEC on Ethics

The ethical quandary relevant to this article revolves around the issue if SEC General Counsel David Becker should have been removed from Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme case because of his mother’s unfortunate role as an investor in the fraud. SEC officials and House members lashed out against Becker in light of a recent class action lawsuit filed by the victims of Madoff’s scam because of Becker’s recommendation “for victim payouts to be increased for longer-term investors to account for inflation,” which is “a method that could benefit him and his brothers” (Holzer, J. & Hughes, S., WSJ, 2011). 

While Becker’s initial request for participation in the Madoff case was approved by the SEC’s ethics counsel, his later proposal of increasing payouts to longer-term investors raised questions regarding Becker’s intent: to truly help those who lost greater fortune or to boost his own compensation. This accusation raises the question – what was Becker’s motivation behind his suggestion? 

As referenced in chapter five of Organizational Behavior by Tayla Bauer and Berrin Erdogan, there are various motivational theories that can explain Becker’s behavior. 

Take David McClelland’s acquired-needs theory for example; an individual experiences three needs during his or her life, and Becker’s need for power can be applied to his request for involvement in the Madoff case. Although the need for power is not always a destructive behavior, it can certainly tempt the individual into using that power for his or her own good and prestige. From the surface, the need for power can be seen as a viable conclusion to why Becker requested assignment to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme case.

Another explanation of Becker’s contribution is equity theory. In this theory, an individual perceives fairness based on the situation. The other Madoff victims’ perception of fairness compared to Becker’s perception of fairness is undoubtedly different. Becker seems to have a biased stake in the Madoff case since his late mother’s compensation would benefit him and his brothers by a whopping $2 million. Other victims of the Ponzi scheme do not perceive Becker’s involvement as fair since he was indirectly related to the fraud and because he would receive greater compensation. 

There are many motivational theories able to explain Becker’s participation in the Madoff case, whether it was greed, power, vengeance, or simply to enhance compensation for shareholders with greater seniority. From my personal standpoint, David Becker acted with selfish, biased behavior to benefit him and his brothers. 

I will update this story as new information becomes available regarding the lawsuit and how the SEC will handle such ethical situations in the future – stayed tuned!

- Jon Worthey

Ethical Dilemma, Evaulating a complicated situation

The following post pertains to the article linked below:
http://business-ethics.com/2009/11/11/should-mary-buy-her-bonus/

The first half of the article is about an ethical dilemma that an employee has to think through and the second half of the article is a professors assessment of the situation and the positive outcome resulting from making the right decision.

Mary's was only $1000 short of meeting her sales goal. Reaching her goal would result in a $10,000 bonus and allow her to be able to finance her dream home. Unfortunately, the only way for her to reach that goal would be to use her own money which she knows her employer wouldn't approve of. Evaluating her decision from a needs based two-factor motivational theory we can see that her motivators for advancement and growth, and also achievement almost convinced her to make a seemingly unethical decision. In the long run Mary saw that her employer would deem her actions inappropriate if she used her own money to reach the $1 million dollar sales goal. Her reputation as a hard worker and her integrity would have been put on the line had she invested her own money. Based on the situation presented in the article I think that I wouldn't have been able to resist using my own money to reach the sales goal. What would you do in the ethical situation presented in the article and what would influence your decision more, the motivation for personal advancement or motivation to make the right decision and be ethically sound?

By Grant Luther