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