🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000US530,000

GSU 1010 Lecture 9: Chapter 9

39 views3 pages
lemonox186
4 Dec 2016
School
GSU
Department
Gsu New Student Orientation
Course
GSU 1010
Professor
Richardson Monique

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Information: data that is presented in a meaningful way that promotes making a decision. If it flows well the information is complete. Information technology is a source in which people use computers to gather, process, and store information. Intelligence information is taken from the external environment and can be used or greater advantages. This can be common knowledge or expert knowledge that a person has about something. Public information is information that is presented to those outside of a group or organization, the public. Problem avoiders: those who ignore any, and all information that can affect a decision. Problem solvers: those who actively engage in the issue, gives solutions, and tries to solve the problem. Problem seekers: those who look for problems or the rise of a problem. Systematic thinking is thinking that uses systematic procedures, and uses rational methods to solve problems. Intuitive thinking is more creative and flexible thinking.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

ACTG 2011 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Credit Manager, Cash Flow
ambergoat33
ACTG 2011 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Cash Flow, Credit Manager
ambergoat33
ADM 4346 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: General Ledger, Customer Relationship Management, Mnemonic
blushcoyote632

Related Questions

I need a diferent point of view and someones opinion on this article.

Reforming the U.S. system of collective bargaining Collective bargaining procedures and relationships between labor and management must reflect less conflict, more cooperation as the Nation's economy struggles to meet international competition and domestic needs D. QUINN MILLS Rules as a productivity drain Rules alone cannot ensure that an organization will perform well. They may keep it from dissolving into self-defeating open warfare, but often do not permit it to achieve its potential. An organization which depends upon adherence to a myriad of rules will always be vulnerable to competition from other organizations which operate in a more consensual and cooperative fashion, even when the latter have fewer resources. And, although an organization of rules may sometimes pull it-self together to respond to an emergency, this need not necessarily occur. It follows, then, that primary dependence on establishing and enforcing rules is a very poor way to run an economic enterprise. The existence of a multitude of rules, many of which attempt to "stretch the work" to maintain jobs in ways reminiscent of depression-era tactics, constrains productivity and raises costs. For example, maintenance classifications may prohibit an employee from doing incidental work outside the strict limits of his or her trade; multiple job classifications may exist even where a person in a single combined classification could do the work effectively, without undue effort and stress; and, job classifications may be perpetuated although technological change has rendered the incumbents' work trivial. Other restrictions may limit the amount of work a person may be assigned, such as permitting a mechanic to open only two flanges. The location of materials and inventory may be restricted by contract or past practice to retain jobs in now-inefficient areas of the plant. In some cases, rules may prohibit employees being assigned work during breaks, and simultaneously prohibit supervisors from doing the employees' work, so that emergencies occurring at coffee breaks or lunchtime cannot be legally handled under the agreement. Over time, rules tend to become increasingly costly and constraining as technology, materials, products, and other aspects of production change. Even rules which made great sense at first become out-of-date under changing conditions. But the rules are difficult to change, and particular employees may be further benefited the more outdated the rules become. Sometimes a company can pay a high price and "buy the rules out," or a union can persuade some workers to give up favored positions for the good of the membership as a group. But often, change cannot be accomplished without a bitter struggle between management and labor. Furthermore, the rule making process promotes a set of attitudes which are inimical to successful enterprise. The existence of the rulebook encourages both management and labor to assert their rights under the contract, rather than to attempt to work out problems. It gives rise to "shop-floor lawyers," rather than problem solvers. It fosters conflict and controversy. It undermines trust. To a large degree, it seems that unions have become captives of their origins. Born in adversity and conflict, they continued to act as opponents of management even when their strength had become much greater. In some instances, unions have created thickets of rules in which to immobilize management, just as spiders build webs to ensnare prey. But when the thickets of rules have crippled productivity, the unions have discovered themselves to be caught alongside management in the trap. Plants have declined in competitiveness, and jobs have been lost. The unions have discovered too late that a snare is no less a snare because they have set it themselves. A prescription for change In a recent survey conducted by the Harris organization, a majority of the general public professed the belief that unions contribute less than they once did to the growth and efficiency of business. Not surprisingly, only 15 percent of union leaders agreed with this judgment.' The need for unions to assist companies in the light of increased foreign competition is apparent to the public. To the inhabitants of the Snow Belt, it is similarly evident that unions should cooperate with local business to stem the outflow of industry and jobs to the South and West. Public perceptions of a productivity problem are supported by Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates, which show particularly sluggish growth in output per labor hour after 1973.3 Collective bargaining practiced primarily as rule making has become self-defeating for both unions and management. It interferes with management's efficient operation of the enterprise, and ensnares employees with legitimate grievances in a web of red tape. It also contributes to the vehemence of employer attempts to resist union organization drives. Study after study of U.S. managers has shown that managers fear the imposition of restrictive work practices far more than the higher wages and benefits which unionization may bring. Companies' efforts to make competitive operations out of older plants often fail because changes in current work rules take the form of additional complex rules which do not provide the flexibility needed to turn a facility around. What management really needs is fewer rules altogether, and willing cooperation from the work force. The union, for its side, needs a management sensitive to the needs of people. Both are very difficult to obtain in the U.S. labor relations environment.

Question:

Identify the ethical dilemma in this scenario:

Comment 1:

Sarah Potterman- Accepting a grant to research the company to which you are evaluating is a conflict of interest. It is difficult to be impartial toward the company that is paying the bills.

Jim Hopler- Changing the rules and omitting the facts to fit the desired outcome is essentially lying no matter how unintentional.

What are the undesirable consequences?

Sarah Potterman- Sarah may feel compelled to do less rigorous research, spin the results to look better for the software company, or just not publish the results if they reflected poorly on the software company. Even if her research was impeccable, she may be accused of partiality by the software company's competitors.

Jim Hopler- If Jim's leaders or customers found that he had skewed the data to improve his results, he could lose face, lose the company customers, or he could lose his job. Additionally, the company would not be making the necessary improvements to reach the goals they set.

Propose an ethical solution that considers the welfare of all the stakeholders.

Sarah Potterman- Ideally, her research would be funded by a non-benefiting party. She could also request the backing of all areas of intervention to see if there would be a way for the funding to be made across the different interventions so as to give the same advantage to all. This would have to be an all or none though.

Jim Hopler- Though the findings that Jim presented to his corporate office were not accurate, they were not using the same criteria to make the evaluation, and they did not meet the goals set by the company, they were still positive findings. Jim would have demonstrated better judgment and integrity by presenting the whole truth. Though the percent of "outstanding" did go down, the rating of "poor" had a significant improvement from 20% down to just 5%. Presenting that the "outstanding" percent went down but overall customer service rating went up would have been honest and potentially impressive enough.

Comment 2:

For the Sarah Potterman case and questions, the ethical dilemma is that Sarah's results may be biased because one firm is giving funds for her to compare it with other firms. The pay, whether or not it could be seen as a gift or not, is still a benefit to Sarah, and could be viewed as bias if she reviews RSPT Inc. more favorably than the other companies. Even if Sarah attempts to not be bias, she may still, unconsciously, choose RSPT Inc. over their competitor. The undesired consequences may be that RSPT Inc. receives an unfair advantage over the competitors and/or the competitors argue that Sarah's review is bias and cause her research to become rejected. Sarah should deny the gift/offer of funding and or request the same amount of funding from the competitors to make sure that the review is fair across the board.

For the Jim Hopler case and questions, the ethical dilemma lies with the changing of facts and numbers. If the company wanted to reduce the number of options, then it would have to reevaluate the initial score keeping procedure, or start from the beginning and scrap the old evaluations. By shrinking the chart, it skewed the information in the favor of the company, but it did not improve overall performance. The inaccuracy that the new numbers negate the reason for creating the survey in the first place. The undesirable effects are that the survey is not compatible with the previous surveys, which should have been kept consistent or re-evaluated accurately. Since it is difficult to go back and re-evaluate accurately, it would be highly recommended to stay with the original survey. By staying with the original survey, the company will be able to change and improve their customer relationships. If the company has decided that they do not want to change any further, than a survey will not make a difference.

Comment 3:

Sarah is researching the effectiveness of various intervention methods, one of which is the interactive system from RSPT. However, different from her sources for the other methods she is researching, RSPT is offering to fund her entire research as well as offering her an unsolicited grant for her data collection expenses. This creates an ethical dilemma as none of her sources for her research should receive any ‘different’ treatment from the others. All sources should feel that they are being treated equally. Even though Sarah might have good intentions and use the money without warranting any favors to RSPT, the credibility of her results might be questionable. Also, if she uses the funds from RSPT Sarah might find herself being biased in her approach and this might affect her results. A suggested ethical approach could be that Sarah does not accept any funding from all of her sources for her research, or she requires each source to contribute the same amount towards her research. At least either way no one source seems to be getting any preferential treatment and Sarah’s research is convincingly transparent to all parties involved.

Part 2

The ethical dilemma that is presented in Jim’s case is that Jim’s team decided to select the statistical analysis that gave them their ‘expected’ results. Submitting the results to corporate portrays success of the changes implemented by Jim and his team, however it is not an accurate representation of the achievement of the goal the team had initially set out to attain. Ignoring the initially computed results prevents Jim’s team from further analyzing their data to obtain a clearer representation of the situation at hand and the problem to be solved. A suggested more ethical approach would be for Jim’s team to adjust their goal so that they aim to improve the ratings of each category, that is, decrease ratings in less favorable categories and increase ratings in more favorable categories. Since the number of ratings for each of the categories are dependent on each other, decreasing the less favorable categories would inherently increase ratings in the more favorable categories.

Comment 4:

In the first scenario the ethical dilemma is that RSPT is going to fund the expenses Sarah’s research. Since RSPT is funding the research project, the consequences could be that there is some bias when it comes to the data that is revealed. Another consequence could be possible manipulation being that they are funding the research. This consequence creates the question of RSPT being allowed to manipulate the data in favor of their product and strategy. My proposal for an ethical solution would be to accept the free software, which Sarah was originally requesting and deny the offer for the funding for the research. That way any possible negative consequences are removed regarding possible bias coming from Sarah or misreporting of the data and if RSPT’s software is the best strategy.

In the second scenario the ethical dilemma scenario is that Jim changed the way the data was calculated in order to make it more favorable for his office’s stats. The consequences are that if the company sees the raw data and how Jim manipulated the data for his benefit, he could be fired. Another consequence could be if there is a problem area that the original data is showing, then that problem will not get solved to increase the numbers, instead Jim will have to continue to figure out ways to manipulate the numbers.

My proposal is to combine poor and below average as below average and then combine above average and outstanding as above average and see the how the numbers have changed from there. If you do that you’ll receive this:

1st survey – Below Average – 25%, Average – 15%, Above Average – 60%

2nd survey – Below Average – 10%, Average – 20%, Above Average – 70%

Now you can see from the changes that Jim has implemented that he has made improvements without unethically manipulating the data.

PLEASE GIVE YOUR VIEW ON BOTH SCENARIOS BASED ON THE COMMENT POSTED ABOVE

Employees at D-Bart’s San Jose facility have reason to be concerned. Division Manager Karen Howell received word from headquarters that the San Jose plant would be closed, with operations merged into the San Francisco facility. Most of the San Jose staff would be transferred to San Francisco, since the change was more an effort to save facility costs than to eliminate workers. Even so, approximately 20 percent of the San Jose staff would be let go. Howell was to work with supervisors to decide who would go and who would stay. Since there was no particular area that is to be reduced, Howell thought the most straightforward and equitable method to determine staff cuts was to eliminate 20 percent from each department, with termination decisions based on performance appraisal scores. She has reviewed appraisal records and generated a list of employees she believed should get notice. Howell has not yet shared her list with managers, and no general announcement has been made to employees. Managers have been informed of anticipated cuts and were asked to come up with suggestions on which employees to cut. Howell planned to meet with each department manager to finalize their decisions before they took any action. Howell met with Production Supervisor Dave Bradshaw this morning. They needed to cut five people from his department. Howell and Bradshaw both agreed that reductions would be difficult, but she was surprised when Bradshaw said, “I know this is going to be hard for some people, but it’ll be a good thing, too. I’ve got a couple of people I have wanted to get rid of for a very long time.” “Who’s that?” asked Karen. “Ben Renfro and Jackie Callahan,” Dave said without hesitation. “Why?” asked Karen, “They both have outstanding performance appraisals.” “Well, it doesn’t matter what the paperwork says,” he answered, “they’re both terrible. Renfro’s always wasting time chatting with other employees. He keeps everybody from working, and he never meets production goals. Callahan can’t get to work on time. I bet she’s late three days out of five.” “How do you know she’s late three days out of five?” Karen asked. “Have you kept a log or documented her absence?” “No, but I work with these people. I know what they’re doing. We’re pushed to meet production numbers,” Dave said in his defense. “We don’t have time for that paperwork stuff, and besides, people know they have to be at work on time. If they can’t even do that, we should just get rid of them!” Howell found much the same response from all the managers. It appeared that no one had been taking the appraisal process seriously. Feedback to employees had been haphazard at best, and discipline, if it had occurred at all, had been arbitrary and not properly documented. Managers simply checked off boxes on the appraisal forms so they could get back to the “real” work of production. Howell shook her head. Obviously, the existing performance appraisals could not provide reliable documentation on which to base reduction decisions. She would have to come up with a different plan for appraisals and reducing staff. SHRM is recognized as the source for this case study. Students will complete the assigned case study as a way to increase learning through application of course material in complex, real world situations. To complete the case study the student will:

• Identify and define the central dilemma presented in the case

• Select and gather pertinent areas of consideration, and identify critical data and stakeholders (if you need to make assumptions about any of the facts in the case, be sure to specify these assumptions in your analysis)

• Gather additional information and research as necessary

• Identify and investigate all appropriate possibilities to resolve the central issues, and present at least three different options

• Select and present the best solution and include support for the decision that recognizes positions of all the stakeholders

• Describe how to implement the best solution and include strategies to address the known challenges. Also include the likely implications of the selected solution.