🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeStudy Guides420,000CA160,000

MGAB03H3 : MANAGEMENT.docx

40 views14 pages
graycricket22
27 Nov 2014
School
UTSC
Department
Financial Accounting
Course
MGAB03H3
Professor
Fun

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Chapter 2- how to measure economic performance, how to measure the performance of an economic system. Know to define and explain the terms on the slide: Gross domestic product (gdp): value of all goods and services produced by a country in one year. Huge number (gross) how much stuff got made in canada. Tells u the value of the stuff you make. The larger a countries gdp: more workers, use more resources, better tech, more valuable things produced. No its one indicator, an indicator of size. Big isnt a proxy for good, healthy etc. Developed countries will usually have large gdps. Making more, and more valuable, stuff fewer ppl making less stuff; also called recession (economy has to fall for 6 consecutive months) Us gdp growth 2001-2013 shit hit the fan for us economies should grow, sometimes they don"t causes a ripple effect of people getting laid off, economy shrinks.

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

Related Documents

MGTA01H3 Chapter 2: Chapter 2
azurefish923
MGTA01H3 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Gross Domestic Product, Underemployment
indigoyak978
MGTA01H3 Chapter Notes - Chapter 2: Genuine Progress Indicator, Gross Domestic Product, Business Cycle
tealarmadillo815

Related Questions

Read the article below and write a brief (1-2 paragraph) summary. This assignment should be approximately 250 words . Complete this assignment as a Word document.

Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals

Times have changed. More and more companies have decided to radically change (read “scrap” or “re-engineer”) their performance appraisal process.

Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and dramatically change the annual appraisal process.

Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.

Why the process must change.

Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? They are an artifact from traditional top-down organizations where we had to “weed out” the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.

Coupled with the performance rating is the “potential” rating, which tries to capture an individual’s potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).

This approach is based on a philosophy that “ we cant totally trust managers” so we’re going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions, which mandate that some percent of employees are rated at the bottom and only a limited percent can be rated at the top.

The well publicized problems with this process abound. These include:

Employees need and want regular feedback (daily, weekly), so a once-a-year review is not only too late but it’s often a surprise. Regular coaching is the key to alignment and performance.

Managers cannot typically “judge” an entire year of work from an individual at one time (imagine if your spouse gave you an annual review!), so the annual review is awkward and uncomfortable for both manager and employee.

Manager-employee relationships are not 1:1 like they used to be. We work with many leaders and peers during the year, so one person cannot adequately rate you without lots of peer input.

While some employees are a poor fit and likely are poor performers, these issues should be addressed immediately, not at the end of the year.

Some companies really do have a lot of high performers, so forced ranking eliminates great people and damages the culture.

People are inspired and motivated by positive, constructive feedback – and the “appraisal” process almost always works against this.

The most valuable part of an appraisal is the “development planning” conversation – what can one do to improve performance and engagement – and this is often left to a small box on the review form.

Companies are nervous about eliminating this process because:

We need a fair and validated way to distribute compensation increases (don’t we?)

We need a record of low performance when we let someone go

We need to capture performance data in an employee’s profile for future promotion and other talent reviews, development plans, and career migration

We need a way to make sure managers are doing their jobs well.

Well, I’ve probably discussed these issues with 100+ companies over the last five years and our research shows more and more that companies are ready to let this process go.

Organization structures have changed and companies need to be more agile. We have a shortage of key talent and the keys to success now focus on regular alignment, coaching, creating passion and engagement, and continuous employee development.

The new keys to success:

Develop a “feedback-rich” culture and set of tools (often online, sometimes formal, often informal) that encourages all employees to give each other feedback. Tools from companies like Achievers, Globoforce, and most HR software vendors now enable and make this easy.

Separate the discussions about performance from discussions about potential and future career plans. Yes we need to evaluate people when raise time comes, but that can be a totally different conversation from.

Talk about performance regularly and let employees create their own goals on a regular basis. Force managers to provide ongoing feedback and teach them how to have honest conversations.

Assume that employees already know something about their own performance, and force them to self-assess. People tend to have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses – give them an open and positive opportunity to share it. That starts the dialogue about expectations and the match between their self-assessment and that of the organization.

Enable managers to assess performance regularly. Software teams now use Agile tools which evaluate code on a weekly basis. Managers should be giving people feedback regularly. If they learn to do this on a regular basis it will get easier and employees will learn to appreciate it.

Focus managers on hiring the best, so they build a team which strives for 100% high performers. This is never possible of course, but rather than assuming that 20% of your employees will perform poorly, spend more time on assessment, culture, and fit to make sure very few low performers make it into the organization in the first place.

Remember that everyone wants to succeed. If they aren’t performing well it’s not necessarily their fault – the organization should take responsibility for helping them find a better fit if possible.

Set and reset goals frequently. Companies that set performance goals quarterly generate 31% greater returns from their performance process than those who do it annually, and those who do it monthly get even better results. This means employees get feedback on a continuous basis (most sales organizations work this way). Read our research for more details.

Beware of pay for performance plans. While many companies (particularly investment banking, sales) have large pay for performance plans, research showsthat these can create perverse behavior. People focus on their own goals at the expense of the organization. In sales related roles this process works well – when you move to customer service, engineering, and other “builder” roles they can create problems.

Give your leaders a cultural framework and set of values to work from. Companies like Juniper and Deckers (Uggs shoes) focus very heavily on corporate values, forcing managers to hire and manage to these values. This makes selection easier and enables us to evaluate and coach people against higher level frameworks.

Invest in leadership development. Being a manager is a tough job. Managers at all levels struggle with selection, hiring, training, coaching, and evaluation. Give them time and tools to learn, a framework for feedback, and a continuous development process so they learn how to become better.

Reward talent “production” not talent “hoarding.” If you pay your managers to “produce output,” they will focus heavily on talent performance and evaluation. This may be a good thing, but ultimately companies thrive by building skills – so in addition to encouraging managers to produce good work, incent them to produce good talent as well.

I’ve had the opportunity to study HR and performance management for almost 15 years now, and this topic has been controversial for a long time. In today’s globalized,talent constrained workplace it’s clear to me that the traditional appraisal has to change.

Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion, and alignment. The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.

Read or listen to Morals in Business: Walter Pavlo Share your thoughts and opinions regarding this real life situation. Be sure to include your ideas about what businesses can do to avoid similar problems.

https://spotlightenglish.com/listen/morals-in-business-walter-pavlo

Transcript Voice 1 Hello. I’m Marina Santee. Voice 2 And I’m Ruby Jones. Welcome to Spotlight. This programme uses a special English method of broadcasting. It is easier for people to understand, no matter where in the world they live. Voice 1 Would you consider stealing six million [6,000,000] dollars from a company, if you had the chance? Most people would immediately answer “no” to this question. The majority of people consider themselves to be good, honest citizens. Walter Pavlo used to describe himself like this. Walter was a young, successful business man. He studied hard. And he worked hard. In time, he got a good job at an international communications company called MCI. MCI managed billions of dollars each year. Walter’s office was a highly pressured working environment. Walter worked hard to meet targets and goals. If someone had asked him back then - would he steal six million dollars from the company? He would have answered, “No way!” Yet only a few years later, Walter went to prison for stealing money from MCI. What made this good man turn to crime? Here is his story. Voice 2 Walter Pavlo was born into a good family. His parents taught him Christian values. He said; Voice 3 “I was taught, ‘do not steal’; ‘do not cheat’; ‘be honest’; ‘be truthful in everything that you do.” Voice 2 Walter held these values for a long time. However, slowly, other values in the business world began to influence him. At the age of thirty-two, Walter was a senior manager at MCI. He managed millions of dollars. His job was very pressured - and difficult. Then, for the first time in his life, it looked like Walter would not meet his targets. He had to do something. He asked a co-worker for advice. His friend told Walter to cheat a little. He told him that everyone else was doing it. It was normal. Voice 1 Pavlo looked around him. It seemed that his friend was right. The world of business was full of successful cheats. Maybe a little dishonesty was not so bad. In his mind, Walter rationalised cheating. He made it seem reasonable. Voice 2 Pavlo learned how to hide customers’ debts. He made small changes in the company’s financial books to make them look better. This meant that Walter kept his good record of achievement. And it meant that the company’s records looked good to investors. Voice 1 However, this led Walter to a bigger temptation. Why not use the same method of dishonesty to enrich himself? Again, Walter rationalised his plan. He said later; Voice 3 “To me it looked like everyone was cheating. And I joined in. It did not seem that bad. Customers were getting richer. And I wanted my share.” Voice 2 Something else was happening inside Walter. He was becoming hostile in his heart. All around him were lies and cheats. He saw that people only cared about themselves. He saw the company and customers making themselves richer. He said, Voice 3 “I hated the customers. I hated the company. And then, I hated myself. Then, nothing mattered anymore.” Voice 1 And so, Walter set up a secret bank account in the Cayman Islands. Customers with debts paid money directly into this bank account. Then, Walter made their debt disappear on MCI’s records. Over a six month period, Walter and a co-worker took six million dollars! Voice 2 However, as time passed, Walter became afraid. He lived in fear of getting caught and arrested. The lies and secrets created much pressure. Walter said he became emotionally unbalanced. He came to believe that he would surely be caught - it was only a question of when. Voice 1 After a few months, MCI noticed a series of payments going into a Cayman bank account. They questioned Walter about it. Walter remembers; Voice 3 “I just said I did not want to talk about it. In a way I could not avoid uncovering my secret, because I was no longer able to hide what I was doing.” Voice 1 Walter resigned from MCI. He hoped that the investigations would stop. But they did not. MCI called in the police. Voice 2 Pavlo admitted his crime. His punishment was a prison sentence of three years and five months. He would also have to sacrifice some of his future earnings - over the next twenty-seven [27] years. Voice 1 In prison, Pavlo learned a lot about himself. He looked at the process that resulted in such severe crime. He said; Voice 3 “I do not think of myself as a bad person. For me to do something bad, or illegal, I have to make myself believe it is not bad. I rationalised, reasoned, what I was doing. I did this so much that I became far removed from reality. I told myself things like - everyone else is doing it, I need to get by, my family deserves this - and so on. This is what happens to a lot of people. They will rationalise in order to do something wrong.” Voice 2 Walter finished serving his difficult sentence in 2003. Life outside of prison was not to be easy either. His wife had divorced him. His friends had disappeared. No one wanted to employ the man who had stolen millions. However, people did want to hear about it. Voice 1 Many businesses saw the power of telling such a story. It could prevent their employees making the same mistake. Business schools and universities wanted their students to hear Walter’s story. Voice 2 And so Walter decided on a new kind of work. Today, he goes into business schools, companies and universities. He tells his story. He warns people of the easy path that leads to crime. He gives this message to business students: Voice 3 “The chance of you facing a difficult moral decision at some time in your business life is one hundred percent. It will happen. There is no way round it...” “You will never know what your values are worth until the test. The things that your parents have taught you, the things that you learned in school. What about them? When you are tested, what will you do?” Voice 1 Walter Pavlo’s values had not survived this test. However he hopes that his weaknesses may strengthen others. He hopes that his story will strengthen people’s values. And then, when they are tested they will not fall. Voice 2 The writer and producer of today’s programme was Marina Santee. All quotes were adapted for the programme. The voices you heard were from the United Kingdom and the United States. Computer users can hear our programmes, read our scripts and see our word list on our website at http://www.radio.english.net. This programme is called, ‘Morals in Business: Walter Pavlo’ Voice 1 You are welcome to comment or ask about today’s programme. You can e-mail us at radio @ english . net. Thank you for joining us today. Until next time. Goodbye.

You have just completed your undergraduate degree, and one of your favorite courses was "Today's Entrepreneurs." In fact, you enjoyed it so much you have decided you want to "be your own boss." While you were in the program, your grandfather died and left you $300,000 to do with as you please. You are not an inventor, and you do not have a trade skill that you can market; however, you have decided that you would like to purchase at least one established franchise in the fast foods area, maybe two (if profitable). The problem is that you have never been one to stay with any project for too long, so you figure that your time frame is three years. After three years you will sell off your investment and go on to something else. You have narrowed your selection down to two choices; (1) Franchise L: Lisa's Soups, Salads, & Stuff and (2) Franchise S: Sam's Fabulous Fried Chicken. The net cash flows shown below include the price you would receive for selling the franchise in Year 3 and the forecast of how each franchise will do over the three-year period.

Franchise L's cash flows will start off slowly but will increase rather quickly as people become more health conscious, while Franchise S's cash flows will start off high but will trail off as other chicken competitors enter the marketplace and as people become more health conscious and avoid fried foods. Franchise L serves breakfast and lunch, while Franchise S serves only dinner, so it is possible for you to invest in both franchises. You see these franchises as perfect complements to one another: you could attract both the lunch and dinner crowds and the health conscious and not so health conscious crowds without the franchises' directly competing against one another. Here are the net cash flows (in thousands of dollars):

Expected

net cash flows

Year

Franchise S

Franchise L

0

($100)

($100)

1

70

10

2

50

60

3

20

80

Depreciation, salvage values, net working capital requirements, and tax effects are all included in these cash flows.

You also have made subjective risk assessments of each franchise, and concluded that both franchises have risk characteristics that require a return of 10 percent. You must now determine whether one or both of the projects should be accepted.

In order to do so please answer the following questions fully. Make sure to show a time line, the formula to be used, the steps taken to solve the problem (calculator or excel) and the final numerical answer when appropriate.

Questions:

Define the term net present value (NPV).

What is each franchise's NPV? Make sure to show the formula, steps and final answer.

Based on your answer which franchise would you select? Why?

Would your answer be different if the projects are independent or mutually exclusive? Why or why not?

Would the NPVs change, and therefore your answer, if the cost of capital changed? Why or why not?

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) – you may use a financial calculator or excel. (Worth 8 points)

What is the logic/idea behind the IRR method?

Calculate the IRR for each project. Make sure to show the formula, calculator or excel steps and final answer.

According to IRR, which franchise should be accepted if they are independent? Mutually exclusive? Why?

Would the franchises' IRRs change if the cost of capital changed? Why or why not?

Define the term modified IRR (MIRR).

Find the MIRRs for Franchise L and S. Make sure to show the formula, steps and final answer.

What are the MIRR's advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis the regular IRR? What are the MIRR's advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis the NPV?

What is the rationale for the payback method?

Calculate the payback period for each franchise. Make sure to show the formula, steps and final answer.

Calculate the discounted payback period for each franchise. Make sure to show the formula, steps and final answer.

According to the payback criterion, which franchise or franchises should be accepted if the firm's maximum acceptable payback is 2 years, and if Franchise L and S are independent? If they are mutually exclusive? Why?

What is the difference between the regular and discounted payback periods? Make sure to mention the advantage and disadvantage of each.

Based on the results obtained and everything that you have described above, which franchise would you ultimately choose if the projects are mutually exclusive? Explain in detail your decision and why you chose the model you did to make your final decision.