Chicanos in music essays

Chicanos in music essays Chicanos have come a long way in this industry as well as other ethnic groups. Chicanos do not just come out with the all time favorite music such as corridos, regional mexicano, or banda. Now a days Chicanos are coming out with Chicano Rap, Regional Urbano, Reggeton. Regional Urbano is some what like Regional Urbano, but the only difference is that in Regional Urbano is rapping in Spanish with a Spanish beat background. Reggeton is some what like reggae but its with Chicanos. That kind music is also mixed with rap beats as well as Spanish beats. A lot of the rappers do not just rap about killing someone or about money but some rap about how it has been growing up in the world being a Chicano(a). They also rap about how hard they saw it when going to school and how hard they had it when they would drop out of school. They send out positive messages about staying in school. Chicanos are coming out with different movements besides the ones we already know. The main one you hear about in the mainstream is Latin Pop, but now Chicanos name it Movimiento Chicano. The Movimiento Chicano is not the same as Latin Pop they are two different types of music. Not like Ricky Martin, J Lo, and many others that went from Spanish to English Chicanos are doing the opposite. Chicanos are not just going from English to Spanish but they are also doing music in both the languages which turns out to be Spanglish. Some Chicanos such as Jae-P, Azteka, Lil Rob, Mr. Capone-e and many others that are bring Chicano Rap and Regional Urbano out to the public. They relate themselves to us and how it is to grow up as a Chicano. Most of the Chicanos grew up in the streets and know how it its to live out there in the streets. They want to let everyone know what it is like to live in the streets getting involved in gangs and other things that go on when living in the streets. I know some rappers that come from South Central LA, Watts, San Dieg...

Becoming a Storm Chaser- Chris Caldwell Interview

Becoming a Storm Chaser- Chris Caldwell Interview How can I become a storm chaser? is one of the most frequent questions I get asked. Last year, I reported on the National Weather Festival and a new event called the Storm Chaser Car Show. This year, I had the opportunity to complete an interview with one of the participants in the show. His name is Chris Caldwell and he works for KOCO TV 5 in Oklahoma as a professional storm chaser. He is a member of the F.A.S.T. Team (First Alert Storm Team) and even runs is own website Ponca City Weather. Catch his video in the KOCO TV blog about building a chase car! Anyone can join in on the celebration on Saturday, October 20th, 2007. The events are part of the National Weather Festival which includes tours of the National Weather Center, vendors, amateur radio demonstrations, and fun weather-related kids activities. As for the cars of storm chasing, awards are given out in the following categories Most Hail DamageMost Working SensorsMost UniqueMost Cutting EdgeBest LookingMeatwagon Award If you have a car that meets any of the above requirements, you can register for the show for free! This year, there will be two separate categories for personal and sponsored vehicles. How Did You Get Started in Storm Chasing? When I started storm chasing there werent many people chasing at that time. I had done it as a hobby and anytime a storm would be within 25 miles I would go chase it! That was back in 1991. I got me interested in chasing when an F5 tornado passed right in front of me across highway 177 just south of Ponca City as I was on my way to Tulsa. At the time, I was driving a UPS truck. I was headed to the airport with next-day-air packages and as I got south of town I could see this massive mile wide tornado coming from the west. I was trying to hurry to beat it so I didnt have to wait for it to cross the road. I didnt quite make it and instead I sat and watched it hit a mobile home and it picked up a 24 foot stock trailer that was attached to a dual-wheel pickup loaded with cattle. I never did see where it landed. The mobile home itself just disintegrated. This storm actually had just hit the area that I had grown up in but I couldnt stay to make sure everyone was okay. I continued on to Tulsa and on the way I saw numerous funnels, at least 30, and as I approached the Hallet area I came across a 2nd tornado. By then it was dark. All the way over I had to slow down and stop since we were coming across power lines down all over the place. I was able to see the tornado near the Hallet exit only from the lightning illuminating it. I got out of the vehicle and a trooper was there getting everyone under the overpass bridge. But Overpasses are NOT Considered Safe You are right. Overpasses as tornado shelters are not considered safe. Little did we know back then that that was the wrong thing to do but we all managed to live even though the tornado went right over the top of us. I got away from there and headed into Tulsa. I kept seeing ambulance after ambulance heading west and then I saw why†¦There were people searching for survivors out in a field near a housing edition on the west side of the Tulsa Metro area. I made it to the airport some 2 hours late but they held the plane and I turned around and headed back home and saw even more rescue people heading west. I had heard there was several killed in that housing plan but never did hear a final count. It was this one night of tornadoes that got me even more interested in chasing. From then on, I started going to classes put on by the National Weather Service and I started reading all the books I could find on weather. What Kinds of Classes Were Available? There is no course you go and take to become a storm chaser. Most of it is learned by going out and chasing. I now chase for KOCO TV 5 in Oklahoma City and to chase for them you have to have some experience. They dont just throw people out that say ‘I want to chase.’ In fact all of their chasers have extensive chase time before they started chasing for them. My experience lasted from 1991 until 2002 before I started chasing for them. What is Your Favorite Part of Storm Chasing? Once a storm has shot up and it classified as severe, the chase is on. This is the part that I enjoy the most. Getting yourself in position can be hectic since we have roads to follow but the tornado itself has no highways or roads it has to stay on. I always try and get to the part of the storm that allows me the best photo opportunity as well as allows me to report back on what the storm is doing and where it is heading. I guess warning the public and letting people know its coming their way is the reason we are out there and indeed it is what I enjoy most. What is Your Least Favorite Part of Storm Chasing? My all means that would be night-time chasing. I have had...Continued on Page 2. What is Your Least Favorite Part of Storm Chasing? What is the Greatest Storm You Ever Chased? What About Close Calls? How Long Does it Take to Build a Chase Car? How About Storm Chase Vacations? What Do You Think of These? †chasecation† Anything Else You Would Like to Add? By the way, every year I attend several classes put on by the National Weather Service. One of these classes is done in an evening and then there are the more advanced ones that are 3 days long. This year I will also be attending the storm chaser convention since they have started doing seminars at it as well.

Facts about Scotland Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Facts about Scotland - Research Paper Example This essay analyzes that Scotland has produced several famous personalities, which are related to the creative writing. A few among the well-known names in the literature include James Kelman, AL Kennedy, Janice Galloway, Liz Lochhead, Alisdair Gray, Irvine Welsh, Ian Rankin, Andrew O'Hagan and many others. Most of the business outsource processing jobs have gone to the country as it has around 60,000 employees in almost 300 call centers that cater to businesses of companies like Dell, Direct Line, among others. The oil and gas industry of Scotland supports nearly hundred thousand jobs, spread around 40 countries worldwide, as there are around 2000 service and supply companies related to this trade, internationally. In a report by Financial Times FDI magazine, Scotland was named as the â€Å"UK region of future-2006/7†, while it was listed on the top in human resources, IT and telecom.The country is ranked as a fifth largest financial center for Europe. Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland, headquartered here, has operations worldwide, as they have the reputation of efficient performance, internationally.The aerospace industry in Scotland has almost 10% share of the UK’s aerospace industry, as per the Scottish Survey Report. The aerospace industry in Scotland had a turnover of Pound Sterling 2.1 billion; while Prestwick has a reputation of being the excellent center for maintenance, repairs, and overhaul, as it caters to companies like GE, Goodrich, to name a few.

The learning organization can never be achieved in reality Essay

The learning organization can never be achieved in reality - Essay Example Management theorists including Smith recognize that although there has been considerable debate about learning organizations ever since the emergence of the concept in the early 1990s,it has not been easy to cite examples of such organizations in real life. Smith (2001a) therefore is of the opinion that the concept of the learning organization may be too idealistic to be translated into reality; similarly, theorists such as Jashapara (1993) have metaphorically equated the struggle to become a learning organization with 'a quest for the Holy Grail'. This paper first reviews, summarizes and explains available literature on the subject of learning organizations and further attempts to determine whether such an organization is in reality achievable or not.The concept of the learning organization was pioneered and popularized during the 1990s by Peter Senge through his book The Fifth Discipline which was first published in the year 1990 (Smith, 2001b). The premise behind the theory of lea rning organizations is that in the rapidly changing world; where today's new discovery may be obsolete tomorrow, only those succeed who are 'adaptive' and 'flexible' (Smith, 2001) and Senge (1990a, p. 4) believes that this could only happen when organizations 'discover how to tap people's commitment and capacity to learn at all levels'. Senge (1990a, p. 3) views learning organizations as those where people continually strive to broaden the horizons of their capacity for the achievement of desired results, where innovative and out of the box thinking is encouraged and cultivated, where team work and collectivism is valued and 'where people are continually learning to see the whole together'. Senge believes that true learning enables both organizations and individuals to re-invent themselves and thus argues that survival alone is not the objective for learning organizations. He goes on to distinguish between 'adaptive' or single-loop learning and 'generative' or double-loop learning, and explains that where 'adaptive learning' is that which is necessary for mere survival, learning organizations are those which combine adaptive learning with 'generative learning', i.e. learning which enriches the ability to create (1990a, p. 14). Evolution of the Concept of the Learning Organization Rowden (2001), in an effort to trace the learning organization to its founding disciplines recognizes that the concept of the learning organization is not new and can trace its roots in organizational learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978) as well as being derived from action learning (Revans, 1983). Further, the learning organization concept is found to be rooted in organizational development specifically in 'action research methodology' and organic organizational theory. The concept is based most specifically on systems theory (Senge, 1990a) whereas its application to business has been more of an evolutionary outcome of strategic management (Fiol & Lyles 1985; Hosley et al. 1994), which in turn has over the years realized that the fundamental source of strategic change is in fact organizational learning (DeGeus 1988; Jashapara 1993). Rowden (2001) further notes the opinions of thinkers Senge (1990b) and Stata (1989) that the practical application of the notion of the learning organizatio n began with the increased emphasis on continual quality improvement in the recent past. Characteristics of Learning Organizations Senge (1990a) identifies the five building blocks of the learning organization and calls them its 'component technologies', which are systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision and team learning. Similar thinking is echoed by Watkins & Marsick (1993) and Rowden (2001), who agree that learning organizations share certain key characteristics. They provide learning opportunities to

Personal life Essay Example for Free

Personal life Essay Quote I chose the quote â€Å"You also have to take time to think about why it is the right thing† this quote with the context of the text is certainly true. Just because all the people including your parents act in certain ways for specific situations, it doesn ´t mean that it ´s the right thing to do. And if you act like you have always seen just to follow everybody else, in my opinion is worst, because you don ´t even know if that actions are the right thing to do, you are just doing what â€Å"everybody does† and for me that is worst than thinking about the situation, taking your own decision, and then if you made it wrong, that helps you learning about good and bad decisions by your own, then you can judge another people decisions, because you have already analyze different situations by your own. Personal Case In the part of the text that shows some examples of ethical dilemmas, the one that says â€Å"should I extend the life of my beloved pet, or should I put an end to its increasing suffering by having it put to sleep?† This reminds me of a pet my dad loved, its name was Toby, it was a little Fox Terrier my dad bought like 10 years ago, it was a very healthy dog, but then when he started getting older, a ball started growing in his throat, so he started having eating and breathing problems, we took him to the vet, and he told us that he had a type of cancer, so he recommended us to put it to sleep, but my father refused. Toby started being skinner, and one day we found him dead in the garden. Maybe I would preferred having it put to sleep, that make him and my dad suffer, because every time my dad saw Toby, he was very sad because of its condition. Main Points This article wants us to understand what ethics is, the main point of it is realize that ethics is present everyday in every activity we do during the day. Also its purpose is to show us some ethic dilemmas to identify whether we have been part of something similar. At the end this article what’s us to realize that we have to take control of our lives, and our ethic decisions, because doing the things just because always he have done it like this, it doesn ´t mean it is the right thing to do.

The Character Vasia in Boris Pasternacks Doctor Zhivago :: Doctor Zhivago Essays

The Character Vasia in Boris Pasternack's Doctor Zhivago The character Vasia Brykin, in the novel Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternack, is created and developed as a symbol of the rampant and chaotic times during the turbulent Russian Revolution. His significance in relation to the overall plot is minor because of his only two sub-chapter appearances, but thematically he works to show the breakdown of the Russian economic and social infrastructure in the country, and the lasting effects it has on the generation of lives that were swept up in its political turmoil. Vasia is introduced in chapter seven, on the train to the Urals, where Yurii Andreievich Zhivago learns of his depressing story. Vasia Brykin's father was killed in the war, and his mother had sent him to be apprenticed to his uncle at age sixteen. One day his uncle was called in by the local soviet authorities to answer some questions, and accidentally walked into the Bolshevik's labor recruitment office, where he was conscripted into forced labor and herded off to a train. Vasia and his aunt went to say farewell the next day, and his uncle pleaded with the guard, Voroniuk, to let him out of the car to see his wife for one last minute. Voroniuk, fearing for his own position, allowed him to leave only if Vasia stayed in his place for insurance. Vasia's uncle never returned, and he cried and pleaded with Voroniuk, but it was to no avail. Physically, Vasia appeared "an attractive boy with regular features who looked like a royal page or an angel of God in a picture" (223). He has red hair, and an unspoiled innocent look to him. On the external, he is a very enthusiastic person, full of compassion and emotion, especially when he speaks of his family and life back in his home village of Veretenniki: That's what I say-Buisky-Buisky village. Of course I know it, that's where you get off the main road, you turn right and right again. That's to get to us, to Veretenniki. And your way must be left, away from the river, isn't it? You know the river Pelga? Well, of course! That's our river. You keep following the river, on and on, and away up on the cliff...(224-225)

Ups Case Study

UV0906 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS) had grown spectacularly from its humble beginning in 1907, when 19-year-old Jim Casey borrowed $100 to start a messenger and homedelivery service for Seattle department stores. By 2007, UPS had become a global public company, with a market cap of $74 billion, more than 428,000 employees, $47 billion in revenue, and operations in more than 200 countries. A recognized leader among packagedelivery companies, its growth had been above industry averages and had historically been through geographical expansion.In 1998, UPS changed its business model to Synchronized Commerce and adopted a new growth strategy it called the Four Quadrant model. UPS had hoped to expand its market space from $90 billion to $3. 2 trillion by transforming itself into a logistics-solutions company. But eight years after these changes, UPS was generating only 17% of its revenue from its nonpackage deliveries, with only $2 mil lion of its operating profit coming from the new businesses. In the company’s 2006 Annual Report, UPS Chairman and CEO Mike Eskew acknowledged the disappointing results and realized that these results required a response to the public market.Growth History Store locations One can look at the growth of UPS over the past 100 years as an iterative geographical expansion. UPS began as an intracity business in Seattle in 1907, and had expanded to Oakland, California, by 1919. Over the next 58 years, UPS established stores across the United States, opening its first one in New York City in 1930. In this manner, UPS extended its service through its new locations just like any expanding retailer and, in the process, became an intercity package deliverer.This case was prepared by Edward D. Hess, Professor and Batten Executive-in-Residence. It was written as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. It was a dapted from Professor Hess’s chapter on UPS in The Search for Organic Growth, ed. Hess and Kazanjian (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Copyright  © 2007 by the University of Virginia Darden School Foundation, Charlottesville, VA. All rights reserved.To order copies, send an e-mail to [email  protected] com. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of the Darden School Foundation. Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012 -2- UV0906 The company’s geographical expansion went international in 1975, when UPS opened a store in Ontario, Canada.European expansion began in 1976, with a new store in Dusseldorf, Germany. UPS then expanded continually throughout the world: the Asia-Pacific region in 1988, and Latin America in 1989. By 1995, the company had entered China, its last untapped market. Customer evolution From its beginning, in 1907, UPS operated for 46 years as an intracity delivery business, transporting packages from large department stores to customers’ homes. Then the company expanded, providing residential deliveries for other types of businesses and later for business deliveries.Changes in the American lifestyle and shopping patterns that emerged with the creation of suburbs, regional malls, and an interstate highway system forced the company to go in a new direction. UPS responded to the changes in demographics, transportation, and customer needs by transforming itself, first, into a national delivery company and, ultimately, in the 1990s, into a global delivery company. The company broadened its customer base further by delivering more than 50% of the packages that customers bought over the Internet.By 2007, the company’s customer base included all types and sizes of b usinesses, from Dell Computer to the individual entrepreneur selling products on the Internet. UPS’s 2006 worldwide revenues of $47 billion were derived primarily from package and document deliveries. From 2002 to 2007, the company expanded the scope of its services under its Synchronized Commerce model to provide freight forwarding, customs clearance, inventory management, pick and pack, export financing, and customer returns and repairs. Company Growth The growth of UPS can be illustrated best by its revenue growth, from $29. billion in 2000 to more than $47 billion in 2006. The company’s operating model produced operating margins that were the best in the industry. As shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3, UPS averaged 12% annual growth over the past decade and generated an average return on equity in excess of 20%. Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012 -3Table 1. UPS operating results. (in billions of dollars) 2006 Revenue Oper ating margins Net income CFFO $47. 6 14. 0% $ 4. 2 $ 5. 6 2005 $42. 6 14. 4% $ 3. $ 5. 8 2004 $36. 6 13. 6% $ 3. 3 $ 5. 3 2003 $33. 5 13. 3% $ 2. 9 $ 4. 6 UV0906 2002 $31. 3 13. 5% $ 3. 2 $ 5. 7 Table 2. Revenue in 2006 by segment. U. S. domestic packages International packages Supply chain and freight 64% 19% 17% Table 3. Operating profit (loss). 2006 U. S. domestic packages International packages Supply chain and freight UPS Operations Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, UPS had more than 428,000 employees worldwide, of whom more than 248,000 worked under union agreements. UPS was a vertically integrated company.For example, it operated the world’s eighthlargest airline, which employed more than 2,800 pilots and maintained a fleet of 600 jets. Flying more than 1,900 flight segments to more than 800 airports around the world, UPS airplanes moved more than four million packages and documents daily. The company delivered more than 15. 6 million packages a day and was the Intern et’s largest fulfillment source. And it delivered those 15. 6 million packages on time 99% of the time—and defect-free. UPS also operated one of the largest truck fleets in the United States, with more than 94,000 vehicles. $4. B $1. 7B $2M 2005 $4. 5B $1. 5B $156M 2004 $3. 7B $1. 1B $138M 2003 $3. 7B $. 7B $56M 2002 $3. 9B $. 3B ($167M) Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012 -4- UV0906 In its role as a large technology and telecommunications company, UPS operated the largest DB2 data base in the world, with 412 terabytes of dynamic memory. Its mainframe capacity allowed for the transmission of more than 22,000,000 instructions per second. UPS had more than 4,700 employees in its technology unit. In addition, the company operated the world’s largest phone system.Its mobile radio network transmitted more than three million packets of tracking data each day; one example of the vastness of the scale of its communicatio ns was that UPS received more than 145 million hits per business day on its Web site, with 252 million hits on peak days. The enormous size of the company was further illustrated by its Worldport technology and package hub, based in Louisville, Kentucky. This automated â€Å"airport† and package-sorting center comprised four million square feet, the equivalent of 80 football fields, and processed some 1,200,000 packages a night during a four-hour period.UPS was expanding its Worldport facility by adding another 1. 1 million square feet to increase its hourly capacity by 20%. Employees The company’s 85,000 drivers held esteemed positions in the company. The average tenure of a driver was 16 years, and driver turnover was less than 2% a year. Union drivers could earn up to $70,000 a year. Senior drivers received nine weeks’ paid annual leave, and 100% of their health-insurance premiums were paid by the company. With more than one-third of its employees from minori ty groups, UPS had a diverse workforce. More than 25% of the company’s U. S. anagers were also members of minority groups. Women represented 27% of its U. S. management team and 21% of its overall workforce. More than 70% of its full-time managers had been promoted from within. The company’s promote-from-within policy and employee-centric culture were further illustrated by the fact that more than 50% of its full-time drivers had started as part-timers. At less than 6%, annual employee turnover at UPS was low. Long tenures and low turnover permeated the company, from its front-line employees to its district managers to its 12person executive team. The average tenure for district managers was 14 years.The senior management team averaged 30 years of service. Eleven of the twelve executives, including one woman and one African American, had spent their entire working lives at UPS. Interestingly, 75% of its vice presidents had started at UPS in nonmanagement positions, and nine of the twelve members of the senior management team had only an undergraduate college degree. And no one in management had an MBA from a top-ranked business school. Most had gone to such public colleges as Purdue, Delta State, Portland State, Rutgers, and the University of Illinois. Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] om) on November 12, 2012 -5- UV0906 Kurt Kuehn, a member of the senior management team and senior vice president of Sales and Marketing, stated, â€Å"Most senior managers like me began at UPS as part-timers in college or as package sorters or assistants. We loved it, and we stayed. † UPS became a public company in 1999, in the largest IPO in the history of the New York Stock Exchange. By 2007, about half of UPS stock was owned by its current and former employees and their families. Customer Reach Yes, UPS was big and UPS was global. It made more than 15 million deliveries daily to nearly eight million customers.Its customer-contact points included 4,400 UPS stores in the United States, 1,400 global Mail Boxes Etc. stores, 1,000 UPS customer centers, 15,000 UPS authorized outlets, and 40,000 UPS drop boxes. Measurements UPS was focused on efficiency and productivity measurements and, in 2007, spent more than $10 billion integrating its processes and technology to make the company a real-time 24/7, 365-day operation. Behind every driver were the sophisticated technology and operations-support team that tracked the exact location of any package or document â€Å"anywhere, anytime. On a daily basis, UPS organized every part of its logistics chain for maximum efficiency, down to the order in which packages were loaded on vans. Using technology, UPS created routes daily that eliminated left-hand turns, saving driving time, millions of gallons of fuel, and fuel costs annually. In September 2003, UPS unveiled a new technology system designed to improve customer service and provide greater internal efficiency. This n ew system was expected to reduce mileage by more than 100 million miles and save the company almost 14 million gallons of fuel annually.In addition, the new system featured advanced tools allowing UPS to analyze and edit dispatch plans in order to optimize delivery routes and times. â€Å"We have a saying at UPS,† said Kurt Kuehn. â€Å"In God we trust; everything else we measure. † Another important ingredient in the UPS recipe for success was its engineering process and measurement mentality. UPS measured everything: CO2 emissions, the time it took to wash a windshield, the pace a driver needed to walk to a customer’s house, the most efficient way to start a package van’s ignition, the optimal way to load a package van, and the optimal daily delivery routes.Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012 -6- UV0906 In 1921, founder Jim Casey hired the first industrial engineer to do efficiency time and motion studie s. Casey started UPS on a path of process engineering that, over the years, developed into a powerful operations-research division. The division spent its first 87 years internally focused on measuring everything that could be measured, such as studying, modeling, and simulating the movements of people, conveyor belts, and packages.For example, UPS developed 340 methods for drivers to follow to increase their efficiency and ensure safety. This measurement mentality taught everyone to pay attention to the details and the little things that could threaten safety and impede on-time delivery. Another example of the passion for measurement was the way UPS measured its managers. The company used a balanced scorecard and published 16 UPS key performance indicators for the economics, social, and environmental areas. UPS measured water consumption, ground-network fuel efficiency, and global aircraft emissions.The purpose of this measure-everything mentality was expressed by Jim Holsen, vice president of Engineering, who said, â€Å"We’re never satisfied with the way things are, if they can be improved. † This measurement compulsiveness did not mean that UPS was a micromanaged, rigid, robotic workplace where every action was dictated by best practices. UPS overcame that tendency through its performance culture of paying its people well, holding everyone—from the package sorter to the CEO—to the same high standards, and being a predominantly employeeowned company.In 1942, strong controls were offset by local autonomy from the districtmanager level when drivers were given the power and authority to do what was needed to serve customers. As Jim Casey said, â€Å"Each local manager is in charge of his district. We want him to look upon it exactly as if it were his own business. We want him to solve his problems in his own way. † Culture: The Essence of UPS To understand how UPS had continued to grow its business over a 100-year period whil e avoiding the common death spiral of corporate arrogance, hubris, and insularity, it was important to understand the UPS culture and the UPS operations-research mentality.Both were so integrated and intertwined that they were a seamless whole. And both were continually perpetuated at UPS through stories, processes, measurement systems, human-resource policies, and leadership. Jim Casey built UPS over a 50-year period with a distinct and well-defined culture that embraced the values of integrity, quality, dignity, respect, stewardship, partnership, equality, and humility. To understand UPS meant understanding Casey, a man who went to work at the age of 9 because his father was ill, and who founded UPS at 19.Casey was a self-made success who rose above his humble background but never forgot his roots, treating every individual and employee with the dignity and respect he felt each deserved. Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012 -7- UV09 06 Casey often wrote and spoke about the type of company UPS should be and the values it needed to foster. He left his imprint on UPS through the values that were taught to every new employee.UPS executives believed it was their duty to make sure those values, those ways of doing business, and those ways of taking care of employees continued. They did not want the UPS culture to change or fail on their watch. The richness of the UPS culture was evidenced by the Employee Policy Manual, which every employee received, and the compendium of Casey’s speeches in the company’s book Legacy of Leadership. These speeches proved that Casey wanted to build a business where employees took pride in working for a company that conducted business as an outstanding corporate citizen.The UPS culture was multifaceted: †¢ †¢ †¢ A performance culture with â€Å"partneurial† mutuality of accountability, regardless of position A constant challenge-and-be-critical and be- better culture described as constructive dissatisfaction An employee-centric ownership culture with executives as stewards of the business Mutual accountability Kurt Kuehn described the UPS culture: â€Å"A culture of mutual accountability. Everyone is accountable to everyone else for performance—doing what’s right and doing it well. † And he added, â€Å"With our measurement system, we try to take personalities and politics out of judging performance. At UPS, the CEO was as accountable to his employees as they were to him. And in response to this, CEO Mike Eskew had a special telephone installed in his office so that any UPS employee could call him directly at any time. This mutual accountability was partneurial because employees were viewed as partners. In fact, most were actual owners of the business. This mutual accountability bred a more egalitarian culture that discouraged and devalued arrogance, hubris, or self-aggrandizement. For example, all of the top 12 executives at UPS had offices on the fourth floor instead of the top floor of the headquarters building.All the executives had offices of the same size, and almost all shared senior administrative assistants. These executives were not provided with limos or drivers. UPS did not own a corporate jet. Executives flew commercial and followed the same travel policies as other employees. There was no executive dining room. It was rare to see Italian suits, French cuffs, or made-to-order shirts on the fourth floor. For the most part, 11 of the 12 executives had held several different positions as they worked their way up the corporate ladder.The UPS culture frowned on self-marketing, and the company worked hard every day to continue the values and ideals put in place by Jim Casey. Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012 -8- UV0906 When asked to describe the UPS mutual-performance culture, Kuehn’s choice of the word â€Å"relentlessà ¢â‚¬  said it all about the passion at UPS. Relentless improvement UPS was relentless about improving and worked at a problem until it was solved. By emphasizing the details—the blocking and tackling of the business—the company focused on the processes of efficiency and productivity.This iterative learning culture was illustrated by Casey, who, when he started the business, wrote to more than 100 delivery companies across the United States to ask them how they made a profit. He reported, â€Å"We found no singular idea that was really revolutionary. It seemed to be a matter of learning as we went along, and that is about all that we have done. †1 The UPS culture was about the relentless pursuit of constant, incremental improvement. It was about how the company could be faster, smarter, and more efficient. This led to the rewarding and honoring of constructive dissatisfaction.Dissent, inquiry, questioning, challenging, and critiquing were all valued and encourag ed because they helped UPS improve. The company took the long-term approach. For instance, it took the international-operations division 28 years to become profitable. UPS was like the â€Å"little engine that could,† working at a problem or a process incrementally and iteratively until it was improved. Stewardship The third strong aspect of the UPS culture was the partneurial, employee-centric ownership and leader-stewardship that helped everyone in the company achieve their potential. According to Casey, â€Å"One measure of your success †¦ will be he degree to which you build up others who work with you. While building up others, you will build up yourself. †2 Casey continued: Good management is not just organization. It is an attitude inspired by the will to do right. Good management is taking a sincere interest in the welfare of the people you work with. It is the ability to make people feel that you and they are the company—not merely employees. 3 On the subject of future leaders, Casey said: Who will those leaders be? They will be people who now, today, are forging ahead—not speculating or with fanfare but modestly and quietly.They are the plain, simple people who are doing their best in their present jobs with us, whatever those jobs may happen to be. Such people will not fail us when called 1 2 UPS archives, 1947. UPS archives, 1945. 3 UPS archives, 1944. Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012 -9- UV0906 on for bigger things. It is for them, our successors, to remember that all the glamour, romance, and success we have in our business at any stage of its existence must be the product of years of benefiting from the work of many devoted people.And there can be no glamour, no romance, and no truly great success unless it is shared by all. 4 The employee-centric culture of UPS was further evidenced by the following: †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Promotion-fr om-within policies and actions Employee stock-ownership plans Diversity programs Employee education programs Local employees working in international operations Employee internal free-agent program allowing any UPS employee to move anywhere in the company and advanceCasey believed in and acted on the policy that it was the employees and not the executives who made a company successful, and UPS believed it had an obligation to share its success fairly with those who made it happen. The three aspects of the UPS culture—mutual accountability, constructive dissatisfaction, and employee-centric policies and ownership—were the foundation of the UPS way of doing business. Integrated into these cultural values and policies were operations research and a measurement mentality.But an important part of UPS was its corporate â€Å"heart. † Two examples of corporate citizenship at UPS stood out. In 1968, at the height of the civil-rights movement in the United States, the co mpany began a diversity-awareness program that was unique in corporate America. Calling it the Community Internship Program, UPS placed more than 1,200 senior managers in inner city or Appalachian environments. These employees spent several weeks working in soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and other community-service facilities.UPS also issued an Annual Corporate Sustainability Report. More than 80 pages long, this report detailed how UPS balanced its economic success with social and environmental objectives and how it measured its performance. To that end, for five years running, UPS and its employees made up the largest segment of contributors to the U. S. United Way Campaign, contributing more than $57 million in 2005 alone. 4 UPS archives, 1957. Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012 -10Cultural Fit in Hiring UV0906UPS hired people who fit into its culture and its iterative improvement and measurement workplace. The people who UPS avoided hiring were those who wanted a fast track to the top. Instead, UPS looked for candidates who wanted to be part of a team that was the best at what it did and who loved the blocking and tackling of team business. The payoff for a job well done was the opportunity for a career of professional and experience development. New Business Model and Strategy When UPS ran out of geographical areas in which to grow, at least three things could have happened.First, it could have hit the growth wall and plateaued. Second, it could have tried to sell new, complementary services to its existing customer base. And third, it could have made a major diversification move through an acquisition. In 1998, the company picked the second option when it announced it would provide Synchronized Commerce solutions for its customer base. Synchronized Commerce expanded UPS’s market space, and CEO Mike Eskew declared, â€Å"Our new mission is ambitious. It propels us from a $90-billion market into a $3. -trillion market. † In effect, Synchronized Commerce allowed UPS to sell more products and services to its existing customers. To effectuate this model, UPS acquired nearly 30 service providers with expertise in such different areas of Synchronized Commerce as freight forwarding, customer clearing, export financing, fulfillment services, and customer returns and repairs. Eskew defined Synchronized Commerce as the coordinated and efficient movement of goods, information, and financing along the supply and distribution chain.This change was huge, as it not only challenged the UPS sales force, but also changed the focus of the company’s operations-research division. Rather than focusing exclusively on improving efficiency and productivity, the focus shifted to a consulting group that sold those skills to UPS customers. Four Quadrant Model UPS did not stop at its Synchronized Commerce initiative. Eskew also codified and explained UPS’s organic-growth strategy to UPS employees and to Wall Street. He named this new strategy the Four Quadrant Model, based on the University of North Carolina basketball team’s use of the four-quadrant offense.He stated, â€Å"We will call our offense for innovation ‘The Four Quadrants,’ which focuses on innovating existing business operations internally and externally and likewise focuses innovation on new entrepreneurial ventures both internally and externally. † Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012 -11- UV0906 The Four Quadrant Model reemphasized the long-standing principle at UPS of maintaining the core while seeking to grow new revenue sources. UPS was adamant that it could not fail in servicing its core business and that it had to keep adding services to its existing service model.Kurt Kuehn explained: â€Å"The more value we can add for our customers on top of or within our existing business model, the more value we will create for our customers and for UPS. † He added, â€Å"Our organic-growth strategy is simple: it is the business model. † The entrepreneurial activities at UPS were internally and externally driven by its venturecapital fund and alliances with universities and partners. UPS understood that it would have a high failure rate, but worked to manage the risks so that much could be learned quickly and at a low cost.Results of New Business Model In the fourth quarter of 2006, UPS initiated a restructuring plan for its forwarding and logistics operations, including a reduction in nonoperating staff of approximately 1,400 people. And how had the new model done? It had produced only $2 million in operating profit. Eskew knew that these disappointing results required a response to the public market, so he acknowledged the situation: The Supply Chain and Freight segment produced disappointing results †¦ 2006 brought a sharper focus in our logistics business†¦.Simply, all suppl y chain solutions must meet two criteria. One, they must be limited to the transportation network, and two, they must be repeatable, and that is, able to be used by a number of customers simultaneously. 5 Still, the new business model had raised some interesting questions. 5 2006 UPS Annual Report. Purchased by carlos manuel Garcia Gay ([email  protected] com) on November 12, 2012

Change management: the implications of self-interest on organizational change

Introduction Organizations in the modern business environment face rapid change driven by globalization and continuous technological innovation. To adapt to this rapid change and to be successful in enhancing organizational performance in this environment, an effective approach is required to facilitate the transitioning of individuals, teams and organizations to a desired future state. A structured approach enabling organizational change would ensure smooth change and successful implementation in the pursuit of lasting benefits (Bennis, 2000). Despite this need, efforts towards organizational change often run into some form of human resistance due primarily to the diverse ways in which individuals and groups act in response to change. However rational or positive, change often causes some form of emotional turmoil and involves perceptions of loss and uncertainty (Beitler, 2005). Kotter and Schlesinger (1979; 451) identify four common reasons people resist change including: †¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"a desire not to lose something of value (parochial self-interest), a misunderstanding of the change and its implications, a belief that the change does not make sense for the organization, and a low tolerance for change.† Self-interest is a major reason for resistance within organizations with people focusing on their own best interest and not those of the entire organization. This paper explores the effect of self-interest in change management evaluating the view that this factor necessitates the adoption of pluralism in organizations with regard to management styles and approaches, organizational design, culture, and decision-making. Also evaluated is the view that although self-interest undermines the concept of â€Å"shared organizational vision,† it is essential to the comprehension of the nature of resistance to change and how that resistance might be managed. This is achieved through an in-depth analysis evaluating organizational context, culture as well as employee beha viour and attitudes which are linked to potential resistance. It contributes to the understanding and application of change management processes and how transformational change can be sustained towards enhanced organizational performance. Parochial self-interest Despite potential positive outcomes, it is nearly always the case that change is resisted. A degree of resistance is normal and acceptable given that change and its attendant process is often disruptive and stressful (Lawson and Price, 2003). A degree of scepticism can also be healthy especially when there are actual or perceived weaknesses in the change proposed, which need to be addressed for the change to have desired positive outcomes (Frese and Fay, 2001). However, resistance in any form and from whatever cause impedes the achievement of business objectives which form the essence of the pursuit and effective management of organizational change (Bennis, 2000). It is a widely held opinion that humans are born with self-interest as an innate tendency and their primary motive, which underlies their outwardly evident behaviour, is to safeguard and to improve these interests (Miller, 1999). This tendency is often automatic, habitual and is in most cases exercised without conscious tho ught (Mansbridge, 1990; Miller, 1999). Self-interest is, therefore, part of normal human nature inherent in our being with every individual having the propensity to narrowly focus on their own best interest and self-preservation before that of others including the organization. Self-interest concerns individual regard for the implications of change for themselves linked to a desire not to lose something of value. In the context of organizational change, this concern and regard for self often causes individuals to resist changes or alterations, particularly if there are suspicions or negative perceptions regarding the changes or circumstances (van Dam et al, 2008). Strong resistance to change is however often rooted in feelings that are historically reinforced and deeply conditioned, established ways, procedures, or methods which could be subject to disruption through the change (Battilana and Casciaro, 2013). Resistance could also result from the individual’s perception of a particular situation, as well as their levels of tolerance for change which could be linked to other causes of resistance such as inadequate information and/or understanding of the necessity and implications of the change; adequate skills development and training; trust and a sense of security; and overall employee relations in organization settings (Zander, 1950; Beitler, 2005). However, in some cases, self-interest has negative connotations of greed and selfishness in the context in which such self-concern goes against the interests of others or widely accepted moral values (Miller, 1999; Rocha and Ghoshal, 2006). In this case, an individual acts to safeguard individual benefits and/or to enhance gain without regard to the impact and effect of their decisions and actions on others including the interests and objectives of the organization. In the exploration of the nature of self-interest and its implications in the context of organizational change, this paper reviews two theoreti cal viewpoints applicable to this focus. These include the rational-economic view which is discussed alongside complementary theories, such as the bureaucratic-hierarchy organizational theory and the neo-institutional economic theory; and the humanistic view, in which the communitarian and collaboration theories are addressed. These orientations reflect a shift in regard for human nature and behaviour from the traditional narrow definition of the rational, egocentric individual to a greater recognition of capacity for other-orientation and willingness of individuals for collaborative action. Theoretical context In neoclassical economics under the capitalist system, the business environment is portrayed in a mechanistic nature with businesses portrayed as ‘machines’ serving primarily for profit maximization subject to iron laws of competition (Mahoney, 2005). This linguistic scheme tends to ignore reality and focuses strictly on mathematical grammar which ideally, albeit not factually, replaces human judgment with algorithms (Rubinstein, 2006). It does not anticipate challenges regarding the human component of organizations, assuming it to be among essential factors of production. However, the human component in business is significant and cannot be ignored or eliminated in the conduct of economic activities; being an essential space through which individual participants exercise responsibility (Sen, 2002; Harder et al, 2004). Businesses in the modern world have to grapple with the human resource component, given the rapidly changing nature of business and greater flexibility an d freedoms of employees participating in production. A central concern in the study of organizational behaviour is how to get employees to contribute high levels of effort and performance to their organization’s collective interests (Mahoney and McGahan. 2007). It entails the pursuit of mechanisms through which to achieve greater alignment between the self and the collective interest (Lawson and Price, 2003; van Dam et al, 2008) essential for the achievement of enhanced organizational performance and crucial in the modern dynamic business environment particularly in moments of change. On one hand, in the context of neoclassical economics, the practice and study of organizations has been based on the foremost assumption of individuals and organizations as rational actors pursuing their self-interests in an inherently competitive space in which several parties involved strive for scarce resources (Diefenbach, 2007). This is the basis for the rational-economic view which assumes that self and collective interests are essentially in conflict (Zander, 1950). In contrast, the humanistic point of view holds that both interests are not independent of each other, embracing the view that they are compatible (Dierksmeier, 2009). These viewpoints are explored in greater detail. Rational-economic view This view essentially assumes that individuals are independent agents rationally pursuing actions that seek to maximize their own self-interests as a primary motivation for their engagement in economic considerations (Mahoney and McGahan. 2007). This has its basis in descriptions in a set of Theory X assumptions regarding human nature described by McGregor (1960) which are premised on the view that employees are naturally lazy and harbour a dislike for work. Individuals are thus reluctant to contribute to the objectives of the organizations, pursuing only money and security. The objective of organizations, then, is to control individual behaviour through rational and efficient organizational structures and processes which ensure consistency with organizational goals and objectives such as stability, efficiency and productivity (Sen, 2002; Dierksmeier, 2009). In this view, organizational design, administrative structure and management approaches adhere to bureaucratic-hierarchical for m. The design of tasks follows principles of division of labour and efficiency maximization pegged on classical economics (Diefenbach, 2007). Control is achieved through systems of authority in the structure, written rules and regulations, punishment and coercion for deviants, as well as incentives such as career advancement and compensation for compliance (Mahoney, 2005). Recent emergence of neo-institutional or organizational economics applying rational-economic assumptions to the analysis of organizations has gained in popularity. This approach relaxes the narrow assumptions of rational economics and departs from the simplistic and negative view of the nature of humans (Sen, 2002; Mahoney and McGahan, 2007). The underlying assumption that humans are rational in intent, self-interest and readily opportunistic is retained though emphasis is made on the assumption of bounded rationality (Rubinstein, 2006; Thomas and Hardy 2011). Neo-institutional approaches, in their various constit uent theories, are premised on the perspective of ready belief that individuals are likely to seek avoidance, to withhold effort, or to act deviousness in pursuit of their own interests (Diefenbach, 2007; Folger and Salvador, 2008). Hence, self-interest is seen to be in conflict with collective interests with the former taking precedence in determining individual decisions and actions. With a basis on these assumptions, agency theorists who argue for control of agents (i.e. employees) by the principal (i.e. manager) affirm the need to adopt mechanisms for incentive, monitoring and control to align the conflicting interests and to prevent agents from pursuing their individual self-interest without regard to organizational goals (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). Proponents attempting to solve problems associated with collective action advocate the use of mechanisms to distinguish individual contribution (or lack thereof) which enable incentive or sanction mechanisms (Diefenbach, 2007). This perspective does not consider collective action and collaborative effort in the organizational context as feasible instead promoting greater control and authoritative hierarchical approaches. In its core assumptions, humans are regarded as rational and readily opportunistic making the joint pursuit of a shared organizational vision in organizational settings untenable. In disregard of collective (or organizational) interest, individuals are likely to shirk, withhold effort, and act in devious ways with their self-interest taking precedence and determining their decisions and actions. In this case, pluralism, which entails a bargaining process among diverse and sometimes competing interests in the attempt to maximize the goals of all involved cannot be realized. It is ineffective in organizational settings involving diverse and varied individual interests at play. Despite its significant influence, this perspective has been subject of various criticisms. Its control mechanisms a re deemed to hinder flexibility and responsiveness reducing employee morale, creativity and satisfaction (Frese and Fay 2001; Folger and Salvador, 2008). Its primary emphasis on external control mechanisms and monetary incentives is seen to reinforce and foster negative egocentric behaviour locking out collaborative behaviour essential for the advancement of the organization’s interests (Sen, 2002; Folger and Salvador, 2008; Frese and Fay 2001). The humanistic view This view challenges the core premises of the rational-economic perspective regarding human nature focusing on motivations that underlie human behaviour in a broader orientation (Nguyen, 2000; Lawson and Price, 2003). It is premised on a contrasting set of Theory Y assumptions also described by McGregor (1960) contrasting those of Theory X. These capture the essence of the humanistic perspective including the notion that individuals will to be self-directed, to work hard, and to assume responsibility (Nguyen, 2000; Dierksmeier, 2009). Unlike the earlier approach focused on lower order survival and security needs, such assumptions serve to create more humanistic organizations which endeavour to provide employees with greater opportunity to pursue their higher order needs for self-esteem and self-actualization (Rocha and Ghoshal, 2006; Harder et al, 2004). This view is compatible with the communitarian view which sees humans as multifarious and consequently cannot be limited to concept s such as egocentric, rational and pursuing only their self-interests, not even when regarding their economic transactions (Frese and Fay 2001). Communitarians posit instead that individuals are at the same time rational and social agents, pursuing both concerns of self and moral values of community. In their view, people want and endeavour to be part of and to identify with something larger than themselves, a group or community, and to contribute to some collective good. An ability of human beings to have and to express sympathy for others and to demonstrate commitment to other-oriented values and principles is consistent with this perspective (Nguyen, 2000). Incidentally, in instances when self-interests are in conflict with moral values and commitments in a social setting, the latter in communitarian theory, often supersedes the former as the basis for individual decision making (Mansbridge, 1990; Folger and Salvador, 2008). The communitarian perspective generally advocates for i nvolvement and participation, as well as engagement in civic, collective, and social processes and activities to encourage social and moral behaviour among individuals (Lively, 1978; Battilana and Casciaro, 2013). This backs up the premise that the use of economic incentives and factors that are intrinsically motivational can foster greater alignment between self- and collective interests resulting in an internalized moral commitment to collective good rather than one which is induced or incentivized (Lawson and Price, 2003). This perspective can also be subsumed under the collaboration theory which is of the general belief that individuals have social-moral potential for the pursuit of collective interests and thus are collaborative in nature (Harder et al, 2004; Rubinstein, 2006). Proponents of this perspective have suggested that organization based on the rational-economic perspective is insufficient and incapacitated in the modern dynamic, information-based society linked in net worked systems (Mahoney and McGahan. 2007). Others also posit that there are a number of positive benefits that could accrue from organizational structures, management approaches and incentive mechanisms consistent with collaborative assumptions. These include: increasing positive behaviour due to organizational citizenship and belonging (Battilana and Casciaro, 2013); enhancing willingness and motivation to perform; facilitating high levels of morale and creativity (Frese and Fay 2001); improving the quality of team-based action and work; support of win-win approaches to resolution of problems; besides enabling greater systemic coordination (van Dam et al, 2008).Communitarianism and the collaboration theory support and front the humanistic idea that there can be significant benefits for organizations from design features and management practices oriented towards shared power with employees through increased opportunities for co-leadership, autonomy, empowerment, self-management and participation. Collaboration theory is also premised on the view that due to the interdependence of an organization’s constituent parts, there is no inherent conflict between individual self-interest and the organization’s collective interest (Lively, 1978). Research on organizational culture, for instance, has shown that organizational effectiveness can be enhanced when employees are bound together by shared values, beliefs and practices, in their natural inclination to protect and advance collective interest (Lively, 1978; Battilana and Casciaro, 2013). The collaboration-oriented approach advocates for the replacement of traditional principal-agent relations and hierarchical authority serving to control and to direct employees by a pluralist stewardship approach to management. This aims to meet the needs of various stakeholders while serving the interests of the entire organization (Lively, 1978). This view and orientation favours pluralism given that individuals in the organizational context, with diverse and sometimes competing interests, are considered to have the capacity to co-exist and to achieve democratic equilibrium essential for the obtaining of a win-win compromise. This compromise and cooperation is essential for the change process and the attainment of enhanced performance. Accordingly, self-interest is not a hindrance in the pursuit of a share organizational vision given the potential for individuals to have shared values, beliefs, and practices, and a natural inclination to protect and to advance collective interest. Such a shared vision can be attained through the pursuit of a stewardship approach to management. These recommendations are however criticized for their optimism with regard to moral values, trust and willingness to contribute and to collaborate. This optimism is deemed by sceptics as underestimating the potential pervasiveness of self-interest, the strengths of existing power relations, and the risks of democracy i n the establishment of business relations; factors which necessitate the pursuit of greater managerial/principal control and direction (Folger and Salvador, 2008). The need for greater focus on self-interest In organizational settings, various individuals and different personalities are engaged and interact each with their own priorities and motivations. Behind the various economic facts pursued by organization in their operations are free human beings (McGregor, 1960). Unlike unalterable laws of nature, structures of economic behaviour are influenced by notions and ideals of these interacting individuals that are engaged in it (Frese and Fay 2001). Time and again throughout history, it has been shown that economic behaviour changes with alterations in human attitudes eroding various economic laws (McGregor, 1960; Harder et al, 2004). The individual freedom and ideas about its responsible use plays an eminent role in the economy and if directed and employed appropriately can have significant impact in furtherance of shared organizational vision and objectives. These freedoms and ideas and their individual application in various contexts cannot be conceptualized by abstract methods, predi cted or computed (Nguyen, 2000). Unlike physical systems, human beings form theories about their contexts and act, not simply driven by material causes as often assumed by economic theory, but upon their personal interpretations of the world (Lively, 1978; Dierksmeier, 2009). In the context of organizations and in everyday life, resistance is not a single set of behaviours employees exhibit in situations such as when change is instituted. It comprises various reactions, sometimes unconscious, to forces acting on individuals or groups in a particular environment and context (Thomas and Hardy 2011). Reality in business in the organizational context therefore requires â€Å"messy† procedures and qualitative assessments which result from unpredictable democratic as opposed to technocratic decision-making procedures (van Dam et al, 2008; Thompson and Martin, 2010). There can therefore hardly be a singular effective method or approach to the management of resistance as it requires that all the diverse concerns and needs be addressed. It is also noteworthy that the common reason leading to resistance such as the desire not to lose something of value, a misunderstanding of the change and its implications, and low tolerance for the change can in some way be tied up to self-interest (Harder et al, 2004). It is therefore imperative to focus on the particular self-interest of the various individuals so as to predict potential causes of the resistance, to create an understanding on the nature of their individual and particular resistance to change, to predict their individual responses to it, and to seek appropriate response to mitigate the concerns or to tackle upcoming issues. The various reactions to the change help to elucidate the effect and actual or potential impact of the change, which might not be evident in a closed hierarchical and controlled command system. Such an approach enables the realization of greater success in the change process as it enables jo int diagnosis of problems, fostering of consensus, development of a shared vision, enhancement of cohesion and revitalization in the path to the new vision, as well as the development of all-inclusive formal policies and enhanced monitoring and adjustment. It thus is not a coercive and an impelled process but one that is inclusive and shared. The more people’s needs are better understood, the better the management of the change process and the better the involvement and participation of affected individuals in the process. It is only through such wide engagement and consensus that any transformational change desired can be effected and sustained. Conclusion Regardless of the many types of change, a critical aspect is an organization’s ability to buy-in its employees to the change. This is the predominant reason why evaluation of the implication of self-interest, particularly the unbridled parochial self-concern, is essential to change management enabling the understanding of the nature of resistance to change and therefore how such resistance might be managed. Such a capability can facilitate the sustenance of transformational change, which enables enhanced organizational performance and consequently, success in the challenging modern business environment. The modern environment, given its attendant dynamism, networked systems and information-based societies, presents a challenge to traditional hierarchical and control approaches to management. This makes pluralist and democratic methods essential for the conduct of business in present day organizations. References Battilana, J., and T., Casciaro, 2013. Overcoming resistance to organizational change: strong ties and affective co-optation (Report). Management Science, (4), 819. Bennis, W., 2000. Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Beitler, M., 2005. Overcoming Resistance to Change. Viewed from: www.strategicorganizationalchange.com Dierksmeier, C., 2009. â€Å"A Requisite Journey: From Business Ethics to Economic Philosophy.† In: The Humanistic Management Network (ed.), Humanism in Business, 68–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Folger, R. and R. Salvador, 2008. Is management theory too self-fishJournal of Management, 1127-1151. Frese, M., and D., Fay, 2001. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In: B. M. Staw and R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Harder, J., P., Robertson, and H., Woodward, 2004. The spirit of the new workplace: Breathing life into organizations. Organizational Development Journal, 22(2), 79–103. Kotter, J., and L., Schlesinger, 1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review. March-April, 1979 Kotter, J., 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67. Lawson, E., & Price, C., 2003. The psychology of change management. McKinsey Quarterly, (4), 30-41 Lively, C. 1978. Pluralism and consensus. In: P. Birnbaum, G. Parry, J. Lively, (eds.), Democracy, Consensus and Social Contract. London: Sage Publications, 188–202 Mahoney, J., 2005. Economic Foundations of Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, Mahoney, J., and A., McGahan. 2007. The field of strategic management within the evolving science of strategic organization. Strategic Organ. 5(1) 79–99. Mansbridge, J., 1990. Beyond self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press McGregor, D., 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Miller, D., 1999. The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053–1060 Nguyen, H., 2000. Do humanistic values matterAcademy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, ODC: A1-A6. Rocha, H., and S., Ghoshal, 2006. Beyond self-interest revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 585–619. Rubinstein, A., 2006. A sceptic’s comment on the study of economics. The Economic Journal, March: C1–C9. Sen, A., 2002. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Thompson, J., and Martin, F., 2010. Strategic Management: Awareness and Change. Cengage Learning EMEA. Diefenbach, T., 2007. The managerialistic ideology of organisational change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 Issue: 1, pp.126 – 144 Thomas R., and C., Hardy, 2011. Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(3), 322-331. van Dam, K., Oreg, and B., Schyns, 2008. Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to Organisational Change: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange, Development Climate, and Change Process Characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(2), 313-334. Zander, A., 1950. Resistance to change: Its analysis and prevention. Advanced Management, 4(5), 9-11.

Wriston Manufacturing-Detroit plant

Wriston Manufacturing-Detroit plant Free Online Research Papers Detroit’s production is unique when compared to other Wriston plants. Runs are typically low volume, involve significant set-up time, and vary significantly due to the sheer volume of different products lines, families and models. It is notable that the Detroit plant is the only plant manufacturing all three product lines: brakes, off-highway and on-highway axles; all other plants produce only a single product line. Manufacturing in Detroit is significantly more complex than other plant. Capital investment has lagged in Detroit and the equipment is out-dated and inefficient. The general work environment is poor, with leaking pipes and old fixtures. The layout of the Detroit plant is piecemeal; production typically requires complex flows through dedicated machining areas scattered about various buildings. Both the environment and other factors seem to contribute to a poorly motivated workforce. Wriston accounts for the revenue of each plant on a standalone basis. This is not an accurate method of cost accounting since Detroit contributes to the other plants revenues. Recommendations Wriston’s Detroit plant is no longer a viable operation due to long-term capital underinvestment and product-process mismatch. It is recommended that the plant be phased out of operations over a 3-year period with production and staff gradually shifted to a new plant to be built in the Detroit area. Further, it is also recommended that division accounting procedures and evaluation mechanisms be modified to allocate revenues/costs allowing for the synergistic benefits of Detroit’s products, and to recognize inherent manufacturing complexities, respectively. Analysis Several alternatives are presented to the divisions management: Alternative 1 Close the Plant and Distribute the Production of the Parts Amongst other Plants: When considering shutting down the Detroit plant, the impact on the receiving plants must be considered. Detroit’s parts are noted as being mostly low volume, high-setup time parts, and include service parts. The plants identified for receiving the Detroit parts are not set up for this type of operation. Lima, Lancaster and Maysville are identified as high-volume parts plants, while Fremont is identified as a high tech plant specializing in gear machining. The study team’s suggestion to move the parts to these plants do not consider the manufacturing model consciously incorporated into the setup of those plants. Variability, coupled with low volume, suggests the need for a flexible manufacturing system (FMS); the Detroit shop is instead closer to a flow shop configuration. This represents a product process mismatch. As the majority of the division’s plants are also flow shops, it seems at best uncertain whether any of Detroit’s products could be better-produced at other plants; any product transfers would almost certainly inflate the receiving plant’s burden rates. Although this option yields the highest NPV(Table 1), it does not adequately recognize the negative impact on production resulting from the introduction of these parts. Alternative 2 – Keep the Plant Open (5-10 years) and Invest in Tools and Maintenance This alternative provides the worst NPV and would be a last resort solution. The company would continue to have a negative ROA. Alternative 3 – Close the Plant, Invest in New Plant While this alternative returns a negative NPV, given the discussion of Alternative 1 with regards to the other plants abilities to take on the parts from Detroit and the need to continue the plants products, this alternative needs to be considered. While it does not meet the hurdle rate for new product investment, it will continue to provide a measure of positive cash flow and profit to the company, while meeting the needs of Wristons customers, effectively maintaining good customer relations. In regards to the new plant, the process and the work force should gradually transfer to the new plant in 3-year period instead of shifting immediately. The new plant should be built around flexible manufacturing processes. This represents a radical departure from current processes and older members of the workforce may be challenged to adapt; retraining will likely be unpopular and ineffective for these workers. While running two plants in parallel certainly incurs some overhead, it would allow the older workforce to continue the successful manufacture of some Detroit products while naturally retiring from the organization over a five-year period, and younger workers to learn the new processes and takeover products in a controlled, timely manner. In regards to the study group recommendation of dropping the Group 3 products, the financial analysis prepared by the study group for the three groups produced at Detroit incorrectly attributes fixed manufacturing overhead to the three groups in a proportional manner. Reviewing the financials, Group 3 is profitable based on its variable manufacturing costs only. Using the model presented by the study group, if Wriston were to drop group 3, the fixed manufacturing costs would have to be redistributed over the remaining two groups, resulting in an even greater net loss to the Detroit operation. Group 3 is marginally profitable and contributes to the plant’s bottom line. Conclusion In light of the above analysis, (Table 1 represent key features of each alternative) Wriston should invest in building a new plant to produce the three products lines around a flexible manufacturing system and shift the process and the staff to the new plant in a 3-year span. This phasing process allows training the new employees and gives the older ones the option to retire or continue in the new working environment. In addition, it will prevent any production stoppage and ensure satisfied customers. Moreover, the current revenue accounting policy does not properly allocate revenues to Detroit, even though Detroit provides the initial investment and helps generate revenues to other plants. Further, Detroit bears the responsibility of providing maintenance and repairs and these costs are not allocated to other plants. Accounting should recognize these contributions, by allocating a portion of the revenues to the Detroit plant and by sharing their costs among the other plants. Option 1: close the plant, transfer production Option 2: Re-tool plant (5-10 year bridge) Option 3: Build new plant NPV (10% discount rate) 29 Million -13 Million -12 Million Operational Aspects Destination plants are primarily high-volume flow shop configurations Maintenance investments do not address underlying productprocess mismatch; no expected improvement Introduction of flexible manufacturing should significantly improve performance. Research Papers on Wriston Manufacturing-Detroit plantBionic Assembly System: A New Concept of SelfTwilight of the UAWGenetic EngineeringIncorporating Risk and Uncertainty Factor in CapitalDefinition of Export QuotasOpen Architechture a white paperMarketing of Lifeboy Soap A Unilever ProductAnalysis of Ebay Expanding into AsiaThe Project Managment Office SystemResearch Process Part One

Examining the Pros and Cons of a Four-Day School Week

Examining the Pros and Cons of a Four-Day School Week Across the United States, several school districts have begun to explore, experiment with, and embrace a shift to a four-day school week.  Just a decade ago this shift would have been unimaginable.  However, the landscape is changing thanks to several factors including a slight change in public perception.   Perhaps the biggest shift giving leeway to the adoption of a four-day school week is that an increasing number of states have passed legislation giving schools the flexibility to substitute the number of instructional days for instructional hours.  The standard requirement for schools is 180 days or an average range of 990-1080 hours.  Schools are able to switch to a four-day week by simply increasing the length of their school day.  Students are still getting the same amount of instruction in terms of minutes, just in a shorter number of days. Too Early to Tell The shift to a four-day school week is so new that the research to support or oppose the trend is inconclusive at this point.  The truth is that more time is needed to answer the most pressing question. Everyone wants to know how a four-day school week will impact student performance, but conclusive data to answer that question simply does not exist at this point. While the jury is still out on its impact on student performance, there are several clear pros and cons of moving to a four-day school week.  The fact remains that the needs of every community are different.  School leaders must carefully weigh any decision to move to four-day weekend seeking out community feedback on the topic through the use of surveys and public forums.  They must publicize and examine the pros and cons associated with this move. It may turn out to be the best option for one district and not another. Saving School Districts Money Moving to a four-day school week saves the district money.  Most schools that have chosen to move to a four-day school week do so because of the financial benefits. That one extra day saves money in the areas of transportation, food services, utilities, and some areas of personnel. Though the amount of savings can be argued, every dollar matters and schools are always looking to pinch pennies. A four-day school week can improve student and teacher attendance. Appointments for doctors, dentists, and home maintenance services are able to be scheduled on that extra day off.  Doing this naturally boost attendance for both teachers and students. This improves the quality of education the student receives because they have fewer substitute teachers and are themselves in class more often. Higher Teach Morale Moving to a four-day school week boosts student and teacher morale.  Teachers and students are happier when they have that extra day off.  They come back at the start of the workweek refreshed and focused. They feel like they accomplished more over the weekend and were also able to get some extra rest.  Their minds come back clearer, rested, and ready to go to work. This also allows teachers more time for planning and collaboration.  Many teachers are using the day off for professional development and preparation for the upcoming week. They are able to research and put together higher quality lessons and activities. Furthermore, some schools are using the day off for structured collaboration where teachers work and plan together as a team. Better Quality of Life for Families The change can provide students and teachers more time with their families.  Family time is an important part of American culture. Many parents and teachers are using the extra day off as a family day for activities such as exploring a museum, hiking, shopping, or traveling.  The extra day has given families the chance to bond and do things that would not have been able to otherwise. Teachers Already on Board The change can be a great recruiting tool for attracting and hiring new teachers.  The majority of teachers are on board with the move to a four-day school week. It is an attractive element that many teachers are happy to jump on.  School districts that have moved to a four-day week often find that their pool of potential candidates is higher in quality than it was before the move. Evidence Against a Four-Day School Week Moving to a four-day school week increases the length of the school day.  The trade-off for a shorter week is a longer school day. Many schools are adding thirty minutes to both the beginning and end of the school day.  This extra hour can make the day pretty long especially for younger students, which can often lead to a loss of focus later in the day.  Another drawback to a longer school day is that it gives students less time in the evening to participate in extracurricular activities. Shifting Costs to Parents Moving to a four-day school week also has many drawbacks. The first of which is that it shifts a financial burden to parents.  Childcare for that extra day off can become a major financial burden for working parents. Parents of younger students, in particular, may be forced to pay for costly daycare services.  In addition, parents must provide meals, typically provided by the school, on that day off. Student Accountability The extra day off may also lead to less accountability for some students.  Many students may be unsupervised on the extra day off.  The lack of supervision translates to less accountability which could potentially lead to some reckless and dangerous situations.  This is especially true for students whose parents work and make the decision to allow their children to stay home by themselves in lieu of structured childcare. Moving to a four-day school week will potentially increase the amount of homework a student receives.  Teachers will have to resist the urge to increase the amount of homework that they give to their students.  The longer school day will give students less time in the evenings to complete any homework.  Teachers must approach homework cautiously, limiting homework during the school week and potentially giving them assignments to work on over the weekend. Still A Divisive Subject Moving to a four-day school week can divide a community.  There is no denying that the potential move to a four-day school week is a sensitive and divisive topic.  There will be constituents on both sides of the aisle, but little is accomplished when there is contention.  In difficult financial times, schools must examine all cost-saving options. Members of the community elect school board members to make difficult choices and they ultimately must trust those decisions.

European Financial Crisis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

European Financial Crisis - Essay Example Some countries such as Germany have adopted a very firm position on how to handle the situation which does not go well with other nations who have a contrary opinion (Hummel, 2013). There has been a slow as well as the indecisive response from the European decision-makers. The issues involve a large number of nations with different divergent approaches towards solving the crisis which has contributed to the slow pace of implementing the recommendations. Germany insisted on the adoption of stern actions aimed at reducing the budgetary deficits based on the postponement of other solutions. The slow response by the leaders allowed the problem to spread from one nation to another and the condition worsened at every instance. Those responsible for the crisis in the financial sector include the commercial banks that have continued to use riskier financial instruments that have led to banks becoming weak in the sense that they have to use their personal funds to finance their huge deficits rather than lending to other firms as well as households. The crisis is due to the continued problems witnessed in the banking sector across entire Europe. The banks have been deemed to be susceptible to changes in the financial sector (Doyran, 2011). The political class is responsible for the crisis in the government due to their hard and tough stance towards the coming up with solutions to the crisis. The political leaders are responsible for the violation of the set rules governing the operations of the European Union.