ORGB in the News 3 WSJ: CEO Shadows Workers to Learn ‘Nitty-Gritty’ Details I like this well written piece at so many levels: in many respects you tie in key themes of the course and do so in a seemless way. You show how it has impacted your behavior today in a learning group and how it might impact your behavior as a leader in the future. Congratulations. A --Larry Stybel Prof. Stybel ORGB3201 November 30, 2016 For my third and final OB in the News submission, I chose a Wall Street Journal article titled, CEO Shadows Workers to Learn ‘Nitty-Gritty’ Details. In this article, the author, Rachel Feintzeig, examines a CEO’s employee shadowing project at a scaling software company called Gusto. This ties directly into the core objective of this course – how to get work done with and through other people. Throughout this paper, I will examine the parallels between the article and our coursework, especially as it relates to open versus closed system thinking, the effect of replacing CEOs (i.e. Starwood), the significance of retaining an insurgent culture, and how these concepts tie into effectively getting work done with and through other people. In summary, the article discusses how the CEO and cofounder of Gusto, Joshua Reeves, fosters open system thinking to understand the ‘nitty-gritty’ work that goes on at the company. Miller 2 Gusto provides payroll and benefits software to businesses and currently employs 350 people across two cities. As is common with a scaling startup, Reeves found himself focused predominately on delegating and managing people. His role often consisted of signing new employee offer letters and reviewing job descriptions, which he acknowledges, can cause a disconnect. So, in October, he decided to start a new project and engage with employees on the front lines. His plan is to shadow one employee each week on each of the 37 Gusto teams (from software engineering to design to social media). Reeves stated, “The goal is to get in the weeds” and has even tackled the role of a receptionist, which he claims to be his favorite yet. As a receptionist, he engaged with roughly 75 employees in an hour at the desk, many of which he didn’t know by name or whether they even worked at the company. He plans to revisit this rotation every three weeks in hopes that the experience will make him appear more accessible and “human” to fellow employees. While employees may be intimidated by the idea of a CEO working beside them at first, it is an interesting project with great potential. In my eyes, it’s an opportunity to share his aspirations, appreciations, and reinforce the company’s values. Reeves can also use this opportunity to evaluate the personalities of the people in his organization. As we examined in class discussion, an effective way to understand personality is to search for recurring themes. Good!! This can likely be applied throughout the entire organization as well – since Reeves will be engaging with so many professionals on so many different levels of the company, he can use this project to identify themes in the personalities of his employees and evaluate the company’s culture. He can then use his findings to evaluate how these personality trends and the company’s culture might influence the behaviors of the people throughout the organization. This also ties into our discussion on the replacement CEO for Starwood, Steve Heyer. Good connection. Miller 3 Rather than expressing humility and spending time on the front line like Reeves, Heyer would only stay in the St Regis hotels during his travels as CEO. This disconnect can cause CEO’s to lose sight of the peripherals and ignore the importance of an open system perspective. At first thought, the concepts explored in the article draw close connections to the book How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Carnegie urges readers to approach management and social interactions using positive psychology. One of the most prominent and recurring themes is the importance of appreciation. Reeves exemplifies the importance of appreciation, humbling himself as an employee on all 37 teams throughout the company he cofounded. As Reeves works beside his employees, he puts himself in their shoes, and asks questions about their roles and how they might improve existing processes. In doing so, he encourages his employees to be innovative and acknowledges that it’s healthy to ask questions. Seeing his company from this perspective (at each level of the organization) expresses humility and empathy, which enables him to better understand what motivates them. This same theory is explored by Carnegie in ‘Part Four: How to Change People’ of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Carnegie implores readers to ask questions instead of giving direct orders, and asserts that acknowledging one’s own mistakes primarily serves as an expression of humility and empathy, which helps convince others to change their own behaviors. As aforementioned, Reeve’s actions accentuate these qualities, which I believe will better enable him to connect with his employees/organization and will serve as leverage in his motivational pursuits. For additional secondary research, I examined a study on charismatic leadership and influencing employee behaviors. The study concludes that “a charismatic leader’s envisioning behavior influences followers’ need for achievement, and the leader’s empathic behavior stimulates followers’ need for affiliation.” Reeves exemplifies both envisioning and empathic Miller 4 behavior as an innovator and humbled CEO through his new project. To dive deeper into this research, I reached out to a managing partner at Hightower Advisors, David Emma. David played several years of professional hockey, captained the Boston College Eagles, and represented the United States on the 1992 Olympic ice hockey team in France before starting his career at Hightower, a scaling financial services company that serves high net worth individuals. I presented David with the preceding quote on charismatic leadership and asked how it has played a role in his career both as a professional athlete and financial advisor. During our discussion, it was evident that David has found this to be an essential component of his athletic and career successes, and explained that he has upheld these behaviors in all of his pursuits. He associated envisioning with setting lofty goals, being passionate, and doing whatever it takes to succeed. This reminded me of the insurgence mentality that is shared by many successful founders, like Steve Jobs. Yes. He then explored the importance of empathy, especially on a small scale as he’s worked with many small teams. David explained that on smaller teams, it is easier to recognize the behaviors of those around you, hold your peers accountable, and monitor culture. As Reeves explained in the article, his role as CEO of a 350-employee company has led him to become detached from the business as a whole. Reeves, however, has launched this new project in an effort to better identify with his employees on the front line. Through my research and understanding of the article CEO Shadows Workers to Learn ‘Nitty-Gritty’ Detail, I’ve recognized three focal points that will better enable me to get work done with and through other people – empathy, humility, and innovation. To practice empathy, I will begin by getting involved in charity and the community. I feel this will be an uplifting and Miller 5 equally humbling experience that will improve my ability to empathize with others. To practice humility, I will ensure that I hold myself accountable and admit mistakes openly (also further developing my ability to empathize). That’s good and that’s behavioral To give a practical example, I am experiencing first-hand how empathy and humility can improve the output of the collective group through a project I’m working on now. As two members of my group continually demean our fourth member’s ability to contribute, I have found great reward in utilizing positive psychology to appreciate this member’s efforts and willingness to learn throughout the semester. I feel the positive reinforcement has empowered him to continually put in a strong effort as he strives to be a value-adding member of our team. Excellent Finally, to stay innovative, I will continue to be proactive in asking questions and iterating on existing processes where efficiencies might be realized. It is my hope that this curiosity and innovative thinking will also foster insurgency, a trait I hope to uphold as an aspiring entrepreneur. Works Cited Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. Print. Choi, Jaepil. "A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and empowerment." Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 13.1 (2006): 24-43. Miller 6 Feintzeig, Rachel. "CEO Shadows Workers to Learn ‘Nitty-Gritty’ Details." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016. B: I am delighted to give you an “A.” You tackled a VERY important topic in organization behavior and a timely one too. You used a great secondary research article (Pfeiffer) to suggest another tack. You did primary research. And you came up with specific things you would do Monday morning. My own perspective is similar to yours with one exception. You didn’t examine the nature of the corporate strategy. If the goal is to rapidly build up a company and then sell to a strategic buyer, then I could see that you don’t want to be dependent on people as much as you are focused on systems and technology. At the same time, this research may be a matter of how the research was designed. “People are our most important resource” conflict with the equally powerful cliché, “No one is indespensible in a well run compahy.” The fact that culture comes in second suggests that this might be an artificat of the research: culture depends on attracting, retaining, and motivating the right people. And I think you point this out. Well done, B. I’m proud of you --Larry Stybel I, Robot 2 B 11/30/16 ORGB 3201 Larry Stybel We’ve all seen the movies, it starts with the simple tasks and next thing you know, the robots have taken over the Earth. A new study done by the Korn Ferry Institute, when surveying 800 Chief Executives and other top leaders of global firms, “two-thirds said they believe technology will create greater value in the future than their workforce will, and 44% believe that automation, artificial intelligence and robotics will make people ‘largely irrelevant’” (Weber). While the traditional logic states that people are the company’s greatest asset, they didn’t even make the top five most important to executives. “When asked to rank their business’ most valuable asset, leaders said technology matters above all,” showing a clear shift in the thought process of our global leaders (Weber). They are placing more faith in the advancements in technology than they are in the advancement of the human mind. More specifically, executives believe that back-office infrastructure and customer-facing or product tech technology is the most valuable, followed by culture, inventory, and R&D. While they are correct on the culture aspect, this type of logic leads to companies failing in the long run once their technology is outdated. They are underestimating the impact that implementing this technology and eliminating people would have on the culture. Also, executives are starting to become too driven by measureable metrics and not focused enough on the value each employee adds. They have “become bullish on assets like technology because it is easier to measure the impact of a software program than an employee” and their “desire to immerse themselves in technology suggests they have grown frustrated with managing people” (Weber). They lack the motivation and leadership skills to properly manage their workforce, and rather than fixing the actual problem, they are trying to replace it with technology. As Jean-Marc Laouchez, a global managing director at Korn Ferry, states “Paying attention to technology alone ignores the fact that people are needed to make the best use of technology. Companies may spend money on a software system, but the differentiator is what you do with it, and that’s about people” (Weber). While technology can supplement and enhance a company’s competitive advantage, employees still remain the most valuable asset to a firm. The company culture is the lasting differentiator and remains constant even when technology becomes outdated. For that reason, keeping employees properly trained and motivated is crucial to maintaining a successful business. I read this study too. It is a very disturbing attitude and one that I see in my practice. I agree with your perspective. In the next five years, customer-facing technology and products are going to be the most prized assets, according to the executives surveyed. It is not a surprise then, that “information technology (IT) has long been recognized as an enabler to radically redesign business processes in order to achieve dramatic improvements in organizational performance” (Chen). Implementing IT that aligns with your company goals can greatly improve the business process, making it easier to navigate and more efficient to use. One technology that many companies are implementing is the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. These systems are “not merely technology applications for marketing, sales and service, but rather, when fully and successfully implemented, a cross-functional, customer-driven, technologyintegrated business process management strategy that maximizes relationships and encompasses the entire organization” (Chen). CRM Systems have the ability to transform a company's interactions with their customers and make the process of personalizing their offering to each customer much easier. They “have resulted in increased competitiveness for many companies as witnessed by higher revenues and lower operational costs” while “managing customer relationships effectively and efficiently boosts customer satisfaction and retention rates” (Chen). It is clear that implementing this type of technology can be extremely beneficial for a company. However, more often than not, executives who decide to implement these systems don’t understand what it actually entails to make sure they are serving their intended purposes. They are implementing these systems without giving the employees the necessary training to use them effectively, essentially making the systems useless. As leaders, they should be setting the example for their employees, but are not doing so. While these systems are meant to retain customers and make their experience as simple as possible, many don’t like the new technological aspect. “Although these developments have benefited customers, there is also evidence of increasing customer frustration in dealing with technology-based systems” because of the many glitches, failures and trouble understanding that can occur (Parasuraman). When “more than a dozen technology-related focus group interviews with customers of companies in a variety of sectors” was conducted, there was a consistent “notion that customers have positive feelings,” such as convenience, efficiency and enjoyment, “as well as apprehensions about technology,” such as security concerns, impersonalization and lack of control (Parasuraman). In a survey I conducted, 11 people disagreed with the statement, “I enjoy dealing with technology based systems over individuals” with 5 people strongly disagreeing, 2 feeling neutral, 3 agreeing and 4 strongly agreeing. These studies suggest that not everyone is ready to make the adjust to a more technology based environment. Many prefer their information, preferences and habits not be stored in company databases that could potentially be breached. Not only do these new technologies have imperfections, but they will not be a competitive differentiator between companies. New technology has the ability to improve a company’s business process while making it easier for employees and customers to maximize their experience together. However, technology itself is not a lasting differentiator that is going to give the company a competitive advantage. In this day-in-age where “product life cycles are shortening and new-product introductions are coming much more rapidly, relying on a static product technology for success is increasingly problematic” (Pfeffer). Companies can’t rely on technology as much as they used to because another company can invent a better product or create a better process that makes the previous one obsolete. A perfect example of this happening was General Motors in the 1980s. They decided to invest “heavily in technology to automate its factories in the 1980s… [and] spent some $40 billion for modernization and new facilities, in the process substituting fixed costs for variable costs. In fact, GM spent enough money on capital equipment to have purchased both Honda and Nissan. Unfortunately, it did not get much for that investment” (Pfeffer). Their sales remained stagnant because “while making enormous investments in technology, research, and state-of-the-art marketing, many of today's managers continue to ignore the single most important factor in achieving and maintaining competitive success: people” (Pfeffer). They are forgetting the very assets that put them in position to be able to make those types of investments. Skilled and motivated employees are necessary in order to operate the technology and maximize the returns. Dave Fields, a senior audit associate at KPMG, shared that “many accounting firms have implemented new software intended on making the audit process more concise and organized. However, this software is designed with auditor’s in mind, so someone who doesn’t understand the terminology won’t be able to use it.” Executives need to realize that “the source of competitive advantage is shifting from technology, patents, or strategic position to how a company manages its employees” because they are the ones who really get the job done, not the technology (Pfeffer). Because of the “continuous innovation and [need for] rapid response to market and technological changes,” the necessity for “a workforce that delivers superior performance” is stronger than ever (Pfeffer). If executives neglect to recognize how valuable their employees are, they run the risk of leaving their company vulnerable to changes in technology and a decrease in company morale. To run a successful company and create a distinct competitive advantage, executives need to “rely not on technology, patents or strategic position, but on how they manage their workforce” (Pfeffer). Company culture is a lasting differentiator that is hard to duplicate, whereas technology can be replicated easily once it becomes available. Getting rid of your employees in favor of technology would completely diminish the culture and leave any remaining employees feeling insecure about their futures. According to the article, “nearly twothirds of respondents said they ‘see people as a bottom-line cost, not a top-line value generator,’” which is the exact logic that leads to a culture of insecurity and fear (Weber). As we learned in the Southwest Airlines case, when employees are thought of as an asset that the company seeks to maximize, it can create a unique competitive advantage that becomes a driving force for the business. Alexandra Koza, an associate at Accenture, believes that culture is especially important at consulting firms. She said “many consulting firms offer the same services and have similar results, so the differentiator is how the employees interact with their clients. Clients are looking for a culture that mirrors their own” because they will work in closer harmony. These executives fail to realize is that “culture, how people are managed, and the effects of this on their behavior and skills are sometimes seen as the "soft" side of business, [and are] occasionally dismissed” for more derivative measures (Pfeffer). While culture and other front-line metrics are hard to measure, they are extremely critical to the overall success of the business because they are impossible to copy. This is what differentiates a company from the others. When it is done well, it turns customers into fans and employees into advocates, becoming a tool to market their business without any additional capital. Furthermore, “it is rather ironic that the application of artificial intelligence… is becoming a popular topic [because] If intelligence is so helpful in its artificial form, then why have the benefits of the real intelligence been overlooked so far” (Pfeffer). The executives who want to eliminate the need for employees are disregarding the fact that human interaction and intelligence is necessary for establishing a culture that is suitable for the business. Without the employee's, the company is left a shell of itself, relying on machines to think and interact with each other better than humans can. Executives need to consider that their “ability to obtain the benefits of... this technology… depends on your ability to implement it more rapidly and effectively. This almost inevitably involves the skill and motivation of the work force” (Pfeffer). The executives are blaming their employees for a lack of production that they think technology can fill, when in reality, it is the culture they are creating along with their failure to motivate that is the problem. For employees to thrive within a company, executives need to foster an environment that fully motivates their employees, trains them to perform their tasks proficiently and positively reinforces their work. Since large “investments in specialized technology [are] not a substitute for skill in managing the workforce; it actually makes the work force even more crucial for success” (Pfeffer). According to the article, bosses seem to have “grown frustrated with managing people” and think spending on technology will fix problem (Weber). Rather, executives should be focused on ways to motivate their employees effective and “achieving success by working with people, not by replacing them or limiting the scope of their activities” (Pfeffer). In the survey I conducted, 12 people People. It might help to know the backgrounds of these people, e.g. I assume a junior at NEU would not necessarily have the same scores as a 55 year old CEO of a Fortune 500 company. strongly agreed that a superior’s motivation effected their performance, with 1 strongly disagreeing, 1 disagreeing, 3 feeling neutral and 8 agreeing (Exhibit 1). If employers invested in training programs rather than technology, then employees would feel as though they are being given the opportunity to grow both within the firm and professionally. My survey results showed that 12 people strongly agreed that they were properly trained for their job, with 7 people agreeing and 2 feeling neutral (Exhibit 1), allowing them to correctly do their work. With training, employee efficiency would drastically increase as well as opportunities for more responsibilities and the advancement of their career. For example, When the Shenandoah Life Insurance Company spent some $2 million to computerize its processing and claims operations in the early 1980s, it found that it got almost nothing for its expenditure—it still required 27 working days and 32 clerks in three departments to handle a policy conversion. Only after the company changed how it organized and managed its work force—relying on semi-autonomous teams of 5 to 7 people, upgrading training and skills, and paying more for the more responsible and more skilled workers—did case-handling time drop and service complaints virtually disappear. By 1986, Shenandoah was processing 50% more applications and queries with 10% fewer employees than it did in 1980. (Pfeffer) Clearly, training employees can lead to equal, if not more, production than new technology can. The logic of “people are messy” compared to technology is more of a testament to an executive's ability to lead rather than the employees themselves (Weber). They are thinking as task oriented leaders, only worrying about the performance and not the employee’s satisfaction. If they became more people oriented leaders, there would be a mutual respect and trust between the employer and employee. To reassure employees that their work is progressing in the right direction, executives need to use positive psychology in recognizing employees when they have achieved their goals. Great leaders are able to use all of these methods to make sure employees are performing up to standard even when they leave the company. While “the success that comes from managing people effectively is often not as visible or transparent” as investment in technology, it is more beneficial for the company staying successful in the long term (Pfeffer). While many executives are starting to think technology is becoming more valuable than their workforce, they are greatly underestimating the areas which create the company’s success. Technology can only supplement the business process when it is implemented correctly and put into the hands of well-trained employees. The culture that an executive establishes is a lasting differentiator while new technology comes and goes. By motivating and empowering employees, employers are building a company that can withstand changes in technology and remain competitive. This type of thinking “entails seeing the work force as a source of strategic advantage, not just as a cost to be minimized or avoided” (Pfeffer). Executives need to stop thinking from a closed system perspective, only thinking about the employees and the bottom-line, and think from an open system perspective, considering various stakeholders like the employees, the company’s future, and customer relationships. On Monday morning at 8 AM, I would attend motivational speaker seminars to make sure I am using the best methods of motivating my employees to achieve their potential. OK that is very specific! Also, if I was to implement any new technology, I would hold a training session with all of my employees to learn how to use it properly. That’s specific. I would tell my employees “if they have any questions on how to use the technology to its fullest potential, please reach out to me so we can step up further training” and follow up periodically to make sure it is being used how it is intended. Overall, technology can greatly improve many business operations, but it is the employees that are crucial in driving the businesses competitive advantage. Exhibit 1 Survey of 25 random participants, population age 18-23, male/female, all majors On a scale of 1-5 (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), I enjoy dealing with technology based systems over individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 5 11 2 3 4 On a scale of 1-5 (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), the training I received properly prepared me for my job. 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 2 7 16 On a scale of 1-5 (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), a managers motivation effects my performance. 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 8 12 Bibliography Chen, Injazz J., and Karen Popovich. "Understanding Customer Relationship Management (CRM)." Business Process Management Journal 9.5 (2003): 672-88. Parasuraman, A. "Technology Readiness Index (Tri): A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies." Journal of Service Research 2.4 (2000): 307-20. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. "Competitive Advantage Through People." California Management Review 36.2 (1994): 9-28. Weber, Lauren. "CEOs No Longer Say 'People Are Our Greatest Asset,' According to New Report." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 17 Nov. 2016. Congratulations, C. A I’m proud of you. See my detailed comments below. --Larry Stybel C Professor Stybel Organizational Behavior 11/21/2016 Performance Bonus for Teachers: a Gift or a Curse? You do not need an empirical study to know that people like to make more money. Money as compensation is a great incentive to get people to do work, but are all types of compensation an effective way for motivating people to get work done? An article in the Gaston Gazette (from Gaston County, North Carolina) addresses a new teacher performance pay policy that passed. The policy states that teachers who teach the same subject in the same school district will be eligible for an up to $2,000 bonus based on student performance; however, not all subjects are eligible for this performance bonus. The policy is aimed at improving teacher retention in major subjects such as Math, Sciences, and English. The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects, whether positive or negative, of the policy implementation on a teacher’s motivation to work. First, I wanted to look at the direct effects of the policy on the people that have the potential to earn the bonus. I wanted to explore the teachers’ perspective of the effects of a performance bonus system and how the implementation of a program would motivate them to work harder in order to achieve the designated goal. To look into this I conducted an anonymous survey of 28 current teachers (14 Male and 14 Female with various degrees of teaching experience) and asked them “On a scale from 0 (Not likely at all) – 10(Extremely likely), how likely are you to be motivated to work harder by a $2,000 bonus based on student performance.” This is very good, C. The mean score for this question was 5.964, which can be interpreted to mean that teachers are mostly neutral about the question but somewhat likely to be motivated a bonus as seen by the frequency chart below: This idea is further supported by a study about a different program in North Carolina where there was a performance bonus of $1,800 for teachers in low-performing schools and the retention rate of teachers following the implementation of the bonus. In the study, Charles T. Clotfelter, Elizabeth J. Glennie, Helen F. Ford, and Jacob L. Vigador found that retention rates for Math and Science teachers (programs in which the bonus was implemented) rose from 62% to 65% in the year following the implementation of the policy (76). One of the Male respondents of the survey had commented that “Any time there is a bonus situation on performance, everyone would work twice as hard to achieve their bonus.” Interesting perspective. Glad you found this study. Was a 62 to 65% retention significant? Additionally, I wanted to look if there was a difference in the motivation levels based on level of income, believing that a lower income teacher would be more influenced by a $2,000 bonus because it would represent a higher percentage gain in their salary. To do this I ran an Analysis of Variances (ANOVA) on the scores reported for how motivated the teacher is by the bonus based on the reported level of income of each respondent. Wow, that is very cool. My sample size was relatively small to be doing this type of analysis, so the results must be taken with a grain of salt good point ; however, I discovered that the means for the $40,000 - $49,999 income bracket and the $50,000 - $59,999 income bracket were higher than the mean of the $70,000 - $79,999 income bracket (statistically significant at the 10% level). Excellent This means that the respondents with lower levels of income were more motivated by a bonus than that of the groups with higher income brackets. Thus with all this in mind, there appears to be a positive motivating factor to performance bonuses amongst teachers eligible for the bonus. However, despite the slight above neutral motivation from a performance bonus in the survey question, when asked if they had any other comments about the teacher compensation structure and how it motivates you to get work done, the comments were overwhelmingly different from the survey question about the bonus as a motivating factor. The overarching theme of the comments were that money is not the reason that the teachers are doing their jobs. One quote that stood out to me was “If you love teaching, a $2,000 bonus isn't an incentive to "work harder". If you're a good teacher, your students are already performing where they should be and you're doing everything you can to help them do that.” One teacher even mentioned that “as long as teacher compensation is a reasonable living wage that would support a family and children, then incentivized compensation is unnecessary and may have unforeseen effects.” These “unforeseen effects” were what lead into my second question, Excellent. “On a scale from 0-10, how likely is a performance bonus to lead to grade inflation amongst colleges in order to achieve the designated goal.” This question had a mean response of 6.61 which means that the teachers believe that their colleagues are fairly likely to grade inflate in order to achieve this bonus. The frequency chart shown below depicts a very significant issue of immoral behavior due to the bonus structure: another variation of the same thing: if the test is a standard test, how likely is it that teachers will teach classes focusing on how to do well on the test rather than how to get an appreciation of the subject matter? While this is unfortunate, it is not surprising. A study by Lisa D. Ordonez and David T Welsh about setting goals and how it can lead to unethical behavior states that “Goals can lead to more risk taking, reduce cooperation and increase deception” and that “people performing poorly on a task were more likely to cheat” (1). This cheating could mean students getting grades they do not deserve just so a teacher can achieve a bonus. Furthermore, another issue that arises from setting goals, according to the Ordonez and Welsh study, is that excessive stress can formulate as a result of difficult goals (1). This is further supported by a study by Herbet G. Heneman III and Anthony T. Milanowski about teachers’ attitudes about performance bonuses. The study produced several outcome groups that came as a result of the performance bonus, two of which were “Stress,” where excessive stressed resulted as an outcome because teachers were unable to achieve their goal, and “Sanction,” where teachers were actually reprimanded for not achieving the goals. Both of these outcomes were extremely undesirable to teachers and have produced low support for performance bonus structures if they have faced this outcome in the past (11). So while the bonuses reward the teachers and motivate them to achieve the goal, the bonus could also demotivate the teachers that won’t be able to achieve the goal because they do not feel that it is worth it to put the effort if they aren’t going to see the return. Very well put. The article also addresses that some teachers are against the bonus pay policy because their subjects that they teach are not credential-bearing to earn the bonus. Returning to the Clotfelter, Glennie, Ford, and Vigador study, the retention rate for teachers who do not receive the bonus because of the subject they teach is not eligable actually falls as a result of the bonus. In this study, the retention rate fell from about 67% to 65% for teachers in English and History, courses that did not receive the bonus (77). The inclusion of bonus structure for some teachers and not for others has negative effects such that the teachers who are not eligible for the bonus feel undervalued and are more likely to leave. To explore this further, I wanted to see if teachers were willing to change subjects in order to earn the bonus to see how that may affect retention rates within subjects. I asked the survey respondents, “On a scale from 0-10, how likely would you be to teach a different subject if that subject offers the bonus.” The mean score of the question was 3.11 meaning that the teachers are not very likely to change subjects just because of the bonus. The frequencies of responses are shown below: The majority of respondents responded with a neutral state (a score of 5) or not likely at all (a score of 0) which leads me to believe that teachers are not willing to change subjects just for the bonus. However, this does then show that the teachers that are leaving is because they are not eligible for the bonus and feel undervalued. Yes…….and it also could be that history teachers do not have the competence to teach a course in math. There is a substantive amount of material that need to be learned. Numerical skill is one part of the brain; language is another…. If I were a county legislature in Gaston County, I would have voted against this policy. Well that’s behavioral! Good for you. To me, there seems to be more negative consequences than positive. While it was a found to be a strong motivating factor amongst those who are eligible to receive the bonus, it was found to be a detractor amongst those teachers who were not eligible for the bonus. On top that, the presence of the bonus has been shown to cause stress amongst teachers who are unable to achieve the bonus, which could negatively impact work performance. When judging teachers based on student performance, you have to consider that not all teachers are working with students who are willing to work. Thus a teacher working with disenfranchised youth may not be able to achieve their goals because of the level of effort the students are willing to give. This could cause the teacher to feel undervalued and potentially resign thus negatively impacting teacher retention. Furthermore, the presence of a bonus could lead to immoral behavior amongst the teachers eligible for the bonus such that grade inflation may occur. Students with these teachers could unfairly receive higher grades than they deserve and could struggle in the future due to lack of preparation. With all these in mind, a bonus pay system does not seem like the best option to motivate teachers to perform. Similar to the Herzberg Model, compensation is a hygiene factor and not a motivating factor. Teachers expect to receive a certain salary so they can live; however, if that salary is not present then compensation is a massive dissatisfier. One teacher had quoted, “My personal intuition is that as long as teacher compensation is a reasonable living wage that would support a family and children, then incentivized compensation is unnecessary and may have unforeseen effects,” which shows that a bonus pay is not a strong motivating factor unless the pay is not meeting the needed hygiene level. Due to this, rather than the original proposed policy, I would recommend instituting a new policy which raises teachers’ salaries to a more livable level of income. If teachers do not need to worry about how to make means due to their salary they will be more satisfied and retention rates will rise. Thus I would not support the current policy as I do not see it improving teacher retention and performance all around, but I would suggest a policy to raise teacher salaries in an effort to meet the hygiene factors the teachers need to be satisfied. T here is SO much I liked about how you handled this paper, C. Well done! You did a quality job and staged a nice recovery from the other paper! This obviously did not impact your grade, C, but you can also apply an open systems versus closed systems perspective. If you look to raise scores in math and science and just look at it form that closed system perspective, then the system might make sense. If you examine this from an open systems perspective you have to take into account the demoralization of English and history teachers. But that is a small issue in the context of a great paper, C. Congratulations. Works Cited Clotfelter, Charles T., Elizabeth J. Glennie, Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob L. Vigdor. "Teacher Bonuses and Teacher Retention in Low-Performing Schools Evidence from the North Carolina $1,800 Teacher Bonus Program." Public Finance Review 36.1 (2008): 63-87. Sagepub.com. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. Heneman, Herbert G., III, and Anthony T. Milanowski. "Teachers Attitudes About Teacher Bonuses Under School-Based Performance Award Programs." Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 199. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. Ordonez, Lisa D., and David T. Welsh. "Immoral Goals: How Goal Setting May Lead to Unethical Behavior." Science Direct. Psychology, 17 June 2015. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. Wildstein, Eric. "State Approves Bonus Pay for Teachers." Gaston Gazette. Gaston Gazette, 13 Nov. 2016. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. Appendix A: The Survey Q1 Thank you for taking the time to take this survey. This survey is designed to have a look into teacher's compensation and to understand a teacher's perspective on how a performance-based incentives affect a teacher's motivation. There are only 4 questions and 3 demographic questions and should only take you about 2-3 minutes to complete. Some of the questions may contain information that you may not be comfortable to attach your name to an answer, but your absolute honesty is very important to this study. Because of this, the survey will be completely anonymous and your names will never be requested. However, to like into other factors regarding the situation, demographic information will be requested if you are comfortable with sharing this information. If you accept these conditions please select "I accept" below and you will be moved on to the questions. If not, please select "I do not accept" and the survey will be completed.  I accept  I do not accept Q4 On a scale from 0-10, how likely are you to be motivated to work harder by a $2,000 bonus based on student performance:            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q8 On a scale from 0-10, how likely is a performance bonus to lead to grade inflation amongst colleges in order to achieve the designated goal:            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q9 On a scale from 0-10, how likely would you be to teach a different subject if that subject offers the bonus:            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q10 Please provide any additional comments, if any, about teachers' compensation structure and how it motivates you to get work done: Q5 Please Indicate your gender:  Male  Female  Prefer not to say Q6 Please indicate how many years of teaching experience you have (please write N/A if you prefer not to say): Q7 Please indicate your salary:        Under $40,000 $40,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $59,999 $60,000 - $69,999 $70,000 - $79,999 Over $80,000 Prefer not to say Appendix B: Survey Results Bonus as a Motivating Factor: MotivatedByBonus Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 0 3 10.7 10.7 10.7 1 1 3.6 3.6 14.3 2 1 3.6 3.6 17.9 5 7 25.0 25.0 42.9 6 4 14.3 14.3 57.1 7 3 10.7 10.7 67.9 8 3 10.7 10.7 78.6 10 6 21.4 21.4 100.0 28 100.0 100.0 Total Descriptive Statistics N Minimum MotivatedByBonus 28 Valid N (listwise) 28 Maximum 0 10 Mean Std. Deviation 5.96 3.144 Bonus Causes Grade Inflation: GradeInflation Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 0 2 7.1 7.1 7.1 5 9 32.1 32.1 39.3 7 6 21.4 21.4 60.7 8 4 14.3 14.3 75.0 9 4 14.3 14.3 89.3 10 3 10.7 10.7 100.0 28 100.0 100.0 Total Descriptive Statistics N Minimum GradeInflation 28 Valid N (listwise) 28 Maximum 0 Mean 10 Std. Deviation 6.61 2.558 Change Subjects to Earn Bonus: ChangeSubjects Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 0 9 32.1 32.1 32.1 1 2 7.1 7.1 39.3 2 3 10.7 10.7 50.0 3 1 3.6 3.6 53.6 4 1 3.6 3.6 57.1 5 6 21.4 21.4 78.6 6 2 7.1 7.1 85.7 7 2 7.1 7.1 92.9 8 2 7.1 7.1 100.0 28 100.0 100.0 Total Descriptive Statistics N Minimum ChangeSubjects 28 Valid N (listwise) 28 0 Maximum Mean 8 Std. Deviation 3.11 2.833 Gender: Gender Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Males 14 50.0 50.0 50.0 Females 14 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 28 100.0 100.0 Years of Experience: Experience Cumulative Frequency Valid Valid Percent Percent 2 2 7.1 9.1 9.1 3 1 3.6 4.5 13.6 4 1 3.6 4.5 18.2 5 2 7.1 9.1 27.3 7 2 7.1 9.1 36.4 8 1 3.6 4.5 40.9 11 1 3.6 4.5 45.5 14 1 3.6 4.5 50.0 15 3 10.7 13.6 63.6 16 2 7.1 9.1 72.7 17 1 3.6 4.5 77.3 20 3 10.7 13.6 90.9 21 1 3.6 4.5 95.5 22 1 3.6 4.5 100.0 22 78.6 100.0 6 21.4 28 100.0 Total Missing Percent System Total Salary: Salary Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent $40,000 - $49,999 6 21.4 21.4 21.4 $50,000 - $59,999 6 21.4 21.4 42.9 $60,000 - $69,999 3 10.7 10.7 53.6 $70,000 - $79,999 8 28.6 28.6 82.1 Over $80,000 5 17.9 17.9 100.0 28 100.0 100.0 Total ANOVA of Motivation by Bonus based on Salary: Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: MotivatedByBonus LSD 90% Confidence Interval Mean Difference (I) Salary (J) Salary $40,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $59,999 1.000 1.685 .559 -1.89 3.89 $60,000 - $69,999 2.833 2.064 .183 -.70 6.37 $70,000 - $79,999 4.083* 1.576 .016 1.38 6.79 Over $80,000 1.033 1.768 .564 -2.00 4.06 $40,000 - $49,999 -1.000 1.685 .559 -3.89 1.89 $60,000 - $69,999 1.833 2.064 .384 -1.70 5.37 $70,000 - $79,999 3.083* 1.576 .063 .38 5.79 .033 1.768 .985 -3.00 3.06 $40,000 - $49,999 -2.833 2.064 .183 -6.37 .70 $50,000 - $59,999 -1.833 2.064 .384 -5.37 1.70 $70,000 - $79,999 1.250 1.976 .533 -2.14 4.64 Over $80,000 -1.800 2.132 .407 -5.45 1.85 $40,000 - $49,999 -4.083* 1.576 .016 -6.79 -1.38 $50,000 - $59,999 -3.083* 1.576 .063 -5.79 -.38 $60,000 - $69,999 -1.250 1.976 .533 -4.64 2.14 Over $80,000 -3.050* 1.664 .080 -5.90 -.20 $40,000 - $49,999 -1.033 1.768 .564 -4.06 2.00 $50,000 - $59,999 -.033 1.768 .985 -3.06 3.00 $60,000 - $69,999 1.800 2.132 .407 -1.85 5.45 $70,000 - $79,999 3.050* 1.664 .080 .20 5.90 $50,000 - $59,999 Over $80,000 $60,000 - $69,999 $70,000 - $79,999 Over $80,000 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.1 level. (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Appendix C: Quotes from Q10 Respondent #4 – Female Teacher with 5 years teaching experience making $50,000 - $59,999 salary Bonuses would great but would not be fair to teachers working with disenfranchised youth and in underprivileged areas. Educator performance goes beyond money. They have to care, and be invested in the students. I would work the same because I work in a school where the students do well. I have worked in schools where the students don't do well and it is often outside of the control of the teachers, and the teachers were excellent at their jobs; yet they would get blamed. So, simply put, teachers and educators need to get paid more, not paid bonuses for student performance. Just more In fact, I often feel educators in inner city areas, working with disenfranchised youth, etc. should get paid more than educators in otherwise "regular" settings because they deal with so much more (behavior, violence, neighborhood issues, poverty, hunger, etc.) Respondent #5 – Female Teacher with $70,000 - $79,999 salary I think that as long as compensation is based on "check boxes" as in I did this and I did this, it won't matter if we have extra compensation. We need to measure growth via qualify of teaching. And since perception of grading scales is not concrete even within a department, I am a firm believer in pre and post testing as well as standardized testing to a degree! Respondent #6 – Female, 11 years of experience, $60,000 - $69,999 salary Criteria should be specific for teachers and staff to receive bonus. Respondent #8 – Female, 15 years of experience, $70,000 - $79,999 salary If you love teaching, a $2000 bonus isn't an incentive to "work harder". If you're a good teacher, your students are already performing where they should be and you're doing everything you can to help them do that. Respondent #9 – Male, 20 years of experience, $70,000 - $79,999 salary Monetary compensation does not motivate me to work any more and any less. Respondent #11 – Female, 20 Years, $70,000 - $79,999 I did not go into teaching to make money - I don't think good teachers do. Even if math or science teachers made more money, I would still teach English, as it is my passion. I am also opposed to connecting a bonus to student success on a specific test since some students are quite challenging (low socio-economic backgrounds, learning disabilities). I would like the best teachers to be used for the most challenging situations, so maybe a bonus for teachers opting for the more challenging situations? On a different note, teacher salaries should be raised to compensate for the actual time committed to work (planning and grading). I clearly work longer hours than my lawyer husband! There can be discrepancies between how hard some teachers work and how effective those teachers are. A program like National Certification could be a good tie to bonus pay for this reason. Respondent #13 – Male, $50,000 - $59,999 Anytime there is a bonus situation on performance, everyone would work twice as hard to achieve their bonus. At my last job, our yearly review was solely based on our performance and this was how your percentage raise was decided. Respondent #14 – Male, 3 years, $40,000 - $49,999 I do not feel there are any monetary incentives to do a better or worse job since it is solely based on a step system which is a combination of education as well as years of experience. As long as you are a teacher there are yearly bonuses that are essentially guaranteed regardless of performance, assuming you don't do so poorly that you are fired. I believe a lot of the motivation of teachers comes internally, and is not necessarily tied to money since there are not any monetary incentives currently. Respondent #15 – Female, 14 years, $50,000 - $59,999 In my first teaching job, the school faculty and staff were evaluated across several measures (local and national) by all stakeholders (co-workers, students, families, board, and administration). A monetary bonus was determined by this process and awarded equally to all. This method made us feel valued and rewarded while creating a community of improvement. Respondent #21 – Male, 7 years, $50,000 - $59,999 My personal intuition is that as long as teacher compensation is a reasonable living wage that would support a family and children, then incentivized compensation is unnecessary and may have unforeseen effects. Respondent #25 – Male, 20+ years, Over $60,000 - $69,999 For me, intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation is key. If I see my students get excited about a lesson I created, that goes much farther than just extra money. Respondent #26 – Male, 25+ years, Over $80,000 Everyone likes to be paid more money. I would never grade inflate to get more money. I feel confident enough in my teaching skills that I could help students achieve honest increases in performance. I am certified in various subjects, so I would consider teaching a different subject, or additional class to gain a bonus. I would not teach another subject if I were not qualified to do so. S: This was comprehensive, well thought out and well argued. See my specific comments in the text. A --Larry Stybel OB in the News 2016.11.21 For the second installment of OB in the News, I have chosen an article discussing the reasoning behind recent front office changes for the NHL club, The Florida Panthers. The article, posted on the reputable hockey news outlet Today’s SlapShot, discusses a surprising restructuring following the most successful regular season in the franchise’s history. The hook – all the motivating factors for the shakeup tie directly into improving the organization’s ability to get work done with and through others. Very nice. If examined further, their decision is purely an organizational behavior one, and shouldn’t have shocked hockey pundits around the world despite coming on the heels of a successful season. Throughout the rest of this paper, I will be discussing the importance of placing individuals in roles where they’ll find success, the ability for varying perspectives to improve decision-making, as well as the relationship between team decision-making and success. All of which have come to the forefront during our class discussions. Excellent summary. You are a clear thinker and an excellent English writer. I’m impressed, given English is not your native language. To summarize the article, the reporter, Wilke, interviewed the two recently promoted Assistant General Managers (AGMs) for the Florida Panthers to gain a better understanding of what so many people in the hockey world have been asking: why would a team, which finally found a great deal of success, go through such a makeover? According to Werier and Joyce, the AGMs, it all comes down to being structured for success. Joyce goes on to explain a main driver was employing the same approach they have towards their athletes to the front office – playing to individual strengths. As such, they felt it was necessary to move employees around so they would be working from a place of strength. Another motivating factor was the resultant increase in varying perspectives. Following the shakeup, the Florida Panthers will have one of the biggest front offices in the league. The reason? According to Joyce, “the more dedicated and smart people you put into a room to make those big decisions, the better those decisions are going to be” (Wilke). Lastly, the team felt with the new internal structure, million dollar decisions would have to go through a more extensive and, as a result, conclusive decision making process. Werier himself states, their “decision-making process is a holistic one, with everyone playing a crucial role”, with feedback starting at the bottom and working its way up (Wilke). While all this internal shifting stunned hockey fans, it got me thinking – if sports can be boiled down to a business, are these sound organizational behavior practices? In the previously examined book, How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give in, Jim Collins discusses companies’ tendencies to deviate from their success by violating what he has dubbed “Packard’s Law” during Stage 2 of decline. Here, the argument is “no company can consistently grow revenues faster than its ability to get enough of the right people to implement that growth” (Collins 55). One defining characteristic of “right” people according to Collins is the need for responsibility and accountability rather than hiding behind lines of bureaucracy (57). While the article doesn’t mention terms such as responsibility or accountability, Joyce has the following to say about placing individuals in a position where they are likely to succeed: “we try to play players to their strengths, and with this restructuring, we’re trying to allow those in the front office to manage to their strengths as well” (Wilke). Personally, I think this sentiment is really easy to relate to, regardless of the professional field. I know from personal experience – whether it be taking specific roles in group projects or being assigned certain type of work during internships – aligning work with interest and capabilities produces the best results. That said, I didn’t just want to take my word for it so I created a Likert scale to question students on whether or not they share the same sentiment that I do. Through the use of a Likert scale I surveyed 25 students asking the following question: on a scale of 1-10, 10 being always 1 being never, how likely are you to ask a newly formed group on members’ strengths and preferences before dividing responsibilities? The question produced the following results: While there is a clear preference for determining strengths and interests in hopes of creating a more efficient outcome, my data is likely somewhat skewed. While the first 10 people I surveyed were phone calls to former classmates, where I marked down their responses on the chart, the remaining 15 responses were students I came across in the library where I let them track their own results. What I noticed was the first 10 results were more dispersed compared to the remaining 15. This is an excellent and very, very, very important observation. I am glad you noticed it. I am impressed you notice it. What do you make of it? However, I still believe the overwhelming majority are more likely than not to ask the question prior to determining deliverables. This sentiment is echoed by many students stating that in the instances where they have refrained, they’ve ended up having to either redo someone else’s work due to incompetence, or take on more responsibility than planned due to students failing to fulfill their requirements. Not only has the Florida Panthers been determined to place the right people in the right seats, but these moves are also aimed at increasing the organization’s “bandwidth” and placing “more dedicated and smart people” at the decision table (Wilke). According to researcher Sidle, there is one important driver of good decision-making – debate. The paper discusses new research which shows “group dissent can help uncover a decision-making challenge known as hidden profiles”, which as the article explains are situations where team members may have varying, integral information to solve the same problem (Sidle 74). In order to test the hypothesis, a study was created to stimulate a hiring scenario where candidates answered different sets of questions in order to produce hiring profiles. The conclusion was three-pronged: disagreements during group discussions increased information sharing, increased the likelihood of discovering hidden profiles, and decreased bias – all of which yield better results (Sidle 7475). This sentiment was echoed in the first few weeks of class when we discussed peripheral vision. Much like car accidents, where an overwhelming majority occur at the side of the vehicle, the lack of “peripheral vision” in a business context can be a great danger. Thank you for bringing in a concept from the course! As we learned in class, when the pace of business increases, firms are more susceptible to overlook threats and make poor decisions. An effective way to combat this risk is to hear varying perspectives, making sure all factors are being considered. An approach the Florida Panthers are taking. Another tactic they are using when making determinations is hearing feedback and recommendations from different areas within their organization. Not only do they turn to the large senior management group they’ve assembled, but they also reach out to lower ranking members such as their head of development to better understand organizational needs. According to authors Michailova and Husted, knowledge sharing hostility – lack of free flow of information – decreases the efficacy of firms. While they focused specifically on Russian companies, the findings are easily transferable. Consistent with an extremely high power distance ranking of 93 on the Geert-Hofstede scale, the authors observed Russian workers are unlikely to intervene in the decision making process or offer suggestions for fear of disrespecting their managers or showing disloyalty (Michailova and Husted 13-14). Making matters worse is the tradition of secrecy that has come to characterize Russian companies. The combination of the two, results “in a slow recognition of organizational problems”, according to the authors, and serious problems may remain undisclosed (Michailova and Husted 14). Furthermore, the research goes on to argue the power distance witnessed in Russian culture causes managers to treat information as a source of power, which decreases the exploration for new ideas (Michailova and Husted 15). Lastly, the authors argue the sense of power discourages the uses of discussions with others, especially subordinates. This results in “a weak foundation for judgement” and cultivates a decision making process focused on intuition and gut feelings as opposed to the Western fact-based approach (Michailova and Husted 16). While the article I chose doesn’t examine differences between a Russian and Western management style by any means, the impediment knowledge hostility has on effective decision making is a clear explanation for some of the front office changes made by the Florida Panthers. Nice. Additionally, Werier’s comments regarding the level of cross-organizational input is consistent with how the role of Baseball managers appears to be changing. Not only do they receive feedback from scouts who they view as the “gatekeepers”, they also seek the help of their head of development, their analysts, and sit down with some of their most renowned resources with the goal of “just listening to any lessons they can share from their incredible careers about how to improve a hockey team and how this transaction might impact our club” (Wilke). Once they have synthesized all that information, they then present it to the General Manager and head of hockey operations, who in turn bring it to ownership. This flow of information places a great importance on communication skills – consistent with the baseball manager role. As we saw in the Wall Street Journal’s “What Are Baseball Managers Actually Doing?”, one of their main objectives these days is gathering information through the use of their communication skills to make well informed decisions. Again, thanks for integrating some of the things we did in this course into your paper! The article quotes Los Angeles Angels manager Mike Scioscia saying, “if just one guy is making the decisions based on what he knows, then he better be right 100% of the time, and nobody is. You welcome that input, and it helps in your decisions” (Diamond). This is exactly what the emphasis on power distance in Russian companies deters and what the Florida Panthers are trying to solve through their recent restructuring. Through reading this article, and more importantly as a result of my additional research, specifically the juxtaposition of efficacy in decision-making between Russian and Western firms, the free flow of information is integral to success. As a result, I would develop a three-pronged approach to increase my ability of getting work done with and through others. First, I would have mandatory weekly meetings with upper management. That’s behavioral. The purpose of these meetings would be to hear varying perspectives and understand the reasoning behind their actions. Second, in the event I was a Managing Director at an Investment Bank, I would create a feedback system. Here, associates would be tasked with sitting down with analysts to gain an understanding of possible inefficiencies in place, as well as to gauge whether analysts are receiving the correct exposure. For example, are the analysts who excel at technical work largely doing execution work, where their skills would be best deployed, or are they focused on pitch work. Then, MDs would have the same discussion with associates. Once all information has been aggregated, potential changes could be made to improve efficiencies or redistribute work in a more adequate manner. Lastly, when it comes to hiring individuals as well as doing annual reviews, I would make sure individuals are reviewed by various levels, and that there is a roundtable of sorts where each individual involved in the process can voice their findings. This in turn, should uncover hidden profiles, which will lead to better decision making on the quality of people within the organization – people who are charged with driving firm success. Works Cited Collins, James C. How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give in. New York: Jim Collins, 2009. Print Diamond, Jared. "What Are Baseball Managers Actually Doing?" WSJ. Wsj.com, 07 June 2016. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. "Geert Hofstede." Russia - Geert Hofstede. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. Michailova, Snejina, and Kenneth Husted. "Decision Making in Organisations Hostile to Knowledge Sharing." Journal for East European Management Studies 9.1 (2004): 7-19. JSTOR. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. Sidle, Stuart D. "Do Teams Who Agree to Disagree Make Better Decisions?" Academy of Management Perspectives 21.2 (2007): 74-75. Web. Wilke, Carolyn. "Exclusive Interview - Panthers AGMs Werier And Joyce - TSS." Todays SlapShot. N.p., 05 June 2016. Web. 21 Nov. 2016. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment