At the beginning of the year former Gov. George Ryan's wife became extremely ill. She was hospitalized and on her deathbed. Former Gov. Ryan petitioned the courts for a temporary release to be allowed to go and visit his wife. There was a big uproar as to whether or not he should be allowed to do this? I am sure that there are many people who are in jail who's loved ones pass away while they are incarcerated. These people never get a chance to say goodbye or visit them one last time so why should George Ryan be allowed to do so?
Personally I don't think that he should be allowed to do so. In the end he was able to sneak in a visit before the public found out. In this situation there are many different types of power that I believe were used. And the one thing that comes to mind is Chapter 13 of our book titles "Power and Politics" because in this scenario it is both.
A former Governor visiting his ailing wife. In my opinion one of the reasons he was released was because he was a former governor. Or a better speculation, because he was a former authority figure. In this instance he was using legitimate and referent power. He used the position that he formerly held and relied on the degree of which the judge preceding over the case admired him for his previous profession.
Do you believe that there were other forms of power used here?
Ex-Governor Ryan also had very strong ties to the people helping him and the people around him to use his referent power in order to get the outcome that he wanted. Was it right? In my opinion no, I do understand that he wanted to see his wife but I also believe that I could almost bet he got a little kick out of being able to seeing his wife outside of jail and knowing that he still had that kind of influence.
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Jack Welch's Charismatic Leaderhip
The article I found talks about Jack Welch, the former chief executive of GE, and his leadership style. There is no doubt that Welch had displayed an extreme amount of charismatic leadership during his reign at the company. This can be related back to chapter 12 of our textbook titled Leading People Within Organizations.
Chapter 12 describes charisma as "behaviors leaders demonstrate that create confidence in, commitment to, and admiration for the leader." I think it is clear that Jack Welch has done this through his leadership. I do find the article very contradicting though. It seems at times that Jack is being praised for his charismatic leadership, and at other times he is being looked down because of it. Charismatic leaders often go wrong, so to speak. They have a way of building trust and an image for themselves, that can be used negatively, but I'm not sure I believe that he has abused his power.
Along with being a charismatic leader, I also believe Welch has been a transformational leader. He continually is trying to inspire and motivate his employees to be the absolute best that they can be. In order to be a transformational leader you must possess four things: charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. It is clear that Welch has displayed all four of these characteristics. The question is, has he abused his power?
I do think that it was wrong for Jack Welch to accept large gifts such as a rent free apartment, sporting tickets, and the use of a private jet. However, I do believe that the use of many of these things allowed Welch to take on a persona and appear to the public as such a great charismatic leader.
So, what do you think? Was Jack Welch wrong in taking the gifts, or did it help his leadership by building a facade that encourages others to follow him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/13/opinion/good-charisma-bad-business.html?src=pm
- Kelly Moran
Chapter 12 describes charisma as "behaviors leaders demonstrate that create confidence in, commitment to, and admiration for the leader." I think it is clear that Jack Welch has done this through his leadership. I do find the article very contradicting though. It seems at times that Jack is being praised for his charismatic leadership, and at other times he is being looked down because of it. Charismatic leaders often go wrong, so to speak. They have a way of building trust and an image for themselves, that can be used negatively, but I'm not sure I believe that he has abused his power.
Along with being a charismatic leader, I also believe Welch has been a transformational leader. He continually is trying to inspire and motivate his employees to be the absolute best that they can be. In order to be a transformational leader you must possess four things: charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. It is clear that Welch has displayed all four of these characteristics. The question is, has he abused his power?
I do think that it was wrong for Jack Welch to accept large gifts such as a rent free apartment, sporting tickets, and the use of a private jet. However, I do believe that the use of many of these things allowed Welch to take on a persona and appear to the public as such a great charismatic leader.
So, what do you think? Was Jack Welch wrong in taking the gifts, or did it help his leadership by building a facade that encourages others to follow him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/13/opinion/good-charisma-bad-business.html?src=pm
- Kelly Moran
Leadership
Leadership is a quality that I believe everyone in business is striving for. All throughout our classes we have analyzed what it takes to be a good leader and how important it is to have these traits. In this class, we have discussed whether we are born with the qualities it takes to be a leader or if it is something that we can learn. Chapter 12 in our book is all about how to lead people in organizations. Here, there is a discussion about formal and informal leaders, personality traits leaders seem to have, etc.
In one of my sociology classes, we were discussing two different kinds of leadership: what we all perceive to be leaders and leadership as convening. We all picture typical leaders as having the ability to get things done through others, they provide direction for their followers, they possess certain qualities to make them effective leaders, and they are at the top of organizations. But what if we were to change our view of leadership: leadership as convening? Here the leader doesn't focus on people having special characteristics or abilities, leaders are just ordinary people that are willing to make change happen. They work to make people become engaged in the cause and focus on making everyone accountable to the work that needs to be done. It is a concept of shared ownership, encouraging others to take charge, be creative and listening to all of the ideas presented. All in all, the leader is a facilitator, not a director.
What would happen if we would change how we view leadership, turn it upside down literally. What if we put the leader at the bottom? We always view leaders as looking down on others because they are the face of the change, but what if we would put them at the bottom? Could a leader become the encourager that pushes everyone ahead instead of pulling everyone up to their level? It's just a thought, but I honestly that we could change how the world views business leaders if we make the idea more accessible, see our leader as a support instead of something that we have to measure up to. This would also create more accountability for everyone in the organization. Would this solve some of the corruption in corporate America or would new problems come into light because of this methodology? Should we strive for this kind of change or is our view the right way to see things?
Casey Zimmerman
In one of my sociology classes, we were discussing two different kinds of leadership: what we all perceive to be leaders and leadership as convening. We all picture typical leaders as having the ability to get things done through others, they provide direction for their followers, they possess certain qualities to make them effective leaders, and they are at the top of organizations. But what if we were to change our view of leadership: leadership as convening? Here the leader doesn't focus on people having special characteristics or abilities, leaders are just ordinary people that are willing to make change happen. They work to make people become engaged in the cause and focus on making everyone accountable to the work that needs to be done. It is a concept of shared ownership, encouraging others to take charge, be creative and listening to all of the ideas presented. All in all, the leader is a facilitator, not a director.
What would happen if we would change how we view leadership, turn it upside down literally. What if we put the leader at the bottom? We always view leaders as looking down on others because they are the face of the change, but what if we would put them at the bottom? Could a leader become the encourager that pushes everyone ahead instead of pulling everyone up to their level? It's just a thought, but I honestly that we could change how the world views business leaders if we make the idea more accessible, see our leader as a support instead of something that we have to measure up to. This would also create more accountability for everyone in the organization. Would this solve some of the corruption in corporate America or would new problems come into light because of this methodology? Should we strive for this kind of change or is our view the right way to see things?
Casey Zimmerman
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Community in an Organization
One of my sociology classes is all about community. One of the main ideas is that communities can either be "stuck" which is where members turn on each other and only focus on the problems or they can be "restorative" where everyone comes together and focuses on their strengths.
Lately, I have realized more and more that an organization is a community that all of us choose to be a part of. Are organizations working to have their employees focus on what people can do and not what they can't? We have talked a lot about the environment of a workplace and how to get many different personalities to work together. With diversity, we talked about how it will either generate new ideas and take the company to whole new levels, or it will cause conflict between the members.
As I stated, we all choose to be part of this organization's community and we can choose to leave, but how do we make sure that we are choosing the right community to be a part of? In Chapter 2 of the book, it talks about person-organization fit and how it is important to match a person's personality traits, values, and goals to that of a company. I believe this is so important because if it is a good fit, both the organization and the person can benefit from coming together. The individual will be able to grow and thrive in the environment. From this, the organization will also thrive because the people working there want the whole organization to succeed; it will create an emotional attachment from the individual to the company.
There can be serious consequences if a person is not compatible with the organization: Employee burnout, creation of a hostile environment, conflicting personalities. How many times has corruption and bad decision making come from a person just not being a good fit for their company?
So, I guess the question is: how do organizations choose the people that will best fit the community of the organization? I don't know if there is an actual way to determine this, but are there ways to do it after people are already in the job? Are we encouraging people to stay where they aren't happy, just because they can do the job competently and the organization doesn't want to work to find someone else to fill the position? How much more productive would corporate America be if everyone was with an organization's community that they fit with? How many problems in the business world are because of this reason?
Many of these questions have no answer, but it would be interesting to me what would happen if we could get every worker into an organization that they were compatible with. Could we change how people view their work? Would people want to go into work instead of dread it? How many corruption problems and bad decisions could we avoid if we could make everyone feel like they are an important part of the organization, if we could increase loyalty?
Casey Zimmerman
Lately, I have realized more and more that an organization is a community that all of us choose to be a part of. Are organizations working to have their employees focus on what people can do and not what they can't? We have talked a lot about the environment of a workplace and how to get many different personalities to work together. With diversity, we talked about how it will either generate new ideas and take the company to whole new levels, or it will cause conflict between the members.
As I stated, we all choose to be part of this organization's community and we can choose to leave, but how do we make sure that we are choosing the right community to be a part of? In Chapter 2 of the book, it talks about person-organization fit and how it is important to match a person's personality traits, values, and goals to that of a company. I believe this is so important because if it is a good fit, both the organization and the person can benefit from coming together. The individual will be able to grow and thrive in the environment. From this, the organization will also thrive because the people working there want the whole organization to succeed; it will create an emotional attachment from the individual to the company.
There can be serious consequences if a person is not compatible with the organization: Employee burnout, creation of a hostile environment, conflicting personalities. How many times has corruption and bad decision making come from a person just not being a good fit for their company?
So, I guess the question is: how do organizations choose the people that will best fit the community of the organization? I don't know if there is an actual way to determine this, but are there ways to do it after people are already in the job? Are we encouraging people to stay where they aren't happy, just because they can do the job competently and the organization doesn't want to work to find someone else to fill the position? How much more productive would corporate America be if everyone was with an organization's community that they fit with? How many problems in the business world are because of this reason?
Many of these questions have no answer, but it would be interesting to me what would happen if we could get every worker into an organization that they were compatible with. Could we change how people view their work? Would people want to go into work instead of dread it? How many corruption problems and bad decisions could we avoid if we could make everyone feel like they are an important part of the organization, if we could increase loyalty?
Casey Zimmerman
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Power - Too Much?
Power - In class we defined power as the ability to influence the behavior of others to get what you want. However we also learned in class that there are different kinds of power and different was to influence people using power.
There is legitimate power, which comes from one's organizational role or position. Reward power which is the ability to grant a reward, such as an increase in pay or a bonus or even a promotion. Coercive power which is the ability to take something away or punish someone for non complying with what you ask. Expert power which comes from skill and/or knowledge. And last but not least, Information power which comes from access to specific information.
I can think of times when I have demonstrated all of these types of power. Not all in a good way though. I believe that there is a good way to demonstrate all of these types of a power, a positive way, but on the other hand there is also a negative or bad way that doesn't paint a very good picture of the person in power.
For example this may not sound like a lot to some but I am helping potty train my niece. We use a reward system for every time she goes on the big potty and not in her diaper. If she goes on the big potty she gets stickers or a piece of candy. This makes her want to use it more. However with her mom if she goes in her diaper then sometimes her mom will make her sit on the potty for 5 minutes to try to make her realize what she did wrong. I don't think that this helps, I think that this is using the reward power system to the maximum in a negative way. At my house she isn't punished for not going on the potty but she isn't rewarded either. She only gets the reward when she goes on the potty, when she doesn't go on the potty she gets sad when she realizes she won't be getting and stickers or a piece of candy. In my opinion I think that her sadness if enough to make her realize that next time she wants to go on the potty. With my sister though I feel that she will just feel shame for not going on the potty. What do you think?
Can you think of a time you displayed one of these uses of power? Was it positively or negatively?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
There is legitimate power, which comes from one's organizational role or position. Reward power which is the ability to grant a reward, such as an increase in pay or a bonus or even a promotion. Coercive power which is the ability to take something away or punish someone for non complying with what you ask. Expert power which comes from skill and/or knowledge. And last but not least, Information power which comes from access to specific information.
I can think of times when I have demonstrated all of these types of power. Not all in a good way though. I believe that there is a good way to demonstrate all of these types of a power, a positive way, but on the other hand there is also a negative or bad way that doesn't paint a very good picture of the person in power.
For example this may not sound like a lot to some but I am helping potty train my niece. We use a reward system for every time she goes on the big potty and not in her diaper. If she goes on the big potty she gets stickers or a piece of candy. This makes her want to use it more. However with her mom if she goes in her diaper then sometimes her mom will make her sit on the potty for 5 minutes to try to make her realize what she did wrong. I don't think that this helps, I think that this is using the reward power system to the maximum in a negative way. At my house she isn't punished for not going on the potty but she isn't rewarded either. She only gets the reward when she goes on the potty, when she doesn't go on the potty she gets sad when she realizes she won't be getting and stickers or a piece of candy. In my opinion I think that her sadness if enough to make her realize that next time she wants to go on the potty. With my sister though I feel that she will just feel shame for not going on the potty. What do you think?
Can you think of a time you displayed one of these uses of power? Was it positively or negatively?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Employee Decision Making in a Business
I work for a company with many different supervisors, myself included, and one manager. With each supervisor and my manager we each have different decision making styles when it comes to our job and different aspects of our job.
Our manager demonstrates an authoritarian decision making style. I understand that she is the manager and it is her responsibility to keep order and to keep things running smooth. However with this type of decision making style I feel as though it is easy for someone to become to absorbed in it. By absorbed I mean that at times I feel that she doesn't make the best decisions for her employees or for the owners, she just does what suits her and is best for her. One example of this is that on a Saturday she wanted to go home early because she had come in during another day during the week to cover a shift for someone who was let go. She wanted to go home early because she had family in town, no other employee would be allowed to go home early, she wasn't either. But instead of working like a manager should, during a busy rush she left to go to Hallmark because she didn't want to go when she got off at 4pm because she had to leave right away. Possibly understandable if she hadn't already had a 30 minute break 2 hours before that when she could have done that then. Then after she got back from Hallmark she stayed in the back room for at least 20 more minutes signing the card and eating more, while we still had a line of customers. Times like this is when this decision making style is not ideal. I feel if we had more of a democratic decision making we would have had more authority to tell her that this is unacceptable however since she is the manager no one felt as though it was their place, not even the supervisors to say anything.
However when it comes to closing responsibilities on the contrary to my manager I have more of a democratic and laissez-faire decision making style. I leave it up to my employees to decide what each one of them will be doing for the evening (dishes, cleaning the floors, or cleaning the front of the store). I only intervene if I feel that a certain employee can't accomplish what they have picked to do or if the employees can't decide amicably by themselves, which rarely ever happens. I feel then that the employees have more pride in what they do because they decided. I also make sure if it okay with all of them and that they all feel comfortable before leave the floor to have my break or handle something else. I feel as though this is more effective and keeps the employees and myself happier because I am not flaunting my power in their face.
Which decision making style would you prefer if you were the subordinate? Do you think that my manager is right with her decisions or wrong?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Our manager demonstrates an authoritarian decision making style. I understand that she is the manager and it is her responsibility to keep order and to keep things running smooth. However with this type of decision making style I feel as though it is easy for someone to become to absorbed in it. By absorbed I mean that at times I feel that she doesn't make the best decisions for her employees or for the owners, she just does what suits her and is best for her. One example of this is that on a Saturday she wanted to go home early because she had come in during another day during the week to cover a shift for someone who was let go. She wanted to go home early because she had family in town, no other employee would be allowed to go home early, she wasn't either. But instead of working like a manager should, during a busy rush she left to go to Hallmark because she didn't want to go when she got off at 4pm because she had to leave right away. Possibly understandable if she hadn't already had a 30 minute break 2 hours before that when she could have done that then. Then after she got back from Hallmark she stayed in the back room for at least 20 more minutes signing the card and eating more, while we still had a line of customers. Times like this is when this decision making style is not ideal. I feel if we had more of a democratic decision making we would have had more authority to tell her that this is unacceptable however since she is the manager no one felt as though it was their place, not even the supervisors to say anything.
However when it comes to closing responsibilities on the contrary to my manager I have more of a democratic and laissez-faire decision making style. I leave it up to my employees to decide what each one of them will be doing for the evening (dishes, cleaning the floors, or cleaning the front of the store). I only intervene if I feel that a certain employee can't accomplish what they have picked to do or if the employees can't decide amicably by themselves, which rarely ever happens. I feel then that the employees have more pride in what they do because they decided. I also make sure if it okay with all of them and that they all feel comfortable before leave the floor to have my break or handle something else. I feel as though this is more effective and keeps the employees and myself happier because I am not flaunting my power in their face.
Which decision making style would you prefer if you were the subordinate? Do you think that my manager is right with her decisions or wrong?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Leading People
Today in class we covered chapter 12 of our textbook titled "Leading People Within Organizations," but we really focused on leading people and leaders. Traits of a leader good and bad and different behavioral approaches to leadership. When thinking of a leader numerous people come to mind, good and bad. However, one person who I never understood how they became a leader was Adolf Hitler. It is unfortunate to say that Adolf Hitler was a good leader who did bad things, I don't even think the word bad is terrible enough for the things he did, nevertheless that is a different subject.
Hitler's general mental ability for leadership was astonishing. He was also very conscientiousness of what he was doing and how he was manipulating people, he has a high degree of extroversion and needed it in order to do what he did. People liked him, people trusted him, they enjoyed his company and because of this they hung on every single word that he said. Because of these different characteristics he became a very successful task-oriented leader. He had a role for everyone, everyone played a certain role, even the Jewish people. They played the role of scapegoat to his plan to control.
Hitler also demonstrated the perfection of the authoritarian decision making process. He concocted a plan and executed it with precision and intellect. I know that Hitler is not someone we think of when we think of good leadership qualities and skill however if you take a minute to sit back and think about how much he must have planned and how agreeable he must have been for people to go along with this preposterous plan I think you will understand what I am saying.
Do you agree or disagree with me?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Hitler's general mental ability for leadership was astonishing. He was also very conscientiousness of what he was doing and how he was manipulating people, he has a high degree of extroversion and needed it in order to do what he did. People liked him, people trusted him, they enjoyed his company and because of this they hung on every single word that he said. Because of these different characteristics he became a very successful task-oriented leader. He had a role for everyone, everyone played a certain role, even the Jewish people. They played the role of scapegoat to his plan to control.
Hitler also demonstrated the perfection of the authoritarian decision making process. He concocted a plan and executed it with precision and intellect. I know that Hitler is not someone we think of when we think of good leadership qualities and skill however if you take a minute to sit back and think about how much he must have planned and how agreeable he must have been for people to go along with this preposterous plan I think you will understand what I am saying.
Do you agree or disagree with me?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Worst Places to Work
In class, we have talked about the best organizations to work for. Companies that we often think of are Facebook, SAS Institute, Google, and Apple. I have heard about each of these companies and how they implement a positive work environment-this got me thinking though. I have heard about the positive corporations, but what about the negative? What organizations are on the other side of the spectrum and what makes them so dreadful to work for?
Glassdoor.com puts a list out every year that has the best and work organizations to be employed by. These are ranked by employee reviews. The following link will take you to the lowest organizations:
Glassdoor Reports Companies with the Lowest Scores
This link will take you to Glassdoor's list of best places to work of 2011:
Glassdoor's Best Places to Work of 2011
Among the top twenty worst companies rated by employees are big names like United Airlines, RadioShack, Office Depot, and Chrysler. Under the United Airlines link, employees discuss the pros and cons of working at the organization. One person says they have little chance to advance, which makes it hard to grow in their career. This connects greatly with the motivation chapter from class. If people do not have an incentive to work harder, why would they? Within United Airlines, this employee says there is little opportunity to move up in the organization--there are no performance incentives there. There is also mention of their employees desiring a higher pay. Because of this economy, it may be hard for organizations to give raises, but they could offer other kinds of incentives to keep their workers satisfied.
After reading through a few of the employee review for these large companies, it is pretty evident that changes could be made.
Take a look at the worst place to work list. What companies surprised you to fall on it? How about on the best places to work? What kinds of suggestions would you give the organizations that have these low ratings?
Written by: Jenny Liechti
Glassdoor.com puts a list out every year that has the best and work organizations to be employed by. These are ranked by employee reviews. The following link will take you to the lowest organizations:
Glassdoor Reports Companies with the Lowest Scores
This link will take you to Glassdoor's list of best places to work of 2011:
Glassdoor's Best Places to Work of 2011
Among the top twenty worst companies rated by employees are big names like United Airlines, RadioShack, Office Depot, and Chrysler. Under the United Airlines link, employees discuss the pros and cons of working at the organization. One person says they have little chance to advance, which makes it hard to grow in their career. This connects greatly with the motivation chapter from class. If people do not have an incentive to work harder, why would they? Within United Airlines, this employee says there is little opportunity to move up in the organization--there are no performance incentives there. There is also mention of their employees desiring a higher pay. Because of this economy, it may be hard for organizations to give raises, but they could offer other kinds of incentives to keep their workers satisfied.
After reading through a few of the employee review for these large companies, it is pretty evident that changes could be made.
Take a look at the worst place to work list. What companies surprised you to fall on it? How about on the best places to work? What kinds of suggestions would you give the organizations that have these low ratings?
Written by: Jenny Liechti
Monday, April 4, 2011
Poor Decision Making
Poor Decision Making is Commonplace- Corporations
Today in class, we talked about decision making in the workplace. It was mentioned in class (and in the article above) that about half of decisions that are made end up failing. According to Paul Nutt, who is a professor at Ohio State, there are three main issues that managers do when making decisions: make quick decisions, use resources incorrectly, and continue practices that are bound to fail.
He looked at 400 decisions that were made in organizations in the United States, Canada, and Europe, and according to the article, after 2 years, not even half of the decisions were being fully used--while a third of them were never used at all.
Why do so many decisions fail? In chapter 11, there are five ways to make defective decisions. Managers may have overconfidence bias (having a strong belief on what the outcome will be without actually knowing it) or even the opposite of that which is hindsight bias--this occurs when managers look back at the decision they made and seeing the mistakes were quite evident. Other poor decision making practices include anchoring--this is when a manager takes one piece of the puzzle and relies solely on in, framing bias--this occurs when looking at pieces of the problem, but not the entire problem. Framing bias happens when the problem is phrased in a certain light. These first four can be connected with Nutt's idea that managers make quick decisions without using resources correctly. If managers had more time and even money, they may be able to explore more alternatives before going through with a decision. And the final practice is escalation of commitment--this goes along with Paul Nutt's idea of continuing practices that are bound to fail. Managers need to know when it is time to cut their losses and move one.
Has there ever been a time that you used a faulty way of making decisions--in school or even on the job? Have you ever had a job where your managers practiced any of these?
Posted by: Jenny Liechti
Today in class, we talked about decision making in the workplace. It was mentioned in class (and in the article above) that about half of decisions that are made end up failing. According to Paul Nutt, who is a professor at Ohio State, there are three main issues that managers do when making decisions: make quick decisions, use resources incorrectly, and continue practices that are bound to fail.
He looked at 400 decisions that were made in organizations in the United States, Canada, and Europe, and according to the article, after 2 years, not even half of the decisions were being fully used--while a third of them were never used at all.
Why do so many decisions fail? In chapter 11, there are five ways to make defective decisions. Managers may have overconfidence bias (having a strong belief on what the outcome will be without actually knowing it) or even the opposite of that which is hindsight bias--this occurs when managers look back at the decision they made and seeing the mistakes were quite evident. Other poor decision making practices include anchoring--this is when a manager takes one piece of the puzzle and relies solely on in, framing bias--this occurs when looking at pieces of the problem, but not the entire problem. Framing bias happens when the problem is phrased in a certain light. These first four can be connected with Nutt's idea that managers make quick decisions without using resources correctly. If managers had more time and even money, they may be able to explore more alternatives before going through with a decision. And the final practice is escalation of commitment--this goes along with Paul Nutt's idea of continuing practices that are bound to fail. Managers need to know when it is time to cut their losses and move one.
Has there ever been a time that you used a faulty way of making decisions--in school or even on the job? Have you ever had a job where your managers practiced any of these?
Posted by: Jenny Liechti
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Work Conflict
This article talks about the most common types of conflicts that arise at work, and provides researched evidence on how people tend to deal with the conflict. This is highly reflective of chapter 10 in our textbook, titled "Conflict and Negotiations."
Interpersonal conflict is mostly referred to throughout this article. Interpersonal conflict is simply conflict that arises between two people. This can be due to to personality differences, power struggles, and authority struggles. I thought that the statistics provided were really shocking when looking at how many people say they have lost productive time at work worrying about conflict with another person. Over 50% of workers say they have lost time due to, and only due to, workplace conflict.
According to the article, 28% of people say they have avoided confrontation. This can be related to the conflict handling style called avoidance that we learned about in class. Handling conflict in this manner is highly unproductive because you are being both uncooperative as well as unassertive. 37% of people say that they have lost their commitment to the company due to hostile confrontation. I believe this is most relatable to handling conflict based on competition. You want it your way, and you are not willing to cooperate with your coworkers, resulting in altercations.
But, work conflict doesn't always have to be negative. In order to get the most out of work, and resolve conflicts both effectively and efficiently, workers should pick their battles. There is no need to constantly fight about everything. Each person should try to negotiate with the other to come to a mutual agreement. You may need to distribute or compromise some of your wants with the other's wants. Most importantly, there needs to be some form of leadership in the organization. Whether it is authority or emergent leadership, there needs to be a person in the workplace to help resolve conflict that arises between two or more coworkers.
How do you think conflicts should be treated at work? Do you think a boss should get to resolve all conflicts that arise, or do you think leaders emerge during times of need to help others out?
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-02/living/cb.work.conflict_1_conflict-resolution-workplace-stress-worker?_s=PM:LIVING
- Kelly Moran
Interpersonal conflict is mostly referred to throughout this article. Interpersonal conflict is simply conflict that arises between two people. This can be due to to personality differences, power struggles, and authority struggles. I thought that the statistics provided were really shocking when looking at how many people say they have lost productive time at work worrying about conflict with another person. Over 50% of workers say they have lost time due to, and only due to, workplace conflict.
According to the article, 28% of people say they have avoided confrontation. This can be related to the conflict handling style called avoidance that we learned about in class. Handling conflict in this manner is highly unproductive because you are being both uncooperative as well as unassertive. 37% of people say that they have lost their commitment to the company due to hostile confrontation. I believe this is most relatable to handling conflict based on competition. You want it your way, and you are not willing to cooperate with your coworkers, resulting in altercations.
But, work conflict doesn't always have to be negative. In order to get the most out of work, and resolve conflicts both effectively and efficiently, workers should pick their battles. There is no need to constantly fight about everything. Each person should try to negotiate with the other to come to a mutual agreement. You may need to distribute or compromise some of your wants with the other's wants. Most importantly, there needs to be some form of leadership in the organization. Whether it is authority or emergent leadership, there needs to be a person in the workplace to help resolve conflict that arises between two or more coworkers.
How do you think conflicts should be treated at work? Do you think a boss should get to resolve all conflicts that arise, or do you think leaders emerge during times of need to help others out?
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-02/living/cb.work.conflict_1_conflict-resolution-workplace-stress-worker?_s=PM:LIVING
- Kelly Moran
Workplace Anxiety
The following article that I found discusses stress and anxiety caused by mostly work related issues. This article is highly reflective of chapter 7 in our textbook, titled "Managing Stress and Emotions."
There are constant changes in a work environment. Some of these changes could include demands, deadlines, and both interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict. Each one of these changes causes stress, and it is up to our bodies to mentally, physically, or emotionally react to these changes. As the article points out, working long hours, dealing with role and information overload, and worrying about job security can all be stressors in the workplace.
Relating the topic of stress to Selye's GAS model, the initial stage, called the alarm phase, has the highest tolerance for stress. An example of something that may take place in this type of situation would be completing a task that has just arose at work. You may initially be stressed when that task is brought to you, but once it is completed you are able to return back to your resting state. The resistance phase could be related to an extremely busy week or two at work. Your body is drawing from the fats and sugars it has stored, but this is only a temporary fix. The resistance phase leads into the exhaustion phase of Selye's GAS model. Let's say that the stressful situation at work continues for a prolonged period of time at work, resulting in your body going to the exhaustion phase. Everyone at some time or another has been completely depleted off all energy due to the stress that is put upon us.
On top of getting both professional mental and physical help, the article points out to be almost Zen-like when dealing with a chaotic work environment. Many of the stressors that arise everyday at work are not going to go away, but the way that an individual deals with them is what really needs to change. I know one thing that works very well for me is time management. I prioritize my work and keep a schedule in order to stay organized. Organizations should also make the expectations clear to their employees in oder to decrease a loss of productive work hours due to ambiguity.
Most importantly, workers need to stay positive through all of the negative emotions that come along with being stressed out. This will drastically help decrease the burnout that comes along with being stressed out at work.
What other ways do you think individuals can deal with the stress at work? Do you believe there are right and wrong ways to deal with the stress you encounter? How about any of your personal experiences?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/work-overload-brings-panic-anxiety-stress/story?id=9868689&page=4
- Kelly Moran
There are constant changes in a work environment. Some of these changes could include demands, deadlines, and both interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict. Each one of these changes causes stress, and it is up to our bodies to mentally, physically, or emotionally react to these changes. As the article points out, working long hours, dealing with role and information overload, and worrying about job security can all be stressors in the workplace.
Relating the topic of stress to Selye's GAS model, the initial stage, called the alarm phase, has the highest tolerance for stress. An example of something that may take place in this type of situation would be completing a task that has just arose at work. You may initially be stressed when that task is brought to you, but once it is completed you are able to return back to your resting state. The resistance phase could be related to an extremely busy week or two at work. Your body is drawing from the fats and sugars it has stored, but this is only a temporary fix. The resistance phase leads into the exhaustion phase of Selye's GAS model. Let's say that the stressful situation at work continues for a prolonged period of time at work, resulting in your body going to the exhaustion phase. Everyone at some time or another has been completely depleted off all energy due to the stress that is put upon us.
On top of getting both professional mental and physical help, the article points out to be almost Zen-like when dealing with a chaotic work environment. Many of the stressors that arise everyday at work are not going to go away, but the way that an individual deals with them is what really needs to change. I know one thing that works very well for me is time management. I prioritize my work and keep a schedule in order to stay organized. Organizations should also make the expectations clear to their employees in oder to decrease a loss of productive work hours due to ambiguity.
Most importantly, workers need to stay positive through all of the negative emotions that come along with being stressed out. This will drastically help decrease the burnout that comes along with being stressed out at work.
What other ways do you think individuals can deal with the stress at work? Do you believe there are right and wrong ways to deal with the stress you encounter? How about any of your personal experiences?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/work-overload-brings-panic-anxiety-stress/story?id=9868689&page=4
- Kelly Moran
Gulf Oil Spill
Hindsight is always 20/20, especially for the companies involved in the Gulf Oil Spill. You can read a list of the bad decisions they made through this link:
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/09/disaster-in-the-gulf-one-bad-call-after-another/
In the article, a situation is described where the company was worried about just getting the job done, not worried about the quality of the work. Basically, all of the mistakes were just a case of not double-checking the work that was done and materials were used that had not been tested properly.
I believe this relates back to an overconfidence bias from the company. They were confident to do this type of drilling in the past and just assumed they would do it correctly again. The problem is they also did not feel the need to put in the checkpoints I'm assuming were previously used. The company used their experience to justify not following all of the guidelines and it cost them and thousands of others dearly.
Should there be guidelines placed on companies that do drilling? Is there any way to hold companies like this accountable for their decision-making before disaster strikes again?
Casey Zimmerman
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/09/disaster-in-the-gulf-one-bad-call-after-another/
In the article, a situation is described where the company was worried about just getting the job done, not worried about the quality of the work. Basically, all of the mistakes were just a case of not double-checking the work that was done and materials were used that had not been tested properly.
I believe this relates back to an overconfidence bias from the company. They were confident to do this type of drilling in the past and just assumed they would do it correctly again. The problem is they also did not feel the need to put in the checkpoints I'm assuming were previously used. The company used their experience to justify not following all of the guidelines and it cost them and thousands of others dearly.
Should there be guidelines placed on companies that do drilling? Is there any way to hold companies like this accountable for their decision-making before disaster strikes again?
Casey Zimmerman
NASA and its Issues
It is often said that the Columbia disaster was caused by groupthink from those that were in charge of inspecting the craft before takeoff. In this article, "The Nation: NASA's Curse?" is about how even though NASA has some of the world's most brilliant people working for them does not mean that they are always making the best decisions because the data needed is not always available. Here's a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/weekinreview/the-nation-nasa-s-curse-groupthink-is-30-years-old-and-still-going-strong.html
This report says that because information was not passed up the proper chain of command, the people at the top were making decisions without all of the facts, which could lead to deadly consequences.
In Chapter 11, there is a section about faulty decision-making. First, I believe this relates to the overconfidence bias. The people at NASA know that they have the brains to do this job, but are they relying too much on their knowledge and not all of the facts that they need to make a well-rounded decision?
The article also points out how this situation could have been framing bias, the decision being influenced by the way it was presented. The engineers in charge did not believe that it the falling foam was a problem, so they did not report all of the possible risks, just took the best case scenario.
How should NASA reframe their decision-making process to make sure that there are checkpoints to prevent this kind of thinking? Should there be other people outside of NASA that will hold the rocket scientists accountable for their decision-making before a problem happens again?
Casey Zimmerman
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/weekinreview/the-nation-nasa-s-curse-groupthink-is-30-years-old-and-still-going-strong.html
This report says that because information was not passed up the proper chain of command, the people at the top were making decisions without all of the facts, which could lead to deadly consequences.
In Chapter 11, there is a section about faulty decision-making. First, I believe this relates to the overconfidence bias. The people at NASA know that they have the brains to do this job, but are they relying too much on their knowledge and not all of the facts that they need to make a well-rounded decision?
The article also points out how this situation could have been framing bias, the decision being influenced by the way it was presented. The engineers in charge did not believe that it the falling foam was a problem, so they did not report all of the possible risks, just took the best case scenario.
How should NASA reframe their decision-making process to make sure that there are checkpoints to prevent this kind of thinking? Should there be other people outside of NASA that will hold the rocket scientists accountable for their decision-making before a problem happens again?
Casey Zimmerman
Monday, March 21, 2011
Conflict and Negotiations
Although we have talked about Michael Scott's poor leadership skills already, while I was reading Chapter 10, Conflict and Negotiations, one episode of the Office instantly came to me. In season 2, there is an episode called Conflict Resolution. Even though the entire episode is Michael "helping" his employees work out their conflicts, the conflict with Angela and Oscar is a great example of the different types of negotiations. Watch this video clip from 2:08 through 7:18.
http://www.tbs.com/video/index.jsp?eref=google&oid=185909
Toby is letting Oscar vent his issues with Angela. This is similar to an avoidance technique--after he is done, the problem won't be brought up again.
Michael decides to step in and take over. While he has Angela and Oscar in the conference room, he goes through the different ways to negotiate. He talks about lose-lose, or in our textbook it would be avoidance, win-lose (accommodating), win-win (compromising), and win-win-win (collaborating). Making the baby poster into a t-shirt is Michael's way of having a win-win-win situation, although this does not make either party happy. What could be a better way to solve their dispute?
If you go on and watch the rest of the episode, Michael takes it upon himself to help settle all the disagreements in the office. It eventually just upsets everybody, causing more animosity towards one another. Instead of having the employees vent to the human resource manager and then read aloud to the entire office, how could Dunder Mifflin better deal with conflicts?
Have you ever had a conflict with someone in the workplace? How did you come to a solution?
Written by: Jenny Liechti
http://www.tbs.com/video/index.jsp?eref=google&oid=185909
Toby is letting Oscar vent his issues with Angela. This is similar to an avoidance technique--after he is done, the problem won't be brought up again.
Michael decides to step in and take over. While he has Angela and Oscar in the conference room, he goes through the different ways to negotiate. He talks about lose-lose, or in our textbook it would be avoidance, win-lose (accommodating), win-win (compromising), and win-win-win (collaborating). Making the baby poster into a t-shirt is Michael's way of having a win-win-win situation, although this does not make either party happy. What could be a better way to solve their dispute?
If you go on and watch the rest of the episode, Michael takes it upon himself to help settle all the disagreements in the office. It eventually just upsets everybody, causing more animosity towards one another. Instead of having the employees vent to the human resource manager and then read aloud to the entire office, how could Dunder Mifflin better deal with conflicts?
Have you ever had a conflict with someone in the workplace? How did you come to a solution?
Written by: Jenny Liechti
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
What Would You Do?
Many people are put into uncomfortable situations where you find yourself asking what you should do. A new television show on ABC has found a way for people to be asked the question "What Would You Do?" more often then they thought. The show presents ethical and moral dilemmas in a public place that has on lookers, as the shows tag line asks, either "Stepping In, Stepping Up, or Stepping Away - What Would You Do?" This particular show fits right into to a chapter out of our Organizational Behavior textbook on making decisions. Decision making is defined as making choices among alternative courses of action, including inaction. That is exactly what this show is to the on lookers of these situations that the show sets up. The on lookers are choosing a course of either inaction to ignore the situation that they are witnessing or are going to choose a course of action and to step into the situation to either voice their opinion or try to help calm and fix the situation or dilemma they are witnessing. When put into these situations whether on a television show or not we are experiencing nonprogrammed decisions. On one episode of the show the host takes the show to Arizona to see if people will step in when a security guard approaches a hispanic man on the basis of the FB 1070 law that was passed in Arizona in April 2010 and asks him and his family for ID and proof that they belong here in this country.
What kind of decision making approach would you take to this situation. I hope that I am right when I say that your decision would be a nonprogrammed decision because this is a situation that we don't see very often in our country which we are all thankful for. But what would affect your decision to do something, would it be a framing bias or anchoring which would be relying to heavily on the fact that the patron looked Hispanic. Would groupthink take over. If one person presented one stance would everyone in the restaurant follow along or take their own stance?
What would you do?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
What kind of decision making approach would you take to this situation. I hope that I am right when I say that your decision would be a nonprogrammed decision because this is a situation that we don't see very often in our country which we are all thankful for. But what would affect your decision to do something, would it be a framing bias or anchoring which would be relying to heavily on the fact that the patron looked Hispanic. Would groupthink take over. If one person presented one stance would everyone in the restaurant follow along or take their own stance?
What would you do?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Monday, March 14, 2011
Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom
Bernie Ebbers was the CEO of WorldCom up until he was convicted of fraud when it came to accounting on several different accounts. During trial he said he was not aware of this unethical behavior. In addition to his indictment, several other CEOs were also put on trial for similar behavior. To read more on the topic, here is the article:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/news/newsmakers/ebbers/
Although this article is on the older side, these events lead to the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, discussed in Chapter one of the text book. Ebbers' defense was that he was not aware of the corrupt accounting practices that were going on in his organization. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a collection of eleven requirement that focused on taking much more responsibility as to what is going on in relations to the financial reporting. Organizations should always be conscious of ethical versus unethical behavior--it should not have to get to this level. According to the text, this act is supposed to help cut down on long-term unethical behavior. However, if organizations are continuously being ethical, they can end up saving money in the long run-they will avoid litigation costs.
Why do you think organizations continue to practice unethical bookkeeping/behavior overall? I feel as though, at least a large part of the time, they will eventually get caught, is it really worth it?
Posted by: Jenny Liechti
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/news/newsmakers/ebbers/
Although this article is on the older side, these events lead to the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, discussed in Chapter one of the text book. Ebbers' defense was that he was not aware of the corrupt accounting practices that were going on in his organization. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a collection of eleven requirement that focused on taking much more responsibility as to what is going on in relations to the financial reporting. Organizations should always be conscious of ethical versus unethical behavior--it should not have to get to this level. According to the text, this act is supposed to help cut down on long-term unethical behavior. However, if organizations are continuously being ethical, they can end up saving money in the long run-they will avoid litigation costs.
Why do you think organizations continue to practice unethical bookkeeping/behavior overall? I feel as though, at least a large part of the time, they will eventually get caught, is it really worth it?
Posted by: Jenny Liechti
Thursday, March 3, 2011
King of Saudi Arabia King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud
Many people may not know much about this country. I am not going to pretend that I know everything about it or even a lot, but I do know a little bit and I know what I have read. Some of you may be asking how I can relate the actions of this King to anything in an Organizational Behavior class. Everything that you may read about this president sounds horrific. He has been the king since 1996, and officially since 2005 and has been known to be a peacemaker in the region. If you Googled his name you will find out that he has a great relationship with the United States, and with the Bush family. He has done things for his country such as establish libraries in different locations. Yes many of the things you would read about him are good. However he also has one of the most oppressive systems against women in the world. Women's rights in this country are so restricted. They much ask a male's permission to do almost anything such as work, marry, travel, and even to go outside. When they do go out of the house every part of their body must be covered except their hands and eyes and must have a male guardian accompany them.
You still may not understand what any of this has to do with Organizational Behavior, but it has a lot to do with it. When I first started learning about things in this class we studied a chapter about cultural diversity. Through Organizational Behavior I have learned that there is a great power distance in the Saudi Arabia culture. A great deal of women would like to lower the power distance but have a high uncertainty avoidance because of the repercussions they feel they would face. As Americans most of us have an ethnocentrism when it comes to other cultures and this is no different. When polled I bet most people would believe that our country does better and is better because of the injustice the Saudi women face. King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud in my opinion should be helping women become more independent and encouraging it. He looks like a poor leader because of this. However does this one injustice outweigh all of the good he has done as a leader as well.
What do you think?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
You still may not understand what any of this has to do with Organizational Behavior, but it has a lot to do with it. When I first started learning about things in this class we studied a chapter about cultural diversity. Through Organizational Behavior I have learned that there is a great power distance in the Saudi Arabia culture. A great deal of women would like to lower the power distance but have a high uncertainty avoidance because of the repercussions they feel they would face. As Americans most of us have an ethnocentrism when it comes to other cultures and this is no different. When polled I bet most people would believe that our country does better and is better because of the injustice the Saudi women face. King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud in my opinion should be helping women become more independent and encouraging it. He looks like a poor leader because of this. However does this one injustice outweigh all of the good he has done as a leader as well.
What do you think?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
CEO Mark Hurd Steps Down from Hewlett-Packard
As a CEO of an organization, one should be ethical and lead by example. He or she is seen as the face of the company and should constantly think what his or her actions will reflect upon the company as a whole. If the CEO is unethical or takes part in corrupt behavior, how is the rest of the organization run? When the head of the company is immoral, the rest of the employees do not have much to look up to.
One of the more recent scandals among the business world has to do with the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Mark Hurd. In August of 2010, Hurd stepped down due to an alleged breach in the sexual harrasment policy. After some investigation, it was found that he did not break any of these rules, but Hurd did take part in "'numerous instances where the contractor received compensation and or expense reimbursement where there was not a legitimate business purpose,'" taken from an article from http://www.msn.com/.
View full article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38597967/ns/business-consumer_news/
Other employees within Hewlett-Packard must have been aware of what was going on. Someone had to sign off on the expense reimbursements, why do you think no one came forward about this act? If you knew the CEO of the organization you work for was practicing unethical behavior, what would you do?
Posted by: Jenny Liechti
One of the more recent scandals among the business world has to do with the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Mark Hurd. In August of 2010, Hurd stepped down due to an alleged breach in the sexual harrasment policy. After some investigation, it was found that he did not break any of these rules, but Hurd did take part in "'numerous instances where the contractor received compensation and or expense reimbursement where there was not a legitimate business purpose,'" taken from an article from http://www.msn.com/.
View full article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38597967/ns/business-consumer_news/
Other employees within Hewlett-Packard must have been aware of what was going on. Someone had to sign off on the expense reimbursements, why do you think no one came forward about this act? If you knew the CEO of the organization you work for was practicing unethical behavior, what would you do?
Posted by: Jenny Liechti
IBM's Bad Decision
When personal computers were first becoming manufactured in the 1980s, IBM started working with Bill Gates to refine the computers and make them better. At the time, Bill Gates had developed Microsoft and IBM started to find ways to incorporate Microsoft. The mistake, and bad decision-making, came in when IBM just paid Gates for his services, but did not have him commit to working solely with IBM in the software market. You can read about a history of the relationship between IBM and Gates here:
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm
IBM thought that they would dominate the market in hardware and decided not to worry much about the software side of computers. Considering Gates's massive success with Microsoft, IBM missed out on a major opportunity through a partnership with Microsoft.
Surely IBM could not predict just how popular home computers would become, but should they have tried to expand their business by adding the software instead of focusing on dominating the hardware market? What could they have done differently once they discovered how popular home computers were? Could they have tried to partner with or create another software company to compete with Microsoft?
Casey Zimmerman
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm
IBM thought that they would dominate the market in hardware and decided not to worry much about the software side of computers. Considering Gates's massive success with Microsoft, IBM missed out on a major opportunity through a partnership with Microsoft.
Surely IBM could not predict just how popular home computers would become, but should they have tried to expand their business by adding the software instead of focusing on dominating the hardware market? What could they have done differently once they discovered how popular home computers were? Could they have tried to partner with or create another software company to compete with Microsoft?
Casey Zimmerman
Monday, February 21, 2011
Rod Blagojevich - former Illinois Governor
Illinois is gaining quite a reputation for corrupt governors. Before Blagojevich there was former Governor Ryan. Now more recently Blagojevich is known as the governor of Illinois who allegedly tried to "sell" the Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama when he entered into the Presidential election. Some reports say he tried to trade the seat for ambassadorships, money and positions within pro-union groups and even a $150,000 salary for his wife.
At a news conference, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, said that Blagojevich had gone on a "political corruption crime spree," and that his actions had "taken us to a truly new low." You can read more about that here.
In an excerpt from the above article, "According to the affidavit, Blagojevich told an adviser last week that he might get some money 'upfront, maybe' from one of the candidates hoping to replace Obama. That person was identified only as 'Candidate 5.' In an earlier recorded conversation, prosecutors say, Blagojevich said he had been approached by an associate of Candidate 5 with an offer of $500,000 in exchange for the Senate seat." On April 2, 2009 a Federal Grand jury indicted Rod Blagojevich on 16 indictments of which included racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion conspiracy, attempted extortion, and making false statements to federal agents.
Chapter 13 in our textbook is titled "Power and Politics" which directly applies to this particular case. In the book on page 321 it talks about The Relationship Between Dependency and Power, and according to the text Blagojevich was feeling indispensable. He was feeling dependency for the scarcity of his resource and the importance of his resource. Blagojevich felt that he held all the power because people depended on his to fill this Senate seat. How do you think he should have handled the appointment of the new Senator? How do you think Blagojevich should be punished for the crimes he is accused of?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
At a news conference, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, said that Blagojevich had gone on a "political corruption crime spree," and that his actions had "taken us to a truly new low." You can read more about that here.
In an excerpt from the above article, "According to the affidavit, Blagojevich told an adviser last week that he might get some money 'upfront, maybe' from one of the candidates hoping to replace Obama. That person was identified only as 'Candidate 5.' In an earlier recorded conversation, prosecutors say, Blagojevich said he had been approached by an associate of Candidate 5 with an offer of $500,000 in exchange for the Senate seat." On April 2, 2009 a Federal Grand jury indicted Rod Blagojevich on 16 indictments of which included racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion conspiracy, attempted extortion, and making false statements to federal agents.
Chapter 13 in our textbook is titled "Power and Politics" which directly applies to this particular case. In the book on page 321 it talks about The Relationship Between Dependency and Power, and according to the text Blagojevich was feeling indispensable. He was feeling dependency for the scarcity of his resource and the importance of his resource. Blagojevich felt that he held all the power because people depended on his to fill this Senate seat. How do you think he should have handled the appointment of the new Senator? How do you think Blagojevich should be punished for the crimes he is accused of?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)