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
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)