# data[].attributes.body
while examining Toyota I realized that it might be easier for some companies tho create a slightly inferior product at a lower cost. This will increase initial sales, even though repair of these products may need to be done later. This business strategy can cause the business to lose the same customers in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Design & Technology: Graphics > Mass Production

# data[].attributes.body
I did not know how intricate the information systems within organizations. The IS is a summary of the steps necessary to properly operate Information Technology. Mangers use this for things such as planning and budgeting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advances in computer-based information technology in recent years have led to a wide variety of systems that managers are now using to make and implement decisions. By and large, these systems have been developed from scratch for specific purposes and differ significantly from standard electronic data processing systems. Too often, unfortunately, managers have little say in the development of these decision support sysems; at the same time, non-managers who do develop them have a limited view of how they can be used. In spite of these drawbacks, the author found that a number of the 56 systems he studied are successful. And the difference between success and failure is the extent to which managers can use the system to increase their effectiveness within their organizations. Thus, the author suggests that this is the criterion designers and managers should jointly ascribe to in exploiting the capabilities of today's technologies.

What can managers realistically expect from computers other than a pile of reports a foot deep dumped on their desks every other week?

Everyone knows, for instance, that computers are great at listing receivables. But what about all the promises and all the speculations over the past few decades about the role of the computer in management? While there have been advances in basic information retrieval, processing, and display technologies, my recent study of 56 computerized decision support systems confirms the common wisdom that very few management functions have actually been automated to date and all indications are that most cannot be.

Instead, my findings show what other researchers have reported: applications are being developed and used to support the manager responsible for making and implementing decisions, rather than to replace him. In other words, people in a growing number of organizations are using what are often called decision support systems to improve their managerial effectiveness. ¹

Unfortunately my research also bore out the fact that while more and more practical applications are being developed for the use of decision makers, three sizable stumbling blocks still stand in the way of others who might benefit from them.

First, managers and computer users in many organizations are familiar with only a few of the types of systems now in use. As a result, different types of innovative systems have often been conceived and nurtured by internal or external "entrepreneurs," not by the system users or their superiors.

Second, and closely related to my first finding, these entrepreneurs tend to concentrate on technical characteristics. Too often, this myopia means that they fail to anticipate the ways in which such systems can be used to increase the effectiveness of individuals in organizations.

Finally, highly innovative systems-the very ones management should find most useful-run a high risk of never being implemented, especially when the impetus for change comes from a source other than the potential user.

Quite simply, my purpose in this article is to discuss, without getting into the technology involved, the high potential of a variety of decision support systems, the challenges and risks they pose to managers and implementers, and a wide range of strategies to meet these challenges and risks.

Types of Decision Support Systems

While there are many ways to categorize computer systems, a practical one is to compare them in terms of what the user does with them:

Retrieves isolated data items.

Uses as a mechanism for ad hoc analysis of data files.

Obtains prespecified aggregations of data in the form of standard reports.

Estimates the consequences of proposed decisions.

As Exhibit I indicates, EDP reporting systems usually perform only the third function in this list of operations, which I have organized along a dimension from "data-orientation" to "model-orientation." Hence, unlike the EDP user who receives standard reports on a periodic basis, the decision support system user typically initiates each instance of system usage, either directly or through a staff intermediary.

Exhibit I Comparison of Uses, Purposes, and Characteristics of EDP Systems vs. Decision Support Systems

Although decision-oriented reporting systems often grow out of standard EDP systems, I will concentrate on seven distinct types, briefly describing one example of each type.

Incidently, it is interesting to note that external consultants developed the systems cited in my second, fifth, and seventh examples, while those of the first, third, and sixth were the creations of people acting as internal entrepreneurs through staff roles; only the fourth system was developed on direct assignment by the user. This same pattern of initiation of innovative systems by people other than the users was present in many of the 56 systems.
1. Retrieval only-a shop floor information system.
In order to help production foremen improve the percentage yield on a newly developed 50-stage process for manufacturing micro-circuits, the management of one company has installed an on-line, shop floor information system. Operators submit daily piecework reports, which include yield, release date, identification of the person who does the work, and so on. The foremen then juggle this information to obtain productivity data by operation, operator, machine, and lot.

Thus they are able to use the system in a number of ways. They can monitor work flow, pinpoint yield problems, and settle day-to-day questions such as who worked on which lot when, and which operators are ahead of or behind schedule, or below standards. The foremen have 13 standard commands by which they can retrieve the data stored in the system and display them on a cathode ray tube terminal. The commands permit them to tailor reports to their needs.
2. Retrieval and analysis-a portfolio analysis system.
Before advising clients or making authorized trading decisions, the portfolio managers at a bank I studied use an on-line system to analyze individual portfolios. The managers can bypass time-consuming manual methods and obtain up-to-date and clearly organized portfolio information in either graphic or tabular form.

Depending on the situation, a manager can inspect both individual portfolios and groups of portfolios from different viewpoints-for example, rank them in different ways, obtain breakdowns by industry or risk level, and so on. With this kind of flexibility, the bank's portfolio managers make more effective use of a vast amount of information, most of which had existed prior to the system, but had been accessible only through tedious manual analysis.
3. Multiple data bases plus analysis-sales information systems.
Greater flexibility was also the reason that two consumer products companies and one manufacturing company I looked at developed sales information systems which are quite similar. Standard EDP functions were too inflexible to produce ad hoc sales analysis reports in a timely and cost-effective manner for those in the companies' marketing and planning areas. In each case, information extracted from the EDP systems is now maintained separately in order to have it handy and, in two instances, to be able to analyze it in conjunction with externally purchased proprietary data bases and models.

Basically, each system is a vehicle by which a staff man or group tries to help decision makers. Their modus operandi is incremental: identify a problem; bring the current system and existing expertise to bear on it; develop a solution in the form of an analysis or additional system module; and incorporate the results into an expanded version of the system.
4. Evaluating decisions using an accounting model-a source-and-application-of-funds budget.
To expedite operational decision making and financial planning over a two-year horizon, an insurance company is using an on-line, source-and-application-of-funds budget system. Inputs are projections of future business levels in various lines of insurance and investment areas, plus assumptions concerning important numbers such as future money-market rates. The output is a projected overall cash flow by month.

An investment committee uses the model to allocate funds across investment areas and to minimize the amount of cash left idle in banks. The committee compares projected cash flows based on different allocation decisions; the decisions that it actually adopts are those that produce adequate projected cash flows and that are acceptable to the various groups in the company.

Actually, the system is an accounting definition of the company. There is no question about the accuracy of the relationships in the model, so the only way projected results can be in error is if estimates of business activity levels or money market rates are incorrect.

5. Evaluating decisions using a simulation model-a marketing decision system.

In order to provide a more rational basis for repetitive marketing decisions, a consumer products company uses a model that relates levels of advertising, promotions, and pricing to levels of sales for a particular brand. The model was developed in a team setting by reconciling an analysis of historical brand information with an individual's subjective feelings concerning the effects on sales of various levels and types of advertising and other marketing actions.

The model was validated by tracking its accuracy in predicting sales based on the competitive actions that were taken. Unlike the accounting model I just mentioned, this is a simulation model in which some of the most important relationships are estimates at best. For instance there simply is no rule by which it is possible to predict sales with certainty based on advertising levels. In fact, this was the heart of the issue in developing the model.

Even though it has turned out to be useful for prediction, much of the value of the model lies in the company's improved understanding of the market environment.
6. Proposing decisions-optimization of raw materials usage.
Another consumer products company, faced with short-run supply problems for many of its raw materials, has developed an optimization model to solve the mathematical puzzle of choosing and balancing among various product recipes.

The inputs to the model include a series of different recipes for many products, short-run supply levels for raw materials, and production requirements for finished products. The output is the choice of recipes that maximizes production using existing supplies. When the short-run supply situation shifts, the model can be revised and a new set of recipes chosen.

The system has had a major impact on the way managers view allocation policy. Initially, they considered allocating scarce raw materials to products by setting priorities among products. The model showed that it was more advantageous to start with production requirements and then allocate scarce resources by optimizing the mix of product recipes.

7. Making decisions-an insurance renewal rate system.

As an outgrowth of an overhaul of its group insurance information system, an insurance company has developed a system to eliminate part of the clerical burden associated with renewal underwriting and to help assure that rate calculations are consistent and accurate.

Instead of calculating renewal rates by hand, underwriters fill out coded input sheets for the system, which calculates a renewal rate based on a series of standard statistical and actuarial assumptions. Since these assumptions might or might not apply to a particular policy, the underwriters review documentation accompanying the policies and decide whether the standard calculations are applicable. If they are not, the coding sheet is modified in an appropriate manner and resubmitted.

In effect, the system makes the decision in completely standard situations, while the underwriter decides whether the situation is standard and, if not, what adjustments are required. As a result, the underwriters can concentrate on the substance of their jobs rather than the related clerical chores.

Spectrum of possibilities

These seven systems represent a wide range of approaches in supporting decisions. The first one helps production foremen by simply providing rapid access to historical information such as who worked on what lot, and when the work was done. But the foremen must decide what should be done once they have the information. At the other extreme, the system supporting the underwriters virtually makes the decision in some cases. Between the two extremes, analysis systems and model-oriented systems help people organize information and also facilitate and formalize the evaluation of proposed decisions.

Although managers in most large companies have used budgeting or planning systems similar to the source-and-application-of-funds model I mentioned, the spectrum of possibilities for other kinds of decision support systems is surprisingly wide. Obviously, some of these systems are of no particular use in many settings. Still, their variety suggests that most companies should have a number of genuine opportunities for applying the concept of computerbased support for decision making.

Motives of Managers

What do decision support systems do that actually helps their users? What is their real impact? In my survey, answers to these questions proved elusive in many cases since the users valued the systems for reasons that were completely different from initial ideas of what the systems were to accomplish. In fact, a wide range of purposes exists for these systems. While many decision support systems share the goals of standard EDP systems, they go further and address other managerial concerns such as improving interpersonal communication, facilitating problem solving, fostering individual learning, and increasing organizational control.

Such systems can affect interpersonal communication in two ways: by providing individuals with tools for persuasion and by providing organizations with a vocabulary and a discipline which facilitates negotiations across subunit boundaries.

Tools of persuasion

Standard texts on systems analysis totally overlook the personal use of decision support systems as tools of persuasion. But consider the following "offensive" (persuading someone else to do something) uses to which various companies have put these systems:

The manager of a chemical plant was attempting to meet output goals (quantities by product) that were being set by a marketing group. Unfortunately, the group was setting goals without much consideration of raw material shortages under which the plant was operating. The plant had been using a model to calculate production mixes.

At one point, it occurred to the plant manager that he could use this model to investigate whether marketing was setting goals that resulted in poor plant utilization and made him appear inefficient. As he ran the model under a series of different production mix goals, it became clear that this was the case, and he used the results to persuade marketing to change his plant's production mix.

A data retrieval and manipulation system first received wide exposure in a transportation company when a number of the company's top executives used it to develop a good quantitative rationale for a proposed merger. With the system, it was possible to explore and manipulate a large data base of information on the industry.

Although the merger was not approved, management thought that the system helped it put up a good fight.

The management of a shipping company found that a system it used in consolidating and fine-tuning strategic investment plans also helped it negotiate with banks. The banks and other sources of financing seemed to be uniformly impressed by the careful computer-based analysis on which management based its financing requests. The resulting edge in credibility was small, but, in management's opinion, noticeable.

Now that we have seen illustrations of the offensive tools of persuasion, let us turn to examples of the "defensive" (persuading someone that the user has done a good job) uses of these systems:

When asked whether he ever made direct use of a case tracking system, the head of an adjudication group in a government regulatory agency said that he remembered only one instance. This was when he spent a lunch hour generating a report to make his group's recent performance appear as favorable as possible in spite of some unfortunate delays and problems that made the standard report look bad.

The new president of a large conglomerate used a one-year budgeting model to leam about the budgeting choices that existed, as well as to help him discount what people in various areas claimed concerning their own budgetary needs.

The class scheduler of a training school for a company's service personnel had found his job frustrating because it was always difficult to justify the budget on explicit grounds.

With a model that generated optimal training schedules, the scheduler could protect himself very easily by saying: "Using these assumptions concerning attrition, acceptable peak-time shortfalls, and other considerations, this is the best budget. If you (the budget cutter) would like me to change these assumptions, I would be glad to generate a new budget. What level of shortfall do you suggest?" Thus the system not only helped the scheduler make decisions, but also helped him defend them.

Many people suspected that a new product venture in a consumer company might not be worthwhile, but no one knew exactly why. When a risk analysis was carried out with a model, the reason became clear: the venture had a very substantial downside risk. In addition to sealing the decision, the analysis provided an understandable response to the people who had proposed the venture.

A cynic might contend that the people in these situations were taking advantage of or abusing the systems. A more practical conclusion is that these systems simply serve to improve managers' effectiveness in their organizations by helping them communicate with other people. My point is that much of the benefit of many of the decision support systems in my sample was of this sort.

Aids to communication

Decision support systems also help managers negotiate across organizational units by standardizing the mechanics of the process and by providing a common conceptual basis for decision making.

During my survey, managers frequently commented that consistent definitions and formats are important aids to communication, especially between people in different organizational units such as divisions or departments. In a number of instances, the development of these definitions and formats was a lengthy and sometimes arduous task that was accomplished gradually over the course of several years, but which was also considered one of the main contributions of the systems.

For example, one of the purposes of some of the model-oriented systems in my sample was to estimate beforehand the overall result of decisions various people were considering separately, by filtering these decisions through a single model. In these cases, the system became an implicit arbiter between differing goals of various departments. Instead of arguing from their own divergent viewpoints, marketing, production, and financial people could use the model to demonstrate the effect of one group's proposals on another group's actions and on the total outcome. As a result, issues were clarified and the negotiation process expedited.

The production foremen I mentioned earlier noted the same kind of facilitation. It helped them in work-scheduling discussions and problem investigations by providing immediate access to "objective" information about "who did what, when, and how well on any production lot in the shop."

Value to user

Although the implementers of a number of the successful systems I studied found it necessary to go through the motions of presenting a cost/benefit rationale which attributed a dollar value to personal effectiveness, they didn't believe these numbers any more than anyone else did. Management usually decided to proceed on the basis that the proposed system seemed to make sense and would likely have a beneficial impact on the way people interacted and/ or made decisions.

Monetary savings are obviously a very important and worthwhile rationale for developing computer systems, but it should be clear at this point that the EDP-style assumption that systems should always be justified in these terms does not suffice in the area of decision support systems.

Equally obvious, there is a definite danger in developing a system simply because someone thinks it makes sense, especially if that someone is not the direct user of the system. In fact, the systems I cited as my first, second, and fifth examples began this way and encountered resistance until they were repositioned as something that users would want in order to become more effective.

Again, the general problem here is a common tendency for technical people to concentrate on the "technical beauty" of a system or idea and to assume that nontechnical people will somehow see the light and will be able to figure out how to use the system in solving business problems. This sort of overoptimism was present in the history of almost every unsuccessful system in the sample.

The message is clear: try to take advantage of the creativity of technical experts, but be sure that it is channeled toward real problems. The challenge, of course, is how to accomplish both of these goals. There are a number of ways, which I shall now discuss.

Patterns of Development

Despite the common wisdom that the needs of users must be considered in developing systems and that users should participate actively in implementing them, the users did not initiate 31 of the 56 systems I studied and did not participate actively in the development of 38 of the 56.

The results, illustrated in Exhibit II, are not surprising. Intended users neither initiated nor played an active role in implementing 11 of the 15 systems that suffered significant implementation problems. Conversely, there were relatively few such problems in 27 of the 31 systems in which the users had a hand in initiating and/or played an active role in implementing.

Exhibit II Systems Resisted by Users

But it would be wrong to infer from these findings that systems should be avoided totally, if intended users neither initiate them nor play an active role in their implementation. For one thing, 14 of the 25 systems I studied in which this was the pattern were ultimately successful. More important, many of the genuinely innovative systems in my sample, including 5 of the 7 that I described earlier, exhibited this pattern.

On the other hand, many of the systems initiated by users do little more than mechanize existing practices. While such mechanization can be very beneficial, and while I'm certainly not suggesting that major innovations must come from outside sources, the real challenge is to be able to use insights regardless of their source.

One way to do this is to devise an implementation strategy to encourage user involvement and participation throughout the development of the systems regardless of who originated the concept. Examples of successful strategies follow.

Impose gracefully: Marketing and production managers in a decentralized company did not relish the extra work (format changes and data submission requirements) needed for a yearly budgeting system, which top management was installing. Initially, they were especially unenthusiastic because they thought the system would not really help them.

So at every stage the designers made a point of developing subsystems to provide these middle managers with sales and materials usage information that had never been available. This quid pro quo worked well; instead of seeing the system as a total imposition, the manager saw it as an opportunity for them to take part in something which would be beneficial to them.

Run a dog and pony show: Central planning personnel in two companies designed systems for budgeting and financial analysis. In one company, the system never caught on despite lengthy training demonstrations for divisional staff and other potential users. These individuals seemed enthusiastic about the system's possibilities, but never really used it unless corporate planning people did all the work for them.

In contrast, the training program for the system in the other company fostered immediate and active involvement. In order to attend the workshops, people were required to bring their own financial analysis problems. They learned to use the system by working on these problems. When the workshops ended, many users were enthusiastic: not only did they know how to use the system, but they had also proved to themselves that it could help them.

Use a prototype: Two ever-present dangers in developing a system are creating a large, expensive one that solves the wrong problem or creating one that some people in the organization cannot live with.

Either can happen, not only when the system is designed without consulting the user and affected parties, but also when there is no one having enough experience with the particular kind of system under consideration to clearly visualize its strengths and weaknesses before it is built.

Implementers of a number of systems in my sample avoided these traps by building small prototypes, which gave the users something specific to react to. As a result, the large-scale version could be developed with a realistic notion of both what was needed and what would fly in the organization. A similar approach, also successful, was simply to build systems in small pieces that could be used, changed, or discarded easily.

Hook the user with the responsibility: Each new module or application developed as an outgrowth of one of the three sales information systems I mentioned earlier goes through three stages. The first stage consists of general, uncommitted discussions of any current problem areas with which user groups are concerned. Following research by the management science staff, the second stage is a brief formal problem statement written in conjunction with the user group. In addition to describing the problem, this statement goes over the methodology and resources that will be required to respond to it. The third stage is a formal request for authorization of out-of-pocket expenses.

Sell the system: In one of the companies I studied, a marketing analysis group used a direct selling procedure to convince people of the merits of a sales forecasting system. The pitch was very simple: they compared manual monthly forecasts for one year with the system's forecasts. The system's forecasts proved to be more accurate in ten months out of twelve, with less error overall than the manual ones. The system was adopted.

In another company, management had a real-time system installed for monitoring the largely automatic production of an inexpensive consumer item in order to minimize material loss due to creeping maladjustments in machine settings. During the initial installation, the implementation team discovered suspected, but previously unsubstantiated, cheating by piecework employees; more pieces were leaving many machines than were entering them. Discreet hints were dropped that the monitor had to be checked because it was registering "impossible" results. The employees were sold on the new system: they knew very well that it worked.

Fundamental Changes

Despite extensive experience with EDP, many organizations have used no more than one or two of the seven types of decision support systems I have illustrated here.

One reason for this is that justifying such systems can be difficult: quantifying the impact of replacing ten clerks with one computer is one thing, while quantifying the impact of improved individual effectiveness of line personnel is quite a different thing. Another reason is that implementation can be tricky: many of the ideas come from people other than the users.

Nevertheless, developing a decision support system makes sense when it becomes clear that a fundamental change may be needed in the way decisions are reached and implemented. Often, the process of defining the system is every bit as valuable as the system produced.

My final point is that the concept of decision support systems itself can help managers in understanding the role of computers in their organizations. As the name implies, data processing systems systematize and expedite the mechanics of carrying on business activities by processing masses of data automatically. On the other hand, the decision-oriented extensions of these systems help people make and communicate decisions concerning administrative and/or competitive tactics and strategy.

The decision support systems I have discussed go one step further. Instead of starting as extensions of existing data processing systems, many decision support systems are built from scratch for the sole purpose of improving or expediting a decision making process. The underlying philosophy is that the use of computers to help people make and communicate decisions is every bit as legitimate and worthwhile as the use of computers to process masses of data.

There is evidence that this viewpoint has caught on to a certain degree and is becoming more widely accepted. The implication is not that all organizations should get on the bandwagon, but rather that managers should be aware of the opportunities and challenges in this area and should attempt to assess whether their organizations should move in this direction.

1. Steven Alter, "A Study of Computer Aided Decision Making in Organizations," Ph.D. thesis, Sloan School of Management, MIT, 1978.

A version of this article appeared in the November 1976 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Effective Managers Use Information Systems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advances in computer-based information technology in recent years have led to a wide variety of systems that managers are now using to make and implement decisions. By and large, these systems have been developed from scratch for specific purposes and differ significantly from standard electronic data processing systems. Too often, unfortunately, managers have little say [...]

# data[].attributes.body
I learned that management tends to be controlling, and leaders lean more toward influencing. Employees tent to seek advice from leaders rather than management. Management also tends to be more directive with less feedback.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaders lead people. Manager manage tasks. There is a difference.

# data[].attributes.body
The leadership continuum is a scale that categorizes different leadership styles. one end of the scale is Manger-oriented leadership, and the other end is team-oriented leadership. I think that a middle ground would be best, but if i had to sway to one side, i would choose team-oriented leadership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
tannenaum and schmidt's leadership behaviour continuum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tannenaum and Schmidt's Leadership Behaviour Continuum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Tannenbaum and Schmidt continuum demonstrates the relationship between the level of freedom that a manager chooses to give a team, and the level of authority used by the manager. As the team's freedom is increased, so to should the manger's authority decrease. This is a positive way for both teams and mangers to develop.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a heavy weight on employee happiness in the workplace. If workers are unsatisfied than that negative energy will trickle down to the customers. This will lead to a decrease in sales and general business performance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a dynamic market, where human resource attrition rates are high, it's a good practice to review workforce's 'sentiment' status towards the organization. Unhappy (disgruntled) employees are usually harmless but in some cases, can cause significant damage to the company's reputation or to its intellectual property.

Causes of Disgruntlement

Disgruntlement in employees can stem from multiple sources, some of the common ones are:

Culture of favouritism in granting promotion -Unfaircomparisons done by seniors and superfluous flattery by subordinates are a common occurrence in offices. However, these are harmless only up till a point where there are no monetary or statutory repercussions. Promotion granted to a seemingly 'undeserved' employee might lead to disgruntlement and resentment in his colleagues.

Poor performance review -While everyone believes he/she is working way too hard or is doing beyond possible capacity to deliver; only the managers or superiors can tell the level of focus, improvement and execution an employee has achieved. If not communicated well, a poor performance review can lead to gross resentment and anger in an employee.

Sexual harassment -The laws have become very stringent about dealing with sexual harassment at a workplace. However, many cases go unnoticed and uninformed. Only a 'safe' work environment can harness quality performance. It only takes one negative comment in this context by a disgruntled employee, on social media, to malign entire organisation's reputation.

Domestic & health issues - When employees spend maximum of their time working, it's easy to bring domestic issues to office. Persistent unresolved personal issues seep into the professional life and result in an unhappy employee at work. This can be addressed if the employee gets help outside(psychologist/friends) or from an in-house(official) professional counsellor.

How to Recognise a Disgruntled Employee:

To be able to help disgruntled employees or reduce employee dissatisfaction, it is important to know how to identify such employees. Some of the common ways in which employees make their dissatisfaction known are:

Poor performance - Easiest way to detect a disgruntled employee is to review his performance. Constant monitoring of output can avoid a lot of unpleasant incidences within an organization.

Absenteeism - Every company has a set number of leaves. But some employees tend to take more leaves than the others. Also, they regularly go out for breaks and are often unavailable on their desks. This depicts lack of interest of the employee towards his work.

Poor attitude at work - Quality of performance, conversations and attitudes can be used as parameters to gauge employee's mind-set. If he is disgruntled and unhappy with the organization or with his work, he would be spreading negativity passively.

Inability to get along with the team - An employee might be miffed with the management for various reasons (no promotion, lack of appreciation, sexual harassment etc.). This disinterest in working with the team is a clear reflection of his disgruntlement.

How to Handle a Disgruntled or Unhappy Employee:

The right approach to handling a disgruntled workforce is by turning dissatisfied, unhappy employees into productive assets of the organization. Some measures that a company can take to help the employee improve his/her performance are:

Trust and communicate - No relationship can thrive in a distrustful environment. Management must focus on being fair and take efforts to dispel any misconception about favouritism at workplace. A culture of open communication and ideation must be encouraged. Any relevant information must be made accessible to all. KRAs and policies must be stated and clarified to each employee. Feedback from employees must be taken up positively.

Conclusion

When people spend over one-third of their lives in offices, its essential to ensure that they work in happy and productive environment. These days we hear news about office bullying, unfair practices, data theft, demise due to work pressure and high employee attrition rates. If we dive deep, all these stem from stress arising out of dissatisfaction. Common reasons for leaving the company persists to be the feeling of being unappreciated and undervalued. Maybe they are. Which is why exit interviews play an important role by providing valuable insights into the organization's operational structure.

When companies focus on building brands, it must also focus on building employee relationships. A happy workforce is necessary for creating inspiring leaders and for achieving stellar results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Recognize and Handle a Disgruntled Employee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a dynamic market, where human resource attrition rates are high, it's a good practice to review workforce's 'sentiment' status towards the organization. Unhappy (disgruntled) employees are usually harmless but in some cases, can cause significant damage to the company's reputation or to its intellectual property.

# data[].attributes.body
Responsibility is a the starting point to communication. the functional similarity method used to divide activities among management. sometimes responsibility overlaps between people, and sometimes there are gaps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Responsibility is the obligation to perform assigned activities. It is the self assumed commitment to handle a job to the best of one's ability.

The source of responsibility lies within the individual.

A person who accepts a job agrees to carry out a series of duties or activities or to see that someone else carries them out.

The act of accepting the job means that the person is obligated to a superior (relationship management) to see that job activities are successfully completed.

THE JOB DESCRIPTION:

An individual's job activities within an organization are usually summarized in a formal statement called a job description - a list of specific activities that must be performed by whoever holds the position.

Unclear job descriptions Can confuse employees and may cause them to lose interest in their jobs. On the other hand, a clear job description can help employees to become successful by focusing their efforts on the issues that are important for their position.

When properly designed, job descriptions communicate job content to employees, establish performance levels that employees must maintain, and act as a guide that employees should follow to help the organization reach its objectives.

Job activities are delegated by management to enhance the accomplishment of management system objectives.

Management analyzes its objectives and assigns specific duties that will lead to reaching those objectives. A sound organizing strategy delineates specific job activities for every individual in the organization.

The following 3 areas are related to responsibility:

1. Dividing Job Activities

2. Clarifying Job activities of managers

3. Being Responsible

DIVIDING JOB ACTIVITIES:

One person cannot be responsible for performing all of the activities that take place within an organization. Since so many people work in a given management system, organizing necessarily involves dividing job activities among a no. of individuals.

Some method of distributing these job activities is essential.

THE FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY METHO D:

The functional similarity method is the most basic method of dividing job activities.

Management should take 4 basic interrelated steps to divide job activities in the following sequence:

1. Examine management system objectives.

2. Designate Appropriate activities that must be performed to reach those objectives.

3. Design specific jobs by grouping similar activities.

4. Make specific individuals responsible for performing those jobs.

FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY & RESPONSIBILITY:

3 additional guides can be used to supplement the functional similarity method.

1. Overlapping Responsibility should be avoided when making job activity divisions. Overlapping responsibility refer to a situation in which more than one individual is responsible for the same activity. Generally speaking, only one person should be responsible for completing one activity. When 2 or more employees are unclear about who should do a job because of overlapping responsibility, it usually leads to conflict and poor working relationships. Often the Job does not get done because each employee assumes the other will do it.

2. RESPONSIBILITY GAP: A responsibility gap exists when certain tasks are not included in the responsibility area of an individual organization member. This results in a situation in which nobody within the organization is obligated to perform certain necessary activities.

3. Management should avoid creating job activities for accomplishing tasks that do not enhance goal attainment. Organization members should be obligated to perform only those activities that lead to goal attainment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Responsibility is the obligation to perform assigned activities. It is the self assumed commitment to handle a job to the best of one's ability. The source of responsibility lies within the individual. A person who accepts a job agrees to carry out a series of duties or activities or to see that someone else carries them out.

# data[].attributes.body
The culture style that stood out to me the most is clan culture. This is a family structured style that is determined by customer satisfaction. I feel like this style also leads to happier employees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From the Competing Values Framework 4 organizational culture types emerged: Clan culture, Adhocracy culture, Market culture and Hierarchy culture.

Clan Culture

This working environment is a friendly one. People have a lot in common, and it's similar to a large family. The leaders or the executives are seen as mentors or maybe even as father figures. The organization is held together by loyalty and tradition. There is great involvement. The organization emphasizes long-term Human Resource development and bonds colleagues by morals. Success is defined within the framework of addressing the needs of the clients and caring for the people. The organization promotes teamwork, participation, and consensus.

Adhocracy Culture

This is a dynamic and creative working environment. Employees take risks. Leaders are seen as innovators and risk takers. Experiments and innovation are the bonding materials within the organization. Prominence is emphasized. The long-term goal is to grow and create new resources. The availability of new products or services is seen as success. The organization promotes individual initiative and freedom.

Market Culture

This is a results-based organization that emphasizes finishing work and getting things done. People are competitive and focused on goals. Leaders are hard drivers, producers, and rivals at the same time. They are tough and have high expectations. The emphasis on winning keeps the organization together. Reputation and success are the most important. Long-term focus is on rival activities and reaching goals. Market penetration and stock are the definitions of success. Competitive prices and market leadership are important. The organizational style is based on competition.

Hierarchy Culture

This is a formalized and structured work environment. Procedures decide what people do. Leaders are proud of their efficiency-based coordination and organization. Keeping the organization functioning smoothly is most crucial. Formal rules and policy keep the organization together. The long-term goals are stability and results, paired with efficient and smooth execution of tasks. Trustful delivery, smooth planning, and low costs define success. The personnel management has to guarantee work and predictability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From the Competing Values Framework 4 organizational culture types emerged: Clan culture, Adhocracy culture, Market culture and Hierarchy culture. Clan Culture This working environment is a friendly one. People have a lot in common, and it's similar to a large family. The leaders or the executives are seen as mentors or maybe even as father figures.

# data[].attributes.body
It is difficult for businesses to find everything that they need in new hires right from the start. This is why training programs are so important to organizations. They allow companies to structure employees to produce the results that they want.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are a lot of buzzwords thrown around in the training industry about how companies should execute their training programs. Sometimes we think we know what we should be offering our employees, but it's based on what's popular or what's trending.

The goal of training is to provide our employees with education and tools that will help them and the business succeed. If you want to provide training that is valuable to both your employees and the company, you need to tailor the training to what your organization and your employees need.

Planning out your training programs should become part of the strategy and planning you do each year for your business. Every year at GL group, we go through our ASP (Annual Strategy Planning) Process. Our CEO writes a vision for the business and shares it with leaders. Leaders are encouraged to bring this back to our teams and work on how we can impact the big takeaways. All functional areas then come together and ensure that what they have created with their teams are in alignment with the overall goals. Finally, we map out the organizational initiatives for the year, and when the map is complete, we present it to the employees.

Employees vote on the plan and have an opportunity to give us feedback through a survey. They can identify their concerns and areas of confidence in what we have presented. It's an in-depth process, but it ensures that we have buy-in and participation from everyone within the organization.

For 2018, we established four initiatives to focus on: streamlining processes, growing a culture of excellence, maintaining a focus on pricing and increasing brand experience. As such, we are establishing programs that will help us hit these goals organizationally. As a direct result of this planning, we have increased our level of project management training and incorporated leadership learning about how managers can make a difference with their teams. These initiatives will make our business better and are easily adaptable for any organization.

When planning your training, there are some simple steps you can take to ensure that your training programs meet the company needs.
Identify your needs.
This seems straightforward, but there is a lot of value in careful, strategic planning. Your processes should be flexible, and listening to the business tends to be the best advice. Do not have a set approach - simply involve thought leaders regardless of title or position, as they will bring valuable and innovative ideas to the project.

After our CEO writes his vision, the leadership teams work within their areas to establish goals that align with that overall vision. We share these with others throughout the organization, asking for feedback. Once we feel they are in a good place, we begin setting goals for when each will be completed. We change how we want to keep our goals at the front of our minds each year, and we enact a different visual to keep it engaging all year long.
Ask employees.
Your employees are boots on the ground. They know the ins and outs and what's working and what isn't. You should value their experiences and ask them how they think the business can improve.

Every year after our ASP comes out, we send employees a brief survey about what they want to see in our training programs. We have a similar process for leaders but set up small meetings to hash out where they feel opportunities or gaps may be. By completing this process after the ASP process, we usually hear feedback about needing training for initiatives within the ASP. When employees and leaders align on what training needs to look like, and that training is aligned with the initiatives we have committed to as a team, we know we were successful in rolling out the ASP.
Think out of the box.
Offer a wide variety of training that addresses a mix of learning styles. Blended learning is an important aspect when creating strong training programs. You can offer classroom sessions on your culture and business but also have an online learning system that employees can complete at their own pace.

We have different leadership programs and like to send employees on "field trips" to different businesses to learn from them. We have sent employees to Disney's Leadership Institute and Zingerman's ZingTrain. There are also some great local opportunities to have folks get out of the office and learn in a new environment. Our executive team is very involved in training, and all teach classes about their passions within the business. We also have employees who teach internal, industry-specific classes, and we find that these courses serve as a great tool for new hires as well as for those who need some refreshing.

Adjusting your training based on the company needs helps employees and the organization become successful. You can tailor your education offerings in a way that addresses your specific needs and goals. When you grow your business strategically, all employees and the company win.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Create Training Programs Based On Your Company's Unique Needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are a lot of buzzwords thrown around in the training industry about how companies should execute their training programs. Sometimes we think we know what we should be offering our employees, but it's based on what's popular or what's trending.

# data[].attributes.body
I always thought that group decisions were always the best option, but I learned that there are many disadvantages to group choices. I never considered aspects such as group think and long times to come to a conclusion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Group decision making is a concept of giving a topic to a targeted group of people where the individuals collectively decide their opinions.

After collectively a decision is made, then it can't be changed by any member of the group or from any one outside the group. Group discussion always consists of the people with two or more individuals.

There are many disadvantages as well as advantages of group decision making. Let's study them in detail with the following points given:

The Advantages of Group Decision Making:

1. Diversity in opinions:

Well, as a group has a lot of members and they as individuals come from different backgrounds so ultimately they have unique and different ideas and opinions regarding the matter at the hand.

All the ideas may be as unique and better in comparison to the individual decision making. With the help of number of ideas you can create a large number of alternatives and at the end finally can come to a successful conclusion.

2. Participation and interest of the individuals:

When a person is dedicated and interested it promotes more innovative ideas and plans which make decisions promising. When interested people share their ideas the group discussion is more actively participated and effective in nature.

The active members may or may not be the expert in that particular topic but their opinion still matters because of the participation and dedication shown.

3. Positive and understanding members:

It is important that the members in the group should have an understanding nature because all members have to accept the decision no matter what the quality may be as the decision affects in the favour of the group as a whole.

Acceptance of the suggestion and opinions bring motivation and eagerness of the participation within the group, thus generates quality decision.

4. Collective contribution of ideas:

The group discussion helps in removing the barrier of monopoly in the decision making process. At times if a decision is made by a single individual it is unreliable in nature. Hence with the help of having a collective idea chosen the factor of unreliability is removed.

A decision by a single person can be partial in nature and mainly works in his favour so collective decision making is important because it can favour all the people in the organisation.

5. Team building:

Active participation from all the individuals of the group helps in building the morale of the team and builds a healthy and coordinative relationship among the members of the team of the particular group.

As this happens the members develop certain skills pertaining to the decision making process which benefits the group members and the group as a whole.

6. Democratic decision making:

The group decision making process is more of a collective participation so it is in turn democratic in nature in comparison to the individual decision making which is more autocratic in nature.

When the decision is democratic, it is more easily perceivable and acceptable and in tune with the society we live in. Thus it is always preferable that the discussion is been shared with more than the two individuals.

7. Abundant information:

When a group is sharing their ideas and opinions it actually passes more information and more number of ideas compared to the individual decision making who will have limited ideas confined to his limited knowledge only. So group decision making or group discussion is far more of an advantage and beneficial in making clear and accurate or definite decision which will affect the end result of the plan.

8. Expert opinions:

The information from the expert is to the point and the deliverance of the ideas provided by them is more quality assurance instead of general opinions as the expert might have some background knowledge or experience regarding the matter discussed presently. For this, an expert might already be involved in the group or he is called from outside to give advice regarding the decision that is to be made.

9. Voting System:

Group discussion is a process where a large number of ideas are put forth in front of the group and a decision needs to be made which will come in favour of both the individual and the firm.

For this verdict to be decided, voting is used to come to a common outcome acceptable by all the members. One member is given one vote and the opinion which receives the most votes is chosen as it is in favour of the functioning and working of the firm leading to its development.

The Disadvantages of Group Decision Making:

1. Consumption of Time:

The Group discussion making techniques often consumes and takes more time to come to a conclusion which is accepted by each individual in the group as every individual in the group have their own unique and innovative ideas which results in having too many options in consideration. The bigger the size of the group, the larger is the time consumed by them. Time consumption always arises when it comes to group discussion.

2. Different ideas and opinions:

In group discussion all the participants involved have their own ideas which is their favour in turn protecting their own interest. This brings disparities among the members in the group which is not very healthy leading to personal conflicts among them. This in turn obstacles in the decision making process thus reducing the efficiency as well as quality in making the decision as a whole by the group.

3. Being silent in disagreement:

At times when the decision process in groups is being carried out some members agree in favour of certain decision just for agreeing or following the norms agreement. An individual may agree to the point by not standing up firm of his opinion which may contradict to the opposite persons opinion. This discourages the person to make quality ideas and opinion and standing up firm to his decision.

4. Social Pressures:

When an individual of the group remains silent at the time of decision making process, one of the reason may be the social pressures in that particular environment. Thus this leads to the failure in being a good member.

The social pressure of the group can affect the individuals mindset as they may be very strong which can affect and change certain traits and qualities of the individual in turn changing his behaviour entirely which affect the decision.

5. Priorities on certain ideas:

A number of ideas are presented within the group. At times the members of the group may only focus on a certain number of ideas, at times one or two alternatives only and they may not focus or come up with other ideas which may benefit their group and the individuals that it represents. Thus it causes all the members of the group to limit their choices and being stuck to only few ideas.

6. Against the goals of the organisation:

The group decision making process is carried out in the firm in terms to accomplish the goals and objectives of the organisation. But at times the decisions that are exercised and carried out at the time of group discussion is not always carried out in terms to accomplish the goals and objectives of the firm.

When the goals of the individuals do not agree with the goals of the group as a whole this situation arises which will lead to disrupt in the work behaviour of the organisation and not reach the goals and objectives of the firm quickly.

7. Uncertainty in the risk bearing factor:

When the decisions are made by the group, the factor of risk bearing will always arise. So at times the group may opt for proceeding towards taking less risk or towards taking more risk for the group as a whole.

When a firm opts for taking a greater risk it may yield in getting a higher and greater reward after the objective has been met. But in order to achieve success in the firm, some kind of risk needs to be undertaken by the group.

8. Avoiding certain important decisions:

When the decision making process is being held in the group there are some decisions which are given more or are high in priority and some decisions are of low priority in the eyes of the members of the group. So sometimes certain high priority tasks are replaced with low priority tasks.

This method of doing so is known as procrastination, the members of the group avoid such tasks which are high in priority as they do not study them or find alternate solutions to replace them. Don't discuss them but instead replace them with tasks of less importance at that moment.

9. Rushing into decision making:

At certain times, there might be rush that a decision needs to be carried out by the group at that instant as it is a hurry. So at times when the group comes to announcing a decision at this moment the decision is rushed into making not thinking about the future consequences that may arise for the members of the group and the firm.

The consequences which may be unfavourable in nature are not given enough importance by the members of the group while the decision making process is being carried out.

10. Responsibility denied by the leader:

In every group, a leader is appointed by the members of the group who is responsible enough to see whether everything is happenings in an orderly manner. Before carrying out a decision the leader appoints certain committees to provide help.

When there is not enough time to carry out a decision unanimously and there is a hurry to implement a decision then the responsibility of future happenings after the decision has been put into effect is given to the committee by the team leader leading to an irresponsible attitude and behaviour.

11. Overuse of Authority:

The group discussion concept is considered as working of a number of individuals as a whole in harmony and unity so as to reaching the goals and objectives of the Organisation. But at times to get their opinion influenced by others, certain Members of the group overuse their authority and dominate the group and their Individuals.

In doing so some of the members start maintaining a distance from the group which leads to being less involved in the group activities and decision Making process thus leading to losing the concept of a group.

12. Highly Expensive:

The concept of group discussion is two or more people carry out and formulate decisions in favour of the firm. So this concept can be expensive in nature with respect to money, time, man hours and energy.

With respect to this it is also considered that if the group as a whole gets a large contribution then it is known that the individual contribution of each member is less.

13. Forming of Groups:

In a large group as a whole, at times certain smaller number of groups are also formed with a few members as they think they are better and different from others. This concept is known as ' groupism ' which itself is a very negative comment. So with this a large number of informal or smaller groups are formed not considering the one large group as a whole which leads to negative comments and resentment towards other people inside as well as outside the group having a negative impact on the firm.

Group discussion is effective and preferred when there is big matter at hand where views and opinion from different individual can equally contribute to an end result of a successful decision.

It is more of advantage when it is a topic related to concern of many individuals at stake because collective decision making can give their views without being partial because a single situation concerning only certain people are not involved so group decision making activity is always a better solution for such situation. But if there is a particular or a matter involving to limited people concerning group discussion is a disadvantage or is a backlog when such situation is at hand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Group Decision Making: Top 22 Advantages & Disadvantages - WiseStep

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Group decision making is a concept of giving a topic to a targeted group of people where the individuals collectively decide their opinions. After collectively a decision is made, then it can't be changed by any member of the group or from any one outside the group.

# data[].attributes.body
This section taught me the importance of proper planning for businesses. It is integral to know exactly what tasks you want to accomplish, and to prepare an appropriate plan to achieve these goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Basic Overview of Various Strategic Planning Models

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get a basic overview of various strategic planning models in this topic from the Free Management Library.

# data[].attributes.body
One thing that I became interested in was sub-branding. This is when a parent brand creates another product, sometimes in a different category than what they usually produce. Many different products are all owned by the same organization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nestle is famous for its candy, but did you know it's also the creator of the fine line of Hot Pockets-brand foods? Or, did you know, P&G could pretty much single-handedly stock most peoples' medicine cabinets? In fact, five companies produce a ton of the items on your grocery list. This infographic by designer Grant Stewart breaks down 60 household products, tracing them back to one of those five businesses.

Interesting stuff. And some of these are perfect for conspiracy theorists: "Unilever makes Ben & Jerry's AND Slim-Fast?!"

[ Grant Stewart via visual.ly]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Companies Make A Crazy Amount Of Stuff In Your House [Infographic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nestle is famous for its candy, but did you know it's also the creator of the fine line of Hot Pockets-brand foods? Or, did you know, P&G could pretty much single-handedly stock most peoples' medicine cabinets? In fact, five companies produce a ton of the items on your grocery list.

# data[].attributes.body
Before going through these chapters I had no idea how many companies that i see everyday have a global presence. I thought some companies, like the Home Depot, were only present in the United States, but they have locations in other countries. I was interested in the details involved in catering to local needs of international locations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Google's employees in Argentina think it's a great place to work. So do its employees in Brazil, Canada, India and Switzerland-not to mention the U.S.

That's what the research and consultancy firm Great Place to Work, a Fortune partner, found in their most recent analysis of thousands of employee surveys from hundreds of multinational companies. Google takes the cake among global employers for the fourth year running -landing at or near the top of Great Place's rankings in six countries. Accolades should also go to the countries that hosted more than an average number of great places to work, including Peru, Brazil, Canada, India, the U.S., and Germany-all home to more than eight of the top companies' offices.

Here, Great Place to Work and Fortune present the cream of the crop of this year's global workplaces based on feedback from employees around the world. For the complete methodology, visit greatplacetowork.com.
See our methodology. Employees say:
"I love working for the greatest company in the history of the world! This place has been amazing and keeps getting better. There is nothing we can't accomplish and everyone walking the halls feels they can change the world."

"People talk about Google's perks, and they are great. But what makes Google truly special is the people. I worked at 5 other companies before coming to Google, and I have never been anywhere with coworkers that are this smart, this motivated, this caring and this awesome. Everybody above me in my management chain is smarter than me and works harder than me-I think that is amazing. Almost everybody here is world-class at something, and, oh yeah, has a hobby where they are also world-class. It's an amazing-sometimes intimidating-place to work, but that's what makes it a great place to work: working with the best people on world-class problems."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

2. SAS Institute
Employees say:
"More than anywhere else I've experienced, our company feels like a small, interconnected and supportive community. The workplace values and culture, which extend beyond the office and working hours, spreads between all employees. When you need help, there is always someone willing to help. ... I couldn't be more excited to have become a part of the family at SAS."

"After working for 12 years a science teacher, I made the decision to leave and explore my interests outside of the classroom. It was hard to walk away from a career I was so passionate about and had spent so much of my time and energy building-and then I found myself at SAS, a dream come true! It is truly a different world here, one where I look forward to going to work each day. From the start, everyone has been so kind, welcoming and supportive."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

3. W. L. Gore & Associates
Employees say:
"Associates are truly empowered to make decisions that drive towards success for the enterprise. Our lattice structure removes the red tape that you see in many hierarchical companies, and allows you to go directly to the most knowledgeable associate to move forward toward your goals. Every leader is truly accessible, including our CEO-something I saw first hand when an associate who directly leads one of the teams I'm responsible for emailed her. The CEO answered within 24 hours and provided an in-depth and well-thought-out answer to help us make the right decision."

"Each and every interaction with associates across the company leaves you with the feeling that you want to work here forever. Everyone cares about your happiness, both personally and professionally, and wants you to succeed. The culture is wonderful!"

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

4. Dell EMC (emc)
Employees say:
"The freedom and flexibility we're given to do our jobs is one of the main reasons EMC is a great place to work. We are not micromanaged, which allows us to take responsibility for our own actions. The people that that work at EMC are also a major part of why this is a great place to work-you feel a sense of belonging and 'team spirit' as we work towards the same goals, together."

"We have a collaborative, inclusive environment and a camaraderie between all the professionals who work at EMC. There work is demanding, but the company always makes sure we have time for our family and ourselves. We get paid very well for what we do, which allows us and our families to have the resources we need to achieve our life goals. I am proud to belong to this company and family."

5. Daimler Financial Services
Employees say:
"Daimler has a great work environment and great management that acts honestly and authentically. If there are some challenging decisions made, they are always communicated clearly and on time. Daimler Financial Services is THE place where everyone wants to work."

"We have a different kind of culture, where directors are open to opinions. Their offices are always open and they are willing to solve any issue. There is a commitment to people here that feels good."
Employees say:
"NetApp's culture is unique and it's what sets us apart from other companies. The emphasis on teamwork, getting the job done, and having fun doing it is a great benefit of working at NetApp."

"NetApp's focus on clients is consistent across all geographies, as well as all verticals. ... It's one of those places that truly makes a difference."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.
Employees say:
"I truly believe that the opinions and ideas of everyone in this company (from bottom to top) are considered, and rolled out if possible. Nothing is simply ruled out."

"I love the sense of family here. Managers make an effort to give praise for a job well done, whether it be a specific assignment or just daily tasks. I look forward to coming to work every day."
Employees say:
"There is a huge emphasis on a work life balance here that won't be compromised. I have worked for companies in the past that would sacrifice that balance in the pursuit of results. That doesn't happen at Autodesk."

"I am greatly inspired by the mission and vision of Autodesk (Imagine, design, create.). Not only does our company build products for makers, but it also encourages us to be makers and explorers. My company's vision drives me at work everyday."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

9. Belcorp
Employees say:
"My manager has one-on-one conversations with team members to learn more about them, both at work and outside of it, so they know who needs what kind of support so they can accomplish their work. It makes a huge difference."

"The closeness of everyone at Belcorp, and how your work is recognized, makes you feel special and part of something important."

10. Falabella
Employees say:
"Above all, what makes this a great place to work is the emphasis on human value and consideration for people. I also like the ability to approach anyone, regardless of their position, and to speak as equals and be free to express what I think."

"On my team, our leaders believe some of the most important things are professional and personal development. We always receive support and advice from them, and are constantly being developed to make our work even better. We're rowing in the same direction, with no favoritism. I feel happy every about the work I do at this company."
Employees say:
"Hyatt sees the potential in employees, and helps them develop to achieve their career goals. Hyatt's values are what inspired me to join. The way they take care of their staff and guests, and the way they incorporate fun and creativity into everyday mundane tasks makes this a great place to work."

"I feel valued here. The brand is great, and the people who work here are great. I feel that my managers and colleagues are supportive, and that everyone is treated fairly and equally. Hyatt recognizes dedicated workers, and will help you progress."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

12. Mars
Employees say:
"The Five Principles, and the way we use them to run our business, is what makes Mars a truly unique company to work for. They help create a family feel where everyone collaborates to achieve a common goal."

"The amount of emphasis on personal development and investment in people is enormous. We're not hierarchical (no reserved parking spaces or separate offices for senior people, for example), but are extremely open and collaborative. We live and breathe the Five Principles of our business every day, acting as a business in ways that we can be consistently proud of."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

13. Accor
Employees say:
"Accor is special because it is a worldwide company, and all employees, regardless of rank, make up a great team."

"We have excellent leaders who motivate us every day to be better. I have good benefits that not every company provides."
Employees say:
"Cisco fosters an employee's motivation to grow not just within the company, but as a person. The way in which we work together is very different-there is so much support from everyone. Although there is competition, it is a competition where everyone wins."

"Cisco is an amazing place to work because it offers a great working environment and culture. It is an exciting place to be with a lot of innovative and challenging work happening around you. The management is very supportive and transparent with its decisions and initiatives. We like to work hard and play hard! The company strikes the right balance between work and fun. I am proud to be a part of Cisco!"

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

15. Cadence Design Systems
Employees say:
"At Cadence, you have a lot of freedom to learn new things if you have an interest. I remember when I started in 1992, I told my father I would keep working at Cadence as long as I was learning new things. It is 2015 and I am still here."

"The management team is involved directly in the technical side of projects, so they not only understand the issues we face when trying to solve a problem, they can almost always help to implement the solution or assist on completing a task or analysis. I think the management team dedicates 25 - 50% of their time to particular technical tasks on a project."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

16. Atento
Employees say:
"Atento is the best company I have ever worked for. The spirit of camaraderie is unique, and opportunities for growth and development are available to anyone who wishes to progress."

"The fact that I can balance work with my personal life makes this a great place to work, as well as the ability to work with people who are my friends even outside the workday."
Employees say:
"We work well together and have ample opportunities and challenges to improve and get ahead. ... I started unstopping toilets in one of our hotel brands, and I now lead a global organization. The company makes paths for you to get ahead if you stick to the mission of serving others. We are blessed to have mentors and great examples to help us make it all work."

"Hilton is a family that welcomes you with open arms. If you believe in its values, and they align with yours, it feels like a relationship that's meant to be. If one wants to move forward and is willing to put in the work and be part of the team, the possibilities are endless."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

18. Scotiabank
Employees say:
"There is an excellent atmosphere between managers and employees that makes you feel at home."

"Scotiabank is very accepting and embracing of every type of person regardless of sex, ethnicity, race, age, etc. It's also very engaged in the community."

19. Diageo
Employees say:
"There is a confidence in executives, and high levels of trust in employees, which creates the freedom to be successful. There is also an atmosphere of constant celebration, which makes for an excellent environment that promotes enthusiasm and the passion to make things happen."

"People are encouraged to take ownership of their work, and to lead the rest of the business to the amazing outcome they want to make happen. Then when they make this amazing outcome a reality they are widely recognized and celebrated."

20. S.C. Johnson
Employees say:
"S.C. Johnson offers very challenging jobs that are still compatible with our personal lives. The values they have are put into practice very well. We have unique benefits, and are recognized by the market as a leader in every aspect (leading products, practices, etc.). It is an honor to work here."

"We are encouraged to express our ideas and personality, and to take action to evolve in our career. We also have a lot of parties and initiatives to bring us together and strengthen our bonds. We are recognized if we perform well."

21. EY
Employees say:
"I love the 'people culture.' I feel that people come first, and it's not always about making a buck for the firm. With the emphasis on the culture (enabling, caring, mentoring, sponsoring), people perform exceptionally, which results in high performance for clients, which in turn provides opportunities for all."

"I am proud of the community we have created within our offices and across the world. We have a significant focus on diversity and inclusiveness and have made tremendous strides developing high performing, inclusive, and sustainable teams. I believe our people are measured on their performance in a balanced way that speaks to our focus on building a better working world. We measure our employees on business metrics, but also the impact they make on our people, teams and community."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.
Employees say:
"Having worked for the last 20-plus years for different companies, I was amazed at the different way Adobe treats and respects its employees. They have a great balance between working smart, caring for the local community, and allowing employees to enjoy their personal lives. Great company with a true balance across the globe allowing individuals to succeed if they want to do so."

"I am proud of this company's involvement in the community and the world at large. I'm proud of the way it conducts its business. I am especially proud of the products we make. Just yesterday a person I met in a store noticed a small Adobe token I was wearing and thanked me for the Creative Cloud suite of products. How cool is that?"

Read the Great Place to Work review here.
Employees say:
"In managers, I always find honesty, and I have the opportunity to express my opinions freely. It is possible to gain the trust of your superiors, which leads to projects."

"At Monsanto, your efforts in your daily work are recognized, and you feel affection for the people who work in the company."
Employees say:
"There is an attitude of problem-solving across the entire company, combined with a desire to help others."

"Every morning when I come into the office, people smile and say hello. In the hallways, they smile. People are happy and it's infectious. When I leave at the end of the day, I feel like I've contributed and I look forward to seeing my friends at work again tomorrow."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.
Employees say:
"The thing that stands out about this company to me is that from day one I felt like everyone was sincerely interested in me being successful. Every leader I have had in my 10-year career here has made it a point to partner with me to achieve my professional goals."

"American Express is a family, not a job. It's an environment where we all help each other for the success of the company, and consideration of our card members. I am so proud to work here."

Read the Great Place to Work review here.

Methodology
About the World's Best Multinational Workplaces list
Since 2011, Great Place to Work has identified the top organizations that create great workplaces in multiple countries in which they operate through the publication of the World's Best Multinational Workplaces list. To be considered eligible for the multinational list, companies must meet our definition of a Multinational Company and appear on a minimum of 5 national best workplaces lists that rank organizations based on the results of their Trust Index employee survey and Culture Audit assessment (to qualify in the United States, we look at winners of the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list). The results of those national lists, in addition to extra points awarded for the number of countries an organization surveyed employees in, and the percentage of the company's global workforce represented by those surveys, are combined to create a top 25 ranking.

Candidates for the list must have a minimum of 5,000 employees worldwide, and 40% of their workforce (or 5,000 employees) must be based outside of the country in which they are headquartered. Candidates for the 2016 World's Best Multinational Workplaces list will have appeared on the following lists: Best Workplaces in Asia 2016, Best Workplaces in Latin America 2016, Best Workplaces in Europe 2016, Best Workplaces in Canada 2016, Best Workplaces in Nigeria 2016, Best Workplaces in Brazil 2016 and Fortune Best Companies to Work For in US 2016.
Click here for more on Fortune's "25 Best Global Companies to Work For."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 25 Best Global Companies to Work For

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google's employees in Argentina think it's a great place to work. So do its employees in Brazil, Canada, India and Switzerland-not to mention the U.S. That's what the research and consultancy firm Great Place to Work, a Fortune partner, found in their most recent analysis of thousands of employee surveys from hundreds of multinational companies.

# data[].attributes.body
During the corporate governance assignment i discovered how similar different companies are in their ethical policies. All three of the organizations that i researched had policies regarding fraud and insider trading of information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During his Senate confirmation hearing, SEC Chairman-nominee Jay Clayton assailed the consequences of ambiguous and overly complex rules, stating that they, "create an opportunity for 'gotcha,' you know, 'that's not what we meant, we meant this.'" He also stated, "Reducing complexity and having clarity is very important .... If people know the rules, they can operate more efficiently."

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Clayton's ostensibly straightforward and practical approach will be used to address one of the most complex and controversial areas of the law: insider trading.

Currently, there is no law that explicitly prohibits trading while in possession of inside information. Parameters of liability have been set by a series of judges over the course of many years. This stands in stark contrast to the practice of other developed countries, such as the UK, where explicit definitions of "inside information," "inside dealing," and "unlawful disclosure" are used to determine violations of the law.

However, the myriad of financial industry employees in the U.S. (analysts, traders and managers and lawyers) who are regularly privy to such information have the seemingly impossible task of identifying improper use of it.

Questions to counsel are routinely met with a pause and then the dreaded lawyerly response: "Well, there is no specific rule on that. On the one hand..."

That usually opens the client floodgates:

"Wait - what? Then how are people going to jail?"

"How do they decide whom to arrest?"

"Isn't that unconstitutional?"

And, most importantly: "Then how do I avoid getting in trouble?"

This is the question countless industry employees regularly wrestle with. Securities laws prohibit fraud in connection with the sale of a security; so that means if you lie or misrepresent something important about the company, like the business that it is in, whether it has a Chief Financial Officer or a subsidiary in Timbuktu, you have committed securities fraud. That's a lie - so it makes sense this should be unlawful. But that's not all: if you have certain information about the company but do not proactively reveal that information, that also is a form of fraud.

OK, but all information? No, not every kind of information. Only information that is material. And only if it is confidential. And only if it comes from certain people at the company. And from certain people at other companies. And people from the company's law firms and accounting firms. But only if they agree not to trade the stock - not if they just know it is confidential.

The current state of the law is so confusing, so ambiguous and so contradictory that questions of constitutionality are legitimate. How does the U.S. government arrest, seize property and imprison its citizens without a clear and unambiguous basis for the charge?

Stable and orderly markets require clarity and certainty when curtailing behavior. The time has come for the U.S. Congress to enact a clear and unambiguous rule on insider trading - one that spells out precisely to whom the law applies; what type of information must be held; and what type of behavior is proscribed. Of course, there will always be different interpretations of Acts of Congress and SEC rules. But interpreting an actual rule is unquestionably fairer than interpreting an interpretation. Otherwise, you are left with fear, confusion and the potential for abuse of prosecutorial authority - not to mention that the real wrongdoers go unchecked.

Indeed, take a look at the following very unscientific sample of 50 Trades of Grey:

-An agreement exists acknowledging information is confidential and agreeing to keep it confidential, but is silent on whether you can trade. Legal or illegal? Legal

-Traders use material non-public information but don't know whether the source received a benefit for it. Legal or illegal? Illegal

-A newspaper reporter trades the stocks of companies he writes about. Legal or illegal? Illegal

-Company employee figures out the company is being sold, tells other family members, all of whom trade the stock. Legal or illegal? Legal

-Law firm employee learns a client is being sold and trades the stock. Legal or illegal? Illegal

-Investor learns information about confidential clinical studies from a doctor and trades on it. Legal or illegal? Illegal

-A Metro-North rider overhears a passenger discussing confidential information on the train and trades on it. Legal or illegal? Legal

-A person in an airport restroom overhears a discussion of a confidential transaction and trades on it. Legal or illegal? Legal

-A mailman reads Business Week before it hits the stands and trades the stock of subject companies. Legal or illegal? Illegal

-A woman instructs her broker to sell a certain stock. She received a message from the company's CEO but never spoke to him. Legal or illegal? Legal*

*P.S. She went to jail anyway for "obstructing justice." Her name was Martha Stewart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
50 Trades Of Grey: The Pain Of Insider Trading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The time has come for the U.S. Congress to enact a clear and unambiguous rule on insider trading - one that spells out precisely to whom the law applies; what type of information must be held; and what type of behavior is proscribed.

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter touched on topics involving ethics and diversity. One document that sparked my interest was the Sarbanes--Oxley act of 2002. This was created as a preventative measure against ethical misdoings in organizations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed by US Congress in 2002 as a legislative response to several corporate scandals that shocked the world financial markets. Some of the biggest names involved were Enron, Tyco and Worldcom. The act serves to protect investors from fraudulent activities performed by corporations.

Commonly referred to as SOX, the act attempts to strengthen corporate oversight and improve internal corporate control. Then main purpose of the act is to protect shareholders from fraudulent representations in financial statements. Through the act, investors are assured the financial information they rely on is truthful, and that it was verified for accuracy by an independent third party.

The act is named after its sponsors, US Senator Paul Sarbanes and US Representative Michael G. Oxley. It's known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act in the Senate and the Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsiblity Act in the House. It's also known as just Sarbanes-Oxley or Sarbox.

Sarbox contains eleven sections. In other words, it's a long and complicated law, but it does outline a few key provisions, and these include:

Section 302 - requires corporate management to certify that financial statements have been reviewed by them, and that those statements are accurate and truthful

Section 401 - requires financial information to include disclosures on any relevant off-balance sheet obligations that may exist

Section 404 - requires management to indicate whether or not the internal control procedures of the company are sufficient and effective. That said, this has costly implications for companies that are publicly traded as it requires lots of resources to establish and maintain the internal controls required by the law.

Section 409 - requires management to update the public when significant financial matters when they happen rather than wait for the quarterly or annual report to do so

Section 802 - imposes penalties for violations of SOX rules, which include fines or time spent in jail

Sarbanes-Oxley has been hailed as one of the most important pieces of security legislation since the foundation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934. The act was unleashed into a world that was still reeling from the burst of the high-tech bubble and scandals involving major corporations. The SOX act was meant to enhance corporate governance, as well as restore the faith of investors.

It's been more than a decade since the inception of the act, but while some argue that it has provided benefits, others are still critical of it. In a Forbes article called The Costs and Benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley, it is stated that "...many in the business world spoke out against SOX, viewing it as a politically motivated over-correction that would lead to a loss of risk-taking and competitiveness."

If it was enacted to do some good, why are the parties still divided on the effectiveness of the act even after more than a decade of being in place? To understand where each party is coming from, it's best to look at the pros and cons of SOX:

List of Pros of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

1. It discloses crucial information to shareholders
In essence, the act was created in order to protect shareholders. Take Enron, for example. It was one of the biggest companies in the world, and due to its shady accounting practices, its collapse affected the lives of many of its employees and caused a major stir on Wall Street when they were found out.

Every company suffers financial losses, but Enron's CEO Jeffrey Skilling hid these losses and other operations. The method enacted was called mark-to-market accounting which is used in securities trading where the actual value of the security at the moment is determined. This can work in securities, but fall apart for other kinds of businesses.

What Enron did was that they would build an asset like a power plant, for example, and claim the projected profit on its books even if they haven't made a single penny of off it. When revenue from the plant did arrive and it was less than the predicted amount, rather than take the loss, Enron would transfer the assets to an off-the-books corporation resulting in the loss being unreported. In other words, the loss wouldn't hurt the bottom line of the company.

This method was able to trick shareholders, but given that the company is now defunct, they were found out and punishments were given. To avoid this from happening again, companies are now required to disclose information about their risk profiles, assets, debts and their commitments. This way, shareholders have information vital to make a sound decision or compare between public companies to make sure they decide on investing.

By doing this, shareholder confidence is increased which then results in capital flowing into the markets.

2. It emphasizes the need for internal controls
In Section 404 of the act, management is required to test internal controls on a quarterly basis and then file a report on whether those controls are sufficient and effective. While it's considered a benefit, this is definitely the most expensive to comply with. The section was put in place to eliminate management overrides that occurred in cases like that of Enron.

With internal control testing, it is ensured that transactions were executed the way they were supposed to. Internal controls also make sure that checks and balances are in place to catch any abnormalities.

List of Cons of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

1. It is costly
One of the biggest criticisms of Sarbox is that the rules are the same for both large multi-national companies and small public companies. In particular, Section 404 hits publicly funded corporations harder as they need to have the resources in place to execute what the section demands.

Bigger corporations have all the resources they need, but smaller companies just don't have that much. This has been remedied somewhat though since the law was passed where burden has been lifted ever so slightly from small corporations. But despite that, there is still the issue of cost just to remain compliant to what the act states.

2. It results in increased audit fees
Since 2002, audit fees have increases substantially as a result of auditors being forced to be more accountable for the audit reports on their clients. As the liability of auditors increase, so does the audit fee. These added expenses can take a toll on the profit of a company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Serious Pros and Cons of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed by US Congress in 2002 as a legislative response to several corporate scandals that shocked the world financial markets. Some of the biggest names involved were Enron, Tyco and Worldcom. The act serves to protect investors from fraudulent activities performed by corporations.

# data[].attributes.body
I learned from the Steve Jobs discussion the difference between conceptual and people skills. I realized that even though a balance would be optimal, It is possible to be a successful business leader without proper people skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 Management Skills to Become a Better Manager

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Managerial skills are the basis for a successful management process. Here are the three most important skills to manage a company.

# data[].attributes.body
In this first section I learned how many elements it takes to create a successful manager. One thing that surprised me in this article was Rodney Atkins ability to have different outlooks on simple situations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert doesn't really wear sneakers, but he loves them as an economic idea.

In fact, he loves the idea so much he's actually cofounded a "stock market for sneakers" in Detroit called StockX.

Before StockX, Gilbert had been toying with the idea of building a stock market for consumer goods for awhile, StockX cofounder and CEO Josh Luber tells Business Insider. But Gilbert didn't know what to start with until he saw his teenage son selling sneakers on eBay, and realized sneakers would be a perfect test for a stock market for tangible things.

Sneakers had everything he was looking for, including a passionate fanbase and a $1+ billion resale market.

At the time Luber, a former IBM consultant, a sneakerhead since age eight, and founder of sneaker-pricing startup Campless, had already been working on the concept. So Gilbert's people flew Luber out for a Cavs game, where the pair talked about their respective visions for what a sneaker stock market could become, and then decided to go into business together.

Luber moved to Detroit and StockX launched earlier this year, built around the premise that stock-market style pricing could improve the marketplace for sneakers. StockX connects buyers and sellers, and serves as an intermediary between them that guarantees the legitimacy of the product.

There are two ways to buy a sneaker on StockX. The first is to click the "Buy" button on shoe's product page, which purchases the sneaker at the lowest "Ask" (seller listing price). The second is to place a "Bid," which makes an offer that a seller can choose to accept - presumably lower than the "Ask." Like in the stock market, sellers and buyers can update their "Asks" and "Bids" based on supply and demand.

As a buyer on StockX, you don't know who is selling you the sneakers, but you know two basic things: the price, which is dynamic, and that the sneakers are authentic. StockX holds the money you pay for sneakers in escrow until it validates that the sneakers are both new and real, then it ships them to you and gives the money to the seller.

And the market can heat up: a pair of Yeezy's, the Adidas shoe line created by rapper Kanye West, recently sold for more than $4,000 and sought-after Jordans also routinely fetch thousands of dollars.

The authentication feature has made StockX valuable to sneaker collectors from the get-go, Luber explains. Sneaker sales online, even on places with reviews systems like eBay, can be complicated to navigate because of fakes floating around. StockX takes the same 10% commission as eBay, but does the certifying work itself.

Portfolio management

Besides authentication, StockX pushes toward its "stock market" branding by helping sneakerheads manage their shoe collections like they would a stock portfolio. On StockX, you can track a digital representation of your collection (portfolio), as well as follow the fluctuations in the market for particular pairs of shoes. Basically the type of tools you get with an online brokerage like Schwab, Luber says.

Though StockX bills itself as a "stock market for sneakers" it isn't an SEC-regulated exchange. As long as StockX is selling physical products, they won't need to worry about regulation, Luber says. If they start selling sneaker futures, however, that would be a different story.

Watches, toys and other goods

So then why call it a "stock market?"

"The efficiency, credibility and liquidity of the financial markets have been foundational to the largest economy in the world," Gilbert told TechCrunch. "We believe this is the right time to extend this fundamental concept to appropriate sectors of the online consumer marketplace." StockX wants to put those three big elements of the stock market into physical goods.

And Luber says it won't stop at sneakers. He lists off watches, handbags, and collectible toys as areas StockX could grow into in the near term.

But right now, Luber is focused on opening up StockX to international buyers, which is slated to happen on July 7, if all goes according to plan.
Check out StockX for yourself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Cleveland Cavs owner Dan Gilbert cofounded a 'stock market for sneakers'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert doesn't really wear sneakers, but he loves them as an economic idea. In fact, he loves the idea so much he's actually cofounded a "stock market for sneakers" in Detroit called StockX.

# data[].attributes.body
One of my Interests include laces, tongues, suede, leather, vinyl, colors, crepe, and canvas. Another hobby of mine includes seeds, guano, coco loco soil, co2 tanks, full spectrum led lighting, nutrients, ph testing,  and water. I work a full time job at night and a part time job during the day, along with being a full time student. I enjoy spending time with my family and friends, even though i don't have much time to do so. I love the complexity of nature and one day hope to travel to the Amazon river baasin, and the Congo river basin. A quote that I refer to daily, spoken by the illustrious Desus Nice is, "Gotta Hear Both Sides".