# data[].attributes.body
I was unclear what the book meant by operations management and decided to look for an alternate definition that expanded on the topic more than the book did.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about operations management in this topic from the Free Management Library.

# data[].attributes.body
Found an interesting podcast about increasing self productivity that I thought was relative.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Below is a transcript of the episode, modified for your reading pleasure. For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post. And you'll find credits for the music in the episode noted within the transcript.
Our latest Freakonomics Radio episode is called "How to Be More Productive." (You can subscribe to the podcast at or , get the , or listen via the media player above.)
MUSIC: Pat Andrews, "Get Faster"
It's Self-Improvement Month at Freakonomics Radio. We begin with a topic that seems to be on everyone's mind: how to get more done in less time. First, however, a warning: there's a big difference between being busy and being productive.

* * *

STEPHEN J. DUBNER: So, Levitt, I don't know if you know, but it is Self-Improvement Month at Freakonomics Radio.

STEVE LEVITT: Yeah, I thought every month was Self-Improvement Month at Freakonomics Radio.
DUBNER: You seem to always be working on improving something about yourself. So what is it these days? LEVITT: I've been working on two things. I am always working on golf and trying to be better at golf. And I've also been trying to learn German, which is a very different kind of endeavor for me.
MUSIC: Wolfram Gruss "Busy Berlin"
Steve Levitt is my Freakonomics friend and co-author; he's an economist at the University of Chicago. Levitt is recently remarried and his wife is German, which explains his desire to learn the language.

DUBNER: Talk about how you learn. Are you self-taught or not? LEVITT: I am primarily self-taught. But, you know that one thing I value very highly is enjoyment and happiness. And I'm definitely willing to sacrifice being a better German speaker in order to actually enjoy the German practice I do. So, in some ways, it's probably the exact wrong message to send to the people who are listening to this podcast, but I still think there's some truth to it. O ne of the things that's overlooked about learning a new skill is that the only people who ever get good are the people who keep on doing it. And most people quit, probably rightly quit, because it looks enticing from the outside, and it isn't that much fun when they actually start trying to learn a new skill. But for me, with German, I definitely have been of the mind that it has to be fun. And if it's not fun, I won't do it.

So that's what Levitt's been working on. What are you working on? We recently asked Freakonomics Radio listeners to let us know, and we got lots of responses. Where do we start? Let's start with ... this guy.
MUSIC: Russel L. Howard III "Get Busy"
Duhigg is a reporter and editor at The New York Times.

DUHIGG: And the author of The Power of Habit and, more recently, Smarter Faster Better: The Secrets of Being Productive in Life and Business.

DUBNER: So, Charles, when we put a call-out to Freakonomics Radio listeners and told them that we were working on self-improvement in several realms - productivity with you, but also expert performance with Anders Ericsson; we'd be talking about grit with Angela Duckworth; and we'd be talking about how to beat your friends and family at any game on Earth; and we asked people to tell us what they were most wanting to improve in their lives - I think productivity probably outpaced the others maybe 3:1, combined.
DUBNER: So, plainly, the appetite for this is just off the charts, and it got me wondering about why that appetite is so large. DUHIGG: I think it's because our experience matches so poorly with our expectation. We're living through this age where they keep on telling us, "Look, we have all these devices for you now." We have e-mail, and we have a communications revolution, and we have computers in everything that you can possibly touch, and the idea should be that life gets easier. And instead, it's just getting harder and harder. And that doesn't seem like how things are supposed to go.

When I told Steve Levitt that "productivity" was the most popular request, he was not at all surprised.

LEVITT: Productivity is the key to everything. If you can be 10 percent faster at getting the same thing done, then you've got 10 percent of your time to do something you'd rather do. When it comes to economics, if there's a single measure we should care about it's productivity of workers. I give a lot of credit to our listeners that they think like economists when it comes to productivity.

And how does Levitt rank himself on the productivity scale?

LEVITT: I'm actually a strangely productive person, and I'm not quite sure why. But, you give me a pile of stuff to do, I get it done quickly. Whether it's something academic - or when I got a new apartment, for instance. I took my four kids with me, and we did all of the furniture shopping for the entire apartment, for a six-room apartment, in under two hours, including the checking out and buying everything, with four kids!
DUBNER: OK, how'd you do that? What are your tricks? LEVITT: To tell the kids that everything looks great. "Let's do it. Perfect. You got 15 more minutes and then we're leaving. Let's go."

On today's show, Charles Duhigg will offer many more tricks - and deeper strategies - to help you become more productive, especially in a work environment but in your personal life as well. First, however, a warning:

DUHIGG: There's actually a big tension and a difference between efficiency and productivity. There's actually a big difference between being busy and being productive.

Duhigg's new book Smarter Faster Better combines old-fashioned reporting and a survey of the academic literature to identify best productivity practices. His first book, The Power of Habit, did the same for habit formation. I had assumed the second book was sort of a continuation of the first; but Duhigg sees it as the opposite.

DUHIGG: Because The Power of Habit is all about these decisions that you stop making - choices that become automatic, that I simply stop thinking about. Whereas productivity is about re-grabbing control over the choices instead of simply reacting to what's in my environment and all the cues around me; it's about sitting down and deciding, "I'm in charge about what I do with my time and what my goals are and how I manage my focus and how I control my brain."
DUBNER: I'm curious, when you talk about productivity, what are you talking about? Because I think when a lot of economists think about productivity, we think about them thinking about how to squeeze another widget out of that production line. DUHIGG: Absolutely. And I think, for most people, that's not productivity, right? I think what's important to realize is that productivity means different things in different settings. And it's not necessarily what economists mean when they say, "just getting more widgets out of each machine each hour" or more cars off the assembly line for every hour that someone works. Instead, what it means is: helping people figure out how to achieve their goals with less waste and less anxiety and less stress and more opportunity to actually enjoy what they want to enjoy. So, for some people, that might mean that I'm able to blow through 30 e-mails in 30 minutes and get to inbox zero. But, for other people, it means I get to take my kids to school without having to rush, and I still feel OK when I get to the office. But most importantly, what productivity really means, is: it means a different way of thinking.

This is the crux of Duhigg's book - that the only way you'll change your outcomes is to think differently about how you've been arriving at those outcomes. It's one of those statements that is obvious in retrospect but weirdly non-obvious to a lot of us caught up in the thrum of daily life. For instance:

DUHIGG: When electricity was first popularized, there was this huge wave of factories that replaced their steam engines with electrical engines. And almost none of the productivity of those factories rose initially. This has been referred to in economics literature as the productivity paradox. And as researchers went back and they tried to figure out why, what they found is that all the factory managers had arrayed all of the machines, had lined them up on the factory floor, so that they could have these steam pipes that would run from machine to machine. And when they electrified the plants, they left all the machines in the same places; they just replaced the pipes with wires. It took like 20 or 25 years for plant managers to start saying, "Look, the strength of electricity isn't simply a new power source. It's that we can move these machines in ways that we can have workers work more efficiently or we can use less people or we can create an assembly line." And that's where the productivity increase really came from. And the same thing is happening today.

Meaning, it's not enough to blithely accept the many new tools the digital revolution keeps shoving in our hands. We need to rethink how to best use them and toward what end.

DUHIGG: There's this debate about whether the digital revolution is really increasing productivity. And when economists and people with common sense take a step back, what they say is, "Look, it's not about all these gadgets and apps; it's about learning new ways to think about possibilities, new ways to think about our capacity for work." And when that really gets spread through the population, that's when productivity really increases.

That debate - about how much, or even whether, the digital revolution is actually increasing productivity - has been playing out here on Freakonomics Radio. One episode we did was called " Yes, the American Economy Is in a Funk - But Not for the Reasons You Think." Another was called " How Safe Is Your Job? " Those conversations dealt mostly with the macro view. But hey, we're all self-interested animals, aren't we? So you want to know what the digital revolution means for you.

DUHIGG: All of us only have 24 hours each day, but some people seem to get a lot more done within that 24 hours, and they seem less stressed and sort of worked up about it. And the reason why is not because they're kind of hacking themselves or they're pulling strings. They're not really focused on efficiency. What they're focused on is trying to figure out: what are the right goals that I should be chasing after? DUBNER: Now, before we get into the specifics of what leads to a more productive life, whether in work or in the personal sphere, persuade us that the examples you'll be using and the data that you'll be presenting aren't cherry-picked. In other words, persuade us that you're not just telling success stories and then reverse-engineering them to present seemingly causal factors that might in fact be nothing more than correlation and perhaps even just coincidence. DUHIGG: I talked to, I don't know, four or five hundred people for this book. And I had this basic rule, which was that when someone told me something that they felt made them more productive, that I wouldn't include it in the book unless it seemed to be universal. And so if I talked to four or five hundred people, I probably heard 300 different ideas about how to increase productivity. But what I would find is that one set of ideas would work for a group and then another group would say exactly the opposite. So a good example of this is, like, the fanatical devotion on one goal at all costs. When I talked to people in Silicon Valley, they would say, "Here's the most important thing on being productive, is that you choose, like, one outcome and you just remain persistent." And then I would talk to people in big companies and they'd say, "Here's the thing about being productive. You have to be flexible. You can't commit yourself to one goal." And this happened again and again and again, except that I did notice that there was this small handful of consistent ideas that kept on coming up. As I boiled through all of these stories and all of these papers that I was reading and all of these experts, there were really only eight things that came up again and again and again.

So, according to Charles Duhigg and his band of productivity freaks, there are eight key tools or skills. And they are? Number one, motivation:

DUHIGG: We trigger self-motivation by making choices that make us feel in control. The act of asserting ourselves and taking control helps trigger the parts of our neurology where self-motivation resides. DUBNER: Focus. DUHIGG: We train ourselves how to pay attention to the right things and ignore distractions by building mental models, which means that we essentially narrate to ourselves what's going on as it goes on around us. DUBNER: Goal-setting. DUHIGG: Everyone actually needs two different kinds of goals. You need a stretch goal, which is like this big ambition, but then you have to pair that with a specific plan on how to get started tomorrow morning. DUBNER: Decision making. DUHIGG: People who make the best decisions tend to think probabilistically. They envision multiple, often contradictory, futures and then try and figure out which one is more likely to occur. DUBNER: Innovation. DUHIGG: The most creative environments are ones that allow people to take clichés and mix them together in new ways. And the people who are best at this are known as innovation brokers. They're people who have their feet in many different worlds and, as a result, they know which ideas can click together in a novel combination. DUBNER: Absorbing data. DUHIGG: Sometimes the best way to learn is to make information harder to absorb. This is known in psychology as "disfluency." The harder we have to work to understand an idea or to process a piece of data, the stickier it becomes in our brain. DUBNER: Managing others. DUHIGG: The best managers put responsibility for solving a problem with the person who's closest to that problem, because that's how you tap into everyone's unique expertise. DUBNER: Teams. DUHIGG: Who is on a team matters much, much less than how a team interacts.

OK, got that? Motivation, focus, goal-setting, decision-making, innovation, absorbing data, managing others, and teams. Some of these are obviously more geared toward workplace productivity, but we'll see if we can't smuggle them over the border into the personal realm.

DUBNER: So, I was really taken with your first chapter about motivation, and I wonder if you could talk for a minute about how control plays into motivation. In other words, if I'm a parent wanting to motivate what I think is a lackadaisical teenager in school, what works, what doesn't work and so on? DUHIGG: So, in many ways, the foundation of motivation is what's known as the "locus of control" in psychology. And everyone either has an internal locus of control, which means that they believe that they control their own fate or an external locus of control, which means that they think things just happen to them and they're powerless. DUBNER: Now, wait a minute, when you say that everyone has one or the other, it can't be that black and white, plainly, right? The world is not divided into the external and internal. DUHIGG: But people exist along this continuum, right? And we've all met people who are one way or the other; we've all met people who sort of believe, "If I decide to climb that mountain, I can do anything." And others who complain all the time, "You know, I wanted to get a better job, but my boss is mean to me, and I'm never lucky, and it doesn't work out." And what's interesting is that the influences of internal versus external locus of control are kind of surprising. Like, for instance, there's been experiments that show that when teachers tell kids that they're really smart, that they did well on a test because they must be really smart - that actually triggers our external locus of control because most people don't believe that they have any influence over how smart they are. It's either something you're born with or it's not. Whereas when teachers tell kids, "You did great on this exam, you must have worked really hard" - that reinforces an internal locus of control because we all know, "I choose how hard I work." And what we've found is that self-motivation and motivation in general seems to rely on believing like we're in control. DUBNER: OK, so the implication is that there's a certain kind of compliment or praise that is more powerful or that leads to higher productivity, yes? DUHIGG: That's exactly right. What we know is that you can train people to believe that they're in control of their own life, and more importantly, to get them addicted to that kind of pleasant sensation that kind of comes from being in control. One of my favorite examples of this is something that Mauricio Delgado, a neurologist, mentioned to me, is driving down the freeway. You know when you're stuck in traffic on the freeway and you see an exit, and you know that it would take just as long to get home by taking that exit, but your brain wants you to turn the wheel and take the exit even though it won't get you home any faster. That's because we learn this kind of almost emotional pleasure that comes from taking control.

You can see how you can practice this as an individual. But institutions are trying to improve as well. Duhigg writes about the U.S. Marine Corps overhauling their basic training a while back.

DUHIGG: Because they were getting all these recruits who were kind of, like, wet socks. They didn't know how to self-motivate. And so the guy who was in charge of the Marine Corps, Charles Krulak, who's a general, said, "We need to start teaching people to have this internal locus of control. We need to teach them how good it feels to take control, to assert themselves, because then they'll learn how to self-motivate." And so he instituted a couple of rules, and one of them was that you can only compliment people on things that are unexpected. So this drill sergeant told me that he never tells someone who's a natural athlete that they just ran a good race. He only tells, like, the small, kind of, wimpy kids that they just did a great job running. The Corps, as a whole, never tells anyone that there's such a thing as natural-born leaders. Because that implies that you don't have any control over whether you're a leader or not. Instead what they do is they compliment shy people who take a leadership role. And they say to them, "Look, I know it was hard for you to do that, but you did a great job."

* * *

As I was reading Charles Duhigg's book about productivity, I had a rather unsettling realization, which I told Duhigg about:

DUBNER: In the chapter on teams, you write at some length about the qualities of a good team but particularly the qualities of a leader of that good team. You write, "Teams need to believe that their work is important. Teams need to feel that their work is personally meaningful. [Teams] need to clear goals and defined roles. Team members need to know they can depend on one another. But, most important, teams need psychological safety." So, I have to say, when I read that list, I realized that I am the world's worst leader imaginable, that I don't do any of that. I don't think about it. DUHIGG: Well, I would actually guess that you're better than you're letting on. DUBNER: You would guess wrong, I'm going to tell you. And you should speak with the other people on my team, and they'll back me up. DUHIGG: But I think you hit on something really, really powerful, which is that, that list of things that you just read, they are not efficient. So, one of the things that's really important about creating the right group norms that make a team productive is that everyone has a chance to kind of socialize with each other a little bit, right? Because you want to create this "high-average social sensitivity," and the only way you do that is to get people to talk about their lives a little bit. Now, we've all had the experience where you go into a meeting and, like, for the first five minutes people just, like, talk about their weekend and their kids and who's sick, and they gossip and you think to yourself, "God, can we please just start this meeting? We've got business to get done." And I have that same instinct, which is to say, I want to prioritize efficiency. But study after study shows that if we spend a couple of meetings with that five minutes of getting to know each other, over time, our group will actually be much, much more productive. So sometimes it's about sacrificing the short-term efficiency for the long-term productivity.

Duhigg's view of productive teamwork comes largely from a massive research project at Google.

DUHIGG: We are lucky beneficiaries of the fact that Google decided to spend millions of dollars in four years trying to figure out how to build the perfect team.

Google is consistently named among the best American companies to work for.

DUHIGG: And they spent a lot of that time thinking that, like, the question was: who do you put together? Do you put introverts and extroverts? Do you want people who are friends away from the conference table or do you want a flat leadership system or a really strong leader? DUBNER: You write a little bit further, having to do with Google - and I believe it was Laszlo Bock who runs their - what's that division called - the People ...DUHIGG: ... People Operations. BOCK: Hi, this is Laszlo.

Yes: Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of People Operations at Google.

BOCK: I'm basically in charge of the care and feeding of our Googlers, our employees, and making sure they get here, they're happy, they're productive and they stay a long time.

Under Bock, Google ran two productivity studies.

BOCK: Years ago we did something called Project Oxygen and the underlying question behind Oxygen was, "Do managers matter?" And if they do, what can we do to make managers more effective? What can we do to create a place where management is essential and it's as helpful as oxygen?

Bock says Project Oxygen was useful, but as important as a manager may or may not be, there's the rest of the team as well.

BOCK: So we decided to look at teams as a unit of analysis. And Project Aristotle is all about figuring out how to make groups of people happier and more effective.

And Google, being Google, looked at a lot of data:

BOCK: We looked at 200 different teams across every part of Google - every geography, all around the world, in sales, in marketing, in finance, and in engineering, everything we were doing. And the outcome metrics we looked at were not just performance ratings but measures of what kind of innovation came out of the team? How quickly were they moving? Did people stay on the team? Did they not? Were people happy? Were they not? What did other people outside the team think of that team's performance? And then we spent a lot of time kind of crunching all those numbers and teasing through the qualitative interview data to try to isolate what actually was making a difference in team performance.

Google's findings did not jibe with a lot of earlier academic research, or other conventional wisdoms.

BOCK: So, for example, in the academic research it says consensus-driven decision-making is often better than, sort of, top-down direction. And academic research says workload matters a lot. Having teams in the same location. We actually found none of those things were in the top five of what mattered in terms of effectiveness for teams.

Here's how Charles Duhigg puts it:

DUHIGG: What matters isn't who is on the team. What matters is how the team interacts.
BOCK: So, we were surprised that these things that everybody kind of says matter ended up not mattering. For example, the most important attribute of a high-performing team is not who leads it or who's on it or how many people or where it is. It's psychological safety.
DUHIGG: Which means that everyone at the table feels like they have the opportunity to speak up, and they all feel like each other is actually listening to them, as demonstrated by the fact that their teammates are sensitive to nonverbal cues. BOCK: We ask if the team members feel that they can fail openly or do they feel that they are going to be shunned by failing? We ask, do they feel as if other team members are supporting or undermining them?

Bock and his team identified five norms that the best Google teams had in common, beginning with psychological safety.

BOCK: That unlocks all kinds of goodness. Another one of our norms is dependability. Dependability is the notion that you tell me to do something, I'm going to get it done, and you can rely on me to get work done. Structure and clarity, actually two things but they sort of relate. Basically the idea is: people should know what everyone's job is and that should be a shared understanding across the team. Another norm is meaning - that the work should be personally meaningful to every person in the room. And the last thing is impact - that team members need to think and believe that their work matters and actually creates change.

Bock admits that most of these norms are pretty obvious. But that doesn't mean everybody uses them. And there are other tricks a good manager should think about. For instance:

BOCK: Are you having regular one-on-ones? - which is obvious, like you should have one-on-ones with your team members. Turns out most people don't 'cause they are not that fun, they're kind of boring, they take time. But when you do them, your team performs better.

Another example:

BOCK: Are you making sure everyone in your team feels included? Obvious, kind of logical, we should do that, but not everyone does. If you think about meetings that you may have been in, there is often somebody sitting off to the side that sits quietly for the whole meeting and never says anything. Rarely does the person leading the meeting say, "Hey you know, we haven't heard from Frank during this entire meeting. Frank, what do you have to say?" Or "Gail, you've been silent this entire conversation, do you have a perspective?" And so having a checklist that says, "Are you checking on these things, are you calling out the quiet people?" goes a long way to making teams more effective.

But again, "effective," like "productive," isn't necessarily the same as efficient.

BOCK: One of the hardest things about looking at team performance is that it's really hard to figure out what outcomes you care about. We want teams in every way to be more productive and efficient but also happier and stick around longer.

Because continuity, in the end, can be extremely productive for any institution. But let's say you work largely on your own, that you're not a member of any work team, much less a leader; maybe you don't even have a job per se; maybe you're a craftsperson or a freelance consultant, or maybe an athlete or musician or a chef. In other words, you are on an island. When you don't have a team leader to keep their eye on you, how do you think about productivity?

DUHIGG: I think that in general people know when they're actually productive. DUBNER: One thing that I, and I think a lot of people wonder, especially if they are makers, you know, they're responsible for their own projects, their own income, their own schedules and so on, but even if they are purely managers, even if they're working within a firm, I think a big question is: how many projects or ideas seem to be the optimal number? You know, too few and we may not get much done; too many and we may never complete any. So what does the science have to say about that? DUHIGG: There's actually a really interesting study that was done, where a couple of MIT academics got access to hundreds of thousands of e-mails that this one firm had sent. People were corresponding to each other and they could correlate it with data on how many projects people were working on and how much profits they were bringing in. And what they found is that there are some people who don't work on enough projects. So, they might work on two or three things at the same time, and they're just not maximizing their opportunities. But there are also some people who work on 10 or 12 projects at once, and they're stretched too thin, and as a result, they can't spend enough time actually devoting attention to each project. So what was optimal was the people who were somewhere in the middle. But what was really interesting was that the kinds of projects that they chose were critical to how productive they were. Now you would think that what people would want to do is they would want to find a bunch of similar projects so they're doing the same thing over and over, faster and faster and faster. It's exactly the opposite. The people who were most productive were the ones who were seeking out new and different kinds of projects, because it taught them something new with each iteration. That's why they would only work on a handful of projects, you know, four or five at any given time, is because working on something new, it takes a lot of time. To learn takes more time than simply to execute. And yet it turns out that over time, the more you learn, the more value you add, and, as a result, the more productive you are. DUBNER: Talk for a minute about writing the perfect to-do list, and I'm curious to know whether you've been able to follow your own advice. DUHIGG: I have, actually. So, it used to be that I wrote to-do lists, I think, like most people did. I would start by writing at the top of the page a couple of easy tasks because I want something that's going to kind of like -DUBNER: Brush teeth. DUHIGG: Yeah, brush teeth or like, you know, read all of my e-mails or turn on my computer. Sometimes I would actually write at the top of my list things that I had already done, because it felt so good to start the day by crossing it off and feeling accomplished. And this is actually - within psychology - this is known as using a to-do list for mood-repair. And it's the exact opposite of productive. Because what happens is that I cross a couple of the easy things off and then I feel like I've accomplished something, and then I give myself permission to go check Facebook and then 45 minutes later I pay attention to what's going on again. DUBNER: OK, fair enough. But, let's say, there must be some people who react in exactly the opposite direction, no? Some people who kind of feel like the pump is primed, and I've turned on my computer, and I've brushed my teeth and I've remembered to, you know, breathe, let's say. Having accomplished all that, now I can, you know, buy that new insurance plan that I need to for my firm, which is the thing that I've been dreading. DUHIGG: Sure, and the question then becomes how do you remind yourself of the bigger task? And so what psychologists recommend is that on your to-do list you have two types of goals. At the top of the page you write a stretch goal. And the stretch goal should be that big ambition. And then underneath that, you should write something that makes that stretch goal tangible and into a plan. And one of the systems for doing this is this thing called SMART goals, right? If you sat down with someone and you said to them, "Are you productive?" they would give some anodyne answer, right? Like, "Yeah, I'm pretty productive" or "No, I'm not that productive." And then you would say, like, "Tell me what you did yesterday. Did you spend your time wisely?" I think that people could go through their day, and they would tell you, "Look, I spent a couple of hours watching soccer with my kid and that might not seem productive, but honestly, that's really important time that me and my son have together. And then I spent another couple of hours working on e-mails and that might seem productive from the outside, but actually, what I should have done was I should have just deleted a bunch more of them or ignored them because they really won't matter a week from now whether I sent that response or not." That people are very good at actually analyzing whether they're productive or not. The problem is that very frequently, we don't stop to analyze. We don't reflect on what's actually happened. And that part of this idea of managing your own brain - learning how your brain works so that you can take control of your focus and your motivation and how you manage yourself and others - is that it forces us to really sit back and analyze: am I spending my time the way that is really meaningful to me, or am I simply reacting to other people's priorities and the busyness of life?
MUSIC: Eric Hastings, "Dollar in My Pocket"
SMART - that stands for "specific," "measurable," "achievable," "realistic," and based on a "timeline." The SMART-goal system was developed years ago within General Electric. Unlike the big, stretch goal, with a SMART goal ...

DUHIGG: You take a component of this big ambition and you say specifically what you want to get done and how you're going to measure it and is that achievable? Like if you want to do something, do you have to clear your schedule in the morning? Is it realistic? If you're going to clear your schedule, does that mean that you don't turn on your e-mail at all because you know it's going to distract you? And what's the timeline for getting the sub goal done? And it's very easy to do this with a to-do list. I do it every single morning, and it takes me 45 seconds to figure out what my stretch goal for the day is, what my SMART goal for when I get to my desk, what exactly I'm going to do right away. It's almost a habit, but it transforms how much I get done. Because if you sit down and at the top of your list it says, "Go buy the insurance plan for my entire company," and then underneath you have this, like, very distinct plan, like, specifically what you're going to do when you first sit down - how you're going to measure it, what you need to do to make it achievable and realistic, how much time it's going to take - it's really easy to start. You've basically gotten over the hump. DUBNER: That's such a good example. So, Charles, it's a little after 5:30pm in the east where you and I are talking. And I'm just curious about your goal for the evening, maybe even your stretch goal for the evening. Some people look at 5:30 and they think "cocktail hour," some people look at 5:30 and they think, "Let me get a little more work done." What's your stretch goal for the night? DUHIGG: My stretch goal is to make it home for family dinner. I have to say, my wife and I have established a family stretch goal of having family dinner at least twice a week during the weekdays, and we've worked backwards to reorganize our days so that we can do that. DUBNER: Way to go. Bon appétit. DUHIGG: Thanks.

And thanks to Charles Duhigg for trying to make all of us a bit more productive. Will it work? I hope so - for me, and for you. Let us know if this episode indeed feeds your productivity beast in any meaningful way. You can send your feedback via Twitter or Facebook or the iTunes podcast store. You can also send an e-mail to radio@freakonomics.com.

I can't promise to reply. In fact, there's a very, very good chance I won't. Because one way I stay productive is by saying "no" to just about everything I possibly can, and that includes replying to about 99 percent of my e-mail. But I do read all of them, so please do let us know if you are getting more productive.

And next week on Freakonomics Radio, Self-Improvement Month continues. We talk to the pioneering research psychologist Anders Ericsson about deliberate practice, the 10,000-hour rule, and how to get really, really good at just about anything:

ANDERS ERICSSON: We find that with the right kind of training, any individual will be able to acquire abilities that were previously viewed as only attainable if you had the right kind of genetic talent.

We also try to sort out a little disagreement between Ericsson and Malcolm Gladwell over the 10,000-hour rule:

MALCOLM GLADWELL: I come from a very talented musical family. I know what musical talent looks like. I know that I don't have it.

Ten thousand hours, Malcolm Gladwell, a singing psychotherapist from Denmark, and more. That's next week on Freakonomics Radio.

* * *
SOURCES RESOURCES
Freakonomics Radio is produced by WNYC Studios and Dubner Productions. Today's episode was produced by Arwa Gunja. The rest of our staff includes Jay Cowit, Merritt Jacob, Christopher Werth, Greg Rosalsky, Kasia Mychajlowycz, Alison Hockenberry and Caroline English. If you want more Freakonomics Radio, you can also find us on Twitter and Facebook and don't forget to subscribe to this podcast on iTunes or wherever else you get your free, weekly podcasts.

Here's where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:

Smarter Faster Better: The Secrets of Being Productive in Life and Business by Charles Duhigg (Random House, 2016).

The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg (Random House, 2012).

Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead by Laszlo Bock (Twelve, 2015).

"Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation and Performance," Claudia M. Mueller and Carol S. Dweck (1998).

"Google's Project Oxygen: Do Managers Matter?," by David A. Garvin, Alison Berkley Wagonfeld and Liz Kind (2013).

"What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team," by Charles Duhigg, The New York Times, (February 25, 2016).

"Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams," by Amy C. Edmondson (2002).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Be More Productive - Freakonomics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's Self-Improvement Month at Freakonomics Radio. We begin with a topic that seems to be on everyone's mind: how to get more done in less time. First, however, a warning: there's a big difference between being busy and being productive.

# data[].attributes.body
This article had an interesting viewpoint on types of power in business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
5 Types of Power in Businesses

Leaders in business exert power over the people under their authority in the workplace. Yet not all power is the same - and it's if used improperly, it can be detrimental to a leader's overall position. Psychologists John French and Bertram Raven created a list of five types of social power that affect relationships, including those in business. Learning which types of power can positively and negatively influence people can give both leaders and employees insight into workplace dynamics.

Legitimate Power

Legitimate power is sometimes also called titular power, referring to the official title the person may hold. Within the organizational structure of a business, those with a higher title hold more standing over those with a less significant one or no title at all. For example, a department director has more power than a manager but less than a vice president. Individuals with this power must be careful to operate so those under them come to respect them and respond positively. Those who abuse this power could be removed from their positions.

Coercive Power

When a leader uses threats or punishments to manipulate the behavior of the workforce, he is using coercive power. A manager may force an employee to work long hours to meet a project deadline and threaten to fire the worker or give a poor performance review if expectations are not fulfilled. In many ways, a person who uses this type of power functions as the office bully and, therefore, will not gain the respect and loyalty of those under his influence.

Reward Power

Conversely, leaders can take a more positive approach by using reward power. This approach is used to motivate workers by offering them incentives to work harder or faster. Rewards may take the form of a pay increase or bonus for reaching new production levels, or a promotion or special award for achieving a sales goal. Workers become invested in their jobs, because they directly and personally benefit beyond just their salaries. Therefore the company will reap rewards as well.

Referent Power

An individual holds referent power when people enjoy being around them or even desire to be like them. Celebrities and leaders with lots of charisma tend to exude this power. They can exert influence because people are eager to give them what they want, sometimes even because they are simply nice. Someone with this ability can easily use it to her advantage by coupling it with coercive power to manipulate employees to do her bidding.

Expert Power

When someone has special knowledge or skills in an area, he is often called an expert. In the workplace, an employee will stand out if he has a special skill or area of expertise, giving him a certain level of importance. For example, if he is the "go to" person for fixing computer issues, he may be viewed as especially valuable among the staff. Similarly, those with advanced training or specialized degrees are considered experts in their field and therefore receive a higher level of respect than those with less experience.

Additional Powers

Five years after French and Raven wrote their description of these five types of power, French amended the work by adding a sixth: informational power. If a person has access to certain information that others do not possess, she holds a sense of power over the others. She is the one "in the know" and will be sought to provide insight and guidance in areas where others have no knowledge. However, once this information is shared, the person's power may diminish unless she is able to sustain herself as a source of continual new information. This power differs slightly from expert power in that is limited in scope and can be lost once others have the same information.

Connection power is a seventh area that some psychologists have added to the list. It is closely related to referent power, but different in that a person may have an advantage over others simply because of who they know. If someone has a personal connection to a powerful or famous person, she may be able to get things done or have access to decision makers when others do not. In business, networking is key to making connections with decision makers and leaders who have influence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaders in business exert power over the people under their authority in the workplace. Yet not all power is the same - and it's if used improperly, it can be detrimental to a leader's overall position. Psychologists John French and Bertram Raven created a list of five types of social power that affect relationships, including those in business.

# data[].attributes.body
I was interested to learn more about how Amazon uses tech to run their business and found this article on Forbes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By this time next month, there will have been the usual sudden year-end jump in ownership of Kindles, thanks to the season of gifts. If book industry analyst Mike Shatzkin is to be believed (and I believe him) the sales at retail bookstores will have fallen by about 10% by this time next year. Physical retail book stores have been seeing an annual doubling in revenue reduction percentages ever since the Kindle was introduced. Shatzkin writes:

One bookstore owner I know has been doing a great job; the store held its own despite the overall slide in print. The bookseller told me that this year, through October, sales at the store were down 5%. Not bad. They were down 2% year-on-year last year. They were down 1% year-on-year in 2009. And they had a record year for sales in 2008.

There's a pattern there. The percentage reduction is doubling each year. When I said, "so you'll be down 10% next year and 20% the year after that, right?" Bookseller said, "probably."

If you are an Amazon watcher, there are patterns like this everywhere. The company is nothing if not deliberate and systematic in everything it does. When unexpected things happen, Amazon, unlike most companies, does not immediately respond with knee-jerk PR damage control. As Bezos said during an interview a while back, the company is willing to be misunderstood and endure temporary PR blowback. The larger gameplan is too important.

Which is why the current furor over the price comparison app, and the related #OccupyAmazon reaction, is unlikely to elicit any dramatic responses from Amazon. Where other companies might respond with overwrought displays of contrition and dramatic conciliatory gestures, Amazon will likely do the minimum necessary, wait out the storm, and move on. Amazon dealing with its market is the corporate equivalent of a patient, low-reactor parent dealing with a child throwing a tantrum.

More than any other corporation of the Internet age, Amazon embodies the emerging culture of business strategy. It is the General Electric of our times, and Bezos is the Jack Welch. When the definitive book on corporate strategy for the early Internet era is written, Amazon will be the main example, not , , or Facebook. Those are great companies too, but their greatness lies in other departments. As far as corporate strategy goes, they are mediocre players, not grandmasters.
The Amazon Way
Unlike the other big companies that symbolize our times -- Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft -- Amazon did not rise to power by inventing a new product or service. It came to power by systematically taking down an entire existing industry. It is a story that called for strategic depth, not technical wizardry, design brilliance or sheer energy. In the technology world, nobody holds up Amazon engineers as extraordinary geniuses or its designers as Da Vincis. They are good, but not great. Yet, time and again, Amazon wins.

I'd even go so far as to say that of the big tech companies, Amazon is the only one that even has a strategic approach to its business. The other companies in the technology pantheon may make the occasional strategic move, but most of their behavior seems to emerge from internal compromises, sudden impulses, pet projects, competitive anxiety, knee-jerk reactions or unexamined corporate values. This is actually the reason other companies seem so responsive to PR issues: when there isn't much of a larger game-plan in progress, each move and counter-move ends up being considered in isolation. The response can be optimally tailored to the immediate situation.

With Amazon though, you get the sense that you are watching a chess game unfold, in which Amazon is thinking multiple moves ahead, along several fronts. The opponents seem to fumble, rant and rave like so many headless chickens, while Amazon continues to systematically dismantle them.

Structure follows strategy, as Alfred Chandler famously said, and you can see this most clearly with Amazon. The entire company is organized around a gigantic chess game. Every asset is a piece on the board.

So let's see if we can deconstruct the company's playbook.
More than Disruption
We sometimes forget what Amazon did. It did not create a new market like Google or Apple. It did not merely disrupt a single incumbent company like Barnes and .

To the extent that the classic disruption model of Clayton Christensen can be applied at all, you could say that Amazon disrupted an entire industry. It did not merely unseat a single King. Actually it did more, it disrupted a critical piece (retail) of many existing industries.

To take the book industry as an example, Amazon took on every part of the supply chain, not just retail. The whole company began, not with an idea, but a data-driven decision (that books were a product category that offered an unfair advantage for ecommerce). Let's take inventory of its major moves over the last decade or so.

One-click shopping

Free shipping over $25

Being first to market with a meaningful and usable, but predatory, offering for self-publishers (Amazon Advantage) at a time (late 90s) when getting traditional distribution as a small or self-publisher was nearly impossible

Creating a used-book marketplace that made used books go from 4% of the market to something like 30% in just a few years (I don't know the current figure, this is from several years ago)

Fighting a supply-chain battle with on-demand printers, using its 24-hour shipping model as a weapon to bring print volumes to Book Surge, its in-house operation

Undercutting Lulu, the pioneering self-publishing operation catering to authors, with its Createspace offering, which offers authors better margins

Booting up the Amazon Affiliate program (which, from unverified sources, accounts for about 40% of sales)

Making it brain-dead simple to publish on the Kindle

Creating a royalty option structure for Kindle publishers (70% between $2.99 and $9.99, 35% above $9.99) that leaves you with an offer you cannot refuse for the under-$9.99 price range

Once the traditional supply chain had been sufficiently weakened that traditional publishers were no longer very useful, ramping up direct relationships with authors

Starting with an eBook experience that was as close as possible to traditional books, but pushing the envelope as fast as readers could handle, towards more flexible digital formats (blogs on the Kindle, Kindle "singles," and with the recently announced capabilities of the Kindle format, high-quality graphics)

Decisively promoting a pawn (ebooks) to Queen with its book-lending model and recent offer-you-cannot-refuse for publishers who go Kindle-exclusive for at least the first 90 days (in the next year, we will likely see a shift towards an ebook-first or ebook-only strategy for many small publishers; so far, ebooks have been considered a "plus" market).

All the while, keeping the core shopping experience familiar, but pulling out all stops to increase conversions and same-visit sales with mechanisms ranging from book previews/searches to related-reading recommendations, and bundling recommendations

The story that pops out of this list of key events is highly coherent. You don't have to make up a just-so story with hindsight, that may or may not have been actually scripted. Several of these moves loomed with a grim inevitability for all the industry to see well before they happened. While Amazon does occasionally feint or bluff as all smart players do, it generally carves out such a position of strength to operate from, that such deception is often rendered unnecessary. The opponents can see the moves coming, but by the time the moves actually occur, they are helpless and can do nothing about it.

If you've only shopped on Amazon, you may not see much of this action, but if you've participated in the ecosystem more broadly, the patterns become crystal clear. Over the past decade, my own personal life has become inextricably linked to Amazon. Not only have I spent thousands of dollars on the site (mostly using my Amazon credit card), but affiliate sales off my blog, and sales of my book, (in both paperback and ebook formats) account for a good fraction of my income these days. As editor of a different book 10 years ago, I also participated in the Amazon Advantage program. I also own a couple of Kindles. And wearing another hat, at my last job, most of the product development work I was leading relied on the AWS infrastructure.

I sometimes panic about the extent of my reliance on Amazon, but then I remember: it may be anxiety-provoking to be in orbit around Amazon, but at least I am (for the moment) an ally rather than an adversary. Trust me, you do not want to be an adversary. There are almost no weak spots you can attack. There is one Achilles heel emerging that I'll tell you about in a bit, but it will likely do you no good.

When you look at the evolution of the Amazon universe, you can tell that move by move, Amazon looks at the state of play, takes stock of its advantages, and works to make those advantages irresistible. So irresistible that other players are forced to treat them as constraints and a cost of doing business rather than things to be countered. You can tell that there is very calculated timing behind every move. Certain moves are only attempted when the opposition is sufficiently weakened.

But perhaps the central element of the story is the degree to which Amazon pursues a pragmatic, realpolitik approach to relationships. Sharing a playing field with Amazon is like swimming with a shark.
Swimming with the Shark
It is easy to tell that Amazon has no permanent friends or enemies. People, corporations and entire industries turn into allies or opponents depending on the state of play. For much of the decade, self-publishers and online retailers like me have been useful pawns in the indirect takedown of larger players. But now that the traditional industry is basically down for the count, loyalties will start shifting. Those of us in orbit around Amazon will have to scramble to get on the winning side of whatever new war Amazon plans. I for one, have accepted my new Amazonian Shark overlord. I'd rather be a remora than lunch. So far, I've hedged slightly (I used Lightning Source rather than Amazon for my on-demand printing for instance), but if Amazon decides to take on Lightning Source more seriously (I hope they don't), I'll fold and move over.

Another key feature in the story is the synchronization of the action across all fronts. An Amazon opponent doesn't just get one battle. It gets a coordinated multi-front war. For the retail book industry, just look at the number of fronts Amazon opened up against them: retail, supply chain, author relationships, used books, ebooks, on-demand, price-shopping. The list goes on and on. What makes it even harder is that Amazon doesn't open up all the fronts and overwhelm you at once. That would be a waste of energy. It wants you to succumb rationally at a controlled rate. So just when you think you know how to fight on one front, they open up another. You either descend into progressive FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) or you see the writing on the wall and yield without fighting to the end, and turn into an ally.

Microsoft sort of does this this too, but due to strategic incoherence, most of the value of a coordinated multi-front war is lost. Instead you get a multi-front knee jerk, as Microsoft tries to match its many competitors move for move in every sector it gets interested in. You could call this a strategic network effect. When Amazon opens up n fronts, it realizes benefits on the order of n 2. When Microsoft does it, you just get the n (there's actually a theory of attrition warfare based on what is known as Lanchester's square law, which yield such n 2 rewards if you concentrate your forces properly; Amazon strikes me as a very efficient Lanchester's square law player, while Microsoft strikes me as an inefficient one that just got lucky).

You can imagine what it felt like to be a paper-book retailer in the last decade, watching the clockwork doubling of percentage sales reductions. You wouldn't have known where to turn. Amazon would have been everywhere, unstoppable. A minor victory in one battle would have meant nothing. The war overall would have been slowly swinging in Amazon's favor.

By contrast, when you make a list of similar key events in the decade-long history of other companies, you do not see such a systematic pattern of deliberation informing the sequence of events. You see heroic risk-taking (Google+), awe-inspiring technical feats (iPad), stunning one-off successes (MS Office), extraordinary marketing buzz (Facebook) and displays of brute force (Microsoft sales).

But you don't get this sense of watching a game of chess unfolding.

Amazon's story is so much like a chess game in fact, that I suspect a fascinating book could be written about it by focusing on just the game. You wouldn't need emotions, larger-than-life characters or redemptive arcs to make it interesting. You could get all the emotional content you wanted by focusing on the reactions of the others in the water with Amazon, like the human characters in Jaws. If you recall, the shark was pretty expressionless throughout.
The Game Mind
Amazon is more than a company that took down the book industry though, and more than a skilled chess player.

The entire company operates with what you might call a game mind. Not a product-building mind, not a marketing mind, not a sales mind. The key to a great game mind is having a preternatural ability to figure out which game to play, against which opponent. And once you've decided what game you're in, aligning the entire company so that it has the capacity to play that specific game better than anybody else.

Half of Amazon's victories are won before the game even begins, because Amazon is so good at picking the right game and committing wholeheartedly to becoming really good at it. To have a game-mind is to be detached from the specifics of your business as it exists today. If you can look at your own roaring rivers of cash today with a dispassionate eye, not get attached to the great things you've built or achieved, and clinically ask yourself, what's the next game?, you've got a game-mind.

The success of AWS is a perfect example. Most companies struggle to deal with their own mortality as they age, much like humans. They agonize and panic about products or services reaching an end-of-life condition, with diminishing margins. They realize the critical importance of booting up new lines of business as old ones either commoditize or vanish altogether.

Individuals often have game minds. It is very rare indeed for entire companies to have game minds. Amazon does.

Take AWS for instance. The business had no right to succeed. It violated all sorts of textbook rules about brand elasticity, market positioning, core competency management and so forth. But it was the right game for Amazon.

It only makes sense when you view it as a classic strategic move: looking for the biggest unfair advantage you possess, and doubling down on that. Just as Bezos scanned the product marketplace in the beginning and realized that books were a category that offered an unfair advantage for an online retailer, he must have surveyed his empire and picked hosting as a game where he had access to an unfair advantage.

Or take the systematic move into tablets. The Kindle store was the ideal asset with which to trump Apple's iTunes advantage. Google's disorganized Android universe offered a perfect freebie opportunity to carve out an organized, profitable corner. The Kindle Fire was designed with 3-moves ahead foresight: it incorporates the recognition that the cloud provisioning end is vastly more important to control than the device end, since the money will ultimately move to content, as the hardware turns into a commodity.
An Achilles Heel
I've been spending a fair amount of time trying to deconstruct Amazon's playbook and capture a set of general principles, specific gambits and move combinations, rules for picking games and opponents, and so forth. Each time I think I've figured out how Amazon plays the game, a new insight hits me, and I am again newly impressed.

Looking at my notes, I am most reminded of John D. Rockefeller's rise to power with Standard Oil a century ago. Bezos is Rockefeller's natural heir.

And Rockefeller's Achilles Heel seems likely to be Bezos too: PR.

America is a land that romanticizes relationships. Americans expect corporations to value relationships as things with intrinsic value. A pragmatic, realpolitik approach to relationships, such as Amazon's is fundamentally not The American Way.

Rockefeller's downfall -- sort of -- began with him underestimating the power of the emerging newspaper industry to shape public opinion. Journalist Ida Tarbell managed to thoroughly demonize Rockefeller and Standard Oil, and trigger Roosevelt's antitrust crusade that led to the break-up of Standard Oil.

Of course, it wasn't really a downfall. The breakup actually made Rockefeller even richer than he would have been if Standard Oil had remained a single entity. And though he learned late, he learned. In the latter half of his life, he turned into a consummate master of PR, redeeming his public image and the family name.

I have no doubt that Bezos has the capacity to pull off a Rockefeller at a personal level, but it is not entirely clear that Amazon, the company, is invulnerable. Though the #OccupyAmazon type of reaction is going to be unimportant in the long run, Amazon's longer decade-plus history of managing relationships in a certain way has had a cost.

Nobody completely trusts Amazon. There is a degree of social isolation it suffers in the corporate landscape. Customers, suppliers, affiliates, partners -- everybody has learned to be on their guard when dealing with Amazon. Nobody ever enters a relationship with Amazon with wholehearted enthusiasm. Only with a certain reluctance. You deal with Amazon mostly because you have to, not because you want to.

This lack of relationship capital may start to matter one day.

But today is not that day. Today we succumb. Today we welcome our Amazonian Overlords.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Amazon Is The Best Strategic Player In Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife By this time next month, there will have been the usual sudden year-end jump in ownership of Kindles, thanks to the season of gifts. If book industry analyst Mike Shatzkin is to be believed (and I believe him) the sales at retail bookstores will have [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Vroom-Yetton-Jago model of leadership

# data[].attributes.body
Life Expectancy Theory of Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Technical Details

Name(s): Expectancy Theory of Motivation also known as Valence-Instrumentality- Expectancy Theory
Author: Victor H. Vroom developed the theory from his study on the motivation behind decision-making.
Classification: Cognitive or Need-to-Know Motivation Theories
Year: 1964, Porter and Lawler provided an extension to the model in 1968

Pro's

Commonly accepted theory for explaining an individual's decision-making process.

Current research generally supports the decision making concepts proposed by the Expectancy Theory of Motivation.

Con's

Doesn't take the emotional state of the individual into consideration.

The individual's personality, abilities, skills, knowledge, as well as past experiences are factors affecting the outcome of the model.

The expectancy theory of motivation is a "perception" based model.

The manager needs to guess the motivational force (the value) of a reward for an employee.

Can be difficult to implement in the group environment.

Overview

Tips for implementing the Expectancy Theory of Motivation at work and in your life!

The expectancy theory of motivation provides an explanation as to why an individual chooses to act out a specific behavior as opposed to another. This cognitive process evaluates the motivational force (MF) of the different behavioral options based on the individual's own perception of the probability of attaining his desired outcome. Thus, the motivational force can be summarized by the following equation:

MF = Expectancy X Instrumentality X ∑ (Valence(s))

Expectancy (E)

Expectancy refers to the "effort-performance" relation. Thus, the perception of the individual is that the effort that he or she will put forward will actually result in the attainment of the "performance". This cognitive evaluation is heavily weighted by an individual's past experiences, personality, self-confidence and emotional state.

The Instrumentality (I)

Instrumentality refers to the "performance-reward" relation. The individual evaluates the likelihood or probability that achieving the performance level will actually result in the attainment of the reward.

Valance (V)

Valance is the value that the individual associates with the outcome (reward). A positive valance indicates that the individual has a preference for getting the reward as opposed to, vice-versa, a negative valance that is indicative that the individual, based on his perception evaluated that the reward doesn't fill a need or personal goal, thus he or she doesn't place any value towards its attainment.

As the Motivational Force (MF) is the multiplication of the expectancy by the instrumentality it is then by the valence that any of the perception having a value of zero or the individual's feeling that "it's not going to happen", will result in a motivational force of zero.

Discussion

The expectancy theory of motivation seeks its roots from the University of Michigan where in 1957; Basil Georgopoulos, Gerald Mahoney, and Nyle Jones worked on a research program in organizational behavior. Their study focused on the conscious and rational aspects of employee motivation and the factors associated with levels of high or low productivity.

Their study evaluated the following three variables [1]:

Individual needs as reflected in the goals sought. Examples of these goals would be making more money or getting along well in the work group.

Individual perceptions of the relative usefulness of productivity behavior (high or low) as a means of attaining desired goals (in theoretical terms, the instrumentality of various productivity levels or the extent to which they are seen as providing a path to a goal).

The amount of freedom from restraining factors the individual has in following the desired path. Examples of constraining factors might be supervisory and work group pressures or limitations of ability and knowledge.

The hypothesis is:

"If a worker sees high productivity as a path leading to the attainment of one or more of his personal goals, he will tend to be a high producer. Conversely, if he sees low productivity as a path to the achievement of his goals he will tend to be a low producer." [2]

In 1964 Even though no formal theory of motivation emerged from this initiative, Vroom based the expectancy theory of motivation largely on the findings of earlier research. If fact, Vroom expanded the ideology to include the individual capacity to not only have a preference towards a certain goal, but to cognitively evaluate and rank them in order of preference. Thus, a particular reward can fulfill multiple outcomes, consequently adding to the sum of the valences.

Therefore even though individuals express high effort and high performance doesn't mean business success as people could be directing their efforts towards a doomed organizational goal. In addition, and contrary to popular belief, the expectancy theory of motivation provides an individual decision model.

Critique

The expectancy theory of motivation has been the target of many critics, Graen (1969), Lawler (1971), Lawler and Porter (1967 & 1968), since it was originally presented by Vroom in 1964. These critics are far more an extension to the original concepts as opposed to a deviation from them. Actually Mr. Vroom admitted himself that the expectancy theory of motivation should be updated with new research findings. [3]

One of the major criticisms of the expectancy theory of motivation decision model was its simplicity. In the sense that it doesn't explain the different levels of efforts acted out by an individual. There is also the assumption that a reward will entice an employee to expand greater efforts in order to obtain the reward, but neglect the fact that the reward in question could have a negative effect for the individual. For example a pay increase might push him or her into a higher tax bracket.

The effectiveness of the expectancy theory of motivation decision model from a managerial perspective relies on the manager to make assumptions on the motivational force of the reward for the employee (s). Thus, the uses of the "rewards" need to obey to "The Law of Effect" where:

Positively rewarded behaviors will have a tendency to augment in frequency.

Negatively or neutrally rewarded behaviours will have a tendency to diminish in frequency.

The type of reinforcement and its timing will impact the frequency of the behavior.

Future of theory

The expectancy theory of motivation has prevailed as an acceptably rational explanation for an individual decision-making model. It's without question that the theory which is a predictive value may enable managers to increase the likelihood of an individual acting out the desired behavior. However, the implementation of the theory in an organizational context isn't an easy task! Many sub-cognitive processes are involved in the overall decision that finding the balance between the individual's "reward" and the cost to be borne by the organization becomes a tedious task. In addition, each trial changes the equation, in the sense that the individual will use that new experience to alter his or her perception of the future probability of attaining the desired outcome.

The evolution of cognitive neuroscience techniques, brain scans being among the major ones, could expand the understanding of the cognitive processes involved in our decision-making process. More specifically they perhaps could shed some light on the "evaluative" as well as the "progressive" nature of motivational forces that drive our behaviors.

Share your thoughts

Sharing your motivating thoughts or your motivational tips will benefit every leader. Motivation is what give them the energy to constantly seek to improve their self-motivation as well as motivating other. Consequently increase our leadership influence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Expectancy Theory of Motivation - Victor Vroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The expectancy theory of motivation provides an explanation as to why an individual chooses to act out a specific behavior as opposed to another. This cognitive process evaluates the motivational force (MF) of the different behavioral options based on the individual's own perception of the probability of attaining his desired outcome.

# data[].attributes.body
Vroom Theory of Motivation visualized.

From: https://www.businesstopia.net/human-resource/expectancy-theory-motivation

# data[].attributes.body
This link describes Theory X vs Theory Y leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Throughout U.S. business history, immigrants have played an important part at every level, from visionary business-founders to the workers who help businesses succeed and grow. A recent report found that more than half of U.S. startups that were valued at more than $1 billion were founded by immigrants. For instance, Google was co-founded by Russian immigrant Sergey Brin; Tesla was founded by South African immigrant Elon Musk; Ebay was founded by French immigrant Pierre Omidyar. Many more-established companies also had immigrant founders, including Kraft foods (James L. Kraft immigrated from Canada), Intel (founder Andy Grove was born in Hungary), Pfizer (founder Charles Pfizer was born in the Kingdom of Wurttemberg, in what is now Germany) and AT&T (founder Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland).

According federal statistics collected by CBS News, immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to own their own businesses, and start new businesses at double the rate of native-born Americans. Meanwhile the Economic Policy Institute notes that immigrants account for 14.7% of total wage, salary and business proprietor income in the U.S. - even though they only make up 13% of the population.

Also see The International Entrepreneur Rule

Boundless - for people who want the expertise
of an immigration lawyer, not the price tag.

Blog Categories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Throughout U.S. business history, immigrants have played an important part at every level, from visionary business-founders to the workers who help businesses succeed and grow. A recent report found that more than half of U.S. startups that were valued at more than $1 billion were founded by immigrants.

# data[].attributes.body
Short article about teamwork in business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are the Benefits of Teamwork in Business?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teamwork helps create a cohesive working unit while increasing efficiency and morale and reducing costs.

# data[].attributes.body
I found a funny cartoon regarding communication issues, which ties to chapter 12.

# data[].attributes.body
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commision has their own government website that gives a good overview of their responsibilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The EEOC provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of the federal government's equal employment opportunity program.

# data[].attributes.body
I was curious about the entire process human resources goes through and found a great visual representation at
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh242105.aspx

# data[].attributes.body
I wanted to find some real life examples of company cultures and found this article that lists a few companies with the best culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Every company has a culture that can heavily impact its productivity, employee morale and overall brand reputation.

Companies with positive, vibrant cultures attract the best talent to their teams and produce better products and services since their employees are more motivated to give 100% daily. A stellar workplace culture leads to a better work environment, improved employee engagement, and a better representation of a company's mission.

In contrast, poor company culture can negatively affect company performance and employee results. Employees are more likely to leave companies with poor, draining cultures and produce less than stellar products.
The bottom line: it's critical to understand how to cultivate a strong company culture in your enterprise, whether you run a small business or a larger firm.
There are various initiatives you can consider to foster different types of cultures, ranging from enhancing the onboardingemployee experience to improving employee satisfaction and mental health.

With so many different types of companies with distinct sets of values and mission statements, brainstorming the right kind of organization culture for your business can be challenging.

Fortunately, many world-renowned businesses offer excellent examples of company culture and key takeaways you can implement into your organization.
Related: The 4 Steps Needed to Instill an Entrepreneurial Mindset Into Your Company Culture
By examining these examples, you can live your company values and reinvent your corporate culture to attract top talent and boost employee retention.

1. Zappos

Zappos has become almost as well known for its culture as it is for the shoes that it sells online. What does that culture look like?

It starts with a cultural fit interview, which carries half the weight of whether the candidate is hired. New employees are offered $2,000 to quit after the first week of training if they decide the job isn't for them. Ten core values are instilled in every team member. Employee raises come from workers who pass skills tests and exhibit increased capability, not from office politics. Portions of the budget are dedicated to employee team building and culture promotion.

Great benefits and a workplace that is fun and dedicated to making customers happy all fit in with the Zappos approach to company culture -- when you get the company culture right, great customer service and a great brand will happen on its own.

Takeaway: Zappos hires according to cultural fit first and foremost. It has established what the company culture is, and fitting into that culture is the most important thing managers look for when hiring. This promotes the culture and happy employees, which ultimately leads to happy customers.

2. Warby Parker

Warby Parker has been making and selling prescription glasses online since 2010. It designs its own glasses, and sells directly to customers, cutting out the middleman and keeping prices low.

Company culture at Warby Parker instigates "culture crushes," and one reason for that level of success is a team dedicated to culture. That team means that a positive culture is on the forefront, setting up fun lunches, events and programs. The company makes sure that there is always an upcoming event so the entire team has something to look forward to, and it uses methods to make sure the entire team works well together by insisting everyone helps keep break areas clean or sending random employees out to lunch together.

Takeaway: Warby Parker has made company culture deliberate by creating a dedicated team tasked with coming up with events and programs to promote community. Great company culture doesn't happen on its own.

3. Southwest Airlines

The airline industry is often mocked for grumpy employees and poor customer service, but Southwest Airlines bucks those trends. Customers loyal to Southwest often point to happy and friendly employees who try hard to help.

Southwest isn't new to the game. It's been in operation for 43 years. Yet somehow, during all that time, the company has managed to communicate its goals and vision to employees in a way that makes them a part of a unified team. Southwest also gives employees "permission" to go that extra mile to make customers happy, empowering them to do what they need to do to meet that vision.

Takeaway: Employees who are convinced of a larger common goal are people who are excited to be part of a larger purpose.

4. Twitter

While Twitter used to be on the list for its incredible culture, it's unfortunately serving as an example of how a change in culture can change where a company stands in the public eye.

Recent developments in Twitter's ownership and management changed what Twitter once was.

Before Elon Musk, employees of Twitter couldn't stop raving about the company's culture. Rooftop meetings, friendly coworkers and a team-oriented environment in which each person was motivated by the company's goals inspired that praise.

Employees of Twitter could also expect free meals at the San Francisco headquarters, along with yoga classes and unlimited vacations for some. These and many other perks are not unheard of in the startup world. But what set Twitter apart?

Employees couldn't stop talking about how they love working with other smart people. Workers raved about being part of a company that was doing something that matters in the world, and there was a sense that no one leaves until the work gets done.

All of that said, Elon Musk's Twitter takeover has led to adverse shifts in Twitter's workplace culture, as revenue issues have led to mass firings, more intense workloads, and cutbacks on the old employee amenities.

Takeaway: While these changes may be temporary, the current state of Twitter HQ is not the tech oasis it once was, and that change in culture has led to a massive change in how the public views (and feels) about the company as a whole.

5. Chevron
Related: Design Your Office to Fulfill Employees' Most Basic Needs
While oil and gas companies are prime targets for a lot of negative PR and public ire, Chevron employees responded favorably towards the company's culture. Employees compared Chevron with other similar companies and pointed out " the Chevron way" as being one dedicated to safety, supporting employees and team members looking out for each other.

Chevron shows it cares about employees by providing health and fitness centers on site or through health-club memberships. It offers other health-oriented programs such as massages and personal training. Chevron insists employees take regular breaks. In other words, the company shows it cares about the well-being of employees, and employees know that they are valued.

Takeaway: Your company culture doesn't have to be ping-pong tables and free beer. Simply providing employees with a sense of safety and well-being and creating a policy where everyone looks out for each other can easily suffice.

6. SquareSpace

This successful startup is regularly voted as one of the best places to work in New York City. Its company culture is one that is "flat, open and creative." A flat organization is one where there is no (or very few) levels of management in between staff and executives. This approach is more common among startups, and can be tricky to maintain as a company grows larger, generally requiring groups to form.

SquareSpace also offers robust benefits and perks, including 100 percent coverage of health insurance premiums, flexible vacations, attractive office space, catered meals, stocked kitchens, monthly celebrations, relaxation spaces and periodic guest lecturers. Solid benefits such as these help a culture, but are not the sole instigator of successful culture. Down-to-earth leaders and direct access to management have a great deal of impact.

Takeaway: Employees feel their voices can be heard when they aren't muffled under layers of management. This level of freedom and empowerment creates confident employees and improves morale.

7. Google

It would almost seem wrong not to mention Google on a list of companies with great culture. Google has been synonymous with culture for years, and sets the tone for many of the perks and benefits startups are now known for. Free meals, employee trips and parties, financial bonuses, open presentations by high-level executives, gyms, a dog-friendly environment and so on. Googlers are known to be driven, talented and among the best of the best.

As Google has grown and the organization has expanded and spread out, keeping a uniform culture has proven difficult between headquarters and satellite offices, as well as among the different departments within the company. The larger a company becomes, the more that culture has to reinvent itself to accommodate more employees and the need for management.

While Google still gets stellar reviews for pay, perks and advancement, there are also some employees who note growing pains that you'd expect from such a huge company, including the stress associated with a competitive environment. Hiring and expecting the best from employees can easily become a stressor if your culture doesn't allow for good work-life balance.

Additionally, for all the venerable aspects of company culture that Google offers, the company is far from perfect. Many employees report an abundance of overqualified workers, paired with many in managerial roles who lack the skills required to lead teams.

As with many other tech giants, many employees also report unreasonable workloads and the regular cancellation of projects without adequate rationale.

Moreover, reports of sexual harassment, hate speech, and other patterns of workplace misconduct have circled around Google for years.

Former Google employees, including an anonymous executive, have reported that when employees speak out about difficulties with a colleague, Google's HR officers are expected to direct those employees to the 20 free therapy sessions offered annually as a benefit by the company.

When dealing with workplace harassment of any kind, this type of response is woefully inadequete. One lesson you can take away from Google's culture issues is this: offering benefits, no matter how competitive, is not a cure for a broken culture.

Takeaway: Even the best culture needs to revisit itself to meet a growing company's team. The most successful company culture leads to successful business, and that requires an evolving culture that can grow with it.

8. REI

For outdoor enthusiasts, REI has long been the company to turn to for great gear. Employees of REI, a cooperative where profits benefit its member-owners, also agree that this is a place where greatness happens, even beyond the beloved camping and outdoor products. REI's mission is to equip both customers and employees for the outdoors, not just to have fun but also in promoting stewardship of the environment.

REI says that its employees give " life to their purpose," firmly attributing company success to workers. The CEO of REI has acknowledged that employees can get benefits anywhere, but allowing outdoors-oriented employees to immerse themselves in REI culture is what makes it unique. Employees can win equipment through "challenge grants" where they submit a proposal for an outdoor adventure that would be challenging. Regular townhall-style meetings are held where employees can submit questions anonymously to help management understand what's happening in the company.

Takeaway: When your employees are completely immersed in the same interests as your company, the culture propels itself forward almost on its own. Culture that is owned and propelled by the same people puts value in their voices.

9. Meta

Just like Google, Meta - formerly known as Facebook - is a company that has exploded in growth as well as being synonymous with unique company culture.

Meta offers, as do many similar companies, lots of food, stock options, open office space, on-site laundry, a focus on teamwork and open communication, a competitive atmosphere that fosters personal growth and learning and great benefits.

Yet, Meta has the same struggles as similar companies: a highly competitive industry leads to a sometimes stressful and competitive workplace. Additionally, a free and organic organizational structure that worked for the smaller organization is less successful for the larger one.

To meet these challenges, Meta has created conference rooms, has separate buildings, lots of outdoor roaming space for breaks and has management (even CEO Mark Zuckerberg) working in the open office space alongside other employees. It's an attempt at a flat organizational culture using the buildings and space itself to promote a sense of equality among the competition.

Of course, Meta has recently been in the headlines for its massive swath of layoffs. In November 2022, Meta laid off 13% of its workforce (over 11,000 employees) in an effort to cut costs. Starting in February, Meta began a steady decline that continued throughout the year.

Perhaps the core of company culture is a sense of job security, upon which a healthy workplace environment can be cutlivated. In the face of enormous layoffs, it's safe to say that Meta has a culture problem (to say nothing else of their business woes).

Takeaway: When your company depends on new hires who excel in a competitive field, your company culture and any associated perks will likely be the tipping point for applicants. You must stand out from other companies vying for attention.

10. Adobe

Adobe is a company that goes out of its way to give employees challenging projects and then provide the trust and support to help them meet those challenges successfully. While it offers benefits and perks like any modern creative company, Adobe's is a culture that avoids micromanaging in favor of trusting employees to do their best.

Adobe products are synonymous with creativity, and only through the avoidance of micromanaging are the people who create those products truly free to create. For example, Adobe doesn't use ratings to establish employee capabilities, feeling that that inhibits creativity and harms how teams work. Managers take on the role of a coach, more than anything, letting employees set goals and determine how they should be assessed.

Employees are also given stock options so that they know they have both a stake and reward in the company's success. Continual training and culture that promotes risk taking without fear of penalty are part of Adobe's open company culture.

Takeaway: Putting trust in your employees goes a long way towards positive company culture, because trust leads to independent employees who help your company grow.

How you can create an excellent company culture

Many of these companies offer similar perks and benefits, but those do not determine the culture completely. The approach taken with how employees are treated and what level of ownership and trust they are given is also a key part of company culture.

One word of caution: focusing on company culture to the exclusion of other workforce considerations (safety, laws, regulations) can lead to abuses or create situations where employees aren't comfortable. Even the best examples of culture on this list have detractors.

Remember that the best culture makes all employees feel safe and welcome, never excluded or uncomfortable. Focusing on "culture fit" alone makes it difficult to hire and welcome employees who are different than the prevailing culture, even if they'd be an asset and great counterbalance at your company. Your company culture needs adjustment if it causes you to end up with a homogenized team who think and act the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Excellent Company Culture Examples For Inspiration | Entrepreneur | Entrepreneur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Company culture can help boost employee retention and create a safe workplace community. Here are 10 real-life examples to learn from.

# data[].attributes.body
Organizational culture was something I am familiar with, coming from a long line of retail jobs and learning about the history and culture of each company as part of training.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you want to provoke a vigorous debate, start a conversation on organizational culture. While there is universal agreement that (1) it exists, and (2) that it plays a crucial role in shaping behavior in organizations, there is little consensus on what organizational culture actually is, never mind how it influences behavior and whether it is something leaders can change.

Accelerate your career with Harvard ManageMentor®. HBR Learning's online leadership training helps you hone your skills with courses like Leading People. Earn badges to share on LinkedIn and your resume. Access more than 40 courses trusted by Fortune 500 companies.

What you need to know about being in charge.

Learn More & See All Courses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Organizational Culture? And Why Should We Care?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What leaders need to know to change orgs for the better.

# data[].attributes.body
This video also helped me understand span of control better than the book was able to explain it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Span of Control | Organizational Design | MeanThat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you like this video? Check out my latest course and get 20% off unlimited learning on Curious! https://curious.com/meanthat/series/research-methods-for-business-students?coupon=curiousteacher20&ref=XGkNhZBeCsU

# data[].attributes.body
Graicuna's Formula was a topic in Chapter 8 of this module. I wanted to learn more about it because I didn't fully understand the mathematics behind it enough to understand the idea itself. This link does a great job explaining it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Essays, Research Papers and Articles on Business Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After reading this article you will learn about:- 1. Meaning of Span of Management 2. Factors Affecting Span of Management 3. Graicunas Theory.
Meaning of Span of Management:

Depending upon the complexity of organisational activities and relationships amongst superiors and subordinates, it becomes important the superiors manage an optimum number of subordinates that result in optimum organisational output. All the subordinates cannot be managed by one superior. There has to be a limit on the number of subordinates who can be effectively managed by one superior.

The number of subordinates that a superior can effectively supervise is known as span of management or span of control. In the 19th and middle of 20th century, management writers determined 5 or 6 as the optimum number that a manager could effectively manage at the upper level.
Beyond this number, managers faced problems like:
1. Overburdened with work.

2. Difficulty in coordinating the activities of large number of people.

3. Difficulty in controlling.

Thus, optimum number of subordinates that a manager could supervise was determinable but today, it is not so. Exact number of employees that managers can effectively supervise cannot be defined. Span of management is situational in nature.
Depending on the number of employees that can be supervised or controlled by managers, there can be two kinds of structures in the organisation:
I. Tall structures, and

II. Flat structures.
I. Tall structures:
These structures are found in classical bureaucratic organisations. In this structure, a manager can supervise less number of subordinates. He can, therefore, exercise tight control over their activities. This creates large number of levels in the organisation. This is also known as narrow span of control. A tall structure or a narrow span of control appears like this.

Merits of a Tall Structure:

1. Managers can closely supervise activities of the subordinates.

2. There can be better communication amongst superiors and subordinates.

3. It promotes personal relationships amongst superiors and subordinates.
Limitations of a Tall Structure:
4. Control on subordinates can be tightened in a narrow span.

1. It creates many levels in the organisation structure which complicates co-ordination amongst levels.

2. More managers are needed to supervise the subordinates. This increases the overhead expenditure (salary etc.). It is, thus, a costly form of structure.

3. Increasing gap between top managers and workers slows the communication process.

4. Decision-making becomes difficult because of too many levels.

5. Superiors perform routine jobs of supervising the subordinates and have less time for strategic matters.

6. Employees work under strict control of superiors. Decision-making is primarily centralised. This restricts employees' creative and innovative abilities.

7. Strict control leads to low morale and job satisfaction. This can affect productivity in the long-run.

To overcome the limitations of a tall structure, many organisations reduce the number of levels in the hierarchy by downsizing the organisation. Downsizing is "the process of significantly reducing the layers of middle management, expanding spans of control and shrinking the size of the work force."
II. Flat Structures:
Many companies downsize their work force through the process of restructuring. Restructuring is "the process of making a major change in organisation structure that often involves reducing management levels and also possibly changing some major components of the organisations through divestiture and/or acquisition."

"The most common and most serious symptom of mal-organisation is multiplication of the number of management levels. A basic rule of organisation is to build the least possible number of management levels and forge the shortest possible chains of command." - Peter F. Drucker
The levels in case of organisation B(5) where span of control is 4 appears as follows:
These structures have a wide span of control. When superior supervises a larger number of subordinates, flat structure is created with lesser number of hierarchical levels. A departure was made from tall structures to flat structures by James C. Worthy who was a consultant in the L. Sears, Roebuck and company.

A structure where span of control for each managerial position is 4 appears as follows:

To illustrate, if organisations A and B, both have 256 workers and the span of control for each managerial position is 2 for company A and 4 for company B, there will be 9 levels in company A (requiring 128 supervisors at the lowest level, 64 at the next higher level and so on) and 5 levels in company B. A narrow span of control creates more levels in the organisational hierarchy than the wide span of control.

(The span of 4 prevails for each functional area at each level). For the sake of simplicity, the figure represents the span for only one functional area and one level.

Merits of a Flat Structure:

1. There is low cost as less number of managers can supervise organisational activities.

2. The decision-making process is effective as superiors delegate authority to subordinates. They are relieved of routine matters and concentrate on strategic matters. The decision-making is decentralised.
Limitations of a Flat Structure:
3. Subordinates perform the work efficiently since they are considered worthy of doing so by the superiors.

4. There is effective communication as the number of levels is less.

5. It promotes innovative abilities of the top management.

1. Superiors cannot closely supervise the activities of employees.

2. Managers may find it difficult to co-ordinate the activities of subordinates.

3. Subordinates have to be trained so that dilution of control does not affect organisational productivity.
The following factors help in determining the suitable span of management: 1. Competence of managers: 2. Nature of work:
Both tall and flat structures have positive and negative features and it is difficult to find the exact number of subordinates that a manager can effectively manage. Some management theorists like David D. Van Fleet and Arthur G. Bedeian assert that span of control and organisational efficiency are not related and many empirical studies have proved that span of control is situational and depends on a variety of factors.
3. Assistance to managers: 4. Competence of subordinates: 5. Plans and policies:
Some studies proved that flat structures produce better results as decentralised decision making has less control from the top, promotes initiative and satisfaction at work. Large number of members in a group can better solve the complex problems as group decision making is based on greater skill variety.
6. Organisational level: 7. Authority-responsibility structure: 8. System of control: 9. Financial factors:
Other studies proved that people working in tall structures produce better results as less number of members in a group can come to consensus of opinion and evaluate their decisions more thoroughly. Group cohesiveness is high and, thus, commitment to decisions is also high. Members feel satisfied with their decisions and conflicts are reduced.

Factors Affecting Span of Management:

If managers are competent in their jobs, they can have a wide span of management. Competence of managers is judged by their ability to make decisions related to motivational plans, leadership styles, communication channels and chains, techniques of control etc. Managers who rank high on these parameters can effectively supervise larger number of subordinates.
The kind of relationships and the formulae for arriving at the number of relationships is as follows: Graicunas identified three types of relationships:
If employees perform similar and repetitive work, managers can supervise large number of subordinates and, thus, have a wide span of control. Non-repetitive and challenging work requires narrow span of control. Changes in the nature of work also affects the span of management.

Frequent changes as a result of dynamic environment support a narrow span as superiors frequently have to direct the activities of subordinates. Stability in the nature of work supports a wide span of management as superiors' directions are not frequently required to carry out the work processes.

If managers have access to technical or secretarial assistance, a larger group of subordinates can be managed. Span of control can, therefore, be wide. Staff assistance can be useful for collecting and processing information related to various decisions and issuing orders to the subordinates. Managers save time in communicating with subordinates, direct the activities of larger number of subordinates and focus on other strategic organisational matters.
1. Direct single relationship:
If subordinates are competent to manage their jobs without much assistance from the superiors, span of control can be wide. Competent subordinates do not require frequent directions from the superiors with respect to various organisational activities. Superiors can thus, manage a larger group of subordinates.
2. Direct group relationships:
If plans clearly define the organisational/individual goals and policies, superiors can supervise a larger group of subordinates and have a wide span of control. Clearly defined plans include well-formulated policies procedures, methods etc. Particularly, if standing plans are well defined, subordinates know the broad guidelines within which they have to make decisions in similar and repetitive situations.
For one superior (X) and three subordinates (A, B, C), there will be 9 direct group relationships as follows:
They do not approach the superiors every time they face a similar problem-solving situations. Superiors can, thus, manage a larger group of subordinates. However, if most of the decisions are made by resorting to single use plans (programmes, budgets, projects etc.), managers have to be frequently approached and the span can, thus, be narrow.

The top executives look after important and specialised activities and, therefore, the span is narrow at the top level but at lower levels the span can be wide, since supervisors are mainly concerned with routine jobs. According to J.C. Worthy, a manager can supervise as many as 20 subordinates at the lower levels.

If authority-responsibility structure is well-defined and understood, superiors can supervise larger number of subordinates. People work within the confines of their responsibility and take directions from superiors only when required. Lack of clarity in authority-responsibility structure will create confusion in the organisation. Jobs and who will perform which job, who is accountable to whom will not be clear. In such a situation, managers cannot supervise a large group of subordinates. The span of management will, thus, be narrow.

Effective techniques of control can enable the manager to supervise larger number of subordinates. Effective system of control promotes decentralisation. Superiors do not actively involve in the decision-making processes as decisions are taken at the levels where they are required. There is extensive delegation, clarity of jobs, authority-responsibility relationships and freedom to take decisions. The span of control can, thus, be wide.

Both narrow and wide structures have financial constraints. A narrow span requires more managers and is, thus, a costly form of structure. Wide span, on the other hand, may result into organisational inefficiencies. Proper balance has to be maintained between the costs and benefits of the span that a manager can effectively supervise.

These factors are situational in nature and the span of management is also, thus, situational. Sometimes it can be narrow and sometimes wide. For the same organisation, it can be different for different functional areas and different levels. The span is usually narrow in the finance department and wide in the marketing department for the same level. It may be different in different organisations for the same functional areas and levels.

Graicunas Theory on Span of Management:

A French management consultant, V.A. Graicunas, introduced a theory on span of management which explains three kinds of relationships that a superior can have with subordinates. He formulated a theory and suggested the number of subordinates under one superior based on mathematical calculations. Superior-subordinate relationships are based on mathematical formulae.

1. Direct single relationships,
The number of relationship (9) is represented by the formula: 3. Cross relationships:
2. Direct group relationships, and
These are between:
3. Cross relationships.

This is the relationship between the superior and his immediate subordinates. It represents direct contact of the superior with his subordinates. If there are 3 subordinates (A, B and C) under one superior (X), there will be three direct single relationships, represented by the formula n. These are relationships between X and A, X and B, and X and C.

This is the relationship of superior with subordinates in the presence of other subordinates. All possible combinations of superior and subordinate relationship-exist in group relationships. It represents contact of the superior with one or more subordinates while others (one or more) assist the relationships.

1. X and A with B providing assistance

2. X and A with C providing assistance

3. X and B with C providing assistance

4. X and A with BC providing assistance

5. X and B with AC providing assistance

6. X and C with AB providing assistance

7. X and AB with C providing assistance

8. X and AC with B providing assistance

9. X and BC with A providing assistance

While the subordinates work under the same superior, they also interact amongst themselves. These are the relationships amongst subordinates. As interaction with B and B's interaction with A will be different as viewed by the managers and, therefore, this relationship will also be different. Based on the formula n (n -1), with 3 subordinates, 6 such relationships will be formed.

A and B

Band A

A and C

C and A

B and C

C and B

With every increase in the number of subordinates by one, increase in the number of relationships is by more than one. While, with 2 subordinates, the total number of relationships is 6, with 3 subordinates, it is 18.

The theory does not seem to have any practical application as it emphasises on the number of relationships and not on the importance of relationships. Based on Gaicunas' theory, many other management thinkers also suggested numerical limits on the span of management, ranging from 3 to 9 for top managerial positions and 8 to 30 for supervisory management. More than the number of subordinates that can affect the ability to manage the subordinates, managerial effectiveness is judged by the situational factors that can affect the span of management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Span of Management: Meaning, Factors and Theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After reading this article you will learn about:- 1. Meaning of Span of Management 2. Factors Affecting Span of Management 3. Graicunas Theory. Meaning of Span of Management: Depending upon the complexity of organisational activities and relationships amongst superiors and subordinates, it becomes important the superiors manage an optimum number of subordinates that result in ...

# data[].attributes.body
This video outlines Porter's Five Forces Model visually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The competitive forces that shape strategy — in under two minutes.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the site I used to find a template for a SWOT Analysis for this module. I was surprised to see there were so many different ways to do it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SWOT analysis template in word is an integral part of strategic analysis and planning in any organization, be it a business or a school organization. We are providing here 40 stunning free SWOT analysis template in word for your use. You can use these templates in any of your projects to showcase the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of your organization. The first 20 templates are custom made by Demplates for your use and the rest of them are collected from wide variety of sources present over the web. Enjoy the stunning templates and don't forget to link back to this page.

See Also:40 SWOT Analysis Examples of Real Businesses

See Also: 20 SWOT Analysis Template PPT files

1. Black and White SWOT analysis template

The cross-shaped, black and white template has a futuristic design to indicate the strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in a powerful manner.
2. Blue Green Speech Bubble Design
For those who want a colorful SWOT template, this one is a good option of with a really soothing combination of colors and beautiful design with nice use of four oval call outs.
3. Prism SWOT Template

The bright colored template has four triangles on four sides and is ideal for businesses.
4. Office Arrows Swot Template

Composed with vertical arrow lists in subtle colors, the template is a beautiful blend of sophistication and a modern outlook.
5. Purple Blue Swot Template
6. Pie based Template
7. Arrows & Boxes - Bold Template

Created out of Smart Art's vertical chevron list, the template is apt for its sleek design and appearance.
8. Plain Boxes - Swot Template
An excellent use of cycle matrix has led to the creation of this stunning template with cool colors.
9. Squares in Prism - Template

A grid matrix has been used to create this template with a clean design and apt color combinations.
10. Shades Swot Template
A powerful template with basic blocks of red, green, purple and blue is stunning to use.
11. Colored Leaves Template

The template has a basic matrix to indicate all the four components of a swot analysis clearly.
12. Circle with Blocks - Swot Template

This is a simple layout with four blocks of different colors closely placed to each other.
13. 3D SWOT Template
14. Keyboard Template 15. Pipeline Template

The flower shaped template has an absolutely clean design with some really contrasting colors like orange and blue.
16. Colored Bricks Template

This one is nice template to check out and download for free.
17. Speech Bubbles SWOT Template

Clean and interesting is what we can say all about this cool template with a bright color scheme in center.
18. Letter Drags SWOT Template

The template is a nice one with a splash of bright colors in the middle and subtle colors around.
19. Business Faces SWOT Template

A unique template with an interesting color scheme is what makes this template stands out apart from a crowd.
20. Circle with blocks template

With four cubes of some warm and cool colors, the template is an outstanding one for presenting the swot analysis.
21. Microsoft Word SWOT Analysis Template
Rectangular callouts and a circle in the middle make this template a nice one in appearance.
22. Download SWOT template in MS word
A visually refreshing template for swot analysis in a style is what we can say all about the template.
23. Blank SWOT Analysis Template
Ideal for businesses engaged in art and design, the custom template is an interesting blend of creativity and practicality.
24. Blank SWOT Analysis Template-2
A very clean template with wise use of ample white space and clearly defined shapes makes the template a definite pick.
26. Distinctive SWOT Analysis Template 25. Honeycomb Style Template 27. Dostoc SWOT Analysis Template
This template comes with color combination of green, blue and grey and has been already downloaded by over thousands of users.
28. Business Plan SWOT Analysis Template
The template offers precise information on what needs to be filled in each box of a SWOT analysis template. The template itself is a rather simple one here.

The template with a subtle color scheme comes in ready to use format and offers the much needed clarity on information to be filled in a SWOT analysis template.

This is another blank template without any color scheme. If you looking at plain and neat template without any color this is the one suitable for you.

For the purpose of displaying external and internal factors, four honeycombs are used to display each of the factors of SWOT in the below template.
31. Blue Cool SWOT Analysis Template
With generous doses of blue, the template is truly a distinct one and also has a PDF version to download along with a word format for easy use.

Grid shaped, the template is more useful for those who have confusion regarding the content need to be filled in a SWOT analysis.

The template is awesome for those who are going to start a business or are keen to flourish it by having all the components of a SWOT analysis well defined.

29. Office SWOT Analysis Template

Offered by Microsoft, the template is in excel, but can be easily copy pasted in a word file and a minor adjustment in column width can enable you to input your own text in word without any difficulty.
34. SWOT Analysis Template In Excel
30. SWOT Analysis PPT Template

This simple power point template can be easily copy pasted into a word document for a use. The text can be inserted by using a text box in all the four components. Don't forget to fill the text box with the same color as used in the template.

Like as before, this blue cool template is in power-point but can be inserted into a word file easily by a simple copy-paste. Insert text boxes to input your content at relevant places and don't forget to fill the boxes with blue, accent1, 80 % color to get the perfect look.
36. Simple SWOT Analysis
32. Entrepreneur SWOT Analysis Template
37. SWOT Analysis Template for Macintosh and Windows
The clean template is a deviation from a word template, but can be available for free. A pdf to word conversion software can be used to make it apt for use in a word document.

33. Useful SWOT Analysis Template

SWOT analysis can also be used to compare your strength and weaknesses with that of your competitors and no other template proves more useful in doing the same. Don't forget to select the template and copying it in a word file followed by adjustment of columns sizes for a quick use.

Provided by International Arbitrage Group, the template is quite a different one and has been downloaded successfully by over 50,000 users already.

35. Library SWOT Analysis Template

If you are searching for a simple template for library professionals, this template can be an ideal pick. This is more helpful for its content rather than its simple design that is easy to create using a two column table in word.

The template can be saved as an image file and can be inserted into a word file easily. Text can be input by creating a text box in the relevant boxes.

Available on a white background, the template can be easily incorporated into your word document as an image and factors can be added by including text boxes.

38. People Pod SWOT Analysis Template
SWOT Analysis
Although, the template is much more into giving out a framework of presenting a SWOT analysis in a word document, the template can be extremely helpful for any new company.
What is SWOT?
39. Clean SWOT Template In PDF

The template although in pdf format is beneficial for those who are looking for appropriate content to figure out the things, they need to put in the SWOT analysis template.

40. Grey & White SWOT Analysis Template

Since, it is not possible to save it as an image file, a print screen can be taken to use in a doc file as a refreshing template for SWOT analysis.
Effective SWOT Analysis
Lastly, we hope that we became successful in our endeavor to consolidate the best SWOT analysis templates from different sources to offer you a template that exactly fulfills your exact needs. Each of the templates featured above is either high on its content quotient or just perfect for a pleasing visual appeal.

Learn more about SWOT analysis and how you can use these swot templates below:

A SWOT analysis, alternatively called SWOT Matrix, is a method utilized for structure planning that highlights and evaluates strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Typically a SWOT analysis is used for projects or in business ventures; however, it can be used and added to products, places, industries and people. A SWOT analysis specifies the key objectives of a business venture or project and allows a project manager to identify certain factors that are either favorable or unfavorable. In the end, these factors are key in the determination of the feasibility of a project. When making a SWOT analysis, the following needs to be understood in order to be able to classify each factor accordingly.

As previously mentioned, SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. In order to accurately determine what factors go under each category, one must first understand exactly what each one entrails.

Strengths: These are the characteristics of a business project or venture that give it an advantage over others. A project manager or entrepreneur must first understand why his or her project is more advantageous than other.

Weaknesses: Similar to strengths, a business owner must be able to identify the factors that hold his or her project at a disadvantage when compared to other ventures. The characteristics are one of the most important aspects of creating a successful SWOT analysis and are usually the determining factors of feasibility and moving forward.

Opportunities: Once the main advantages and disadvantages of a venture are identified, a business owner must identify certain opportunities that will jumpstart his or her venture. These factors will serve to exploit and highlight the advantages to obtain the best possible outcome with proper execution.

Threats: Finally, the elements surrounding the venture that could potentially cause trouble for a business or project must be carefully identified so as to avoid surprises in the future while executing.

Identifying SWOTs is one of the most important things a business owner should do, because it provides an expedited stepping stone to achieving the objective efficiency and with a correct and sound approach. First, a decision maker should identify whether or not the objective is attainable in the first place. If it is not, then there is no point of a SWOT analysis for that certain objective and the business owner must move on to other objectives and determine whether or not it is attainable. Once a desired objective is determined to be feasible, the SWOT analysis can begin; however, the steps must be repeated until a feasible objective is selected.

There are many questions that need to be asked by people who are using SWOT analysis. In addition, there are even more questions that need to be answered by the same users. The questions that a decision make should ask should be structured and selected based on the idea that they generate meaningful insight for each of the four categories. It is not enough to simply ask: "What are the strengths of my venture?" In fact, the correct questions that need to be asked for that specific category are along the lines of profitability, ease of execution, operation, etc. This turns the analysis into a very useful one and allows decision makers to uncover potential competitive advantages they were not aware of.
Limitations of SWOT Analysis
In order to make the best use of a SWOT analysis, one must first come to terms with what work it entails. Sure, a paper and a pen work when brainstorming; however, in order to use the SWOT Analysis technique effectively, a decision maker must be aware of the tools that are at his or her disposal.

A SWOT diagram can be made in various shapes and size, but regardless, they all follow the same concept. The key is to list down all the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in an easy-to-define format and manner. Templates are readily available all over the web for decision makers who do not have time to sit and create one from scratch. Regardless of the method chosen for the SWOT diagram, the method of data entry is the key factor to obtaining and a good SWOT Analysis.

The first step is to add data to the diagram. This diagram, usually called a SWOT Matrix, needs to be filled in by strengths and weaknesses first. It is a simple 2 by 2 matrix that lists strengths and weaknesses in the first rows and opportunities and threats in the bottom row. This makes it easy to associate strengths with opportunities to further increase advantage. Likewise, weaknesses and threats can also be associated in order to assess the negative and disadvantageous potential impacts on your venture.

When adding strengths and weaknesses, one must always keep in mind that they are internal factors that are generally easy to identify. Factors can vary significantly depending on the purpose of the business venture and consequent SWOT analysis. For example, in a business environment, the strengths and weaknesses can be identified by classifying the following:
How to use SWOT in Strategy Formation?

Operation: How efficient is the software being utilized? Is it cost-effective? Does it provide an efficient reporting solution?

Finances: How much of an investment do you want to make? Is the capital expenditure sufficient for the purposes of the business venture? What is the forecasted profit? How does workforce size affect that?

Human Resources: How many people do you need to hire? Skill level? Geographical distribution? What is the ideal aggregate wage for the venture's purposes?

Distribution: Do you require sales partners? Is distribution going to be focused solely on local, regional or international areas?

This is just an example of the few strengths and weaknesses that can be identified and may differ from venture to venture. There can be many more areas that can be included.

Now, the hard part comes when adding external factors that are responsible for potential opportunities and threats. Unfortunately, this is not as straightforward and may include macroeconomic matters, legislation, sociocultural aspects, etc. The selection and identification of those factors depends on the venture's personal characteristics and need to be identified by the decision maker as he or she sees fit and based on experience.

Like most things in the world, nothing can claim absolute perfection. As useful as a SWOT analysis may be, it does have a few limitations and disadvantages that can further complicate the decision-making process.

A SWOT analysis may trick the decision maker into thinking that he or she are simply filling out a form with content that is based on completion. This couldn't be farther from the truth. If that is the case, then the decision make will completely disregard the critical thinking aspect of the SWOT analysis and will neglect some important factors that are vital to the success, or may contribute to the downfall, of his or her business venture.

In addition, the format of the SWOT analysis present the findings in a list-form that are not critical or objective. There is no room for prioritization, which further adds to the fact that some strong weaknesses may appear to be balanced with identified strengths. If that is the case, then, on paper, the business venture may seem attractive; however, it reality, the disadvantages may greatly outweigh the advantages.

A decision maker may be quick to eliminate a characteristic or entry in the SWOT analysis. It is important to remember that the individual factors that need to be maintained are the ones that generated value and result in the positive generation of strategies. A factor that does not generate important strategies needs to be identified and eliminated immediately.

Finally, the main purpose of actually undertaking a SWOT analysis is strategy formation. It can be a highly effective method that aids in building an organizational or personals strategy. A strategy-oriented analysis needs to follow the right steps:

Identify internal and external factors

Select and evaluate the most important factors

Identify relationships between internal and external factors

These steps, coupled with the right selection and identification of unbiased and sound factors by a decision maker will yield a near-perfect SWOT Analysis that can aid a business owner in making decisions regarding a multitude of scenarios.

An example of this is the relationship that exists between strengths and opportunities. A good relationship can mean that the venture is in good condition and an aggressive strategy can be used. On the other hand, when there is a stronger relationship between weaknesses and threats, the aggressive strategy must be swapped with a damage-limitation strategy, or defensive one, in order to correctly access the feasibility of the venture moving forward.

In the end, SWOT can be used to cater to multiple scenarios and can be very useful when preparing for an interview or coming up with a new business venture idea. It is even useful for current business owners who want to decide the path to take with regards to their company. There are many tools out there that enable complete control over your SWOT Analysis such as software and diagramming applications that offer cloud services so that you can always have your ideas with you on the move.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
40 Free SWOT Analysis Templates In Word - Demplates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you in search of Professional SWOT Template? Download these attractive SWOT templates in word to elevate your corporate presentations (Last 10 templates will surprise you). Get to know the intricacies of doing effective SWOT analysis and download their templates.

# data[].attributes.body
Also from Chapter 5, this link combines PERT and critical path, bringing them together. The site goes into detail about how to create a Gannt chart and how PERT relates to it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Planning and Scheduling More Complex Projects

Related variants: AOA or Activity-on-Arc Diagrams

Critical Path Analysis and PERT are powerful tools that help you to schedule and manage complex projects.

They were developed in the 1950s to control large defense projects, and have been used routinely since then. As with Gantt Charts, Critical Path Analysis (CPA) or the Critical Path Method (CPM) helps you to plan all tasks that must be completed as part of a project.

They act as the basis both for preparation of a schedule, and of resource planning. During management of a project, they allow you to monitor achievement of project goals. They help you to see where remedial action needs to be taken to get a project back on course.

Within a project it is likely that you will display your final project plan as a Gantt Chart (using Microsoft Project or other software for projects of medium complexity or an excel spreadsheet for projects of low complexity).The benefit of using CPA within the planning process is to help you develop and test your plan to ensure that it is robust. Critical Path Analysis formally identifies tasks which must be completed on time for the whole project to be completed on time. It also identifies which tasks can be delayed if resources need to be reallocated to catch up on missed or overrunning tasks. The disadvantage of CPA, if you use it as the technique by which your project plans are communicated and managed against, is that the relation of tasks to time is not as immediately obvious as with Gantt Charts. This can make them more difficult to understand.

A further benefit of Critical Path Analysis is that it helps you to identify the minimum length of time needed to complete a project. Where you need to run an accelerated project, it helps you to identify which project steps you should accelerate to complete the project within the available time.

How to Use the Tool

As with Gantt Charts, the essential concept behind Critical Path Analysis is that you cannot start some activities until others are finished. These activities need to be completed in a sequence, with each stage being more-or-less completed before the next stage can begin. These are "sequential" activities.

Other activities are not dependent on completion of any other tasks. You can do these at any time before or after a particular stage is reached. These are non-dependent or "parallel" tasks.

Drawing a Critical Path Analysis Chart

Use the following steps to draw a CPA Chart:

Step 1. List All Activities in the Plan

For each activity, show the earliest start date, estimated length of time it will take, and whether it is parallel or sequential. If tasks are sequential, show which stage they depend on.

For the project example used here, you will end up with the same task list as explained in the article on Gantt Charts (we will use the same example as with Gantt Charts to compare the two techniques). The chart is repeated in figure 1 below:

Figure 1. Task List: Planning a custom-written computer project

Step 2. Plot the Activities as a Circle and Arrow Diagram

Critical Path Analyses are presented using circle and arrow diagrams.

In these, circles show events within the project, such as the start and finish of tasks. The number shown in the left-hand half of the circle allows you to identify each one easily. Circles are sometimes known as nodes.

An arrow running between two event circles shows the activity needed to complete that task. A description of the task is written underneath the arrow. The length of the task is shown above it. By convention, all arrows run left to right. Arrows are also sometimes called arcs.

An example of a very simple diagram is shown below:

This shows the start event (circle 1), and the completion of the "High-Level Analysis" task (circle 2). The arrow between them shows the activity of carrying out the High-Level Analysis. This activity should take 1 week.

Where one activity cannot start until another has been completed, we start the arrow for the dependent activity at the completion event circle of the previous activity. An example of this is shown below:

Here the activities of "Select Hardware" and "Core Module Analysis" cannot be started until High Level Analysis has been completed. This diagram also brings out a number of other important points:

Within Critical Path Analysis, we refer to activities by the numbers in the circles at each end. For example, the task "Core Module Analysis" would be called activity 2 to 3. "Select Hardware" would be activity 2 to 9.

Activities are not drawn to scale. In the diagram above, activities are 1 week long, 2 weeks long, and 1 day long. Arrows in this case are all the same length.

In the example above, you can see a second number in the top, right hand quadrant of each circle. This shows the earliest start time for the following activity. It is conventional to start at 0. Here units are whole weeks.

A different case is shown below:

Here activity 6 to 7 cannot start until the other four activities (11 to 6, 5 to 6, 4 to 6, and 8 to 6) have been completed.

Click the link below for the full circle and arrow diagram for the computer project we are using as an example.
Figure 5: Full Critical Path Diagram
This shows all the activities that will take place as part of the project. Notice that each event circle also has a figure in the bottom, right hand quadrant. This shows the latest finish time that's permissible for the preceeding activity if the project is to be completed in the minimum time possible. You can calculate this by starting at the last event and working backwards. The latest finish time of the preceeding event and the earliest start time of the following even will be the same for circles on the critical path.

You can see that event M can start any time between weeks 6 and 8. The timing of this event is not critical. Events 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, 4 to 5, 5 to 6 and 6 to 7 must be started and completed on time if the project is to be completed in 10 weeks. This is the "critical path" - these activities must be very closely managed to ensure that activities are completed on time. If jobs on the critical path slip, immediate action should be taken to get the project back on schedule. Otherwise, completion of the whole project will slip.

"Crash Action"

You may find that you need to complete a project earlier than your Critical Path Analysis says is possible. In this case, you need to re-plan your project.

You have a number of options and would need to assess the impact of each on the project's cost, quality and time required to complete it. For example, you could increase resource available for each project activity to bring down time spent on each but the impact of some of this would be insignificant and a more efficient way of doing this would be to look only at activities on the critical path.

As an example, it may be necessary to complete the computer project in figure 5, in 8 weeks rather than 10 weeks. In this case, you could look at using two analysts in activities 2 to 3 and 3 to 4. This would shorten the project by two weeks, but may raise the project cost - doubling resources at any stage may only improve productivity by, say, 50 percent as additional time may need to be spent getting the team members up to speed on what is required, coordinating tasks split between them, integrating their contributions etc.

In some situations, shortening the original critical path of a project can lead to a different series of activities becoming the critical path. For example, if activity 4 to 5 were reduced to 1 week, activities 4 to 8 and 8 to 6 would come onto the critical path.

As with Gantt Charts, in practice, project managers use software tools like Microsoft Project to create CPA Charts. Not only do these make them easier to draw, they also make modification of plans easier and provide facilities for monitoring progress against plans.

PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique)

PERT is a variation on Critical Path Analysis that takes a slightly more skeptical view of time estimates made for each project stage. To use it, estimate the shortest possible time each activity will take, the most likely length of time, and the longest time that might be taken if the activity takes longer than expected.

Use the formula below to calculate the time to use for each project stage:

shortest time + 4 x likely time + longest time
----------------------------------------------------------
6

This helps to bias time estimates away from the unrealistically short time-scales normally assumed.

Key Points

Critical Path Analysis is an effective and powerful method of assessing:

What tasks must be carried out.

Where parallel activity can be performed.

The shortest time in which you can complete a project.

Resources needed to execute a project.

The sequence of activities, scheduling and timings involved.

Task priorities.

The most efficient way of shortening time on urgent projects.

An effective Critical Path Analysis can make the difference between success and failure on complex projects. It can be very useful for assessing the importance of problems faced during the implementation of the plan.

PERT is a variant of Critical Path Analysis that takes a more skeptical view of the time needed to complete each project stage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Critical Path Analysis and PERT ChartsPlanning and Scheduling More Complex Projects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Planning and Scheduling More Complex Projects Critical Path Analysis and PERT are powerful tools that help you to schedule and manage complex projects. They were developed in the 1950s to control large defense projects, and have been used routinely since then.

# data[].attributes.body
In Chapter 5, the Gannt chart was mentioned but not fully explained how I would have liked, and I wanted to learn more about it. There's a website completely devoted to it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is a Gantt Chart? Gantt Chart Software, Information, and History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find information about Gantt charts, gantt chart software, the history of Gantt charts and how they are used in project management.

# data[].attributes.body
Expatriates are leaving Abu Dahbi, United Emirates, because of rising cost of living. This area used to be a contender for high-paying oil jobs, but is now losing workers as they leave to find more affordable living arrangements elsewhere outside the country.

https://www.ft.com/content/2d7401f8-ec8f-11e6-930f-061b01e23655

# data[].attributes.body
Chapter 4 went over Hofstede's ideas for describing culture. This website expands on those ideas and gives more examples so they can be better understood.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Indulgence Versus Restraint.

Note: in the original version of the book "Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation" was described as "Pragmatic Versus Normative."

Hofstede, Bond and Minkov scored each country on a scale of 0 to 100 for each dimension.

When Hofstede analyzed his database of culture statistics, he found clear patterns of similarity and difference along the four dimensions. And, because his research focused solely on IBM employees, he could attribute those patterns to national differences, and minimize the impact of company culture.

Let's look at the six dimensions in more detail.

1. Power Distance Index (PDI)

This refers to the degree of inequality that exists - and is accepted - between people with and without power.

A high PDI score indicates that a society accepts an unequal, hierarchical distribution of power, and that people understand "their place" in the system. A low PDI score means that power is shared and is widely dispersed, and that society members do not accept situations where power is distributed unequally.

Application: According to the model, in a high PDI country, such as Malaysia (100), team members will not initiate any action, and they like to be guided and directed to complete a task. If a manager doesn't take charge, they may think that the task isn't important.

2. Individualism Versus Collectivism (IDV)

This refers to the strength of the ties that people have to others within their community.

A high IDV score indicates weak interpersonal connection among those who are not part of a core "family." Here, people take less responsibility for others' actions and outcomes.

In a collectivist society, however, people are supposed to be loyal to the group to which they belong, and, in exchange, the group will defend their interests. The group itself is normally larger, and people take responsibility for one another's well-being.

Application: Central American countries Panama and Guatemala have very low IDV scores (11 and six, respectively). In these countries, as an example, a marketing campaign that emphasizes benefits to the community would likely be understood and well received, as long as the people addressed feel part of the same group.

3. Masculinity Versus Femininity (MAS)

This refers to the distribution of roles between men and women. In masculine societies, the roles of men and women overlap less, and men are expected to behave assertively. Demonstrating your success, and being strong and fast, are seen as positive characteristics.

In feminine societies, however, there is a great deal of overlap between male and female roles, and modesty is perceived as a virtue. Greater importance is placed on good relationships with your direct supervisors, or working with people who cooperate well with one another.

The gap between men's and women's values is largest in Japan and Austria, with MAS scores of 95 and 79 respectively. In both countries, men score highly for exhibiting "tough," masculine values and behaviors, but, in fact, women also score relatively highly for having masculine values, though on average lower than men.

Application: As we've highlighted, Japan has the highest MAS score of 95, whereas Sweden has the lowest measured value of five. Therefore, if you open an office in Japan, you should recognize you are operating in a hierarchical, deferential and traditionally patriarchal society. Long hours are the norm. And this can make it harder for female team members to gain advancement, due to family commitments.

At the same time, Japan is a culture where all children (male and female) learn the value of competition and winning as part of a team from a young age. Therefore, female team members are just as likely to display these notionally masculine traits as their male colleagues.

By comparison, Sweden is a very feminine society, according to Hofstede's model. Here, people focus on managing through discussion, consensus, compromise, and negotiation.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

This dimension describes how well people can cope with anxiety.

In societies that score highly for Uncertainty Avoidance, people attempt to make life as predictable and controllable as possible. If they find that they can't control their own lives, they may be tempted to stop trying. These people may refer to "mañana," or put their fate "in the hands of God."

People in low UAI-scoring countries are more relaxed, open or inclusive.

Bear in mind that avoiding uncertainty is not necessarily the same as avoiding risk. Hofstede argues that you may find people in high-scoring countries who are prepared to engage in risky behavior, precisely because it reduces ambiguities, or in order to avoid failure.

Application: In Hofstede's model, Greece tops the UAI scale with 100, while Singapore scores the lowest with eight.

Therefore, during a meeting in Greece, you might be keen to generate discussion, because you recognize that there's a cultural tendency for team members to make the safest, most conservative decisions, despite any emotional outbursts. Your aim is to encourage them to become more open to different ideas and approaches, but it may be helpful to provide a relatively limited, structured set of options or solutions.

5. Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation

This dimension was originally described as "Pragmatic Versus Normative (PRA)." It refers to the time horizon people in a society display. Countries with a long-term orientation tend to be pragmatic, modest, and more thrifty. In short-term oriented countries, people tend to place more emphasis on principles, consistency and truth, and are typically religious and nationalistic.

Application: The U.S. has a short-term orientation. This is reflected in the importance of short-term gains and quick results (profit and loss statements are quarterly, for example). It is also reflected in the country's strong sense of nationalism and social standards.

6. Indulgence Versus Restraint (IVR)

Hofstede's sixth dimension, discovered and described together with Michael Minkov, is also relatively new, and is therefore accompanied by less data.

Countries with a high IVR score allow or encourage relatively free gratification of people's own drives and emotions, such as enjoying life and having fun. In a society with a low IVR score, there is more emphasis on suppressing gratification and more regulation of people's conduct and behavior, and there are stricter social norms.

Application: According to the model, Eastern European countries, including Russia, have a low IVR score. Hofstede argues that these countries are characterized by a restrained culture, where there is a tendency towards pessimism. People put little emphasis on leisure time and, as the title suggests, people try to restrain themselves to a high degree.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions - Understanding Different Countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Work effectively with people from other nations and cultures by using Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions to understand how they will likely think and behave.

# data[].attributes.body
Latest article written on New York Times (as of 01/29/17) about members of the European Union and possible worries of 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Europe is facing multiple tribulations in 2017, engulfed in uncertainties over terrorism, borders, migration, economics and President Trump's new America First message booming from across the Atlantic.

"It's not the first time Europe has been challenged by crisis," said Anna-Lena Högenauer, a researcher at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Luxembourg, but "there's definitely a combination of crises."

Here are some of the potentially disruptive issues and events looming for the year that could reshape - or at least deepen - the fractures in the European Union, a 28-nation bloc of more than a half-billion people and the world's largest single free-trade zone.

Will 'Brexit' cause instability?

Negotiations for Britain's exit from the European Union, known as "Brexit," the outcome of a referendum last June, could officially start by the end of March, a self-imposed deadline set by Prime Minister Theresa May. But the run-up to those negotiations - further complicated by a Supreme Court ruling that Ms. May needs Parliament's approval to begin the process - has created enormous uncertainties. They include how European Union citizens residing in Britain - and the British citizens residing in other European Union countries - will work and live if they cannot freely traverse borders as they do now.

Big banks and other multinational companies with operations in London and elsewhere in Britain are not awaiting the outcome of the negotiations, expected to last two years, that will determine the scope of the country's changed status. They are making contingency plans to move thousands of jobs elsewhere. Other European Union members are eager to get those jobs. Their leaders also have suggested that Britain must be penalized economically to discourage further defections from the bloc.

Britain's decision also threatens to alter its geography and possibly stoke political instability. Scotland and Northern Ireland had wanted to stay within the European Union, and may now move to leave Britain. A new referendum on Scottish independence - reprising a measure that was defeated in 2014 - is now considered likely. Unrest in Northern Ireland could resume if the border with Ireland, a European Union member, is restricted.

Image

Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain last week at the House of Commons in London. Credit Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

Guy Verhofstadt, the European Union's negotiator for Britain's exit, wrote in The Guardian on Jan. 18 that "Brexit will be a sad, surreal and exhausting process."

Will Turkey turn away from Europe?

Turkey has been negotiating to become a European Union member for more than a decade, but that prospect has turned more doubtful, partly because of the authoritarian actions of the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, particularly since a failed coup attempt in July.

Increasingly exasperated with the European Union, Mr. Erdogan has suggested that he may hold a referendum in Turkey this year on whether to withdraw its membership application. Mr. Erdogan has also suggested that he may seek to restore the death penalty in Turkey, a step that other European leaders say would disqualify the country from joining the European Union.

Nonetheless, European officials are loath to suspend the negotiations for fear that Mr. Erdogan will scrap an agreement to restrict the flow of migrants and refugees from Turkey into Europe, an exodus that has placed extraordinary strains on the Continent and helped incite nationalist and populist anger.

Can Greece find relief?

The country that came to symbolize Europe's economic travails a few years ago has receded from the headlines somewhat, obscured by Brexit, fears of terrorist attacks in European cities and coming elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany. But Greece's economy remains anemic and in need of more debt relief.

Despite three bailouts in five years, poverty rates are increasing and the unemployment rate is Europe's highest. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras of the leftist Syriza Party, who rose to power in 2015 on his defiance of Greece's creditors and threat to leave the European Union's single-currency zone, is sagging in the polls, raising the possibility of political turbulence and new elections.

A protesters waved an 'estaladas' (pro-independence Catalan flags) during a demonstration in Barcelona on the National Day of Catalonia in September. Credit Josep Lago/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

Negotiations for further restructuring of Greece's debts, involving Germany and the International Monetary Fund, also have encountered difficulties. "If the I.M.F. and Germany cannot find a way out, this is a serious problem," said Dimitrios Argyroulis, a political economics scholar at the University of Sheffield.

Can Italy's banks stay afloat?

The chronically troubled economy of Italy, the European Union's fourth largest, has aroused growing concern as possibly the next Greek-style debt crisis. The main reason is the weakness of Italy's big banks, which are carrying hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of bad loans. They are reluctant to lend more money, which is precisely what Italy needs to stimulate its economy.

Italy's debt levels also have irked Germany, Europe's strongest economy, where leaders are reluctant to help finance any bailout. "The current developments do not bode well and point to the possibility of repeating the Greece disaster on a much larger scale," Geopolitical Futures, a forecasting firm, said in a Jan. 20 posting on its website.

Will Catalonia leave Spain?

The regional parliament of Spain's semiautonomous Catalonia region voted in November 2015 to begin a process to achieve independence in 2017 - an outcome the Spanish government has vowed to block. But the secessionists, buoyed by the Brexit referendum, say the momentum of nationalist movements in Europe is on their side. Whether they will succeed remains unclear at best.

Will the United States stand with Europe?

The European Union and United States have closely coordinated their regimen of economic sanctions imposed on Russia in 2014, a response to Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and military actions in eastern Ukraine. But President Trump has injected uncertainty into Europe over a unified stand toward Russia, suggesting he wants to ease or terminate the sanctions. Mr. Trump, whose amity toward Russia is a political issue in the United States, also has criticized NATO, asserting that the alliance is obsolete - a description that Russian officials have welcomed.

While Mr. Trump's subordinates have sought to reassure European Union leaders that the United States remains a reliable ally, doubts have been planted. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the foreign minister of Germany at the time Trump made those remarks, said they had "caused astonishment."

The French far-right leader and candidate for next spring's presidential elections, Marine Le Pen, celebrates after her speech at a meeting of European Nationalists in Koblenz, Germany, on Jan. 21. She has said she hopes to replicate President Trump's success in her country. Credit Michael Probst/Associated Press

Will nationalists triumph elsewhere?

Emboldened by the momentum of Brexit and Mr. Trump, nationalist politicians espousing hostility toward the European Union and Muslim immigrants have made strong gains in campaigns for coming elections in three European countries, including the two largest.

In the Netherlands, where a national vote is set for March 15, the populist lawmaker Geert Wilders, who wants to slash immigration and follow Britain out of the European Union, is doing well in the polls. Other Dutch politicians, including Prime Minister Mark Rutte, have ruled out working with Mr. Wilders and his Freedom Party, which most likely means that Mr. Wilders will not be the next prime minister.

But in a sign of Mr. Wilders's influence, Mr. Rutte has taken his own hard-right turn, warning immigrants against behavior that offends the "silent majority."

In France, where presidential elections are set for April 23 with a runoff between the two top candidates on May 7, the rise of the extreme right has been a dominant theme. Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, has said she hopes to replicate Mr. Trump'ssuccess. She supports a referendum on European Union membership and new border controls.

Germany holds federal elections Sept. 24, which will determine the future of Chancellor Angela Merkel. But her positions on European unity, open borders and generosity toward refugees have seriously weakened her popularity. Mr. Trump mocked and insulted her during his campaign, describing his Democratic adversary, Hillary Clinton, as "America's Merkel," and called the German leader's refugee policy "insane."

At the same time, Germany's biggest political story is the rapid ascent of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, which has evoked memories of the Nazis as it campaigns on denunciations of Ms. Merkel, the euro, immigration and Islam.

Even if Ms. Merkel survives to win a fourth term as chancellor, political analysts see her as a weakened figure, and at the worst possible time.

"Europe has never needed a strong Merkel more," Ian Bremmer, founder and president of the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultant firm in Washington, said this month in an assessment of the year's most dangerous risks. "In 2017, she'll be unavailable for the role."

Correction:

An article last Sunday about challenges facing Europe in 2017 misidentified the party of Geert Wilders, a populist lawmaker in the Netherlands who wants to slash immigration and lead the country out of the European Union. It is the Freedom Party, not the Party for Freedom and Democracy. (The latter is Prime Minister Mark Rutte's party.)

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: Questions That Could Reshape Europe. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Questions That Could Reshape a Worried Europe in 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Europe is facing multiple tribulations in 2017, engulfed in uncertainties over terrorism, borders, migration, economics and President Trump's new America First message booming from across the Atlantic. "It's not the first time Europe has been challenged by crisis," said Anna-Lena Högenauer, a researcher at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Luxembourg, but "there's definitely a combination of crises."

# data[].attributes.body
Visual representation of NAFTA from:
http://blog.glencoe.com/?p=683

# data[].attributes.body
In Chapter 2, LEED was mentioned very briefly and I wanted to learn more about it. This is the link to their official website where it explains what they're about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is the most widely used green building rating system in the world. Available for virtually all building, community and home project types, LEED provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient and cost-saving green buildings. LEED certification is a globally recognized symbol of sustainability achievement.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this illustration sums up about what I thought managers were and what they do before I started this course.
From: http://developmentstep.blogspot.com/2012/03/top-10-key-elements-of-good-manager.html

# data[].attributes.body
Exactly how consumers see sustainability from the outside. As seen in an article at: http://www.greenhotelier.org/know-how-guides/communicating-sustainability-to-guests/

# data[].attributes.body
This is a perfect example of age discrimination at its finest. Most of the time, it's so obvious, they don't even realize they're doing it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
age discrimination suit By rmay | Business Cartoon | TOONPOOL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TOONPOOL Cartoons - age discrimination suit by rmay, tagged age, discrimination, suit - Category Business - rated 3.00 / 5.00

# data[].attributes.body
Forbes had this great article that reminded me of the plateau/maintenance stage of peoples' careers that we learned about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How will you know when it's time to change jobs? It is easy to miss the signs that your job no longer suits you.

It's so easy to fall into a stupor when your job meets your basic needs. A job search seems like such an undertaking that we think "I'm fine. I can hang out in this job for a while yet."

We say to ourselves "Maybe my job isn't the greatest job of all time but at least I have a job. I can think about changing jobs in 2018. I don't have to think about it now."

It's true that if you have a decent job that pays a reasonable salary and uses your brain even a little bit, you are doing well relative to lots of people -- but is that enough?

All you have to sell to employers throughout your career is your story. Your triumphs, your accomplishments and your "Aha!s" are the only things that will get you a new and better job when you need one or when you want one.

The same stories and triumphs will boost your salary over time, but only if you're always collecting new stories to tell!

If you aren't collecting accomplishments, triumphs and Dragon-Slaying Stories at your current job, then your paycheck is not enough. Your paycheck sustains you for two weeks, if that.

You need a bigger platform, and you'll build that platform by seeking out new challenges and learning opportunities whenever the previous source of challenges and learning opportunities gets stale.

If you are not constantly learning and growing your resume, your network and your confidence, then your job is ripping you off. You are putting more into the job than you are getting out of it.

When you do the same things day in and day out for years, you may as well be locked away in a cave or living in a bubble. The real world outside your office walls is constantly changing.

We need to stay in step with those real-world changes!

Here are five unmistakable signs it's time to change jobs -- maybe not today or tomorrow, but before you fall back into slumber and let another year pass you by.
Five Unmistakable Signs It's Time To Change Jobs
1. You're working on a big project at work and it's stressful, but you've had the same stress a million times before. You wake up in the middle of the night worried about the work on your desk. When you finish this big, gnarly project another one will be right behind it. These projects stress you out but they don't grow your flame. Are they really the best use of your time and talents?

2. You see no opportunity for advancement in your company, no matter how you try to stretch your job description and show your managers what you're capable of.

3. When you walk into your workplace every day, you adopt a persona that you would never take on when you're with your real friends. You can't be yourself at work -- they wouldn't like it if you did.

4. You look forward to weekends but on the weekends, you stress about work and even go into the office to get a few things done before Monday.

5. You dread going to work on Monday morning.

Your body is the best teacher. Listen to it! If you think that contemplating a job search is stressful, just imagine how much stress your body is taking on right now, as you slog through the week at a job that no longer deserves you.

You will feel a jolt of power when you take the first step in reclaiming your career.

That step could be getting a journal and writing in it. It could be starting work on your Human-Voiced Resume or reading the job ads to see what various employers are looking for. ( Don't be intimidated by reading job ads!)

You can take a step in the direction of your path today. You deserve to work in a place where you can shine and where they appreciate your gifts. You are qualified and capable. You don't need to settle for less!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Unmistakable Signs It's Time To Change Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How will you know when it's time to change jobs? It is easy to miss the signs that your job no longer suits you. It's so easy to fall into a stupor when your job meets your basic needs. A job search seems like such an undertaking that we think "I'm fine.

# data[].attributes.body
Chapter 3 taught us a bit about discrimination, while our first discussion of this module taught us about gender diversity in the workplace. It seems we aren't the only country with those same issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the U.S., we hear a lot about the gender pay gap. Across the globe, there are countries where women expect to make just as much or more than men, and others where women's salary expectations are significantly grimmer.

H.R. consulting firm Universum Global recently released its annual research on salary expectations. It surveyed 302,807 business students in 57 countries and asked what they expect to make in their first year after graduation.

We'll first look at the countries with the narrowest gender gaps in pay expectations, and then those with the widest differences.

Morocco was the only nation surveyed where women expected to earn more than men. That doesn't mean they have equal economic status-only 27% of Moroccan women are in the labor force at all, compared with 78% of men.

In the UAE, women expect to earn nearly as much as men, but only 42% of females participate in the labor force, compared with 92% of males. The women who work in the UAE and Morocco tend to have higher education levels, a factor that partly drives their higher relative income.

In the U.S., women's salary expectations are 91% of men's, and the actual gender pay gap is about 80%.

Bulgaria has the widest gender gap in pay expectations of any country, although more women participate in the labor force there ( 65%) than in Africa or the Middle East.

In Saudi Arabia, the nation tied for the second-largest gap in expectations and where women can't legally drive, only 21% of women work or are seeking work.

If you're a woman assessing your current or future salary, research the averages in your city and industry with tools like Glassdoor and PayScale. For a pay raise, remember that if you started at a lower base than your peers, even a 20% bump could mean you're still underpaid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Countries With The Best And Worst Gender Pay Gap Expectations -- And How The U.S. Stacks Up

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Across the globe, there are countries where women expect to make just as much or more than men, and others where women's salary expectations are grimmer. H.R. consulting firm Universum Global released its annual list of salary expectations. It surveyed 302,807 business students in 57 countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Our first discussion was about Steve Jobs and his management skills. After doing the work for the discussion, we generally found that he has no real people skills. But from viewing this interview, he sure looks the part of ingenious leader, doesn't he?

# data[].attributes.body
This link has cartoons that pretty well summarize what most people feel about management and managers before they understand the real definition and work that goes into it. I felt this was appropriate, as it shows how little people know about management, much like most of us students starting out in this class.