# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of Management Controls on Productivity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mangers have various means of controlling productivity and monitoring the individuals under their direction. Some controls are sophisticated and involve process improvement techniques, while others are standard activities seen in all types of organizations. Management must promote productivity in order for businesses ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The larger shape of institutional change is always difficult to recognize when one stands right in the middle of it. Today, throughout American industry, a significant change is under way in long-established approaches to the organization and management of work. Although this shift in attitude and practice takes a wide variety of company-specific forms, its larger shape-its overall pattern-is already visible if one knows where and how to look.

Consider, for example, the marked differences between two plants in the chemical products division of a major U.S. corporation. Both make similar products and employ similar technologies, but that is virtually all they have in common.

The first, organized by businesses with an identifiable product or product line, divides its employees into self-supervising 10- to 15-person work teams that are collectively responsible for a set of related tasks. Each team member has the training to perform many or all of the tasks for which the team is accountable, and pay reflects the level of mastery of required skills. These teams have received assurances that management will go to extra lengths to provide continued employment in any economic downturn. The teams have also been thoroughly briefed on such issues as market share, product costs, and their implications for the business.

Not surprisingly, this plant is a top performer economically and rates well on all measures of employee satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover, and safety. With its employees actively engaged in identifying and solving problems, it operates with fewer levels of management and fewer specialized departments than do its sister plants. It is also one of the principal suppliers of management talent for these other plants and for the division manufacturing staff.

In the second plant, each employee is responsible for a fixed job and is required to perform up to the minimum standard defined for that job. Peer pressure keeps new employees from exceeding the minimum standards and from taking other initiatives that go beyond basic job requirements. Supervisors, who manage daily assignments and monitor performance, have long since given up hope for anything more than compliance with standards, finding sufficient difficulty in getting their people to perform adequately most of the time. In fact, they and their workers try to prevent the industrial engineering department, which is under pressure from top plant management to improve operations, from using changes in methods to "jack up" standards.

A recent management campaign to document an "airtight case" against employees who have excessive absenteeism or sub-par performance mirrors employees' low morale and high distrust of management. A constant stream of formal grievances, violations of plant rules, harassment of supervisors, wildcat walkouts, and even sabotage has prevented the plant from reaching its productivity and quality goals and has absorbed a disproportionate amount of division staff time. Dealings with the union are characterized by contract negotiations on economic matters and skirmishes over issues of management control.

No responsible manager, of course, would ever wish to encourage the kind of situation at this second plant, yet the determination to understand its deeper causes and to attack them at their root does not come easily. Established modes of doing things have an inertia all their own. Such an effort is, however, in process all across the industrial landscape. And with that effort comes the possibility of a revolution in industrial relations every bit as great as that occasioned by the rise of mass production the better part of a century ago. The challenge is clear to those managers willing to see it-and the potential benefits, enormous.

Approaches to Work-Force Management

What explains the extraordinary differences between the plants just described? Is it that the first is new (built in 1976) and the other old? Yes and no. Not all new plants enjoy so fruitful an approach to work organization; not all older plants have such intractable problems. Is it that one plant is unionized and the other not? Again, yes and no. The presence of a union may institutionalize conflict and lackluster performance, but it seldom causes them.

At issue here is not so much age or unionization but two radically different strategies for managing a company's or a factory's work force, two incompatible views of what managers can reasonably expect of workers and of the kind of partnership they can share with them. For simplicity, I will speak of these profound differences as reflecting the choice between a strategy based on imposing control and a strategy based on eliciting commitment.

The "control" strategy.

The traditional-or control-oriented-approach to work-force management took shape during the early part of this century in response to the division of work into small, fixed jobs for which individuals could be held accountable. The actual definition of jobs, as of acceptable standards of performance, rested on "lowest common denominator" assumptions about workers' skill and motivation. To monitor and control effort of this assumed caliber, management organized its own responsibilities into a hierarchy of specialized roles buttressed by a top-down allocation of authority and by status symbols attached to positions in the hierarchy.

For workers, compensation followed the rubric of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work" because precise evaluations were possible when individual job requirements were so carefully prescribed. Most managers had little doubt that labor was best thought of as a variable cost, although some exceptional companies guaranteed job security to head off unionization attempts.

In the traditional approach, there was generally little policy definition with regard to employee voice unless the work force was unionized, in which case damage control strategies predominated. With no union, management relied on an open-door policy, attitude surveys, and similar devices to learn about employees' concerns. If the work force was unionized, then management bargained terms of employment and established an appeal mechanism. These activities fell to labor relations specialists, who operated independently from line management and whose very existence assumed the inevitability and even the appropriateness of an adversarial relationship between workers and managers. Indeed, to those who saw management's exclusive obligation to be to a company's shareowners and the ownership of property to be the ultimate source of both obligation and prerogative, the claims of employees were constraints, nothing more.

At the heart of this traditional model is the wish to establish order, exercise control, and achieve efficiency in the application of the work force. Although it has distant antecedents in the bureaucracies of both church and military, the model's real father is Frederick W. Taylor, the turn-of-the-century "father of scientific management," whose views about the proper organization of work have long influenced management practice as well as the reactive policies of the U.S. labor movement.

Recently, however, changing expectations among workers have prompted a growing disillusionment with the apparatus of control. At the same time, of course, an intensified challenge from abroad has made the competitive obsolescence of this strategy clear. A model that assumes low employee commitment and that is designed to produce reliable if not outstanding performance simply cannot match the standards of excellence set by world-class competitors. Especially in a high-wage country like the United States, market success depends on a superior level of performance, a level that, in turn, requires the deep commitment, not merely the obedience-if you could obtain it-of workers. And as painful experience shows, this commitment cannot flourish in a workplace dominated by the familiar model of control.

The "commitment" strategy.

Since the early 1970s, companies have experimented at the plant level with a radically different work-force strategy. The more visible pioneers-among them, General Foods at Topeka, Kansas; General Motors at Brookhaven, Mississippi; Cummins Engine at Jamestown, New York; and Procter & Gamble at Lima, Ohio-have begun to show how great and productive the contribution of a truly committed work force can be. For a time, all new plants of this sort were nonunion, but by 1980 the success of efforts undertaken jointly with unions-GM's cooperation with the UAW at the Cadillac plant in Livonia, Michigan, for example-was impressive enough to encourage managers of both new and existing facilities to rethink their approach to the work force.

Stimulated in part by the dramatic turnaround at GM's Tarrytown assembly plant in the mid 1970s, local managers and union officials are increasingly talking about common interests, working to develop mutual trust, and agreeing to sponsor quality-of-work-life (QWL) or employee involvement (EI) activities. Although most of these ventures have been initiated at the local level, major exceptions include the joint effort between the Communication Workers of America and AT&T to promote QWL throughout the Bell System and the UAW-Ford EI program centrally directed by Donald Ephlin of the UAW and Peter Pestillo of Ford. In the nonunion sphere, the spirit of these new initiatives is evident in the decision by workers of Delta Airlines to show their commitment to the company by collecting money to buy a new plane.

More recently, a growing number of manufacturing companies has begun to remove levels of plant hierarchy, increase managers' spans of control, integrate quality and production activities at lower organizational levels, combine production and maintenance operations, and open up new career possibilities for workers. Some corporations have even begun to chart organizational renewal for the entire company. Cummins Engine, for example, has ambitiously committed itself to inform employees about the business, to encourage participation by everyone, and to create jobs that involve greater responsibility and more flexibility.

In this new commitment-based approach to the work force, jobs are designed to be broader than before, to combine planning and implementation, and to include efforts to upgrade operations, not just maintain them. Individual responsibilities are expected to change as conditions change, and teams, not individuals, often are the organizational units accountable for performance. With management hierarchies relatively flat and differences in status minimized, control and lateral coordination depend on shared goals, and expertise rather than formal position determines influence.

People Express, to cite one example, started up with its management hierarchy limited to three levels, organized its work force into three- or four-person groups, and created positions with exceptionally broad scope. Every full-time employee is a "manager": flight managers are pilots who also perform dispatching and safety checks; maintenance managers are technicians with other staff responsibilities; customer service managers take care of ticketing, security clearance, passenger boarding, and in-flight service. Everyone, including the officers, is expected to rotate among functions to boost all workers' understanding of the business and to promote personal development.

Under the commitment strategy, performance expectations are high and serve not to define minimum standards but to provide "stretch objectives," emphasize continuous improvement, and reflect the requirements of the marketplace. Accordingly, compensation policies reflect less the old formulas of job evaluation than the heightened importance of group achievement, the expanded scope of individual contribution, and the growing concern for such questions of "equity" as gain sharing, stock ownership, and profit sharing. This principle of economic sharing is not new. It has long played a role in Dana Corporation, which has many unionized plants, and is a fundamental part of the strategy of People Express, which has no union. Today, Ford sees it as an important part of the company's transition to a commitment strategy.

Equally important to the commitment strategy is the challenge of giving employees some assurance of security, perhaps by offering them priority in training and retraining as old jobs are eliminated and new ones created. Guaranteeing employees access to due process and providing them the means to be heard on such issues as production methods, problem solving, and human resource policies and practices is also a challenge. In unionized settings, the additional tasks include making relations less adversarial, broadening the agenda for joint problem solving and planning, and facilitating employee consultation.

Underlying all these policies is a management philosophy, often embodied in a published statement, that acknowledges the legitimate claims of a company's multiple stakeholders-owners, employees, customers, and the public. At the center of this philosophy is a belief that eliciting employee commitment will lead to enhanced performance. The evidence shows this belief to be well-grounded. In the absence of genuine commitment, however, new management policies designed for a committed work force may well leave a company distinctly more vulnerable than would older policies based on the control approach. The advantages-and risks-are considerable.

The Costs of Commitment

Because the potential leverage of a commitment-oriented strategy on performance is so great, the natural temptation is to assume the universal applicability of that strategy. Some environments, however, especially those requiring intricate teamwork, problem solving, organizational learning, and self-monitoring, are better suited than others to the commitment model. Indeed, the pioneers of the deep commitment strategy-a fertilizer plant in Norway, a refinery in the United Kingdom, a paper mill in Pennsylvania, a pet-food processing plant in Kansas-were all based on continuous process technologies and were all capital and raw material intensive. All provided high economic leverage to improvements in workers' skills and attitudes, and all could offer considerable job challenge.

Is the converse true? Is the control strategy appropriate whenever-as with convicts breaking rocks with sledgehammers in a prison yard-work can be completely prescribed, remains static, and calls for individual, not group, effort? In practice, managers have long answered yes. Mass production, epitomized by the assembly line, has for years been thought suitable for old-fashioned control.

But not any longer. Many mass producers, not least the automakers, have recently been trying to reconceive the structure of work and to give employees a significant role in solving problems and improving methods. Why? For many reasons, including to boost in-plant quality, lower warranty costs, cut waste, raise machine utilization and total capacity with the same plant and equipment, reduce operating and support personnel, reduce turnover and absenteeism, and speed up implementation of change. In addition, some managers place direct value on the fact that the commitment policies promote the development of human skills and individual self-esteem.

The benefits, economic and human, of worker commitment extend not only to continuous-process industries but to traditional manufacturing industries as well. What, though, are the costs? To achieve these gains, managers have had to invest extra effort, develop new skills and relationships, cope with higher levels of ambiguity and uncertainty, and experience the pain and discomfort associated with changing habits and attitudes. Some of their skills have become obsolete, and some of their careers have been casualties of change. Union officials, too, have had to face the dislocation and discomfort that inevitably follow any upheaval in attitudes and skills. For their part, workers have inherited more responsibility and, along with it, greater uncertainty and a more open-ended possibility of failure.

Part of the difficulty in assessing these costs is the fact that so many of the following problems inherent to the commitment strategy remain to be solved.

Employment assurances.

As managers in heavy industry confront economic realities that make such assurances less feasible and as their counterparts in fiercely competitive high-technology areas are forced to rethink early guarantees of employment security, pointed questions await.

Will managers give lifetime assurances to the few, those who reach, say, 15 years' seniority, or will they adopt a general no-layoff policy? Will they demonstrate by policies and practices that employment security, though by no means absolute, is a higher priority item than it was under the control approach? Will they accept greater responsibility for outplacement?

Compensation.

In one sense, the more productive employees under the commitment approach deserve to receive better pay for their better efforts, but how can managers balance this claim on resources with the harsh reality that domestic pay rates have risen to levels that render many of our industries uncompetitive internationally? Already, in such industries as trucking and airlines, new domestic competitors have placed companies that maintain prevailing wage rates at a significant disadvantage. Experience shows, however, that wage freezes and concession bargaining create obstacles to commitment, and new approaches to compensation are difficult to develop at a time when management cannot raise the overall level of pay.

Which approach is really suitable to the commitment model is unclear. Traditional job classifications place limits on the discretion of supervisors and encourage workers' sense of job ownership. Can pay systems based on employees' skill levels, which have long been used in engineering and skilled crafts, prove widely effective? Can these systems make up in greater mastery, positive motivation, and workforce flexibility what they give away in higher average wages?

In capital-intensive businesses, where total payroll accounts for a small percentage of costs, economics favor the move toward pay progression based on deeper and broader mastery. Still, conceptual problems remain with measuring skills, achieving consistency in pay decisions, allocating opportunities for learning new skills, trading off breadth and flexibility against depth, and handling the effects of "topping out" in a system that rewards and encourages personal growth.

There are also practical difficulties. Existing plants cannot, for example, convert to a skill-based structure overnight because of the vested interests of employees in the higher classifications. Similarly, formal profit- or gain-sharing plans like the Scanlon Plan (which shares gains in productivity as measured by improvements in the ratio of payroll to the sales value of production) cannot always operate. At the plant level, formulas that are responsive to what employees can influence, that are not unduly influenced by factors beyond their control, and that are readily understood, are not easy to devise. Small stand-alone businesses with a mature technology and stable markets tend to find the task least troublesome, but they are not the only ones trying to implement the commitment approach.

Yet another problem, very much at issue in the Hyatt-Clark bearing plant, which employees purchased from General Motors in 1981, is the relationship between compensation decisions affecting salaried managers and professionals, on the one hand, and hourly workers, on the other. When they formed the company, workers took a 25% pay cut to make their bearings competitive but the managers maintained and, in certain instances increased, their own salaries in order to help the company attract and retain critical talent. A manager's ability to elicit and preserve commitment, however, is sensitive to issues of equity, as became evident once again when GM and Ford announced huge executive bonuses in the spring of 1984 while keeping hourly wages capped.

Technology.

Computer-based technology can reinforce the control model or facilitate movement to the commitment model. Applications can narrow the scope of jobs or broaden them, emphasize the individual nature of tasks or promote the work of groups, centralize or decentralize the making of decisions, and create performance measures that emphasize learning or hierarchical control.

To date, the effects of this technology on control and commitment have been largely unintentional and unexpected. Even in organizations otherwise pursuing a commitment strategy, managers have rarely appreciated that the side effects of technology are not somehow "given" in the nature of things or that they can be actively managed. In fact, computer-based technology may be the least deterministic, most flexible technology to enter the work-place since the industrial revolution. As it becomes less hardware-dependent and more software-intensive and as the cost of computer power declines, the variety of ways to meet business requirements expands, each with a different set of human implications. Management has yet to identify the potential role of technology policy in the commitment strategy, and it has yet to invent concepts and methods to realize that potential.

Supervisors.

The commitment model requires first-line supervisors to facilitate rather than direct the work force, to impart rather than merely practice their technical and administrative expertise, and to help workers develop the ability to manage themselves. In practice, supervisors are to delegate away most of their traditional functions-often without having received adequate training and support for their new team-building tasks or having their own needs for voice, dignity, and fulfillment recognized.

These dilemmas are even visible in the new titles many supervisors carry-"team advisers" or "team consultants," for example-most of which imply that supervisors are not in the chain of command, although they are expected to be directive if necessary and assume functions delegated to the work force if they are not being performed. Part of the confusion here is the failure to distinguish the behavioral style required of supervisors from the basic responsibilities assigned them. Their ideal style may be advisory, but their responsibilities are to achieve certain human and economic outcomes. With experience, however, as first-line managers become more comfortable with the notion of delegating what subordinates are ready and able to perform, the problem will diminish.

Other difficulties are less tractable. The new breed of supervisors must have a level of interpersonal skill and conceptual ability often lacking in the present supervisory work force. Some companies have tried to address this lack by using the position as an entry point to management for college graduates. This approach may succeed where the work force has already acquired the necessary technical expertise, but it blocks a route of advancement for workers and sharpens the dividing line between management and other employees. Moreover, unless the company intends to open up higher level positions for these college-educated supervisors, they may well grow impatient with the shift work of first-line supervision.

Even when new supervisory roles are filled-and filled successfully-from the ranks, dilemmas remain. With teams developed and functions delegated, to what new challenges do they turn to utilize fully their own capabilities? Do those capabilities match the demands of the other managerial work they might take on? If fewer and fewer supervisors are required as their individual span of control extends to a second and a third work team, what promotional opportunities exist for the rest? Where do they go?

Union-management relations.

Some companies, as they move from control to commitment, seek to decertify their unions and, at the same time, strengthen their employees' bond to the company. Others-like GM, Ford, Jones & Laughlin, and AT&T-pursue cooperation with their unions, believing that they need their active support. Management's interest in cooperation intensified in the late 1970s, as improved work-force effectiveness could not by itself close the competitive gap in many industries and wage concessions became necessary. Based on their own analysis of competitive conditions, unions sometimes agreed to these concessions but expanded their influence over matters previously subject to management control.

These developments open up new questions. Where companies are trying to preserve the non-union status of some plants and yet promote collaborative union relations in others, will unions increasingly force the company to choose? After General Motors saw the potential of its joint QWL program with the UAW, it signed a neutrality clause (in 1976) and then an understanding about automatic recognition in new plants (in 1979). If forced to choose, what will other managements do? Further, where union and management have collaborated in promoting QWL, how can the union prevent management from using the program to appeal directly to the workers about issues, such as wage concessions, that are subject to collective bargaining?

And if, in the spirit of mutuality, both sides agree to expand their joint agenda, what new risks will they face? Do union officials have the expertise to deal effectively with new agenda items like investment, pricing, and technology? To support QWL activities, they already have had to expand their skills and commit substantial resources at a time when shrinking employment has reduced their membership and thus their finances.

The Transitional Stage

Although some organizations have adopted a comprehensive version of the commitment approach, most initially take on a more limited set of changes, which I refer to as a "transitional" stage or approach. The challenge here is to modify expectations, to make credible the leaders' stated intentions for further movement, and to support the initial changes in behavior. These transitional efforts can achieve a temporary equilibrium, provided they are viewed as part of a movement toward a comprehensive commitment strategy.

The cornerstone of the transitional stage is the voluntary participation of employees in problem-solving groups like quality circles. In unionized organizations, union-management dialogue leading to a jointly sponsored program is a condition for this type of employee involvement, which must then be supported by additional training and communication and by a shift in management style. Managers must also seek ways to consult employees about changes that affect them and to assure them that management will make every effort to avoid, defer, or minimize layoffs from higher productivity. When volume-related layoffs or concessions on pay are unavoidable, the principle of "equality of sacrifice" must apply to all employee groups, not just the hourly work force.

As a rule, during the early stages of transformation, few immediate changes can occur in the basic design of jobs, the compensation system, or the management system itself. It is easy, of course, to attempt to change too much too soon. A more common error, especially in established organizations, is to make only "token" changes that never reach a critical mass. All too often managers try a succession of technique-oriented changes one by one: job enrichment, sensitivity training, management by objectives, group brainstorming, quality circles, and so on. Whatever the benefits of these techniques, their value to the organization will rapidly decay if the management philosophy-and practice-does not shift accordingly.

A different type of error-"overreaching"-may occur in newly established organizations based on commitment principles. In one new plant, managers allowed too much peer influence in pay decisions; in another, they underplayed the role of first-line supervisors as a link in the chain of command; in a third, they overemphasized learning of new skills and flexibility at the expense of mastery in critical operations. These design errors by themselves are not fatal, but the organization must be able to make mid-course corrections.

Rate of Transformation

How rapidly is the transformation in work-force strategy, summarized in the Exhibit, occurring? Hard data are difficult to come by, but certain trends are clear. In 1970, only a few plants in the United States were systematically revising their approach to the work force. By 1975, hundreds of plants were involved. Today, I estimate that at least a thousand plants are in the process of making a comprehensive change and that many times that number are somewhere in the transitional stage.

Exhibit Work-force strategies

In the early 1970s, plant managers tended to sponsor what efforts there were. Today, company presidents are formulating the plans. Not long ago, the initiatives were experimental; now they are policy. Early change focused on the blue-collar work force and on those clerical operations that most closely resemble the factory. Although clerical change has lagged somewhat-because the control model has not produced such overt employee disaffection, and because management has been slow to recognize the importance of quality and productivity improvement-there are signs of a quickened pace of change in clerical operations.

Only a small fraction of U.S. workplaces today can boast of a comprehensive commitment strategy, but the rate of transformation continues to accelerate, and the move toward commitment via some explicit transitional stage extends to a still larger number of plants and offices. This transformation may be fueled by economic necessity, but other factors are shaping and pacing it-individual leadership in management and labor, philosophical choices, organizational competence in managing change, and cumulative learning from change itself.

A version of this article appeared in the March 1985 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Control to Commitment in the Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The larger shape of institutional change is always difficult to recognize when one stands right in the middle of it. Today, throughout American industry, a significant change is under way in long-established approaches to the organization and management of work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Management Function Controlling and Evaluation and How to Control?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Controlling involves ensuring that performance does not deviate from standards. https://www.udemy.com/management-for-the-new-managers Controlling consists of three steps, which include (1) establishing performance standards, (2) comparing actual performance against standards, and (3) taking corrective action when necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
Controlling Performance and Operations.
This unit made me think of the amount of money that is spent by companies to make sure they are following there process and procedure. It also made me think of situations where I have had overbearing bosses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are seemingly countless varying and even contradicting methods and theories on how to achieve a solid and consistent state of employee motivation in the workplace. The real question we're concerned with, however, goes beyond a simple view of base motivation, and into an in-depth analysis of the fundamental states and causes of one who is actively motivated.

Motivation itself is a result; we need to discern what underlies the surface to get at the causation. For instance, among the most desired results of a truly and consistently motivated employee - for both managers and executives alike - is increased productivity. How can this be achieved with any degree of consistency?

In this piece, we will discuss clashing paradigms of old and new business practices, the current models that receive the best regard, and older ones that are the most staunchly, and perhaps erroneously, defended.
The Direct View
According to a February 2017 Gallup study, just more than half of all U.S. employees are either actively searching for, or open to, new job opportunities. It's safe to say this is a direct reflection on the current state of employee engagement within many workplaces. Some of the most common reasons cited for moving on are:

* Issue(s) with manager/management

* Looking for a better job fit

* Need for more desirable company culture

* Seeking better growth prospects (including salary and benefits)

From this unambiguous perspective, there is one question we must ask ourselves:

Is it possible that the vast majority of employees, at every level, are merely lazy or disproportionately unsatisfied? Instead, perhaps, management paradigms are in need of an overdue adjustment.

Either way, something, somewhere, is very wrong.

Now, under current models, we can easily acquire some immediate tips to somewhat improve the situation:

* Remember that an educated individual needs to be engaged at a level at least somewhere near his or her degree of intellect; a job that falls below this standard is inevitably going to produce boredom.

* Be aware that aggressive micromanagement is as hostile to the productive and happy employee as is a fox in a henhouse.

* A feeling of insecurity - of being expendable - is going to make for an alienated and discontent employee, at any level. Take steps to reassure people of their value and place.
The Culture Route
Under a direct, unambiguous approach (classically and colloquially known as the carrot-and-stick approach), the long-standing status quo has always been the following formula: incentive plus reward equals an increase in productivity. And certainly, why should it not? It makes perfectly grounded sense, even to the degree that this methodology was so fundamentally accepted and hardly questioned at all, nearly back to the inception of the Industrial era itself - perhaps, even beyond.

A slew of modern research, however, has cast a glaring and irrefutable contraindication upon this long-accepted paradigm.

Perhaps most well-known among them is the work of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce (RSA), which has a 260-years-and-counting mission statement that surrounds the enrichment of society through ideas and action. The RSA produced an exceptionally well-researched (yet intentionally easily assimilated) video expressing their conclusions in examining the essence of workplace motivation which, naturally, goes far deeper than is first apparent. The RSA research delves into aspects of sociology, psychology and economics - fundamentals which form and mold the aspects of an individual's aspirations, performance, engagement, and all those vital tangents that combine to form motivation.

While an entire series of articles could be - and indeed have been - devoted to the research and conclusions of the RSA video in question, here's a brief summary: The old paradigms are demonstrably and unequivocally wrong. They have led us astray into counterproductive habits and systems.

If we want the nearly 90% increase in production and value that an engaged employee produces, we have to decide to make some intentional changes.

Again and again, the research shows that employees want:

* To be treated as individuals

* For their work to have some measurable, positive impact on other's lives

* The room and space to create and innovate

* To be respected and valued

It's no under-sell to say that most companies within even the most progressive cities and markets fall into the structures that flatly don't work. What is less easy is taking all of this and restructuring your business, its culture, its hierarchical systems, and its departmental structuring, into an environment that fosters genuine motivation.

It is never easy to determine a full-coverage solution in one sit-down session and it can be extremely challenging to plot the correct course forward for a particular company and its ethos. But what we do know is that few things are more important to begin working toward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Employee-Friendly Way To Actively Motivate Your Work Staff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are seemingly countless varying and even contradicting methods and theories on how to achieve a solid and consistent state of employee motivation in the workplace. The real question we're concerned with, however, goes beyond a simple view of base motivation, and into an in-depth analysis of the fundamental states and causes of one who is actively motivated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RIGHT NOW MOTIVATION FROM DRILL INSTRUCTOR

# data[].attributes.body
Leadership and Motivation

This module made me think about want actually motives me. To be honest i really don't know. I believe the best  leader is one who leader from the front

# data[].attributes.body
They way we communicate at work. My company is putting us through a cource in how to write while at work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Examples of Communication Problems in the Workplace

Communication problems in the workplace can have a negative impact on morale, productivity and interdepartmental working relationships. When left unchecked, ongoing communication problems can potentially cut into profits, increase turnover and lead to mistakes that negatively impact the company's public image. Recognizing and addressing common issues can smooth over problems before they get out of hand. Watch for common workplace communication problems and resolve them quickly.

Failure to Communicate Fully

In a workplace dominated by quick replies via text and email, details can be lost, overlooked or misunderstood. Answering "yes" to a series of questions in an email isn't clear. Responding "OK" when asked if you can review a document doesn't address the question of where the document resides, what kind of review is requested, or when edits need to be returned.

Solution: Make email requests clear and detailed and make responses complete and comprehensive. Before you press Send, ask yourself:

Did I answer each question in full?

Will the recipient have any outstanding questions after reading my email?

Assuming Someone Else Has the Ball

When you're part of a group brainstorming session, a group email or a group project, there's always the potential to assume someone else has a task covered. When everyone assumes someone else is handling things, the ball inevitably is dropped, which leads to finger-pointing, blame and missed deadlines.

Solution: In any group dynamic, there needs to be a point person to set and clarify roles at the close of discussion or debate. A group email that clarifies who is doing what and when streamlines group initiatives.

Failure to Self-Edit

Self-editing is a good business technique to learn in both written and verbal forms. Failure to consider what you are about to write or say can lead to a breakdown in communication, either because you are not fully articulating your thoughts or because you react without thinking, which leads to hurt feelings and misunderstandings.

Solution: Before you press Send, check for content, spelling, grammar and validity. Then, check your tone to ensure the recipient can't misconstrue your words. When speaking in a heated environment, choose your words carefully and run them through your mental filter at least once before saying them out loud.

Being Unprepared

If you're late for a meeting or approaching a deadline and you are unprepared, you may be tempted to wing it. When you are unprepared, mistakes, misunderstandings, and even the misdirection of a project or task can occur.

Solution: Be organized and prepared. If you aren't, it's better to admit you need more time than to throw an idea against the wall and hope it sticks.

Using the Wrong Communication Tool

There are times when an email is appropriate and other times when a phone call or in-person meeting is more suitable. Misjudging the situation and picking the wrong tool can lead to a breakdown in communication and create confusion, misunderstanding and hurt feelings.

Solution: If you exchange nonsensitive information every day, email is fine. If you're trying to untangle a sticky situation rife with misinformation, a phone call or Skype session allows for a more effective back-and-forth exchange. If you're delivering bad news or having a serious or contentious debate, an in-person approach is the best choice. It allows you to read body language, gauge temperament and make personal contact.

Saying Too Much

Sometimes we overshare when we speak before we think. Other times, we gossip and exchange inappropriate information. Sometimes sloppiness results in oversharing or releasing personal or sensitive information - think of a scenario in which you accidentally hit "reply to all" or "forward" in an email conversation in which you and a colleague are talking in derogatory terms about a customer.

Solution: Emphasize the need for confidentiality in the workplace, hold sensitive meetings behind closed doors, refrain from putting highly confidential or sensitive information in email, and stop gossip in its tracks.

Streamlined and effective communications start from the top down. If you don't already have a best-practices communications policy in place, create one and use it for orientation and staff training events. Also, consider that sometimes a problem that appears to the result of poor communication could be ineffective business practices, poor organization or lackluster time management skills. Before blaming communication problems, assess the other causes for a breakdown in effective operations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Examples of Communication Problems in the Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Communications problems arise in the workplace when there is a failure to be clear, concise and articulate in how you interact with others. Examples include using the wring communication tools, oversharing, being unprepared, assuming someone else has the ball and a failure to self-edit.

# data[].attributes.body
Managing Human Resources and Communications. This section made me think about how comaines I have worked at did not communicate very well.

# data[].attributes.body
Org Chart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Organizational culture is a hot topic these days, and for good reason. With big names like Google and Facebook setting examples for what a healthy company culture looks like, many others are following suit and fostering cultures that align with their values and needs. Here are 6 organizational culture examples worth following!

Read on to see what makes these corporations and startups alike great places to work.

1. L.L. Bean

Ranked in Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For, L.L. Bean's dedication to customers through offerings like lifetime warranties and free shipping is reflected in its internal culture. The 103-year-old retail company with a focus on outdoor apparel has a low turnover rate of just 3%, and employees enjoy perks like discounted gym memberships, employee discounts, paid time off for volunteering and even college tuition reimbursement.

Those aren't the only benefits of working at L.L. Bean, though. The company sponsors excursions like kayaking and camping for the whole team, and employees can even borrow outdoor gear and take advantage of camping around Rangeley Lake, where HQ is based, with their families.

Management-wise, L.L. Bean takes care of the team by having regular one-on-one meetings with employees to discuss career development and offering regular classes and workshops. Their "Bean's Best" program praises teammates who go the extra mile with an annual celebration, and teammates acknowledge one another through peer recognition programs.

Why we love it: As L.L. Bean wrote in its culture deck, "Every employee is the most important ever in this company." That's a great mindset to have, which is why it ranks first amongst our organizational culture examples.

2. Adobe

Also earning a spot in Fortune's Top 100, Adobe offers perks like discounted gym memberships and tuition reimbursement, plus paid sabbatical and subsidies for commuters. Employees even receive patents for their ideas and are awarded bonuses for those creations at an annual banquet. Product releases are celebrated with events and recognition for the teammates responsible with rewards like bonuses and swag.

What really sets Adobe apart, though, is how it values communication across the company between departments. Regular team events, like a speed networking event, encourage employees to get to know one another. A company-wide community for LGBTQ employees is a place for members of those communities to socialize and have discussions, and several Adobe employees even contributed videos to the popular "It Gets Better" movement aimed toward LGBTQ teens.

Why we love it: Adobe not only encourages creativity and communication, it rewards and provides outlets for them.

3. DogVacay
Photo courtesy of DogVacay
The "Airbnb for dogs," DogVacay, is a startup with an office culture any animal lover would covet. Every day is bring-your-dog-to-work day, and the team regularly volunteers at a local animal shelter. Frequent happy hours, karaoke nights and catered lunches are nice added bonuses, plus HQ is just a few minutes from the beaches of Santa Monica. Employees even have access to free rental bikes to take out for a spin when they need to take a break and move around.

Check out our exclusive interview with DogVacay's Office Manager for more details on how they build the DogVacay company culture.

As head of communications Rachael King told us: "Our office culture is all about creativity and collaboration, and our open floor plan and fun decor provide a pleasing and comfortable workspace for our teams to work together. DogVacay's employees come from all different backgrounds, which contributes to our unique and open office culture, but we all have one important thing in common: our love of dogs!"

Why we love it: Besides the dogs, it's a playful environment with passionate people working toward a cause the whole team believes in. Plus, the dogs.

4. Wrike

Wrike is another company that puts a great deal of emphasis on hiring for culture, which is likely why it has glowing reviews on Glassdoor and was named one of the best places to work by the San Francisco Business Times. The project management software company does cross-team interviews to ensure a good fit and regularly blogs about culture. The entire team even got to take a trip to Mexico for four days of team-building and learning.

Creativity and feedback are encouraged at Wrike, where the attitude is "if you think it's a good idea, go for it." The team also makes a point of celebrating successes. As founder and CEO Andrew Filev tells Enplug:

"We always make sure to take the time to celebrate each other's wins. In sales, it's obvious: closing a big deal means bringing in money for the company. But other teams have different measures of success and we are careful to recognize those too," and that includes personal accomplishments.

Why we love it: Wrike gives employees the autonomy to create a culture they love. Andrew's advice on doing just that: "Make sure your employees know that being a great workplace is one of your goals as a business leader. They'll be more than happy to help you create it." Well said!

5. Zappos

Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh once famously said, "Zappos is a customer service company that just happens to sell shoes." It also just happens to be famous for its wonderful (and sometimes wacky) culture. Amongst these six organizational culture examples, Zappos is probably the best-known. Zappos hires for culture first, treats employees to a three-day culture camp training event, and regularly features employee contributors in a culture series for its blog.

In fact, the company is so focused on culture that it has its own culture book, which has hundreds of unedited testimonials from employees and is updated every year. Their core values are clearly defined and include tenets like delivering customers "wow" through service, embracing and driving change, and creating fun and "a little weirdness" in the office.

Managers are responsible for creating career paths within their departments for all employees, with an emphasis on those who excel. Zappos even offers new hires $2,000 and up to quit if they feel the job isn't right for them.

Why we love it: Few companies manage to embrace individuality (or "weirdness") as well as Zappos does, and the company's unapologetic commitment to a culture-first attitude ensures that never changes.

6. Quora

Quora is all about learning, conversation, and discovery. So it only makes sense, then, that the question-and-answer website's employees are constantly learning and improving. At Quora, new hires are paired with mentors, and by the end of the first week, engineers and designers are reviewing one another's code and deploying their creations.

In fact, continuous deployment-where new code is shipped out constantly-is the norm. Constant feedback from peers helps ensure the code keeps improving, and it helps employees learn from one another. Employees get regular one-on-ones with managers starting from day one, and everyone on the team has the chance to work with one another as teams vary by project.

Quora employees are also treated regularly to yoga sessions, free meals and company swag, and movie nights and morale events keep the team happy and engaged. On "one-hour project days," everyone on the team spends their day doing a set list of tasks-like bug fixes-that can each be accomplished within an hour. The team races to complete each task, listening to music all the time, and celebrating at the end.

Why we love it: Quora's philosophy of continually learning and improving is right in line with their product, meaning employees always have the chance to take on new and exciting challenges.

These organizational culture examples are just the beginning. Download our FREE eBook, the Company Culture Cookbook, with 33 can't-fail recipes for a happier and more productive team!
Photo "Visit to the Zappos office": (cc) Shashi Bellamkonda blog.networksolutions.com
***

Enplug digital signage software was co-founded by CEO Nanxi Liu and CTO Tina Denuit-Wojcik in 2012 to enable organizations to use customized real-time streaming content to create engaging external and internal communications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Organizational Culture Examples Worth Following

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organizational culture is a hot topic these days, and for good reason. With big names like Google and Facebook setting examples for what a healthy company culture looks like, many others are following suit and fostering cultures that align with their values and needs. Here... Read More

# data[].attributes.body
Process "TPS Report" how to many process or to many bosses can hurt moral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Office Space Peter's Interview with the Bob's

# data[].attributes.body
Organizational Structure and Processes.

Reading through this section i began to think about the places i have worked and compared how they managed to the organizational styles in the chapter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the Los Angeles Chargers breathlessly announced on March 27 that they had sold their season tickets, the rest of the world sort of snickered. The Chargers, who moved from San Diego after last season, are playing home games for now at a 30,000-seat soccer venue.

Besides, the Chargers had needed more than a month to sell all of those season tickets; the Los Angeles Rams, by comparison, took all of six hours to sell 70,000 season tickets at the Los Angeles Coliseum when they moved back to the city from St. Louis after the 2015 season.

Besides enraging the city of San Diego, the team's home since it moved from Los Angeles in 1961, the Chargers have barely whipped up interest in Los Angeles on their return. The ticket resale market for Sunday's home opener against the Miami Dolphins is stunningly soft.

On Wednesday morning, StubHub, the ticket-resale company whose name adorns the Chargers' temporary stadium in Carson, Calif., listed nearly 2,500 tickets for Sunday's game, selling from $120 to $2,000. The tickets originally sold for $70 to $375.

For the Chargers' second home game, an AFC West contest Sept. 24 against the Kansas City Chiefs, tickets are selling for as low as $115, with tickets for a Dec. 3 game against Cleveland at a $101 minimum. (Tickets for the Raiders game Dec. 31 are at least $284, though.)

There are about 600 tickets for sale to Sunday's Chargers-Dolphins game on the NFL's official ticket-resale site, operated by Ticketmaster, ranging in price from $134 to $734. Included are two open rows in Section 238, in a corner of the stadium, with standard tickets selling for $165.

It is possible to see an NFL game for much less: The Dolphins, whose season opener last Sunday was postponed because of Hurricane Irma, are to play Sept. 24 in East Rutherford, N.J., against the lousy New York Jets. A ticket to that low-watt game can be had for $40.

But it appears as if those who swooped in ― or, more like, strolled in ― to buy Chargers season tickets to sell them at a profit might have overestimated the interest in the team and, perhaps more significant, in the return of NFL football to Los Angeles. The Rams drew an announced crowd of only 60,128 to Sunday's home game against Indianapolis, and it appeared much smaller.

The Chargers ― who eventually plan to move to a new stadium in Inglewood, Calif., that they will share with the Rams in what is already being billed as a "Fight for L.A." ―set original ticket prices too high, perhaps thinking that a small venue might make the Chargers a hotter ticket.

This is not exactly the triumphant return to Los Angeles that the Chargers might have envisioned. The original L.A. Chargers, charter members of the American Football League, played only one season in the city before moving to San Diego, their home for 56 years.

The Chargers, who lost their season opener at Denver on Monday by 24-21, are not supposed to be good, either. StubHub Center is only 115 miles from Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, but San Diego fans have lost interest. They say they might watch, but on TV.

They feel forsaken. A digital billboard with five anti-NFL messages from a San Diego Chargers fan will be placed outside StubHub Center for the next three weeks. Joseph MacRae raised more than $10,000 through a GoFundMe page for the billboard.

"This isn't just for San Diego fans. This is for Oakland fans and St. Louis fans as well," MacRae wrote on the GoFundMe page, referring to cities that have, or will, lose NFL teams. "Your cities didn't deserve this, and most importantly, you didn't deserve this."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chargers Are Struggling To Fill Seats, Even At A Small Soccer Stadium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the Los Angeles Chargers breathlessly announced on March 27 that they had sold their season tickets, the rest of the world sort of snickered. The Chargers, who moved from San Diego after last season, are playing home games for now at a 30,000-seat soccer venue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bad decisions happen to everyone; it's a natural part of life. They can cost people time, friendships, opportunities, and in the following cases, a lot of money. At the time these decisions were made, there wasn't a way to predict the consequences of them; however, that is part of the responsibility of being business minded. These choices below cost the companies lots of money and led to job loss, even bankruptcy; they are still feeling the aftershocks of these misdeeds all this time later. Have a look.

AOL Merging with Time Warner

In the year 2000, America Online merged with Time Warner Cable. It was the biggest merger in business history at the time, valued at almost $400 billion. The companies are now worth less than 10% of what they were going into the deal and are separated. This is now taught in business schools as the worst deal in history. Apparently, an accounting scandal surrounding the inflation of the AOL advertising budget began the unraveling, and it was further exacerbated because the companies just didn't get along in the end. The largest reported loss from an investor is $8 billion.

Kodak Hesitating to Go Digital

Kodak invented digital photography, so it is a little sad and strange to see the way their company has faded off into the distance in such a tech-driven world. The first digital camera that they invented was decades before digital photography took off. Because of that, they decided that it was a good idea but that it would cut too much into their primary operation which was selling film. Steve Sasson, the Kodak engineer who invented the first digital camera in 1975, said that the reaction to his invention was "that's cute, but don't tell anyone about it," when you broke it down. After some research the Kodak company conducted, they saw that digital film would inevitably become bigger than their method, but that it would take several years. During that time, though, Kodak did nothing to prepare for that. It was decades later that they began making digital cameras, and they were drastically behind the times.

Decca Records Declining to Sign The Beatles

"Not to mince words, Mr. Epstein, but we don't like your boys' sound. Groups are out; four-piece groups with guitars particularly are finished...The Beatles have no future in show business." It is hard to believe now, after seeing how famous The Beatles were, that those words were ever said. In 1962, an executive at Decca Records said that to The Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein, after the band performed a 15 song set for him in an audition. Decca doesn't have much to say about this, and they try to flaunt their musical repertoire as if this massive blunder never occurred. The Beatles ended up getting signed by EMI Records based on that particular audition tape. In just two years after Decca turned them down, they had over 80,000 members of their paid fan club, with thousands in review. By the end of 1964, they were projected to have sold over $50 million just stateside.

Excite Passing Up Google for Under a Million

Now, when you look something up online, it's rare even to say "search for that," instead we all simply say "Google it." Google is valued at just over $100 billion today and is second on the Forbes' Most Valuable Brands list. Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin tried to sell Google to Excite CEO George Bell for $1 million. After some negotiation, the price was dropped down to $750,000 only to still be rejected. Excite was one of the original internet portals, and it went on to be acquired by Ask Jeeves, and it now what we know as Ask.com. Ask is still pretty popular, in a general sense, but nothing could surpass the way that Google dominates the internet world and has begun to trickle outward to cell phones and other technology. There is no guarantee that Google would have gone on to be so massive if Bell had decided to pay for it, but from where we're standing, Excite made the mistake of a lifetime.

Mars CEO Declining a Candy Cameo in E.T.

Mars Inc. is the company that makes M&Ms, and they were approached to do an advertising deal with E.T. It was simple, the candy would be featured in the movie, and then Mars Inc. would be able to use E.T. for their advertisements going forward. It is rumored that Mars didn't think this was a worthwhile use of their money, it could also be that they just didn't see the potential for the film to be a big earner. E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial grossed $435 million in America, and $357 million everywhere else, making for a total of $792 million worldwide. Hershey ended up taking advantage of the deal, promoting Reese's Pieces. The company agreed to spend $1 million promoting the movie in exchange for the rights to use it in their advertising efforts from then on. The payoff was incredible, the profits from Reese's Pieces jumped 65% in just two weeks after E.T. was released.

Motorola Failing to Capitalize on the Razr Craze

The success of the small and trendy Motorola Razr was a big player in Motorola's 22% market share in mobile phones in 2006; back then, everyone had one or wanted one. They came in several colors and were the sleekest phone available at the time. However, the corporation didn't launch their own generation of smartphones to continue the Razr brand and take advantage of their popularity, and by 2007 they were selling discounted versions of the Razr. When they finally got with the times and unveiled a line of Razr phones in 2010, Motorola had to contend with big players in their market like the iPhone and BlackBerry. Sales in 2006 were over $43 billion for Motorola; they had dwindled to $22 billion by 2010. Between October 2006 and March 2009, the company's shares fell a staggering 90% from over $107 to a measly $13.

CBS & NBC Networks Fumbling Big Time

Football wasn't the huge market that it is today back in 1969. Now, it drives ratings and advertising revenue through the roof for the networks that air it, and because of that unprecedented and lasting success, CBS and NBC made an embarrassing mistake. They both rejected the rights to broadcast Monday Night Football in 1969, and it began airing in 1970. It is the second longest running prime time show, bested by 60 Minutes. ABC is much younger than NBC and CBS, but it was the network that originally aired Monday Night Football. The show has since moved over to ESPN, but the ratings base and reputation that ABC gained from the series has provided them with lasting success. For many years, CBS and NBC didn't even try to compete with ABC when it came to Monday night programming because they had to face their mistake 52 times a year when virtually every TV was tuned faithfully to ABC.

Blockbuster Rejecting Netflix

In the 80's, Blockbuster was the place to go for movies, but Netflix has held on to that title since the late 90's when they first began their DVD-by-mail service. When Blockbuster was at its apex, their annual revenue was almost $6 billion. In 2000, Netflix knew that Blockbuster was the biggest name in movie rentals, and attempted to strike a deal. It would have cost Blockbuster $50 million, a price point that they weren't comfortable with at the time. CEO John Antioco claimed that he saw Netflix and the entire concept of DVD-by-mail as more of a niche that wouldn't grow into anything as profitable as what he had going. After practically laughing Netflix executives out of his office, he had to watch Netflix laugh all the way to the bank as his company got buried. Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy in 2010 and finished closing the doors on its retail locations (and copycat DVD-by-mail service) in 2013. At that time, Netflix was valued at over $20 billion.

Ron Johnson Being Too Honest

Ron Johnson was pure of heart when he opened up about the pricing techniques of clothing retailers after he was hired as the CEO of J. C. Penney in 2012. Americans know that the jacket they're buying isn't worth $59.99, most of the time, is what he had assumed. He wanted to move their store towards more of an everyday low prices strategy instead of using fake pricing. Fake pricing is exactly how it sounds. If a clothing retailer wants the consumer to pay $29.99 for a jacket, they price it at $59.99 and then put on 'on sale' for the 'low price' of just that $29.99. Johnson came clean and started making changes. J. C. Penney was losing to Walmart in a big way, so he decided to stop the desperation of constant sales and put everything to a fair price the minute it hit the shelves. He is also responsible for the younger and chicer vibe the store attempts to carry to this day. This made the company lose money, and had customers complaining. He was fired after 17 months, and the store almost immediately reverted to their fake pricing system.

Western Union Turning Their Back on the Tech of the Century

Western Union is currently fading out as a service as things like Paypal, Dwolla, Venmo, Snapcash (you get the idea?) are taking over. Western Union offers money in minutes at customer service desks across the country, but the fees are enormous by comparison, and they can experience service blackouts for months at a time because of system or hardware problems. Things don't look good for them, and quicker means of exchanging money are going to continue to wipe them out as older people become more tech inclined. However, they began as a telegram service. They made their first fortune on this endeavor and were lauded as the top company in the communications business in the 19th century. Alexander Graham Bell tried to sell them his invention, the telephone, back in 1876. His asking price was $100,000 (which is about $2 million today), but Western Union's executives didn't see the telephone taking off. After it began to see success, Western Union hired Thomas Edison to come up with something better. Bell sued them on the basis of patent infringement and won. Bell Telephone went on to be THE telecommunications company in America for 100 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bad decisions happen to everyone; it's a natural part of life. They can cost people time, friendships, opportunities, and in the following cases, a lot of money. At the time these decisions were made, there wasn't a way to predict the consequences of them; however, that is part of the responsibility of being business minded.

# data[].attributes.body
Planning and decision making
This made me think of decision being made in a board room that were bad decision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Coke: Coca-Cola's 77-day product disaster

# data[].attributes.body
Difference in culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 6): Global Business Management is a way of managing the business at global level which results in optimum utilization of resources and cost cutting. The main aim is to make business Sustainable. Key Features of Global Business Management :- * Marketing knowledge and skills that ca...

# data[].attributes.body
Management within a Global Organization.
This chapter made me aware of the problems and difficulties of manmnaging a Global Company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When International Business Means Unintentional Humor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The importance of corporate governance in today's progressive and aggressive business environment cannot be denied. According to the Financial Times, it's "crucial to the achievement of a new frontier of competitive advantage and profitability."

With so much attention focusing on this business practice, it may be time to ask: What is corporate governance exactly, and what makes it so imperative to a company's success?

What Is Corporate Governance, and Why Is It Important?

In its January 2017 Quarterly Board Matters report, Ernst & Young (EY)'s Center for Board Matters examined corporate governance trends at Russell 2000 and S&P 500 companies. While it found that corporate governance is a "topic of increasing interest to policymakers, investors and other stakeholders," the way it's enacted by businesses isn't always consistent.

Some organizations concentrate on independent board leadership, EY says. Others have shifted from staggered to annual elections. Just as no two business strategies are alike, a corporate governance policy is likely to vary from one company to the next.

The inner workings of corporate governance strategies may differ, but the business practices they comprise are generally more uniform. ICSA: The Governance Institute defines corporate governance as "the way in which companies are governed and to what purpose." To elaborate, corporate governance impacts all aspects of an organization, from communication to leadership and strategic decision-making, but it primarily involves the board of directors, how the board conducts itself and how it governs the company.

Business advisory firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) calls corporate governance "a performance issue," because it provides a framework for how the company operates. According to PwC, corporate governance should encompass the following:

The company's performance and the performance of the board

The relationship between the board and executive management

The appointment and assessment of the board's directors

Board membership and responsibilities

The "ethical tone" of the company, and how the company conducts itself

Risk management, corporate compliance and internal controls

Communication between the board and the C-suite

Communication with the shareholders

Financial reporting

This list provides a bird's-eye view of corporate governance in action, and conveys the extent to which it can influence business. To help organizations navigate corporate governance, Deloitte offers a Governance Framework that outlines the board's objectives and responsibilities, and how they relate to the corporate governance infrastructure.

But simply implementing a corporate governance strategy isn't the same as achieving success. Most examples of good corporate governance have something in common, too: they're built on a foundation of transparency, accountability and trust.

Time and time again, these three terms enter into the corporate governance discourse. They have immense value, whether a business is family-run, a nonprofit or a publicly traded company. That's one of the reasons why corporate governance is top of mind for so many business professionals. Above all, the role of corporate governance in modern organizations is to demonstrate these key principles to shareholders, stakeholders and the public.

The Role of Corporate Governance in Modern Organizations

Let's take a closer look at two of these principles: transparency and trust. Businesses today are held to incredibly high standards by investors and customers alike - consider that 66 percent of global consumers told research firm Nielsen they would be willing to pay more for products from a company that demonstrates corporate social good. Being honest and open about process and operations counts a great deal. Both shareholders and consumers want to see companies operating with integrity.

Corporate governance allows companies to put their positive traits on display. With their intentions made visible to all, companies are more likely to be held accountable for their behavior and actions - and thus more willing to distance themselves from duplicity.

This is especially crucial now that trust in businesses is on the decline. Communications and marketing firm Edelman's annual Edelman Trust Barometer, a global survey that measures consumers' trust in business, the media, the government and nongovernmental organizations, found that trust in all four is down for the first time in 17 years.

The credibility of CEOs is at an all-time low too, with 63 percent of survey respondents saying CEOs are somewhat credible or not credible at all. "Just 52 percent of respondents to our survey said they trust business to do what is right," reports Matthew Harrington, global chief operating officer of Edelman, in an overview of the survey published by the Harvard Business Review. But when trust is waning, corporate governance can lift it up again.

Displaying Social Responsibility

In an attempt to minimize the risk of distrust, companies go out of their way to emphasize their social responsibility in their corporate governance materials. Organizations of all kinds, including Royal Bank of Canada and Hong Kong's Link Real Estate Investment Trust, choose to make their corporate governance frameworks public. Doing so can go a long way toward putting shareholders' and customers' minds at ease.

The Corporate Governance and Ethics section of Microsoft's website, meanwhile, stresses that the company strives to "build and maintain trust through a shared commitment to ethical behavior and to act with integrity in everything we do." Making - and keeping - this kind of promise can have a considerable impact on an organization's reputation and success. As explained in a recent PRWeek magazine article, corporate governance "affects and dictates the internal functioning and morale of a company, and it also projects externally to the public."

In essence, companies must make a choice: embrace corporate governance and its implied conventions, or reject them. And as expressed by Claudia Gioia, president and CEO of Hill+Knowlton Latin America, those who "turn away from the policies of honesty and transparency lose credibility and competitive advantages."

Considering Company Culture

Business priorities aside, another explanation for different corporate governance strategies comes down to different company cultures. A company's unique culture permeates everything from vision to values, organizational structure, work environment and hiring practices, so it stands to reason that it should affect corporate governance, too.

According to EY, "Corporate culture is emerging as an important consideration for boards and audit committees, touching as it does every aspect of a company, from strategy to compliance." Culture is cropping up in the corporate governance policies of companies like Bank of America and Nestlé. The more involved boards become in corporate governance, the more they influence company culture - and vice versa. For example, on its website, Nestlé writes:

"Our Board of Directors sets our long-term strategy and provides oversight on the basis of strong principles and an appropriate tone from the top. It ensures the long-term success of our company based on a clear strategy and good corporate governance. Its focus on corporate culture helps us align the interests between our business, our wider stakeholders and society."

In other words, corporate governance has value beyond demonstrating a company's social responsibility efforts and overall principles. It can also shape a company's culture, which, in turn, shapes the way an organization's leaders lead, the way its workers work and how customers perceive the businesses with which they choose to engage.

Security Matters

Given that good corporate governance is linked to transparency, accountability and trust, the issue of security warrants special attention. Communication may be just one facet of corporate governance, but the fact that it includes the internal and external exchange of invaluable data and information makes prioritizing cybersecurity a key part of company policy.

Drafting a board communications plan is a good way to ensure all parties are on the same page about communication best practices. In its study of trends in board portal adoption, online resource Corporate Secretary wrote, "Other methods of digital document distribution cannot match the controlled collaboration environment offered by board portal technology."

Control is the word to note here. Aside from communication, gaining and maintaining control over an organization's security has a positive effect on many other areas of corporate governance policy, including risk management, financial reporting, board performance and how the company chooses to conduct itself.

The Financial Times writes, "Good corporate governance is a competitive advantage." Without it, a company cannot reach its potential, and that makes corporate governance indispensable.

Interested in learning more about good corporate governance and how board portals can complement and enhance it? Contact us for a demo today.

What is the Governance Cloud?

Board directors are obligated to perform a host of varied duties and responsibilities. Diligent developed a suite of tried and true governance tools to help them fulfill their responsibilities accurately and efficiently. The Governance Cloud ecosystem of products includes:

As board directors continue to express their needs to digitize governance processes, Diligent will continue to expand to meet these needs. Collectively, these tools enable corporations to achieve a fully digitized and integrated governance ecosystem to mitigate risk, plan for strategic growth and ultimately, govern at the highest level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Corporate Governance in an Organization and Its Importance | Diligent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The importance of corporate governance in today's progressive and aggressive business environment cannot be denied. According to the Financial Times, it's "crucial to the achievement of a new frontier of competitive advantage and profitability." With so much attention focusing on this business practice, it may be time to ask: What is corporate governance exactly, and what makes it so imperative to a company's success?

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter focused on the 4 basic functions of management and what it means to be a manager. the 4 functions are Planning, organizing, influencing, and controlling. The chapter also went into different types of managers and there styles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Four Functions of Managers

Management involves far more than just telling others what to do. Before any of you decide that you think you can do your boss's job, let's take a look into more of what a manager does.

The major functions that a manager completes can be categorized into four different functions known as planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. For some of us, we only see the final two - leading and controlling - but you should know that for every managerial behavior you do see, there is an equal amount that you do not. Behind the manager's closed door, he or she spends a good deal of his or her time planning and organizing, so that he or she can effectively carry out the functions of leading and controlling.

Now, before you think your boss is different, you should also know that the four functions of management are standard across industries, whether that be in a manufacturing plant, a home office, a grocery store, a retail store, a restaurant, a hotel, or even an amusement park. Effective managers understand how planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are used to achieve organizational success. Unfortunately, I do not have a rebuttal for those of you who have ineffective managers, but perhaps learning a little more about the four functions of management will help to identify what steps your ineffective manager needs to take to become an effective one.

Try to think about the four functions as a process where each step builds on the others. Managers must first plan, then organize according to that plan, lead others to work towards the plan, and finally evaluate the effectiveness of the plan. These four functions must be performed properly and, when done well, become the reason for organizational success.

Planning

The first of the managerial functions is planning. In this step, the manager will create a detailed action plan aimed at some organizational goal.

For example, let's say Melissa the marketing manager has a goal of increasing sales during the month of February. Melissa needs to first spend time mapping out the necessary steps she and her team of sales representatives must take so that they can increase sales numbers. These steps might include things like increasing advertisements in a particular region, placing some items on sale, increasing the amount of required customer-to-sales rep contact, or contacting prior customers to see if they are interested in purchasing additional products. The steps are then organized into a logical pattern so that Melissa and her team can follow them.

Planning is an ongoing step, and can be highly specialized based on organizational goals, division goals, departmental goals, and team goals. It is up to the manager to recognize which goals need to be planned within his or her individual area.

Organizing

The second of the managerial functions is organizing. This step requires Melissa to determine how she will distribute resources and organize her employees according to the plan. Melissa will need to identify different roles and ensure that she assigns the right amount of employees to carry out her plan. She will also need to delegate authority, assign work, and provide direction so that her team of sales representatives can work towards higher sales numbers without having barriers in their way.

Leading

The third function of management is leading. In this step, Melissa spends time connecting with her employees on an interpersonal level. This goes beyond simply managing tasks; rather, it involves communicating, motivating, inspiring, and encouraging employees towards a higher level of productivity. Not all managers are leaders. An employee will follow the directions of a manager because they have to, but an employee will voluntarily follow the directions of a leader because they believe in who he or she is as a person, what he or she stands for, and for the manner in which they are inspired by the leader.

Controlling

Controlling is the final function of management. Once a plan has been carried out, the manager evaluates the results against the goals. If a goal is not being met, the manager must also take any necessary corrective actions to continue to work towards that goal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
leading & controlling - video & lesson transcript | study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four Functions of Management: Planning, Organizing, Leading & Controlling - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Management involves far more than just telling others what to do. Before any of you decide that you think you can do your boss's job, let's take a look into more of what a manager does. The major functions that a manager completes can be categorized into four different functions known as planning, organizing, leading, and controlling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Management can be defined as the organization and coordination of activities of a business to achieve set objectives. Management is incorporated as a factor of production together with materials, machines, and money. According to Peter Drucker, the primary task of management consists of innovation and marketing. Modern management practices originated in the 16 th century.

Management involves engaging and connecting functions of generating corporate policies, planning, organizing, directing and controlling the resources to achieve the objectives of that policy.

The magnitude of management varies from one person in a small organization to hundreds and thousands in multinational companies. In bigger organizations, the board of directors defines the company policy which is later taken forward by the Chief Executive Officer. The quality and experience of the managers in the organization are the primary factors to evaluate a company's worth at the given time and in the near future.

Large organizations have three levels of managers that are typically organized in a hierarchical pyramid structure.

Senior Managers are the Board of Directors and the President or the Chief Executive Officer of an organization. These managers set strategic goals for an organization and take decisions in the operation of the organization. Senior managers manage and control middle managers who report to them indirectly or directly. Managers in this level are mostly the executive-level professionals.

Middle Managers are generally branch managers, department managers, section managers, and regional managers who assist the front-line managers. Middle managers correspond the strategic goals of the senior managers to the front-line managers.

Lower Managers are front-line team leaders and supervisors, who monitor the jobs of regular employees and assist with directions to their work.

In Small enterprises, individual managers have multi-tasks. One manager may perform numerous roles or at times all roles perceived in larger organizations.

Importance of Management

A business evolves over a period with a lot of complexities. Managing the business has become a complicated task, with increasing convolutions. Management is important not just for businesses but also for schools, hospitals, colleges, trusts, banks and for every other enterprise that requires some coordination and organization of activities. Mangement is not concerned with performing specified jobs. Management motivates others to perform certain tasks. Management integrates the 6Ms namely material, machines, market, money, men and methods, which aids in achieving the expected results economically and quickly in terms of sales, profit, production, and goodwill.

Management is a thinking organ that furnishes the business a positive vision. It is a force that integrates accomplishment of business objectives.

The significance of management in the modern business are outlined below:

Accomplishment of Goals

Management regulates the goals of an organization of various functional groups and departments. The objectives are conveyed to the employees to seek cooperation in achieving them. All the activities in the organization are directed towards organizational objectives. Having clear-cut goals for the success of any organization is elementary.

Management assembles and organizes resources, arranges the factors of production, and integrates the resources effectively to achieve the goals. It directs group efforts towards the achievement of goals. The six Ms of an effective organization are coordinated in such a way that the organization works towards attaining its goals.

Effective Utilization of Resources

Management promotes optimum utilization of physical and human resources through organization, planning, and management, which leads to prosperity and progress of a business. Employees are motivated to perform their best at all stages so that wastages of all kinds are minimized or eliminated.

Establishes Sound Organization

Establishing a sound organization means no overlapping of efforts. A sound organization establishes effective responsibility and authority. It clarifies authority and responsibility relationships in various positions in the enterprise. Makes clear policies and specifies who is accountable to whom, who are the subordinates and superiors, who can give instructions to whom, and so on. Management recruits the right person possessing the right skills, qualification, and training. Management also provides workers with a sound environment for work and encourages cooperation.

Establishes Equilibrium

Management ensures a foresight and a vision for the enterprise by keeping in touch with the external environment. It analyses the future which influences the current working of the organization. It also takes the necessary steps to ensure that the organization is meeting the demands of the changing environment.

Management establishes maximum results through minimum input by efficient planning. The management employs human, financial, and physical resources in the best combination, which ensures cost reduction.

National Growth And Prosperity

Efficient management of resources becomes very important at the national level. Management is very important in the economic and social development of a nation. Development of the nation depends on the resource management quality. The key to the right economic growth, better standard of living, and prosperity is the efficient management.

Cordial Industrial Relations And Competitive Strengths

Management facilitates cordial industrial relations and competitive strengths in an enterprise. It ensures the welfare and better life for employees and raises their morale by providing suitable incentives. It encourages employees to put in more interest and take more initiative concerning work so that it results in the increased profitability and productivity of the organization.

Evolution of Management Thought

Management is as old as human civilization itself. The civilizations of Rome, Egypt, and Greece exhibited astounding results of great management practices. The origin of management can be traced back to the late 19 th century. Management is considered as an integral part of understanding all business functions and operations. People have been redesigning and changing management techniques for centuries. Management thinkers are trying to find ways to classify and organize the extensive information that is dispersed and collected. The classification attempts have precipitated the recognition of management approaches.

There are various approaches to management namely the Classical approach, Behavioral approach, Quantitative approach, System approach, and the Contingency approach.

The classical approach is the senior most approach to management thought. It originated back in the 20 th century. The classical approach is concerned with the strategies and techniques to manage organizations and work more efficiently and effectively. The classical approach comprises of scientific management, administrative management, and bureaucratic management.

Scientific Management

Frederick Winslow Taylor is known as the father of scientific management. Scientific management is referred to as Taylorism. The theory of scientific management had a humongous impact on business at the beginning of the 20 th century. Scientific management is a management theory that synthesizes and analyses workflows with the objectives of enhancing the productivity of labor. Approaches to scientific management are initiated for standardization of jobs and efficiency of workers.

Administrative Management

Henry Fayol is known as the father of modern management. Henry Fayol was a great manager and a popular industrialist. He presented an analytical framework of the management processes. He categorized the activities of the business into six groups namely Financial, Accounting, Technical, Managerial, and Administrative. He clarified that the management functions remain the same at all levels of organizations.

Administrative management highlights the functions of the management and the manager. Its main objective is to define the management philosophy and processes that are concerned with jobs at the individual level.

Bureaucratic Management

The Bureaucratic management emphasizes on an ideal organization. Max Weber is one of the major contributors to bureaucratic management. According to Weber, most organizations are inefficiently managed, with decisions rooted in loyalty and personal relations. He proposed a form of management characterized by hierarchy, the division of labor, formalized rules, impersonality, and promotion and selection of employees based on their ability which could result in efficient management. Max Weber also explained that the manager's authority must be devised by the position held by the managers in the organizational hierarchy and not on the tradition.

Various theorists supplemented the behavioral approach of management thought since they noticed several weaknesses in the classical theory. The classical approach focuses on principles, processes, and efficiency. This theory ignores significant aspects of organizational life concerning human behavior at work. Behavioral approach is an improvised theory of the human relations approach.

The behavioral approach was developed in parts because of the weaknesses perceived in the classical approach. It emphasizes understanding the factors that affect human behavior at work.

Human Relations Approach

Human Relations approach defines the human aspects in business. It signifies that the human factor and the organization in the social system are the most important elements.

The Hawthorne Experiments originated in the early 1924 and continued till the 1930s. The important conclusions of the Hawthorne studies were that the workplace is a social system and the attitudes of the workers are associated with productivity, the group influences would have a powerful impact on the individual behavior, and the method of supervision was significant in improving job satisfaction.

Study of organizational behavior and behavioral science evolved in the 1950s and 1960s. Behavioral science emphasized the natural progression of human relations moment. It concentrated applying analytical and conceptual tools in predicting and understanding human behavior at work. The behavioral science approach contributed to understanding management by concentrating on attitudes, personality, values, group behavior, leadership, conflict, and communication.

The Quantitative Approach

The quantitative approach emphasizes improvising decision making by applying quantitative techniques.

Management Science employs statistical and mathematical approaches to resolve issues in management. It was developed around the Second World War as the analysts tried to implement scientific methods and knowledge to compound war problems.

Production And Operations Management

This management system emphasizes the control and operation of the production process that converts resources into finished goods. Production and operations management focuses on quality and productivity of service and manufacturing process of an organization. W. Edwards Deming has a major influence in transforming modern ideas concerning improved quality and productivity. Various aspects of production and operations management comprise of facilities layout, material requirement planning, purchasing and inventory control, flexible manufacturing systems, scheduling, just in time inventory systems, quality control, facility layout, and capacity planning.

The system approach emphasizes understanding the organization as an open system that converts inputs into outputs. The System approach originated in the 1960s. It is a process of thinking about managing tools that require managers to regard various specialties and parts of the organization to one another along with the factors affecting the external environment.

The contingency approach emphasizes applying management principles, concepts and processes that have no universal or general application and are directed by the unique characteristics of every situation. It accentuates that there is no one right way to manage and it is determined by various situational factors like technology, organizational characteristics, characteristics of the manager, and the characteristics of the subordinates. Contingency theory states that management is situational and that the management study identifies the crucial variables in any given situation. Contingency theorists explicitly or implicitly criticize the classical approach. Nevertheless, few classical theorists understood the need for considering the situation while applying management principles.

All the above are the important theories of management, and every theory highlights specific knowledge and information of what managers do.

Principles of Management

The principles of management are the underlying indispensable factors that form the foundation for successful management. There are 14 Principles of Management according to Henri Fayol.

Employees are specialized in different sectors and are skilled differently. It signifies the importance of division and subdivision of jobs according to employee expertise in that area. According to Henri Fayol specialization contributes to efficiency in the workplace and improves productivity, which in turn increases accuracy and speed. This principle is appropriate for both managerial and technical jobs.

Authority and Responsibility

Authority and Responsibility co-exist in an organization. It claims that the organization has the authority to order its employees and with authority, there comes greater responsibility. Authority is the right of the seniors to get the job done. The responsibility can be measured back from the performance. The two should go hand in hand, authority without responsibility results in incautious behavior and responsibility without authority is unproductive.

Discipline is essential for the smooth functioning of an enterprise. According to Henri Fayol, discipline signifies respect of authority, observing rules and regulations in an organization and sincerity. Discipline is essential at both managerial and subordinate levels. Discipline can be implemented when there are great supervisors at all levels when there are fair and clear agreements between workers and when sanctions are judiciously applied.

It emphasizes on subordinates being accountable and receiving orders from one superior because of instructions from more than one seniors, likely to create conflict and confusion. It leads to a better superior-subordinate relationship.

It relates to the functioning of departments or the organization as a whole. Unity of direction is essential for the sound organization. It avoids overlapping efforts and wastage of resources. It pilots the smooth running of the enterprise.

Subordination of Personal Interest

The management must prioritize its interests and considerations and put the company objectives on top of its list. There exist all kinds of interests in an organization, and for the success of an organization, Henry Fayol suggested subordination of personal interest to the organization's interest.

Productivity and motivation go hand in hand. Henri Fayol suggests a substantial amount of remuneration to keep employees motivated to work. The remuneration must be reasonable, fair, rewarding and satisfactory of efforts. Appropriate and logical wages deter differences between the management and employees. Henri Fayol also suggested provisions for various other benefits like free education and medical and residential facilities for workers.

Degree of Centralization

Centralization is the concentration of authority at the top level. Authority and the management must be properly balanced for decision-making purposes in the organization. According to Henri Fayol, the degree of centralization and decentralization depends on many factors like the business size, dependability, experiences of the superiors and the ability of subordinates. Anything that expands the role of the subordinates is decentralization, and anything that narrows the role of the subordinates is centralization.

Scalar chain refers to a chain of superiors from the top management to the lowest rank. This principle emphasizes a clear line of authority from top to bottom; connecting all managers at all levels. Every instruction, order, explanation, request, message, and so on, must pass through the scalar chain. In cases of emergency and at times, for the sake of convenience, this chain can have a shortcut which is referred to as a Gang Plank. A Gang Plank is a temporary arrangement between two different points to accommodate easy and quick communication. Gang Plank signifies that the management principles are flexible and not rigid.

This approach ensures a systematic arrangement of people and things in an organization. The arrangement of things is called the material order, and the placement of people is known as the social order.

Material order: A specific place for every employee.

Social order: Appointment and selection of the right person for the right job.

It specifies that there should be a specific place for everyone and everyone must have a specific place to establish contacts whenever necessary.

According to Henry Fayol, the employees must not be shifted from one job to another. The service period for a job needs to be fixed. Employees should, therefore, be appointed keeping in mind the principles of selection and recruitment and once appointed, their services must be accepted. In turn, the effort, time, and money spent on employees should not be a waste. Job stability imbibes a sense of belongingness and team spirit amongst the employees, which results in improved quality and quantity of work.

According to Henri Fayol, employees must be encouraged to take initiatives in work allocated to them; initiative means eagerness for action without being reminded to do so. He proposed that the management must provide opportunities for the employees and welcome their suggestions, ideas, new work techniques, and experiences that promote an environment of understanding and trust in the organization. He also suggests encouraging employees with non-monetary and monetary benefits.

Equality is the core value of an organization. Employees must be treated equally, and the management must be fair. Henry Foyal suggests that the managers must be impartial and fair to its subordinates and there must be no room for discrimination concerning caste, sex, ego, relations, religion, and so on. Equality promotes a cordial relationship between the subordinates and the mangers. Fayol also specified that at times, force and being harsh is essential for the sake of equality.

Esprit De Corps refers to harmony at work in work groups and mutual understanding among its members. Esprit De Corps encourages its workers to work harder. Henri Fayol warned the managers against the employee division into competing groups as there are possibilities of damage of the interest of the undertaking and the morale of the employees. Efforts to create enthusiasm amongst the subordinates must be initiated so that they can work up to their maximum ability. Employees who are efficient must be rewarded, and the others who are not up to the mark must be given another chance to work on their performance. A conscious awareness among the subordinates must be created and acknowledged that whatever they are doing is of great significance to the society and the business. Henry Fayol also encouraged face to face communication and that the managers infuse belongingness and team spirit. It is important that the employees celebrate and appreciate the work they do and give their best to the organization in turn.

The 14 principles of management are used to manage organizations and are useful techniques for planning, process management, decision making, organization management, control, and forecasting. However, it is obvious that most of these matters are used based on common sense in the current practices of management. The 14 principles of Henri Fayol linger is a practical list that is applicable for all organizations even to this day.

Management Process And Functions

The senior management in the organization is responsible for carrying out the managerial process.

The five fundamental function of management-

When the management is reviewed as a process, planning is the initial step taken by the manager. The managerial functions begin with forming the goals and objectives if the organization in every area of business. Planning deals with underlining the course of action and determining in advance the best course of action to achieve the pre-determined goals. Planning bridges the gap between where we are now and where we want to be. Planning can thus be defined as a systematic thinking technique regarding the means and ways to accomplish pre-determined goals. Planning is crucial to determine the effective utilization of non-human and human resources. Planning is an intellectual activity which aids in avoiding uncertainties, wastages, risks, and confusion. Planning must take into account the availability of resources and flexibility of personnel as they guarantee continuity.

An organization can function to its fullest when it is well-organized, which indicates adequate staff, capital, and raw materials so that the organization can function smoothly and build a great work structure. Organizing is the process of integrating human, physical, and financial resources. According to Henry Fayol, 'To organize a business is to provide it with everything useful for its functioning, i.e., raw materials, capital, tools, and the workforce'. Organizing encompasses identification of activities, classification or grouping of activities, assignment of duties, the delegation of authority and creation of responsibility and coordinating authority and responsibility relationships.

According to Kootz & O'Donnell, "Managerial function of staffing involves managing the organizational structure through proper and effective selection, appraisal and development of personnel to fill the roles designed in the structure."

Staffing is a process of hiring and retaining a suitable workforce for the business at the managerial and non-managerial levels. Staffing encompasses recruiting, training, developing, compensating and evaluating employees and balancing the workforce with adequate perks and incentives. It is crucial to appoint the right personnel since the human element is a vital factor.

Staffing is a complex process since people vary in their knowledge, intelligence, skills, attitudes, physical condition, and experience.

Directing is a key managerial function, which is directly concerned with the human factors of an organization. Directing is concerned with leadership, motivation, supervision, and communication, facilitating employees to function at their best to achieve the end goals.

Leadership involves instructing and guiding subordinates regarding methods and procedures.

Directing facilitates two-way communication, so the information is passed on to the subordinates concerning methods and procedures.

Motivation is very essential because a motivated workforce delivers extraordinary performance with minimal directions from their seniors.

Supervising is an ongoing process which results in continuous progress reports and ensures that the directions are being rightly followed.

Controlling can be defined as measuring accomplishments against the standards and deviation if any to ensure achievement of organizational goals. Control makes sure that everything happens in conformities with standards. Efficient control aids in predicting deviations even before they occur.

According to Theo Haimann, 'Controlling is a process of measurement and correction of performance activities of subordinates in order to ensure that the objectives of the enterprise and the plans designed to obtain them as being accomplished'.

The functions of controlling involve-

Establishment of standard performance.

Measurement of actual performance.

Measuring actual performance with the pre-determined standards and figuring out deviations if any.

Taking corrective action.

All the functions of management are interrelated. Nevertheless, the functions are virtually indistinguishable and highly unrecognizable on the surface.

System View of Management

The system view of management encompasses the division of management in an organization; assuming all organizations as systems, while all the systems are subsystems of bigger systems.

A system can either be open or closed, however, almost all approaches look at the organization as an open system. An open system relates to the environment with the help of outputs, inputs, and throughputs.

A system can be defined as a set of interdependent and interconnected arranged in a way that produces an unfulfilled whole. It is a concept taken from physical science and applied to organizations.

There are two types of systems closed systems and open systems.

System View of Management Theory

The system theory treats the organization as a system. It is one of the most prominent and note-worthy theories in management. The system's view of management theory is a tool established believing that the organizations are correlated parts or subsystems to be managed as a whole for the accomplishment of similar goals and targets.

The major components of the system are

Inputs refer to a variety of human, financial, equipment, informational and material resources that are necessary to produce products and services.

Transformational Process

Transformational processes refer to the organization's technological and material abilities employed to convert inputs to outputs.

Outputs refer to the goods, services and other outcomes produced by the organization.

Feedback refers to the information regarding the organizational status and results relating to the environment.

Closed System And Open System

The degree of interaction of the systems with its environment is explained through closed and open systems.

The system that cannot be influenced or interacted with the environment is known as the closed system.

A system that dynamically interacts with its environment is called an open system. Organizations are open systems i.e., it constantly interacts with its environment. When an organization is connected to its environment, it facilitates a deep insight into the approaches, needs, new trends, and the manners of the environment. It aids the organization in building a new innovative goal that would benefit both the organization and the environment.

Characteristic features of the open system-

Negative entropy is referred to as the ability of the open system imbibing a new zeal in the form of inputs and feedback mechanisms from the environment.

Synergy is the capability of the whole to equal furthermore than the total parts.

It interprets that the managers are more successful when they operate on their units as open systems rather than closed systems.

Conclusion

Management is all about getting jobs done, and Leadership is about designing a direction for business and motivating its employees to take initiatives and responsibilities leading to right decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Management can be defined as the organization and coordination of activities of a business to achieve set objectives. Management is incorporated as a factor of production together with materials, machines, and money. According to Peter Drucker, the primary task of management consists of innovation and marketing.

# data[].attributes.body
Corporate Governance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Office Space (1/5) Movie CLIP - Did You Get the Memo? (1999) HD

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 2 Organizational Ethics and Corporate Governance

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 2 Organizational Ethics and Corporate Governance

# data[].attributes.body
This unit made me think of all the recent news about unethical practices in business. What came to mind the most was wells Fargo. Because of their unethical practices they lost clients and received fines. Acting ethically could have avoided this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The abrupt retirement of Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan last week left the country's fourth-largest bank scrambling, said Deon Roberts at the Charlotte Observer. Wells Fargo's 2016 fraud scandal - in which employees were pressured into opening millions of fake deposit and credit accounts - continues to haunt the company, and last year the Federal Reserve put a cap on Wells Fargo's growth after additional reports of consumer abuse. Sloan had just testified on Capitol Hill, and clearly failed to mollify congressional critics. "No sooner had the bank announced Sloan's departure than consumer advocacy groups and lawmakers pounced," calling for further sanctions and "a culture shift." The bank's reputation is now so damaged that Wells faces calls to "change the bank's name and rebrand itself" to regain trust. The bank now might as well put up a Help Wanted sign: "New executive to clean up radioactive mess," said Emily Flitter and Stacy Cowley at The New York Times. The board chair said the company is going to try to recruit a new chief executive from outside, with a clean slate. But "persuading that person to take the job" will be a difficult task, considering the bank still faces massive litigation, more than a dozen federal investigations, "a largely demoralized workforce," and another round of berating before the House Financial Services Committee later this month.

Washington has claimed its second Wells Fargo CEO in three years, said Rachel Louise Ensign and Andrew Ackerman at The Wall Street Journal. Sloan's predecessor, John Stumpf, resigned "13 days after a brutal appearance before Congress" in 2016. Sloan lasted 16 days. His Washington "charm offensive" was met with only wrath and condemnation. One of the bank's main regulators, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, even issued a rare statement critical of Sloan's "inability to execute effective corporate governance." After this, Sloan had "little choice but to resign" - giving Washington what it wanted, again. The fact that he served under Stumpf meant Sloan was "guilty until proven guilty" in the eyes of lawmakers, said Jim Cramer at The Street. Wells Fargo's board was happy with Sloan's performance. It gave him a raise plus a performance bonus after the bank beat expectations. But Sloan could see what was coming. The heads of all the big banks will be in Washington on April 10, and it was clear Sloan "would be the focal point" for Congress' ire yet again. It's not fair, but he had to quit.

The 2020 election is only going to raise the heat on corporate executives, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. Sloan's biggest mistake might have been "not genuflecting enough to the bank's regulatory and political overlords." Since 2016, Wells has fired 5,300 employees, lost several prominent executives, and turned over much of its board. But politicians keep demanding changes. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's triumphant reaction to Sloan's departure says it all: "About damn time." Whoever takes Sloan's place "should understand that he answers to politicians as much as to shareholders."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The abrupt retirement of Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan last week left the country's fourth-largest bank scrambling, said Deon Roberts at the Charlotte Observer . Wells Fargo's 2016 fraud scandal - in which employees were pressured into opening millions of fake deposit and credit ­accounts - continues to haunt the company, and last year the Federal Reserve put a cap on Wells Fargo's growth after additional reports of consumer abuse.

# data[].attributes.body
Micromanaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bad Boss Series:  The Micro Managing boss