Organizations- Human Resource Issues

     

photocredit- 9lense.com

     An Organization’s system structures can make or break a company.  One page 96 of Pfeffer and Sutton’s book, Hard Facts Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense, they discuss organizational structure within companies under the section titled Great Systems Are Often More Important than Great People.  From personal experience, I agree that it does not matter how talented or how hard one works, if the business foundation is not set in stone then the organization is setting the employees up to fail.  Pfeffer and Sutton state, “People’s performance depends on the resources they have to work with, including the help they get from their colleagues, and the infrastructure that supports their work  (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 96)."  The infrastructure should come from the counterparts that are involved with building the companies’ strategies.  In the EIA, The New Science of Human Capital by Professor John Boudreau, he elaborates on the importance of finding the pivotal points within a company.  Once the pivotal points are located, managers can appoint the appropriate person for the task.  This is an effective way of implementing infrastructure while including the employees.  Therefore, the structural strategies complement the employees and give them the best opportunity to succeed. 

“All well designed system filled with ordinary but well trained-people can consistently achieve stunning performance (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 96).”

By giving all parts an equal chance to improve upon their weakness and thrive on their strengths,  it will lead to phenomenal input and output in companies.  These strategies can also reduce conflicts, turnovers, and blame among employees and management.

photocredit- watermarkconsult.neet

      I think this leads perfectly into the next topic, which is feedback.  In addition to feedback, mangers should begin with clear fundamental strategies for employees.  Secondly, placing them in the best positions that they will succeed in will open up the door for employees to accept feedback from management teams.  In EIA’s Focusing on Feedback, Kym Ward Gaffney discusses the importance of feedback; she discussed the importance of feedback.  She defines feedback as information that is helpful, and a conversation that talks about one’s performance.  Feedback should be considered as a gift, but often feedback is considered as bad criticism.  Gaffney lists the two reasons why people are offended by feedback.

These two reason are based on the confliction of human needs:

A.      The need to grow and develop.

B.      The need to be accepted just the way we are.

“Feedback provides an excellent foundation for improving your performance” (Gaffney).  I applaud feedback even though I still find myself tensing up at receiving my own feedback.  I will agree will the following explanation above that was stated by Gaffney.  She also gave out five tips that makes a difference in your career. The following tips are:

1.      Ask for feedback

2.      Watch your emotions

3.      Ask questions

4.      Reach out

5.      Engage your potential

All of these tips will reassure employees’ abilities to move up and improve upon their jobs skills. I think Gaffney’s suggestion should be a part of new employee training programs.  This way, employees know from the start that the companies are rooting for them to succeed.

This Little Word Will Make You A Better Manger by Jessica Stillman  is an article about giving feedback to employees.  According to Stillman, VC Ben Horowitz identified feedback as one of the hardest skill sets executives to master.  This article is not evidence based but does include a research-based study on negative feedback.  Stillman suggested that in order to give negative feedback, mangers have to sandwich the negative feedback in with the positive.  The idea behind the sandwich is a way to ease people into harsh feedback by starting the conversation with praise and then lead into the negative.  To go along with this approach author and entrepreneur Ben Casnocha emphasized that adding the word “yet” to negative feedback will ease the initial shock that employees experience.  For example, a manger could say, “You do not have the skills set for this project yet.”  I do not agree with this approach; simply sugar coating the negative feedback to employees will hinder their ability to approve on their job.

 During this session, many of the concepts - especially feedback – resonated with me.  Being a Graduate Resident Director, I am subject to receiving constant feedback from my supervisors.  I really enjoy receiving all types of feedback because I would like to continue to grow and mature on my job.

Organizations- Culture and Change Management

     During this session, the first concept that stood out the most was the attitude of organizations toward pay.  Most companies expect their employees to produce quality work because they argue “that’s what we are pay for you.”  With this type of attitude, I think many companies view their employees as expendable.  Therefore, the employees are considered as commodities.  These objective mindsets remind me of a Marx Theory.  During my Food Access class, we discussed capitalism as a means of production of food and people.  Marx asked questions that derived from the “what’s” and “haves” of the system.  Under capitalism, division of labor and wages were created.  Marx’s Theory of Capitalism explains how people will eventually be “worked to death” or employees will eventually “burnout”.  Not only are people overworked, Marx adds that businesses pay people for what they think they are worth.  These can affect the worker’s psychological thinking and as Marx says they become alienated on their job.  

photocredit: toonlet.com

     It is concluded that businesses believe this idea of creating alienation on the job is to ensure an employee does their job effectively.  In modern day, Pfeffer and Sutton describe the “time” concept on the job on page 59 under Your Time is Our Time, Even When You Work All the Time.  Pfeffer and Sutton introduce cyber-slacking to the reader.  Cyber-slacking is defined as sending personal e-mail, surfing the Web for entertainment or doing personal business like stock trading, or signing the kids up for summer camp while working (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, pg 59).  I understand the concept of setting up boundaries and guidelines, and implementing “cyber-slacking” rules.  However, I think completely isolating employees from the outside world to focus on work can lead to “overworked” and “exhausted” employees. 

photocredit: reachingcampus.com

     On the opposite end was the EIA on the 6 Keys To Leading Positive Change by Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter.  Kanter’s EIA was an inspiring way for leaders to implement change in a very positive light.  Instead of taking away the personal aspect, Kanter gives six ways to encourage change in employees and leaders in the work environment.  The following are the six principles Kanter described:

1.      Show up- She referred to this as the universal lesson of life.  You should make yourself available.

2.      Speak up- Use your power of voice.  The power of voice is not just words. 

3.      Look up- Every leader should work toward a higher principle when leading.  It is very important as a leader to know what you stand for.

4.      Team up- Everything goes better with a partner. 

5.      Never give up- Counter’s Law of how things can look like failure in the middle.  The definition of failure is giving up, and the ability to not give up is a hallmark in leaders. 

6.      Lift others up- When success is reached in a place of business, share the success with everyone that was involved. 

Leading Change- Creating An Organization That Lives Change by Chris White This article is an evidence-based piece that expands on the different aspects of change within the company.  According to White, to effectively lead change, you must recognize that the phenomenon of "change" does not need managing as much as do the people involved with it.  Often when change happens in a company, the leaders have to accept it in order to lead successfully.  White’s article is filled with researched facts from the Discovery Learning Inc.  They performed change style assessments among the employees.  It would be interesting to conduct a study on a six-month follow up from the assessments.  This way companies could really tell how the employees and leaders accept change.  Pfeffer and Sutton validate these points on page 173.  They explained that worker’s abilities to focus and make choices are limited among workers and leaders.    

      Ultimately, the psychological behaviors of the human characteristics in the work environment are intriguing.  Implementing change and making work, more personal is a great way to create a welcoming environment for employees.  This could cut down on the work place being a stressful environment.  I would like to learn more about Human Resource contributions to reducing the stressful work environment in the next session.

Group- Power and Politics, Conflict and Negotiation

     

photo-credit-proswrite.com 

    
      This session was packed with various analytical approaches to power and politics, conflict, and negotiation in-group setting.  Joe Polish interviewed Dr. Richard Cialdini; During Dr. Cialdini’s interview, he discussed the six principles of influence, three kinds of influence practitioners, and the interesting question of: Is education a form of manipulation?  Dr. Cialdini defines influence as creating change.  I never looked at the definition of influence from that perspective.  When I think of influence, I think of someone or something persuading a situation to go a different way than what was initially planned.  The six principles of influence are reciprocity, scarcity, authority, commitment, liking, and consensus.  Reciprocity, in a business or a group setting, is giving back what was fundamentally given to you.  The first principle reminds me of the golden rule: “Do onto others as you would like them to do to you.” Basically, treat others how you would like to be treated.  From a manager’s position, one example would be sharing information with your employees so they can produce quality work.  If employees can see that management or leaders truly care, then they will return the same positive energy.  I think the “liking” is the second most important principle because if customers or employees do not like the company or management they are most likely not to cooperate.  If the employees do not like their management team, it is hard to establish any kind of ground rules.  People tend to listen to authorities because this person is knowledgeable on a particular topic, but it is hard to work toward a common goal if no one likes the head of authority.  Scarcity and consensus both have an underlying factor of communication.  Communicating to customers or employers that having your services are very important, and if they do not choose your services it is their lost.  Scarcity can also be viewed from a negotiation tactic.  From a customer service angle, scarcity is ensuring the customer that the product you are selling is rare and that people just like them are buying this product.  Just then, two of the six principles were packaged together; scarcity and consensus can be used as marketing strategies.  I really agree with Dr. Cialdini’s concepts on commitment.  Getting someone to commit publicly is a guaranteed way to have an effective outcome.  For example, Dr. Cialdini conducted a study with college freshmen who have bad studying habits.  All three groups had to make commitments on better studying habits.

A.      Group 1- Made commitments to study on regular basics and they kept it to themselves.

B.      Group 2- Wrote their commitment down and kept it private among their selves.

C.      Group 3-Wrote their commitment down and showed everyone in the room.

     The results were as follows: the first two groups did not improve on the next test; in-group three, 83% of the members improved on their test scores and received a letter grade higher on the following test.  This is a great example of giving people the opportunity to live up to their expectations that they set for themselves publicly.  Dr. Cialdini stated, “Do not invent principles where they do not exist, but uncover them by using a detective strategy.”  All six principles were around in business, marketing, and managing.   Good business entrepreneurs raise these principles to the surface.

photo-credit-internationaladventure.com 

           The second methodology that discussed this week was negotiation.  Margaret A. Neale’s presentation on Negotiation: Learn A Simple Framework for Approaching Negotiation in A Whole New Light was the perfect example for people who are in leadership and management.  She started her discussion with an excellent analogy.  She explained that her husband is a professional trained chef, and that he often made amazing sauces without a recipe.  Since he knew the basic ingredients for a sauce, he could make any sauce.  This concept works for negotiations as well.  Using a set structure to negotiate your objectives will always yield desirable results.  Ask yourself the following questions before entering into a negotiation: what is your goal of the negotiation, what are your alternatives and reservation price, and what are your aspirations?  Remember, your goal is to get the best deal!  Secondly, follow the four steps of negotiations identified by Professor Neale:

1.      Do the benefits out way the outcome

2.      Prepare- Understand your interest and the counterparts interest

3.      Engage- Ask questions when problems arise. Inform the counterpart that you have unique information that they do not have.  This adds value to the relationship.

4.      Package- Do not negotiates issue by issue, but combine multiply issues to address the overall problem.  Then you can propose an alternative solution to the problem. 

     I agree with all four of these steps, especially in the work place.  In addition, I think by identifying your expertise while negotiating to a counterpart will increase your chances of a better deal.  I do not have any outstanding concerns with Professor Neale or Dr. Cialdini’s information; applying the six principles of influence while implementing the proper negotiation skills will increase an effective “change” in-group dynamics and in a place of business. 

            In the article:  In a Negotiation Leaders Make The First Move by Samuel Bacharach, he discussed the first rule of negotiation that should never be forgotten.

“When we negotiate we inevitably ask, who’s going to make this first move?  Simply say I am considering… or I am thinking about….specifies perimeters”

These are all ways to initiate a negotiation during a meeting.  Bacharach insists that leaders should be the first to speak during negotiations.  This gives the leader or speaker the home court advantage.  By specifying the perimeters of your negations to the counterparts, now makes them aware of your expectations.   As mentioned in Dr. Cialdini interview, when you act first as a leader or manger, this sets the tone for the rest of the group.  Dr. Cialdini’s principles are scientific based evidence.  Although this article is not scientific based, Bacharach’s suggestions do line up with Professor Neale’s ways of negotiation.  Bacharach provides three essential things to consider while negotiating. 

1.      Provide room to negotiate- While it is important to make the first move, it has to be a concrete offer.  He suggests leaving a little wiggle room for change.

2.      Ask questions- You may begin to negotiate by first making an inquiry-not an offer.

3.      Throw out some ideas- You can always suggest ideas and state speculative possibilities that reflect our general direction by defining broad concerns.  

He also discusses that one of the mistakes that negotiators make is thinking that their first offer or move must be the right one.  I disagree with this because Professor Neale informs us on the correct ways of negotiating and the first step is to go in being prepared with an offer.  So essentially, you have all of the evidence to support your first offer.  Bacharach’s principle of the first offer might not work under extreme negotiation circumstances.

            This session is overflowing with realistic evidence based management principles to improve group settings of negotiation and influence.  The one concept that really stuck out was the concept of education being a form of manipulation.  According to Dr. Cialdini, education is a form of persuasion.  Educating someone is just persuading him or her to see something from your point of view. Dr. Cialdini called this tactic the weapon of influence.  Just think: if we could use this weapon of influence in positive light then negotiations would go a lot smoother.  I think education as a form of persuasion is an excellent segway into the upcoming session on Organizations- Culture and Change Management.  It is power in understanding other cultures and way of life.

            

Group- Team, Communication, Leadership

       On this week, I have learned several concepts behind being a leader and leadership roles.  People think mangers, leaders, and CEOs are in control of all aspects of a business or company.  Leaders are faced with difficult decision-making on a daily basis, and how they respond to adversity is crucial to their leadership style.  The overall performance of a company’s progress is not based solely on the leader, even though the employees or group members might think so. In Preffer and Sutton’s book, Dangerous Half-Truths About Managing People and Organizations (p 145), they explained the concept behind the leadership role. 

“Leadership certainly matters.  But the belief that leaders have a massive influence over performance turns out to be a half-truth.” Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 194

photocredit: www.modeltrains.about.com

                                                                                                          

             An experiment was conducted to show how leaders were perceived by his or her peers.  The experiment used a model train; there were two participants involved in the experiment.  Participant one was the driver and participant two was the observer.  The driver was led to believe that he/she was in control of the train until the driver realized that the experimenter was manipulating the speed of the train.  The train ran off the track because of the lack of control.  As a result, the observer only saw what was visible.  The observer saw the driver had failed at controlling the train, even though the driving was operated under constraints. Often times in groups, the participants do not see constrains of the leader.  This can also be defined as the fundamental attribution error.  Pfeffer and Sutton defines the fundamental attribution error as a general effect of “overattributing” outcomes to the causal agency of individuals (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 195).  The observer of the train experiment experienced what is known as cognitive shortcuts.  Cognitive shortcuts is “placing the blame or giving credit to leaders when human needs to make sense of the onslaught, or confusing information that is thrown at them” (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 195).  I agree with Pfeffer and Sutton’s analysis on fundamental attribution error and cognitive shortcuts.  Someone has to take the blame when situations or outcomes do not go as predicted.  Automatically as people, we look at the top for answers.  Through my experiences as a Graduate Resident Director of Housing, I am faced with the half-truths in my leadership role.  There are times, more often than not, when miscommunication arises on my staff of Resident Assistants. Many times, I have witnessed my decisions are not seen as compliant for what they think is logical or justifiable. They use my decisions to how they see fit, not realizing that what I say is based of constraints I have to following from housing. Developing a better system of communication between my staff and me can improve the outcomes in a time of stressful situations. 

            The second notion that I learned during this session was the importance of Team Dynamics from Melissa Hunt’s presentation.  Hunt’s three main team outcomes were to identify and leverage your expertise, enlist early support, and engage in others.  One particular idea that I previously mentioned in the classic discussion was perceived influence.  Perceived influence is giving credit to the person with the most contributions.  Frequently, groups are asked: who has been the most influential person in the group?  Hunt explains how the group members always recognized the person who talked the most in the group.  Hunt goes on to explain that the person who talks the most in a group setting is not necessarily the person who moves the conversation.  I think giving everyone an equal opportunity to contribute in a group setting is very important.  Allowing everyone to communicate and express their ideas openly can lead to a proficient group dynamic.  Sometimes as leaders, creating the environment so people will fill comfortable to communicate is an aspect of being a good leader.  Kim, an executive in the technology industry, gives this example in Hunt’s presentation.  Hunt’s and Kim ideas are great to practice while in a leadership role.  Allowing the dynamics to develop within a group creates a cohesive bond that provides better success rates in a team performance. 

           
           The article Why Steve Jobs' Exactitude Mattered As Much as His Vision by Geil Browning describes the importance of communicating ideas, visions, and guidelines affectively.  Steve Jobs was known as one of the world’s most innovative business man, and known for his leadership style.  According to the article, Jobs was known among his peers as a misunderstood and misapplied structural leader.  Browning explains that a structural leader is someone who creates a process of structure for success.  This is someone who typically does not make rash decisions.  Furthermore, Browning explains the principles of creating an effective communication plan through structural leadership.  They should put themselves in the mindset of their employees, provide “How-to” information for the employees – and stick to them, and set guidelines on how things should be completed. These principles tie into Pfeffer and Sutton’s description of Be Specific About Few Things That Matter, and Keep Repeating Them (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 206).  The idea of setting guidelines and sticking to them is a good way to manage the demands of a company.  Setting clear guidelines makes work less complicated between leaders and the people that fall under them.  Browning’s evaluation on structural leadership expresses effectiveness on setting clear expectations on guideline.

       I found this session to be very rewarding, especially Hunt’s presentation.  The entire discussion on team dynamics and how to become a more effective participator in the team was really helpful.  The suggestions that were given on speaking on your expertise in a group setting with confidence, can be applied at in any business.  This makes sense; you have to believe what you are conveying because if you don’t then how will other people?  I am looking forward to learning how to deal with conflicts in a group setting.  

Individuals- Motivation, Decision Making, and Emotions

        I never viewed receiving incentives or bonuses on your job as a bad thing.  It was always considered a reward, or the rationale behind working in the first place.  People work to get paid, and to provide themselves with a comfortable lifestyle.  As I began to read through Pfeffer and Sutton’s Chapter 5: Do Financial Incentives Drive Company Performance, I discovered that incentives can cause more harm than good.  Giving employees incentives does not necessarily improve their work performance.  Pfeffer and Sutton discussethe difference between motivation and effort.

“Incentives are seen as the primary tool for aligning individual behavior with organizational objectives, because without effective incentives people would do nothing… or if they did expand effort, people are presumed to be almost certain to do things that undermine the organization or management goals.  Motivation is the most important factor affecting individual task performance, financial incentives are the most important of all motivators” (Pfeffer & Suttons 2006, p110).

I agree with Pfeffer and Sutton’s explanation behind why companies give incentives.  I have always been told: the harder one works, the benefits shall flow in.  Meaning, the benefits are a higher position or an increase of income.  The decisions that are made along the way to become more successful are viewed as a reflection of one’s character.  Will I cheat my way to the top?  Will I just work hard and honest?  When the level of desired success is reached, will I continue to work hard?  Everyone has potentially been faced with these questions in the work place.  Decision making is a part of human nature that is complex and often misunderstood. 

            In my last restaurant experience, raises were offered every six months.  An evaluation of your overall six-month performance was on a scale from one to fifty.  The mangers were responsible for giving your score and tallying up your total, which means they were in control of your raise.  No matter how hard you think you worked, the final decision was left up to the mangers.  So, what was disguised as a raise/incentive was really a six-month judgment meeting.  Often times, I saw my coworkers come out of the evaluation discouraged and feeling not appreciated by the restaurant.  This ultimately caused friction with their job performance.  Because they did not get the raise they expected, this left them with the lack of acknowledgements from the mangers for their efforts.  This a great example of incentives gone wrong.

photocredit: www.primeum.com

        Another concept that Pfeffer and Sutton explained on is the mayonnaise theory on page 125 under Variable Pay=Pay Dispersion=Lower Performance.  The mayonnaise theory is defined as: raises that are spread rather equally and thinly across the entire employee base, and instead, of give bigger rewards to employees that contribute most to the organizational performance (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p125).  I agree with Pfeffer and Sutton with realities on using this particular theory, and the problems it raises.  This theory portrays to employees that no matter how hard one works, it will never lead to a pay increase.  However, recognizing employees  that only contribute the most to the company could cause what Pfeffter and Sutton refer to as “self-enhancement effort” (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p126).  The self-enhancement efforts are the desires of people to think more positive about themselves (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p126).  These lines of behavior are seen in employees who think they are superior to their fellow coworkers.  So, if dispersing equal income is not the answer then how are financial pay plans constructed?  Applying the mayonnaise theory financial payment is ineffective and can cause a chain of wrong reactions.  Developing a financial payment plan that ensures employees their work is appreciated while creating a better working environment for them to thrive in is the end goal that most employers should aim for.  Employers should use better decision making to ensure employees are taken care of mentally not just financially. 

          The Problem with Profit Sharing by Jack Stack This article explains the difference between profit sharing and a good bonus program.  According to the article, profit sharing is taking a percentage of the company’s profit and distributing it to the company’s employees.   As a result, employees become dependent on the regular scheduled bonus/incentive.  This strategy of “rewarding” could turn into an entitlement program instead of a reward program.  Employees will start to feel entitled to receive an incentive.  If the companies are not providing the necessary feedback, then the employees will not understand on how to improve upon their work.  This concept crimples the employees on becoming better at their job.  I agree that profit sharing does not provide an adequate outcome.  Stack noted that the CEO explanation behind the article was the foundation of the source.  The CEO argues that good structural bonus program are more efficient than profit sharing.  The mission behind a bonus program is to make a company stronger and more competitive.  A good bonus program is focused around educating their employees.  By doing so, they are really a part of an improving and growing company.  The CEO views align with Pfeffer and Sutton’s explanation on how employees are not just motivated by money.  They are motivated by personal goals of wanting to achieve their best for the company.  As mentioned in the article, “There is no greater motivator in the world than an opportunity to make a difference.”  Furthermore, the CEO explains that it’s the way the companies advertise their bonus programs.  Highlighting the experience that is gained from improving the company instead of the financial value is a good way to show that the companies cares about their employees.  Profit should not be the goal but teambuilding, atmosphere improvement, customer care, and the quality care of employees should be the ultimate goal behind incentives on the job.

            In the near the future, when I am in a management position, I will recall all of these different management concepts when it comes to motivating my employees.  Hopefully I will make logical decisions with the betterment of the employees in mind.  Mistakes will be made and lessons will be learned.  The next session is about Team, Communication, and Leadership.  I would like to learn how to communicate with people more professionally.  

Introduction To Evidence- Based Management

     The first concept that I learned this week was evidence-based management.  According to Pfeffer and Sutton’s book Hard Facts Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense/Profiting From Evidence Based- Management, they defined evidence-based management as something that proceeds from the premise that uses better, deeper logic and employee facts to the extent possible permits leaders to do a better job (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006).  Evidence-based management is based on the belief that faces hard facts about what works and what does not work.  Including, understanding the dangerous half-truths that constitute against using conventional wisdom during management, and rejecting the total non-sense that too often passes for sound evidence will help organizations perform better (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006).  As often discussed, the medical field have been using evidence-based management for decades.  Usually, most patients would not let a doctor preform a mysterious surgery to hypnotically cure their diagnosis.  On page 13 of Hard Facts Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense, the section entitled Evidence-Based Medicine: A Model for Evidence Based Management explains the research behind the reasoning why doctors practice evidence-based management.  Dr. David Sackett was described as the founder of the modern evidence-based management movement (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 13).  As a result of using this technique to practice medicines, all doctors have come to the conclusion of what works for one patient is not guaranteed to work for the next patient.  Needless to say, before any patient goes under the knife, they will question their doctors about the facts of their diagnosis, not the doctor’s assumptions or opinions.  It makes sense to use evidence-based management in your place of business.  Using numbers and collective data to further decision making to yield a higher rate of success is a good way of thinking.  Unfortunately there are large amounts of false facts, and unreliable information for the business industry.  Deciphering between the junk and truth could potentially become a little tricky.  Setting aside personal egos for the greater good of the company will potentially propel the company to their total profits desire. Gary Loveman stepped in leadership role as chief of operating in Harrah, and lead with facts to better the company.  Setting aside the concepts behind conventional wisdom, Loveman was able to lead his company to profitable revenues (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006).  

            Another concept that was discussed in Hard Facts Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense was casual bench marking and doing what seemed to have worked in the past.  Casual benchmarking was defined as using other companies’ performances and experiences to set standards for your own company (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006).  Relying on your own personal experiences comes in handy in the appropriate time and correct setting.  In doing so, your experiences that worked in your last company might do more harm than help in your new company.  It is easy to stay in your comfort zone while in a managing position, but realizing comfort does not yield profit is a new take away bonus.  Prfeffer and Sutton describes bench marking as being to “causal” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006,p6 ).  Depending on other companies past experiences is often time quick, easy, and a convenient but has proven to be wrong.  Instead of trying to adopt a company’s technique, companies should adopt the philosophies behind the company’s technique.  For example, better employment will reduce the turner- over of employees and produce better customer care.  When companies provide their employees with the proper training and tools to do their job sufficiently, this will lead to an overall employee improvement in the company.  The case study that was completed on United Airlines and Southwest Airlines (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006) proves this concept.  Southwest Airlines focused predominantly on the treatment of their employees while American Airlines tried to compete with their sales instead of researching ideas that would better fit their company.  On page 7 Prfeffer and Sutton used the quote: “Instead of copying what other’s do we ought to copy how they think” (Prfeffer & Sutton 2006, p7).  Coming up with your own set of strategies and models for your own companies and testing them out by using controlled groups, surveys, and data analysis will better your company in future endeavors.     

Preoccupation Trust the Evidence Not Your Instincts by Jeffery Pfeffer and Robert Sutton

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/jobs/04pre.html?_r=2&

            This article examines the facts of using evidence-based management and the false pretenses that follow shortly behind.  Pfeffer and Sutton makes it abruptly clear that evidence-based management has to be proven to work in the medical field, but has not been utilized efficiently in the workplace.  In the education system, many educators receive incentive pay that justifies them doing their job correctly.  The authors argue that providing educators with incentive pay does not solve any problems in the school systems. These failures have been documented accordingly.  Throwing incentives or any form of bonuses will not fix a problem in a school system or place of business.  All of the examples provided in the article has been the results of the lack of using evidence-based management.  The authors explains the importance of evaluating manger’s hiring and work placement skills.  Both of these skills are crucial for mangers to have.  The principles behind the arguments that were presented could be implemented in a place of business at any given time.  At every workplace, one can fine incentives being handed out incorrectly and unequipped coworkers grouped together to perform a task.  I would like to see more intensive studies completed on mangers and their decision making behind hiring employees and work force placement.

  

            The principles behind evidence based-management makes complete sense from a logical standpoint.  It is really easy to read about the correct methods to use while managing organizations, but applying those techniques are another thing.  From my own personal experiences, from working in restaurants, evidence-management is often times not used.  Several decisions in restaurants are made on the fly.  For example, in my last restaurant we would often times run out of certain food items.  I never really understood why that was even an option because all the ordering sous chef had to do was to look at the previous ordering sheet and calculate the correct amount of food.  Using previous order sheet to determine an effective outcome is a form of evidence-based management.  So does evidence-based management work better in certain business settings than others?  Several times, the sous chef made decisions off impulse because a decision had to be made quickly.  I completely understand making quick decisions because I have experienced situations where I was put on the spot to make quick decisions.  Once again, does evidence-management have a place in quick decision making?  Is making decisions off a hunch or impulsive necessarily bad? I hope to understand in the next sessions: the balance between evidence management and impulse decisions, if there is one.