Case Study Instructions-merged.pdf

BM 250-06
Principles of Management and Organizational Behavior
Professor Marino
Case Studies Instructions
Case Study 1 is Due October 11th
at 6PM
Case Study 2 is Due November 20th
at 6PM
Submit to eCampus
1. Case Study responses should be around 750 words
2. Each case study will require you to read an article and address questions.
3. Refer to rubric for case studies in this packet.
4. Essentially, you want to write 6 paragraphs in response to the case
a. Executive Summary – write this after you have answered all questions and written your
conclusion. This section should provide me with a brief overview of what your responses
and conclusion are about. It does not have to be as lengthy or substantial as examples
you might find via Google search.
b. 4 Question Paragraphs – This section is based on the number of questions. There may
be less than four questions for some cases. Read the case study, read the questions, re-
read the case study highlighting anything that will help you answer the question, and
then add in content discussed in class for your reasoning. This section should show you
understand the concepts discussed in class and how they are applied to real world
situations.
c. Conclusion – This section is up to you on how you write it, but tie together the article,
your responses, and the in-class lecture material in some way. For example, with respect
to the UPS case study your conclusion might be about what UPS can do to remain
sustainable.
5. Make sure to use in-text citations and add a references page in APA Format [not include in Word
Count]
6. Should you have any questions ask me before you start
7. Choose any 2 case studies from the enclosed document.
SOURCE:
Fundamentals of Management, 10th
edition, Robbins, DeCenzo, & Coulter

Case Study Grading Rubric
5 POINTS 10 POINTS 15 POINTS 20 POINTS
POINTS Below Standard Approaching Standard At Standard Exceeds Standard
Clear response using information from case description
• The problems, scope, and seriousness was clearly identified in the
discussions.
• Did not waste space summarizing information already found in the case.
20 Shows limited
understanding of the
case content and
applications
Shows some understanding
of the case content and
applications
Shows adequate knowledge
applications
Shows superior knowledge
applications
Infused content from the lectures
• Logically organized, key points, key arguments, and important criteria
based on course lectures
20 Case Analysis were
poorly identified,
analyzed, and
supported with lecture
material.
Case Analysis were not
clearly identified, analyzed,
and supported with lecture
material.
Case Analysis were partially
identified, analyzed, and
material.
Case Analysis were clearly
identified, analyzed, and
material.
Appropriate analysis, evaluation, and synthesis
• Clearly understood underlying topics
• Synthesis, analysis, and evaluations were clearly presented and
supported in a literate and effective manner.
20 Analysis is inadequate. Analysis were not
identified.
Analysis were partially
identified
Analysis were clearly
identified
Conclusions
• Specific recommendations and/or plans of action provided.
• Recommendations and conclusions were presented and supported in a
literate and effective manner.
20 Effective
recommendations
and/or plans of action
not provided.
Effective recommendations
and/or plans of action
inadequate.
Effective recommendations
and/or plans of action were
partially provided.
Effective recommendations,
solutions, and/or plans of
action were provided.
Proper organization, professional writing, and logical flow of analysis. APA
formatting
• Logically organized, key points, key arguments, and important criteria for
evaluating the business logic easily identified.
• Key points were supported
• Proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax.
20 Not well organized.
Grammar, spelling,
punctuation,
professional writing,
and syntax needs
significant
improvement
Somewhat organized.
Grammar, spelling,
punctuation, professional
writing, and syntax needs
improvement
Adequately organized.
Adequate grammar,
spelling, punctuation,
professional writing, and
syntax
Well organized.
Excellent grammar, spelling,
punctuation, professional
writing, and syntax

Case Studies
Case Application #1
Big Brown Numbers
It’s the world’s largest package delivery company with the instantly recognizable trucks.58
Every
day, United Parcel Service (UPS) transports more than 18 million packages and documents
throughout the United States and to more than 220 countries and territories, including every
address in North America and Europe. (Total worldwide delivery volume was 4.6 billion
packages and documents in 2014.) Delivering those packages efficiently and on time is what
UPS gets paid to do, and that takes a massive effort in helping drivers to make decisions about
the best routes to follow.
UPS has been described as an EFFICIENCY FREAK.
Efficiency and uniformity have always been important to UPS. The importance of work rules,
procedures, and analytic tools are continually stressed to drivers through training and retraining.
For instance, drivers are taught to hold their keys on a pinky finger so they don’t waste time
fumbling in their pockets for the keys. And for safety reasons, they’re taught no-left turns and no
backing up. Now, however, the company has been testing and rolling out a quantum leap in its
long-used business model of uniformity and efficiency. It goes by the name ORION, which
stands for On-Road Integrated Optimization and Navigation. What it boils down to is helping
UPS drivers shave millions of miles off their delivery routes using decision algorithms built by a
team of mathematicians. Consider that each UPS driver makes an average of 120 stops per day.
The efficiency challenge is deciding the best order to make all those stops
(6,689,502,913,449,135 + 183 zeroes of possible alternatives)—taking into consideration
“variables such as special delivery times, road regulations, and the existence of private roads that
don’t appear on a map?”59
Another description of the logistics decision challenge: There are
more ways to deliver packages along an average driver’s route “than there are nanoseconds that
Earth has existed.”60
Any way you look at it, that’s a lot of alternatives. The human mind can’t
even begin to figure it out. But the ORION algorithm, which has taken 10 years and an estimated
hundreds of millions of dollars to build, is the next best thing. IT experts have described ORION
as the largest investment in operations research ever by any company.
So what does ORION do? Instead of searching for the one best answer, ORION is designed to
refine itself over time, leading to a balance between an optimum result and consistency to help
drivers make the best possible decisions about route delivery. And considering how many miles
UPS drivers travel every day, saving a dollar or two here and there can add up quickly. When a
driver “logs on” his delivery information acquisition device (DIAD) at the beginning of his shift
each workday, what comes up are two possible ways to make the day’s package deliveries: one
that uses ORION and one that uses the “old” method. The driver can choose to use either one but
if ORION is not chosen, the driver is asked to explain the decision. The roll-out of ORION
hasn’t been without challenges. Some drivers have been reluctant to give up autonomy; others

have had trouble understanding ORION’s logic—why deliver a package in one neighborhood in
the morning and come back to the same neighborhood later in the day. But despite the
challenges, the company is committed to ORION, saying that “a driver together with ORION is
better than each alone.”61
Discussion Questions
1. 4-14 Why is efficiency and safety so important to UPS?
2. 4-15 Would you characterize a driver’s route decisions as structured or unstructured
problems? Programmed or nonprogrammed decisions? Explain.
3. 4-16 How would ORION technology help drivers make better decisions? (Think of the
steps in the decision-making process.)
4. 4-17 How is UPS being a sustainable corporation?
Case Application #2
The Business of Baseball
Baseball has long been called “America’s national pastime” (although according to a Harris
Interactive survey, the NFL has been, hands down, the favorite sport of Americans).62
Now, the
game of baseball can probably be better described as America’s number crunchers. Take, for
instance, Sandy Alderson, the general manager of the New York Mets. He explained the team’s
decision to let batting champion and free agent shortstop Jose Reyes go to the Miami Marlins.
“I’m happy with the analysis we used and the strategy we pursued.” As he made this
announcement, three members of his baseball operations staff stood by with their laptops open
and ready to provide any needed data. A baseball writer has described the sport’s move to data
analysis this way, “Don’t overlook the increasing value of facts, figures, and other data . . . and
the people who interpret them.”
The GAME of Baseball . . . number crunching, statistical analysis, and data.
As the film Moneyball (based on an earlier book by the same name) emphasized, statistics—the
“right” statistics—are crucial aspects of effective decision making in the sport of baseball. The
central premise of Moneyball was that the collected wisdom of baseball insiders (players,
managers, coaches, scouts, and the front office) had pretty much been flawed almost from the
onset of the game. Commonly used statistics such as stolen bases, runs batted in, and batting
averages that were typically used to evaluate players’ abilities and performances were inadequate
and poor gauges of potential. Rigorous statistical analysis showed that on-base percentages and
slugging percentages were better indicators of a player’s offensive potential. The goal of all this
number crunching? To make better decisions. Team managers want to allocate their limited
payroll in the best way possible to help the team be a winner.

The move to more systematic data usage can also be seen in college baseball. At this level,
coaches have long used their faces (touching their ears, noses, and chins continually and
constantly) to communicate pitch selection to the catcher. Now, however, hundreds of college
teams at all levels have abandoned these body signals and are using a system in which the coach
yells out a series of numbers. “The catcher decodes the sequence by looking at a chart tucked
into a wristband—the kind football quarterbacks have worn since 1965—and then relays the
information to the pitcher the way he always has.” Coaches say this approach is not only faster
and more efficient, it’s not decipherable by opponents wanting to steal the signs. Since the
method allows for many combinations that can mean many different pitches, the same number
sequence won’t be used for the rest of the game—and maybe not even for the rest of the season.
1. 4-18 In a general sense, what kinds of decisions are made in baseball? Would you
characterize these decisions as structured or unstructured problems? Explain. What
type(s) of decision-making condition would you consider this to be? Explain.
2. 4-19 Is it appropriate for baseball managers to use only quantitative, objective criteria in
evaluating their players? What do you think? Why?
3. 4-20 Describe how baseball front office executives and college coaches could use each of
the following to make better decisions: (a) rationality, (b) bounded rationality, and (c)
intuition.
4. 4-21 Can there be too much information in managing the business of baseball? Discuss.
Case Application #3
Tasting Success
The Coca-Cola Company (Coke) is in a league by itself.63
As the world’s largest and number one
nonalcoholic beverage company, Coke makes or licenses more than 3,500 drinks in more than
200 countries. Coke has built 15 billion-dollar brands and also claims four of the top five soft-
drink brands (Coke, Diet Coke, Fanta, and Sprite). Each year since 2001, global brand consulting
firm Interbrand, in conjunction with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, has identified Coke as the
number one best global brand. Coke’s executives and managers are focusing on ambitious, long-
term growth for the company—doubling Coke’s business by 2020. A big part of achieving this
goal is building up its Simply Orange juice business into a powerful global juice brand. Decision
making is playing a crucial role as managers try to beat rival PepsiCo, which has a 40 percent
market share in the not-from-concentrate juice category compared to Coke’s 28 percent share.
And those managers aren’t leaving anything to chance in this hot—umm, cold—pursuit!
Orange Juice and the 1 Quintillion Decisions needed to deliver it!
You’d think that making orange juice (OJ) would be relatively simple—pick, squeeze, pour.
While that would probably be the case in your own kitchen, in Coke’s case, that glass of 100

percent OJ is possible only through the use of satellite images, complex mathematical
algorithms, and a pipeline solely for the purpose of transporting juice. The purchasing director
for Coke’s massive Florida juice packaging facility says that when you’re dealing with “Mother
Nature,” standardization is a huge problem. Yet, standardization is what it takes for Coke to
make this work profitably. And producing a juice beverage is far more complicated than bottling
soda.
Using what it calls its “Black Book model,” Coke wants to ensure that customers have
consistently fresh, tasty OJ 12 months a year despite a peak growing season that’s only three
months long. To help in this, Coke relies on a consultant experienced with revenue analytics,
who has described OJ as “one of the most complex applications of business analytics.” How
complex? To consistently deliver an optimal blend given the challenges of nature requires some
1 quintillion (that’s 1 followed by 18 zeroes) decisions!
There’s no secret formula to Black Book, it’s simply an algorithm. It includes detailed data about
the more than 600 different flavors that make up an orange and about customer preferences. This
data is correlated to a profile of each batch of raw juice. The algorithm then determines how to
blend batches to match a certain taste and consistency. At the juice bottling plant, “blend
technicians” carefully follow the Black Book instructions before beginning the bottling process.
The weekly OJ recipe they use is “tweaked” constantly. Black Book also includes data on
external factors such as weather patterns, crop yields, and other cost pressures. This is useful for
Coke’s decision makers as they ensure they’ll have enough supplies for at least 15 months. One
Coke executive says the company’s mathematical modeling means that if a weather catastrophe
(hurricane or hard freeze) hits, the business can quickly regroup and replan in a very short time
frame: as little as 5 or 10 minutes.
1. 4-22 Which decisions in this story could be considered unstructured problems?
Structured problems?
2. 4-23 How does the Black Book help Coke’s managers and other employees in decision
making?
3. 4-24 What does Coke’s big data have to do with its goals?
4. 4-25 Do some research on revenue analytics. What is it? How can it help managers make
better decisions?
Case Application #1
Fast Fashion
When Amancio Ortega, a former Spanish bathrobe maker, opened his first Zara clothing store,
his business model was simple: sell high-fashion look-alikes to price-conscious Europeans.50
After succeeding in this, he decided to tackle the outdated clothing industry in which it took six

months from a garment’s design to consumers being able to purchase it in a store. What Ortega
envisioned was “fast fashion”—getting designs to customers quickly. And that’s exactly what
Zara has done, using technology and an army of designers!
The company has been described as having more style than Gap, faster growth than Target, and
logistical expertise rivaling Walmart’s. Zara, which is owned by the Spanish fashion retail group
Inditex SA, recognizes that success in the fashion world is based on a simple rule—get trendy,
desired products to market quickly. Accomplishing this, however, isn’t so simple. It involves a
clear and focused understanding of fashion, technology, and their market, and the ability to adapt
quickly to trends.
Zara’s Secret to FAST FASHION
Inditex, the world’s largest fashion retailer by sales worldwide, has eight retail brands: Zara,
Zara Home, Pull and Bear, Massimo Dutti, Stradivarius, Bershka, Oysho, and Uterqüe. The
company has over 5,600 stores in 88 countries, although Zara pulls in over two-thirds of the
company’s revenues. Despite its global presence, Zara is not yet a household name in the United
States, with just over 50 stores open, including a flagship store in New York City.
What is Zara’s secret to excelling at fast fashion? It takes approximately two weeks to get a new
design from drawing board to store floor. And stores are stocked with new designs twice a week
as clothes are shipped directly to the stores from the factory. Thus, each aspect of Zara’s business
contributes to the fast turnaround. Sales managers at “the Cube”—what employees call their
futuristic-looking headquarters—sit at a long row of computers and scrutinize sales at every
store. They see the hits and the misses almost instantaneously. They ask the in-house designers,
who work in teams, sketching out new styles and deciding which fabrics will provide the best
combination of style and price, for new designs. Once a design is drawn, it’s sent electronically
to Zara’s factory across the street, where a clothing sample is made. To minimize waste,
computer programs arrange and rearrange clothing patterns on the massive fabric rolls before a
laser-guided machine does the cutting. Zara produces most of its designs close to home—in
Morocco, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey. Finished garments are returned to the factory within a
week. Finishing touches (buttons, trim, detailing, etc.) are added, and each garment goes through
a quality check. Garments that don’t pass are discarded, while those that do pass are individually
pressed. Then, garment labels (indicating to which country garments will be shipped) and
security tags are added. The bundled garments proceed along a moving carousel of hanging rails
via a maze of tunnels to the warehouse, a four-story, 5-million-square-foot building (about the
size of 90 football fields). As the merchandise bundles move along the rails, electronic bar code
tags are read by equipment that send them to the right “staging area,” where specific
merchandise is first sorted by country and then by individual store, ensuring that each store gets
exactly the shipment it’s supposed to. From there, merchandise for European stores is sent to a
loading dock and packed on a truck with other shipments in order of delivery. Deliveries to other
locations go by plane. Some 60,000 items each hour—more than 2.6 million items a week—
move through this ultrasophisticated distribution center. And this takes place with only a handful
of workers who monitor the entire process. The company’s just-in-time production (an idea
borrowed from the auto industry) gives it a competitive edge in terms of speed and flexibility.

Despite Zara’s success at fast fashion, its competitors are working to be faster. But CEO Pablo
Isla isn’t standing still. To maintain Zara’s leading advantage, he’s introducing new methods that
enable store managers to order and display merchandise faster and is adding new cargo routes for
shipping goods. And the company has finally made the jump into online retailing. One analyst
forecasts that the company could quadruple sales in the United States, with a majority of that
coming from online sales.
1. 5-14 How is strategic management illustrated by this case story?
2. 5-15 How might SWOT analysis be helpful to Inditex executives? To Zara store
managers?
3. 5-16 What competitive advantage do you think Zara is pursuing? How does it exploit that
competitive advantage?
4. 5-17 Do you think Zara’s success is due to external or internal factors or both? Explain.
5. 5-18 What strategic implications does Zara’s move into online retailing have? (Hint:
Think in terms of resources and capabilities.)
Case Application #2
Crisis Planning at Livestrong Foundation
In 1996, Lance Armstrong, the now-disgraced pro cyclist, was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
Only 25 years old when he found out he had cancer, Armstrong chose to focus on being a
survivor, not a victim. During his personal battle with cancer, he soon realized there was a
critical lack of resources for individuals facing this disease. He decided to start a foundation
devoted to helping others manage their lives on the cancer journey. Since 1998, the Livestrong
Foundation has served millions of people affected by cancer. But in October 2012, everything
turned upside down for the organization. That’s when the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency released its
report that “concluded once and for all that Lance Armstrong, the cancer charity’s founder and
chairman, was guilty of doping during his legendary cycling career.”51
Doug Ulman, CEO and president of the Livestrong Foundation at the time, said he remembers
that day clearly. In fact, he had anticipated for months that this day would come. As good
friends, Ulman had believed Armstrong’s statements of innocence over the years. But now,
“there was no more hiding.”52
After the news broke, Ulman called a meeting of every one of the
foundation’s 100-person staff, all squeezing into the foundation’s boardroom. There, shoulder to
shoulder and crammed together, the suspicions and tingling uncertainties all of a sudden became
all too real. When Ulman announced that the organization could no longer “defend” its founder,
it was a defining, watershed moment. Livestrong, the once highflying charity which had raised
half a billion dollars over the years, was now facing a crisis—maybe even a life-or-death crisis—
of its own. Now, Livestrong would be operating in “life without Lance” mode.

Surviving a Crisis . . . possible only with PLANNING
Although it might be tempting to write off Livestrong as a hopeless case, Ulman and the rest of
Livestrong’s staff have worked hard to keep the foundation viable and focused on its purpose.
It’s not to ignore the challenges facing the organization, because those challenges are significant.
But in managing through the crisis, Ulman had to keep staff morale up and make plans to
transform and distance itself from Mr. Armstrong.53
One piece of advice he received from a
crisis-communications firm was to take the opportunity to get the foundation’s message out. Like
many of the cancer sufferers it helps, Livestrong wanted to come out on the other side stronger
than ever. It’s not been easy. The foundation has lost some of its biggest sponsors, including
Nike and RadioShack. Revenues fell in 2012 and 2013. But in addition to his “crisis
management” responsibilities, Ulman has been formulating plans and strategies. He says, “It’s so
ironic—we are in the business of survivorship, that’s what we do. Now we find ourselves dealing
with the same circumstances in a totally different place.”54
A new phase in Livestrong’s history began in early 2015.55
The foundation’s Board of Directors
announced a new president and CEO, Chandini Portteus. She comes to Livestrong from Susan
G. Komen, the most widely-known, largest, and best-funded breast cancer organization in the
United States. With her extensive knowledge and skills in fundraising, global programming, and
advocacy, Livestrong has an individual well-versed in the challenges of leading this
organization into the future.
1. 5-19 Could an organization even plan for this type of situation? If yes, how? If not, why
not?
2. 5-20 How would goals be useful in this type of situation? What types of goals might be
necessary?
3. 5-21 What types of plans will be useful to Livestrong? Explain why you think these
plans would be important.
4. 5-22 What lessons about planning can managers learn from what Livestrong has
endured?
Case Application #3
Eyeing the Future
Fanatically focusing on execution and brand. That’s how analysts describe the strategic approach
of Warby Parker, a New York City eyewear startup that’s quickly disrupting the old-fashioned
eyewear business. Co-founded in 2010 by David Gilboa and Neil Blumenthal (who are also now
co-CEOs), Warby Parker has shown itself to be a fierce and successful competitor. Why? “One
word, deliberate.”56
They are disciplined about their brand, but embrace and exploit technology

in disrupting the staid and conservative way eyewear has traditionally been sold. So what does
Warby Parker do?
To appreciate what Warby Parker is doing, we need to look back at how the idea for the
company came about. After leaving a $700 pair of Prada frames in a seat-back pocket on a flight
while backpacking in Southeast Asia, Gilboa began questioning why he had a $200 iPhone in his
pocket that had the technology to do a number of really cool things and yet replacing that pair of
glasses—a technology that’s hundreds of years old—would cost way more than that $200
iPhone.57
Like many other entrepreneurs, he believed there had to be a better way. His research
exposed an industry that was a virtual monopoly with a very powerful eyewear supplier, thus the
reason for the high-priced eyewear. Gilboa and a friend, who were both in Wharton’s MBA
program, weren’t even sure they could take on such a powerful competitor until they teamed up
with Blumenthal (also at Wharton). Blumenthal was rumored to know “more than pretty much
anyone else in the world about how to work outside of the traditional eyeglass-supply chains.”58
Well, it didn’t take long for the crew to start selling eyewear online from a Philadelphia
apartment.
Future Vision
Today, Warby Parker designs and manufactures its own trendy, stylish frames and sells them
directly to consumers over the Internet for an affordable $95 a pair. That price also includes
prescription lenses, shipping, and a donation to VisionSpring, a not-for-profit where Blumenthal
served as a director. The company has begun opening brick-and-mortar stores, with 11 open
currently. Other growth plans include expanding their product mix, diversifying their frame
selection into areas such as kids’ frames and glasses with progressive lenses, and exploring
revolutionary technologies that would do eye exams online. Warby Parker was named Fast
Company’s Most Innovative Company of 2015 and was honored as a finalist in the 2014 USA
Today Entrepreneur of the Year.59
Another thing Warby Parker does is its “Buy a Pair, Give a
Pair” program, which benefits visually-impaired individuals in developing countries. Meanwhile,
to carry on the company’s success, Gilboa and Blumenthal will continue being disciplined in all
they do, fanatically focusing attention on execution and brand. That future vision should help
Warby Parker continue on its successful journey.
1. 5-23 What role do you think goals might play in planning for Warby Parker’s future? List
some goals you think might be important. (Make sure these goals have the characteristics
of well-written goals.)
2. 5-24 What types of plans would be needed in an industry such as this one? (For instance,
long-term or short-term, or both?) Explain why you think these plans would be important.
3. 5-25 What contingency factors might affect the planning Warby Parker executives do?
How might those contingency factors affect the planning?
4. 5-26 What competitive advantage(s) do you think Warby Parker has? What competitive
challenges do you think the company faces?

Case Application #1
You Work Where?
Yahoo!, a pioneer in Web search and navigation, struggles to remain relevant in the face of
competition from the likes of Google, Facebook, and Twitter.61
It missed the two biggest Internet
trends—social networking and mobile. However, in July 2012, after the company did its own
search, it snagged a gem as the company’s new CEO—Marissa Mayer, one of the top executives
at Google. Mayer had been one of the few public faces of Google and was responsible for the
look and feel of Google’s most popular products. Guiding Yahoo! as it tries to regain its former
prominence is proving to be the challenge that experts predicted, but they’re also saying that if
anyone could take on the challenge of making Yahoo! an innovator once again, Mayer is the
person.
Where IS work done most efficiently and effectively?
Two of her initial decisions included free food at the office and new smartphones for every
employee, something that Google does. However, in February 2013, Mayer launched an
employee initiative that has generated lots of discussion—positive and negative. She decided that
as of June 2013, Yahoo! employees who worked remotely had to come back to the office. The
memo from the vice president of people and development (code for head of Human Resources)
clarified that the new initiative was a response to productivity issues that often can arise when
employees work from home. With a new boss and a renewed commitment to making Yahoo! a
strong company in a challenging industry, employees were expected to be physically present in
the workplace, hopefully leading to developing a strong common bond and greater productivity.
The announcement affects not only those who work from home full time—mainly customer
service reps—but also those employees who have arranged to work from home one or two days a
week. Yahoo! isn’t the only company asking remote workers to return. Bank of America, which
had a popular remote work program, decided late in 2012 that employees in certain roles had to
come back to the office.
Before Mayer became CEO at Yahoo!, it was a wonder anything ever got done there. What she
found wasn’t even remotely like the way employees functioned at Google. At Yahoo!, few
people were physically at work in the office cubicles throughout the building. Few cars or bikes
or other vehicles could be found in the facility’s parking lots. Even more disturbing: some of the
employees who were physically there at work did as little work as needed and then took off
early. She also discovered that other employees who worked from home did little but collect a
paycheck or maybe work on a sideline business they had started. Even at the office, one former
manager described morale as being as low as it could be because employees thought the
company was failing. These were some of the reasons that Mayer abolished Yahoo!’s work-
from-home policy. If Yahoo! was to again become the nimble company it had once been, a new
culture of innovation, communication, and collaboration was needed. And that meant employees
had to be at work; physically at work together. Restoring Yahoo!’s “cool”—from its products to
its deteriorating morale and culture—would be difficult if the organization’s people weren’t

there. That’s why Mayer’s decision at Yahoo! created such an uproar. Yahoo!’s only official
statement on the new policy said, “This isn’t a broad industry view on working from home. This
is about what is right for Yahoo!, right now.”
Where work is done most efficiently and effectively—office, home, combination—is an
important workplace issue. The three main managerial concerns are productivity, innovation, and
collaboration. Do flexible arrangements lead to greater productivity or inhibit innovation and
collaboration? Another concern is that employees, especially younger ones, expect to be able to
work remotely. Yes, the trend has been toward greater workplace flexibility, but does that
flexibility lead to a bloated, lazy, and unproductive remote workforce? These are the challenges
of designing work structures.
1. 6-14 Evaluate Yahoo!’s new work initiative. Did it have to be an “all or nothing”
proposition? Discuss.
2. 6-15 What can managers and organizations do to help employees who work from home
be efficient and effective?
3. 6-16 Take the three main concerns—productivity, innovation, and collaboration. From
the perspective of management, how do you think flexible arrangements stack up? How
about from the employee’s perspective?
4. 6-17 Is “face-time” (that is, showing up at work to be seen by your boss and others)
critical to one’s career? Discuss.
5. 6-18 Is being able to work remotely important to you? Why or why not?
Case Application #2
Lift Off
Over the years, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has provided us with
some spectacular moments—from Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon to the Hubble
Telescope’s mesmerizing photos of distant stars and galaxies.62
As stated in NASA’s Strategic
Plan 2014, its vision is: “We reach for new heights and reveal the unknown for the benefit of
humankind.” And its mission is: “Drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space
exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of
Earth.” These have guided (and continue to guide) its management team as decisions are made
about projects, missions, and programs. When the space shuttle program—NASA’s main project
mission—ended in 2011, the organization struggled for a time with its purpose and identity. In
fact, one agency program manager at that time described NASA’s future as nothing but
uncertainty. However, despite the ambiguity, NASA’s leaders have been charting a new
trajectory. Possible new goals include getting to an asteroid by 2025 and putting astronauts on
Mars by 2030. (Here’s a bit of trivia for you: Mars is 225,300,000 kilometers—140,000,000
miles—from earth.) And critical to achieving these goals is the necessity to guide this complex,

technical organization and figure out how to best manage the vast array of knowledge resources
that are so crucial to its future.
Managing the knowledge resources of NASA
NASA, established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act on July 29, 1958, has led U.S.
efforts in space exploration, including the Apollo lunar landing missions, the Skylab space
station, and the reusable manned spacecraft—which we know better as the Space Shuttle. It’s a
unique organization where equipment costs millions of dollars and where people’s lives can be at
stake. Over the years, NASA has had many successful endeavors (and some tragic failures).
Getting men on the moon, not once, but six times, reflects outstanding technological prowess, far
superior to any other country. Being able to put a rocket into space with a shuttle that then comes
back to earth and lands on its own is a reflection of the incredibly talented and knowledgeable
employees that NASA has. Now, NASA is taking the first steps to develop new technologies and
capabilities to send astronauts further into space than ever before. It achieved a major milestone
in early December 2014 with the successful test flight of Orion, a spacecraft designed for ultra-
long-distance journeys. Accomplishments such as these are possible only because of the people
in NASA who bring their knowledge, talents, skills, and creativity to that organization. And
“managing” those people requires an “organization” structure that allows, enhances, and
encourages the sharing of knowledge. It’s not an easy thing to design and do.
One word that aptly describes NASA’s organization environment is complexity. Not only is there
technical complexity (yes, we are talking rocket science, here!), but also numerous projects are
going on, change is an ongoing reality, and demands arise from numerous stakeholders both
inside and outside the organization. And within this complexity, the challenge is finding a way to
share the incredible wealth of knowledge within project teams and across the entire organization.
How is NASA doing this?
Knowing how important it is to manage the organization’s vast knowledge resources, NASA has
identified knowledge-sharing activities currently being used and others that are needed. Some of
these include: online tools such as collaboration and sharing sites, video libraries, portals, etc.; a
search engine that allows tagging and classifications (taxonomy); a library of searchable case
studies and publications; an index of defined processes or “lessons learned;” knowledge
networks of location “experts,” collaboration activities, collaborative workspaces, etc.; and
forums, workshops and other social exchanges that bring people together. Through its knowledge
management efforts, NASA administrators are showing that they understand how important it is
for the organization’s structure to contribute to efficiently and effectively managing its
knowledge resources.
1. 6-19 Would you call NASA a learning organization? Why or why not?
2. 6-20 In what ways is NASA’s environment complex?
3. 6-21 How does complexity affect structural choice?

4. 6-22 Using Exhibit 6–12, what suggestions would you make to managers at NASA about
being a learning organization?
Case Application #3
A New Kind of Structure
Admit it. Sometimes the projects you’re working on (school, work, or both) can get pretty boring
and monotonous. Wouldn’t it be great to have a magic button you could push to get someone
else to do that boring, time-consuming stuff? At Pfizer, that “magic button” is a reality for a
large number of employees.
Wouldn’t you like a MAGIC BUTTON you could push to get someone else to do all your
tedious and boring work?63
As a global pharmaceutical company, Pfizer is continually looking for ways to help employees
be more efficient and effective. The company’s senior director of organizational effectiveness
found that the “Harvard MBA staff we hired to develop strategies and innovate were instead
Googling and making PowerPoints.” Indeed, internal studies conducted to find out just how
much time its valuable talent was spending on menial tasks was startling. The average Pfizer
employee was spending 20 percent to 40 percent of his or her time on support work (creating
documents, typing notes, doing research, manipulating data, scheduling meetings) and only 60
percent to 80 percent on knowledge work (strategy, innovation, networking, collaborating,
critical thinking). And the problem wasn’t just at lower levels. Even the highest-level employees
were affected. Take, for instance, David Cain, an executive director for global engineering. He
enjoys his job—assessing environmental real estate risks, managing facilities, and controlling a
multimillion-dollar budget. But he didn’t so much enjoy having to go through spreadsheets and
put together PowerPoints. Now, however, with Pfizer’s “magic button,” those tasks are passed
off to individuals outside the organization.
Just what is this “magic button”? Originally called the Office of the Future (OOF), the renamed
PfizerWorks allows employees to shift tedious and time-consuming tasks with the click of a
single button on their computer desktop. They describe what they need on an online form, which
is then sent to one of two Indian service-outsourcing firms. When a request is received, a team
member in India calls the Pfizer employee to clarify what’s needed and by when. The team
member then e-mails back a cost specification for the requested work. If the Pfizer employee
decides to proceed, the costs involved are charged to the employee’s department. About this
unique arrangement, Cain said that he relishes working with what he prefers to call his “personal
consulting organization.”
The number 66,500 illustrates just how beneficial PfizerWorks has been for the company. That’s
the number of work hours estimated to have been saved by employees who’ve used PfizerWorks.
What about Joe Cain’s experiences? When he gave the Indian team a complex project
researching strategic actions that worked when consolidating company facilities, the team put the

report together in a month, something that would have taken him six months to do alone. He
says, “Pfizer pays me not to work tactically, but to work strategically.”
1. 6-23 Describe and evaluate what Pfizer is doing with its PfizerWorks.
2. 6-24 What structural implications—good and bad—does this approach have? (Think in
terms of the six organizational design elements.)
3. 6-25 Do you think this arrangement would work for other types of organizations? Why or
why not? What types of organizations might it also work for?
4. 6-26 What role do you think organizational structure plays in an organization’s efficiency
and effectiveness? Explain.
Case Application #1
Résumé Regrets
Human resource (HR) managers say that 53 percent of résumés and job applications contain
falsification, and 21 percent of résumé falsification state a fraudulent degree. In this age of
digital and social media, it’s hard to imagine anyone falsifying their records, much less someone
who’s in a company’s top position as CEO.78
After a thorough search, Scott Thompson was named as Yahoo!’s CEO in early 2012. Prior to
his appointment at Yahoo!, Thompson was president of PayPal, and prior to that he was PayPal’s
chief technology officer. Thompson replaced Carol Bartz, a well-known computer industry
executive, who, after two years on the job, had been unable to resolve Yahoo!’s troubles. In his
first months on the job, Thompson formulated a strategic plan for turning around the company,
including a massive layoff of employees. Then, the whole situation started to unravel. An activist
investor sent a letter to Yahoo!’s board of directors expressing concern about an SEC regulatory
filing signed by Thompson “that stated to the best of his knowledge its contents were accurate.”
That document said that Thompson had earned a college degree in accounting and computer
science in 1979 from a small university south of Boston. The activist investor said he had reason
to believe that the degree was in accounting only. And, come to find out, the university didn’t
have a computer science program until the early 1980s and school officials confirmed that Mr.
Thompson received a bachelor’s of science degree in business administration. The activist
investor questioned if Thompson had embellished his academic credentials and if the board had
failed to exercise due “diligence and oversight in one of its most important tasks—identifying
and hiring the chief executive officer.”
Would YOU lie on a résumé to get a job you want? 70 percent of college students said they
would!

After all this came down, a person close to the company said that, “In the absence of evidence
that Mr. Thompson actively misled Yahoo! about his résumé, Yahoo!’s directors likely won’t
force him out. Maintaining him as CEO of Yahoo! at this time is more important than whether he
had a computer science degree or not.” And at first, that was the stance Yahoo!’s board took.
However, the controversy continued to grow. In a meeting with senior Yahoo! officials,
Thompson said he “regretted not finding an error in his public biography.” He then suggested
that maybe an executive search firm might have inserted this information more than seven years
earlier. Yet, this blame game backfired. Some of his comments ended up on tech blogs, which
angered the search firm, which produced documents from Mr. Thompson showing his inaccurate
biography. As one person close to the situation said, “The cover-up became worse than the
crime.” Not long after, Thompson ended up resigning his position. Although the board did not
give him severance pay, he did get to keep $7 million of the cash and stock he received when
appointed to the position. Not a bad haul for only four months’ work. (Epilogue: Thompson was
replaced by Marissa Mayer, whom we introduced in Case Application #1 in Chapter 6.)
1. 7-14 What does this story tell you about the importance of checking a job applicant’s
background?
2. 7-15 What stakeholders are affected when an executive has inaccuracies in his or her
résumé? How might they be affected?
3. 7-16 Look at the statistics in the first paragraph of this story. Are you surprised by them?
Why or why not?
4. 7-17 What can you learn from this story (a) personally and (b) professionally?
Case Application #2
Stopping Traffic
Things weren’t turning out so good for J.C. Penney Co. and its CEO, Ron Johnson (now the
former CEO).79
Johnson arrived with much acclaim from being the head of Apple’s successful
retail operations. At Penney’s, he immediately began one of retailing’s most ambitious
overhauls, trying to position the company for success in a very challenging and difficult industry.
His plans included a “stores-within-a store” concept, no sales or promotions, and a three-tiered
pricing plan. He suggested that Penney could use “a little bit of Apple’s magic.” From the start,
analysts and experts questioned whether Penney’s customers, who were accustomed to sales and
coupons, would accept this new approach. Long story short . . . customers didn’t. For the full
fiscal year of 2013, Penney had a loss of $985 million (compared to a loss of $152 million in
2012). And even after Johnson’s dismissal, the company’s financial situation continued to
decline. Now, you may be asking yourself, what does this story have to do with HRM? Well, a
lot it turns out! When a company is struggling financially, it is going to impact its people.
Red, Yellow, and Green have a whole new meaning at J.C. Penney Co.80

And for J.C. Penney employees, that impact came in the form of a “traffic light” color-coded
performance appraisal system. In a companywide broadcast, supervisors were told that they
should categorize their employees by one of three colors: Green—their performance is okay;
Yellow—they need some coaching to improve performance; and Red—their performance is not
up to par and they need to leave. Many employees weren’t even aware of the system and
supervisors were given no guidance one way or the other regarding whether to tell them about it,
although company headquarters chose not to disclose the light system to employees.
Although the uncertainties over how to inform or even whether to inform employees about this
HR initiative were troubling, communication and HR experts say there are other problems with
this green/yellow/red approach. One problem is that such a system can appear to be inconsiderate
and uncaring when you realize that it’s dealing with people’s ability to make a living. What
appears to be an easy-to-understand and simplistic approach using the familiar green, yellow,
and red colors doesn’t translate well to what will be a tremendously personal and difficult
situation for many employees, especially those with a “red” appraisal. Another problem is that
labeling employees can create difficult interpersonal situations. The labels can become a source
of humor and teasing, which can deteriorate into hurt feelings and even feelings of being
discriminated against. Despite its simplicity and a belief that a color-coding system is so easy to
use, it’s going to be problematic. This doesn’t mean that employers don’t evaluate employees.
But companies should be open about the process and the expectations. Employees should know
that they’re being rated, what the criteria are, and, if they have a poor rating, what options they
have for improving. There should also be a fair process of appeal or protest if an employee feels
the rating was unfair.
1. 7-18 Many managers say that evaluating an employee’s performance is one of their most
difficult tasks. Why do you think they feel that way?
2. 7-19 What can organizations (and managers) do to make performance appraisal an
effective process?
3. 7-20 What’s your impression of a color-coded system like that used by J.C. Penney? As a
store department supervisor, how would you have approached this?
4. 7-21 What could J.C. Penney executives have done to make this process more effective?
Case Application #3
Spotting Talent
Attracting and selecting the right talent is critical to a company’s success. For tech companies,
the process is even more critical since it’s the knowledge, skills, and abilities of their employees
that determines these companies’ efficiency, innovation, and, ultimately, financial
achievements.81
So, how do companies like Google and Facebook, and even IBM and Microsoft,
attract the talent they need? As you’ll see, these companies use some unique approaches.

Modis, a global provider of IT staffing and recruiting, has an interesting philosophy about
searching for talented tech types. As pressure has mounted on businesses to find qualified
employees, the search for the “perfect” candidate has become increasingly competitive. This
company calls its search for the perfect candidate “the quest for the ‘purple squirrel.’“Sometimes
you just have to realize that, like the purple squirrel, the “perfect” candidate isn’t available or
doesn’t exist. But that doesn’t mean you don’t try to find the best available talent.
Beware the PURPLE SQUIRREL!
How do some of the big tech names spot talent?
For “mature” tech companies like IBM, Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard (H-P), the challenge can
be especially difficult since they don’t have the allure of startups or the younger, “sexier” tech
companies. So these businesses have to really step up their game. Take IBM, for instance. After
its Watson computer beat two former Jeopardy champions in a televised match, the company
hauled the machine to Carnegie Mellon, a top school, where students got a chance to challenge
the computer. IBM’s goal: lure some of those students to consider a career at IBM. H-P is using
the pizza party/tech talk approach at various schools, trying to lure younger students before other
tech companies and startups snatch them away. Microsoft, which was once one of those startups,
has sent alumni back to schools to promote why Microsoft is a great place to take their talents.
And it also hosts game nights, final-exam study parties, app-building sessions, and other events
to try to lure students.
For companies like Facebook and Google, the search for talent is still challenging because of the
increasing demand for and limited supply of potential employees. So even these companies have
to be creative in spotting talent. Google, for instance, found that they had been looking at
résumés too narrowly by focusing (as expected) on education, GPA, and even SAT scores trying
to find those candidates with the highest IQs. But they found that some of those so-called
geniuses weren’t as effective on the job as expected. So, they started looking at résumés
differently. Rather than looking at résumés starting at the top and reading to the bottom, it began
to look from the bottom-up, trying to find some rare, special attribute that set an applicant apart
as a unique talent. Facebook found that old-fashioned hiring channels weren’t getting the talent it
needed fast enough. So it tried online puzzles and programming challenges to attract and spot
talent. It was an easy, fast, and cheap approach to get submissions from potential candidates.
Despite these unique approaches, it’s also true that younger tech companies, like these and many
others, have a built-in appeal for candidates primarily because they’re what’s “in” and what’s
“hot” right now. Also, in many of the younger tech companies, there’s no entrenched
bureaucracy or cultural restrictions. If an employee wants to come to work in cargo shorts, T-
shirts, and flip-flops, they do. In fact, what attracts many talented employees to companies like
these is the fact that they can set their own hours, bring their pets to work, have access to free
food and drinks, and a variety of other perks.

1. 7-22 What does this case imply about the supply and demand for employees and what
implications does that have for businesses?
2. 7-23 What’s the meaning behind the search for the “purple squirrel” in relation to
spotting talent? Is this relevant to non-tech companies as well? Discuss.
3. 7-24 Do you think that mature tech companies are always going to have a more difficult
time attracting tech talent? Explain.
4. 7-25 What do you think of the recruiting approaches that Google and Facebook have
tried?
Case Application #1
Getting All Emotional at Google
As the number-one company on Fortune’s Best Company to Work For list for six straight years,
Google must be doing something right! Actually, it does many things right! One thing that you
might be surprised at is a self-improvement course (one of many) that’s offered to Google’s
employees. The course, first offered in 2007, is called simply Search Inside Yourself (SIY). And
it’s so popular that thousands of Googlers are on waiting lists to take the course!
Search Inside Yourself
SIY was developed by a Google engineer, Chade-Meng Tan. Tan has been around Google from
almost the beginning—he was Google employee No. 107. His current work position carries the
title “Jolly Good Fellow,” and his job description says he wants to, “Enlighten minds, open
hearts, create world peace.”74
Interesting concepts for a highly successful tech company, don’t
you think! But there’s a serious side to what might seem to be a “fluff” topic. The SIY course
was designed to show Googlers how to be more aware of their emotions, to be more
compassionate toward others, to be able to build sustainable relationships (internally and
externally), and, of course, to contribute to world peace. (We’re not kidding!) SIY is based on
the five dimensions of emotional intelligence —here’s a little review for you: self-awareness,
self-management, self-motivation, empathy, and social skills—and is broken into three parts.
The first part of the course focuses on attention training—being able to center yourself calmly
and clearly in the midst of whatever is going on around you . . . shouting, stress, conflict, or
whatever. The second part involves self-knowledge—being aware of your emotions and
eventually being able to master those emotions. And the third part is creating mental habits—
being in control of your emotions and able to naturally think how to relate calmly and kindly to
others. Although all this sounds very interesting and very useful, that isn’t the most fascinating
part of the story.
What is most interesting is the fact that this course is so popular among people who are
extremely intelligent and very logical, practical, and straight-forward. After all, Google hires the
best and the brightest engineers—people who have a lot of knowledge and training, but who may
not always have the best social/people skills. So how did Tan appeal to those individuals? The
appeal was that the course was designed for the intellectual intelligence side (the nerd side) by

focusing on the neuroscience behind the touchy-feely behavioral self-control that is possible
through emotional intelligence. And despite Google’s need for very smart, competent, tech-
oriented employees, the reality is that even its workplace has to be about people working
together to solve problems and design new ways to keep moving the company forward. So, even
for them, emotional intelligence skills are needed for successful collaboration.
1. 9-14 Why might emotional intelligence be important to Google’s engineers?
2. 9-15 What is the purpose of this Search Inside Yourself course?
3. 9-16 Describe each of the three parts of the SIY course. Which do you think would be the
hardest to master? Why?
4. 9-17 How has Google made the SIY course appeal to its engineers?
Case Application #2
Odd Couples
A 29-year-old and a 68-year-old. How much could they possibly have in common? And what
could they learn from each other? At Randstad USA’s Manhattan office, such employee pairings
are common.75
One such pair of colleagues sits inches apart facing each other. “They hear every
call the other makes. They read every e-mail the other sends or receives. Sometimes they finish
each other’s sentences.”
Randstad Holding NV, a Dutch company, has been using this pairing idea since its founding
more than 40 years ago. The founder’s motto was “Nobody should be alone.” The original intent
was to boost productivity by having sales agents share one job and trade off job responsibilities.
Today, these partners in the home office have an arrangement where one is in the office one
week while the other one is out making sales calls, then the next week, they switch. The
company brought its partner arrangement to the United States in the late 1990s. But when it
began recruiting new employees, the vast majority of whom were in their twenties, it realized the
challenges and the potential of pairing different generations together. “Knowing that these Gen
Yers need lots of attention in the workplace, Randstad executives figured that if they shared a job
with someone whose own success depended on theirs, they were certain to get all the nurturing
they required.”
Pairing different generations together at work . . . and making it work!
Randstad doesn’t simply pair up people and hope it works. There’s more to it than that! The
company looks for people who will work well with others by conducting extensive interviews
and requiring job applicants to shadow a sales agent for half a day. “One question Randstad asks
is: What’s your most memorable moment while being on a team? If they respond ‘When I scored
the winning touchdown,’ that’s a deal killer. Everything about our organization is based on the

team and group.” When a new hire is paired with an experienced agent, both individuals have
some adjusting. One of the most interesting elements of Randstad’s program is that neither
person is “the boss.” And both are expected to teach the other.
1. 9-18 What possible OB topics do you see in this story? Explain.
2. 9-19 What do you think about this pairing-up idea? Would you be comfortable with such
an arrangement? Why or why not?
3. 9-20 What personality traits would be most needed for this type of work arrangement?
Why?
4. 9-21 What types of issues might a Gen Y employee and an older, more-experienced
employee face? How could two people in such a close-knit work arrangement deal with
those issues? That is, how could both make the adjustment easier?
Case Application #3
Employees First
“Employees first.” That’s the most important and crucial cultural value that HCL Technologies’
former CEO Vineet Nayar believed would help his company succeed and take it into the future.76
Although most managers think that customers should come first, Nayar’s philosophy was that
employee satisfaction needed to be the top priority.
What would an EMPLOYEES-FIRST culture look like?
As one of the largest companies in India, HCL sells various information technology consulting
services, such as infrastructure consulting, product engineering, custom software development,
and application and enterprise consulting. Luring and keeping top talent is one of the challenges
HCL faces. And at its size, it doesn’t have the atmosphere of a fun and quirky startup.
Part of that “employee first” philosophy is a no-layoff policy, which was difficult to uphold
during the pressures of the economic downturn. Like its competitors, HCL had excess employees
and had suspended raises. But HCL kept its promise and didn’t lay off any HCLites (Nayar’s
name for HCL employees). As business has picked up, however, employees begin looking at
competitors’ job offers. During the first quarter alone of 2010, HCL lost 22 percent of its
workforce. Maybe it’s time to monitor and track employee satisfaction.
HCL Technologies is headquartered in the world’s largest democracy, so it’s quite fitting that the
New Delhi–based company is attempting a radical experiment in workplace democracy. Nayar
was committed to creating a company where the job of company leaders was to enable people to
find their own destiny by gravitating to their strengths. One thing that Nayar did was to pioneer a
culture in which employees were first. What has he done to put employees first? Part of the

cultural initiative dealt with the organization’s structure. HCL inverted its organizational
structure and placed more power in the hands of frontline employees, especially those in direct
contact with customers and clients. It increased its investment in employee development and
improved communication through greater transparency. Employees were encouraged to
communicate directly with Nayar. Through a forum called U&I (You and I), Nayar fielded more
than a hundred questions from employees every week. “I threw open the door and invited
criticism,” he said. However, the signature piece of the company’s cultural mission is probably
what HCL called “trust pay.” In contrast to the industry standard in which the average
employee’s pay is 30 percent variable, HCL decided to pay higher fixed salaries and reduce the
variable component.
Does the unique “employees first” culture at HCL Technologies attract unique employees?
Rajeev Sawhney, HCL’s European president, would say yes. He uses Slumdog Millionaire, the
movie that won an Academy Award for Best Picture, as a parallel. “It (the movie) is a reflection
of the Indian race. It shows the adversity that creates the desire in people to reach out and
create. . . . With each adversity they face, there is a greater desire to reach out and do something
more.” Sawhney says that entrepreneurialism is a key value of the HCL culture. “You can still
tell an HCL person from a mile off. I think there is a particular DNA for an HCL person. It
includes a very high need for achievement and very persuasive skills. HCL people are very
energetic; they want to do lots of things and to take risks on behalf of the company.”
1. 9-22 What is your impression of an “employees first” culture? Would this work in other
organizations? Why or why not? What would it take to make it work?
2. 9-23 How might an understanding of organizational behavior help CEO Vineet Nayar
lead his company? Be specific. How about first-line company supervisors? Again, be
specific.
3. 9-24 What aspects of personality do you see in this story about HCL? How have the
personality traits of HCL employees contributed to make HCL what it is?
4. 9-25 Design an employee attitude survey for HCL’s employees.
Case Application #1
Rx: Teamwork
The health-care industry is the fastest growing sector of the U.S. economy, with annual revenues
projected at over $1.6 trillion (that’s 12 zeroes!) and employing over 18 million workers.64
Many
challenges face the health-care industry, including changing laws/regulations, changing
technologies, an aging population and increase in chronic disease, and labor shortages
(physicians and nurses). But the goal is still the same—efficiently and effectively provide quality
(appropriate and timely) health-care to patients. Given the challenges, health-care organizations

are looking for better ways to do this. And one way is through using a “team-based care”
approach, which research studies have shown can improve patient outcomes and reduce costs.
TEAMING UP for better outcomes
Many hospitals, clinics, and medical practices have adopted this team-care approach. What does
that entail? A patient receives care from a team of medical professionals who divide up
responsibilities for performing tasks that traditionally would have been done by a person’s
primary physician. Although supervising physicians still manage (oversee) patient care, tasks
such as completing prescription refill requests, adjusting medication dosages, helping manage
chronic diseases (for example, teaching someone diagnosed with diabetes how to take blood
sugar counts and to administer insulin), and other routine tasks are now done by a team of health-
care providers. For instance, at Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest not-for-profit managed
health-care companies in the United States, a new program model called “complete care” was
designed to enable health-care staffers to work together to make sure that no patient concern,
need, preventive action, or matter was missed or overlooked.65
As one individual described,
staffers often literally chased patients down hallways to get them to schedule needed screenings.
But the team approach is working. After a number of years using this model, research on
Kaiser’s team model showed significant gains in patient medical care across a wide range of
standardized measures. Getting to that outcome wasn’t easy, however. Departments that were
accustomed to working on their own now had to work together. Instead of focusing on their own
specialties, a team of specialists now worked together to provide patients with a well-rounded
health-care experience. Physicians had to be retrained to view themselves as part of a team,
supported by other professionals such as nurses, assistants, and other staff. As the health-care
environment continues to be challenging, is teamwork the Rx?
1. 10-14 What challenges are managers of health-care organizations facing?
2. 10-15 How would the way health-care organization managers manage be different in a
team-based model?
3. 10-16 Explain how roles, norms, status systems, and group cohesiveness might influence
the success of a team-based model?
4. 10-17 What are some reasons you think a team-based model has led to improved patient
outcomes and reduced costs?
Case Application #2
The Cardinal Way
When you think of teams, do you automatically think of sports teams? For most of us, that was
our first introduction to the concept of teams. Well, there’s one sports team that is a perfect
illustration of what an effective team is all about: the St. Louis Cardinals.66
What can we learn

about effective teams from them? Their record speaks for itself: the Cardinals, in the last four
years (2011–2014), have won one World Series and two pennants, and achieved four consecutive
playoff spots for the first time; in the last 15 years (2000–2014), the team has been to the
playoffs 11 times, participated in more playoff games than any team since 2009, and had only
one losing season; since 1960, the Cards have had consecutive losing seasons just once (yes,
once) in 55 years, in the years 1994 and 1995. The Cardinals organization is a well-managed
team, both on the field and behind the scenes. How have they managed these accomplishments?
Here are some keys to their success:
Winning Team—Winning Approach
• Talent development. The Cardinals organization finds ways to maximize its people and
the skills they bring to the team. Their talent development process often grabs less-gifted
minor league players (for less money) and transforms them into major-league
contributors. How? Through its well-run farm system. Players in the Cards’ AAA, AA,
and A leagues are repeatedly reminded that this organization likes to win and knows it
can win.
• Intense focus on the fundamentals (the tasks) of the game. The Cardinals play
fundamentally sound baseball—they know their business and they execute. (Or, using the
words of the Nike slogan, they “Just Do It!) Players and coaches religiously use the 86-
page operations manual (titled, of course, “The Cardinal Way”) as their guide. The
manual includes such details as the position a catcher should take on a 3-2 count and the
fine distinctions of 12 different ground balls a second baseman might face.
• Coaches understand the importance of teaching the details. Team players are “taught”
and “coached” in real-time through a continual focus on improving their skills. Coaches
help players learn from immediate game experiences. The pitching coaches and the
batting coaches are right there refining players’ behaviors during a game.
• Culture of success, care, and support. This is an organization with a deep history of
success. There’s an air of confidence that they’re going to win. There’s the expectation
that they will play the game the right way. Traditions are celebrated and embraced. Team
members genuinely care about each other. When a teammate was killed in a car accident
at the end of the 2014 season, all pulled together in compassion and concern.
• The Cardinal Way is, at its very heart, an organizational philosophy that guides all team
members—from the team on the field to the coach staff to the front office staff to the
marketing team and all others in the organization. Play ball!
1. 10-18 How does the St. Louis Cardinals organization epitomize teamwork?
2. 10-19 Do you think sports teams, like the St. Louis Cardinals, go through the stages of
group development? Why or why not?
3. 10-20 Using Exhibit 10–6 as your guide, discuss how the St. Louis Cardinals
organization creates effective teams.
4. 10-21 What could other organizations (even non-sports ones) learn from the St. Louis
Cardinals?

Case Application #3
Teaming Up for Take Off
The Boeing 737, a short- to medium-range twin-engine, narrow-body jet first rolled off the
assembly line in 1967.67
Now, almost half a century later, it’s the best-selling jet airliner in the
history of aviation. As airlines replace their aging narrow-body jet fleets, the burden is on Boeing
to ramp up production to meet demand and to do so efficiently. Boeing managers face the
challenge of producing more aircraft without increasing the size and scope of the manufacturing
facility. Managing production of the multimillion-dollar product—a 737-800 is sold for $84.4
million—means “walking an increasingly fine line between generating cash and stoking an
airplane glut.” And Boeing is relying on its employee innovation teams to meet the challenge.
Employee teams tackle innovation challenge
Boeing has been using employee-generated ideas since the 1990s, when its manufacturing
facility in Renton, Washington, began adopting “lean” manufacturing techniques. Today,
employee teams are continually looking for innovative ways—small and big—to be more
efficient and effective. For instance, a member of one team thought of a solution to a problem of
stray metal fasteners sometimes puncturing the tires as the airplane advanced down the assembly
line. The solution? A canvas wheel cover that hugs the four main landing-gear tires. Another
team figured out how to rearrange its work space to make four engines at a time instead of three.
Another team of workers in the paint process revamped their work routines and cut 10 minutes to
15 minutes per worker off each job. It took five years for another employee team to perfect a
process for installing the plane’s landing gear hydraulic tubes, but it eventually paid off.
These employee teams are made up of seven to ten workers with diverse skills—from mechanics
to assembly workers to engineers—and tend to focus on a specific part of a jet, such as the
landing gear or the passenger seats or the galleys. These teams may meet as often as once a
week. What’s the track record of these teams? Today, it takes about 11 days for the final
assembly of a 737 jet. That’s down from 22 days about a decade ago. The near-term goal is to
eventually shave off two more days.
1. 10-22 What type of team(s) do these employee teams appear to be? Explain.
2. 10-23 As this story illustrated, sometimes it may take a long time for a team to reach its
goal. As a manager, how would you motivate a team to keep on trying?
3. 10-24 What role do you think a team leader needs to play in this type of setting? Explain.
4. 10-25 Using Exhibit 10–6, what characteristics of effective teams would these teams
need? Explain.

Case Application #1
One for the Money…
Does money buy happiness? Several of the 120 employees at Gravity Payments, a credit card
processing company based in Seattle, are about to find out.75
The company’s founder, 29-year-old Dan Price, made the news in the spring of 2015 when he
decided to bump up the salary of 70 employees to a new “minimum wage” of $70,000. Now,
everyone in the company will be making at least $70,000. Some employees at the company,
where the average salary was $48,000, doubled their pay, and others got a nice salary increase—
probably enough, you’d think, for employees to be pretty happy about!
Money = Happiness, or Does It?
Why did Price do it? He said that he had been thinking about employee pay for a while,
especially after reading several news reports about the glaring pay disparities between corporate
CEOs and employees, which he says struck him as “ridiculous” and “absurd.” Also, Price had
read an article on happiness by two Princeton researchers (one a Nobel Prize-winning
psychologist) who had surveyed 450,000 U.S. residents on whether money could buy
happiness—both as it affected overall happiness but also how it affected day-to-day life. The
researchers concluded that people claimed to be happier with each doubling of income but only
to a point. But even more interesting was the dollar amount that respondents said would make
their daily life more pleasant: about $75,000 a year. Price decided to offer his employees a
minimum salary of $70,000. He felt that giving his employees this amount could enable many of
them to buy homes and pay for their kids’ educations.
To pay for the salary increase, Price is taking a pay cut from his annual $1 million salary down to
$70,000. Also, the company will have to use 75 to 80 percent of its profits to help cover the cost.
Some management consultants are questioning the move, wondering if it will affect employee
productivity and pay off in the long run. Concerns about what happens to employee motivation
include: Will employees be less motivated to work to be promoted to higher levels of
responsibility, and would those employees who put in additional effort above and beyond their
current tasks lose the incentive to do so (“why should I work harder if we all get the same pay”).
And what happens to the CEO’s motivation—would Price himself lose the incentive to want to
grow the company? Then, there’s also the question of what happens if the company’s
profitability starts to fall. Only time will tell if such issues are even relevant.
1. 11-14 Look back at the chapter-opening Management Myth and how it was “debunked.”
Evaluate this wage decision in light of that.

2. 11-15 Explain each of the employee productivity/motivation concerns. Which of these do
you think is most critical? Why?
3. 11-16 Choose one of the contemporary motivation theories discussed in the chapter and
write a description of it for Mr. Price, explaining how and why it would be a good
alternative for employee motivation.
4. 11-17 What problem(s) might managers face under this new pay approach and how could
they use knowledge about employee motivation to help them deal with those problem(s)?
Case Application #2
Searching For?
Google gets more than 3,000 job applications a day.76
And it’s no wonder! With a massage every
other week, onsite laundry, swimming pool and spa, free delicious all-you-can-eat gourmet
meals, and fun diversions like a huge slide in the workplace, what more could an employee
want? Sounds like an ideal job, doesn’t it? However, some employees are demonstrating by their
decisions to leave the company that all those perks (and these are just a few) aren’t enough to
keep them there.
How do you KEEP THE BEST?
Google has been in the top spot of Fortune’s list of “best companies to work for” for six years
running. But make no mistake, Google’s executives offer these fabulous perks for several
reasons: to attract the best knowledge workers it can in an intensely competitive, cutthroat
market; to help employees work long hours and not have to deal with time-consuming personal
chores; to show employees they’re valued; and to have employees remain Googlers (the name
used for employees) for many years. Yet, employees continue to jump ship. One analyst
commented that Google is so successful, hires the best and the brightest, and offers a wonderful
work environment, but people leave.
For instance, Sean Knapp and two colleagues, brothers Bismarck and Belsasar Lepe, came up
with an idea on how to handle Web video. They left Google, or as one person described it,
ditched the good life to try their hands at starting their own company. When the threesome left
the company, Google really wanted them and their project to stay. Google offered them whatever
they wanted to keep them. But the trio realized they would do all the hard work and Google
would own the product. So off they went, for the excitement of a startup.
If this were an isolated occurrence, it would be easy to write off. But it’s not. Other talented
Google employees have done the same thing. In fact, so many have left that they’ve formed an
informal alumni club of ex-Googlers turned entrepreneurs.
Google is taking aggressive steps to retain its talent, especially those with startup ambitions. One
thing the company has done is give several engineers who said they wanted to leave to pursue
their own ideas the opportunity to pursue those ideas within Google. These employees work

independently and can recruit other engineers. In addition, Google’s resources, such as its code
base and computer servers, are available to them. In addition, from the very beginning, Google’s
founders (Larry Page and Sergey Brin) believed in giving everyone time—called 20 percent
time—to work on their own projects.
Other Googlers have left because they felt Google had gotten too big and turned into a slow-
moving bureaucratic company. Again, the company battled to keep the talent. For instance, when
a Google product manager told his bosses that he was leaving to take a job at Facebook, they
offered him a huge raise. But he told them it wasn’t about the money. So they offered him a
promotion, the opportunity to work in a different area, or even to start his own company inside
Google. Yet, the former employee says that Facebook offered an opportunity to do things
quickly that couldn’t (or wouldn’t) happen at Google. However, there’s one other thing that
startups can offer experienced employees: They’re “private companies that haven’t gone public
and can lure workers with pre-IPO (initial public offering) stock.”
1. 11-18 What’s it like to work at Google? (Hint: Go to Google’s Web site and find the
section on Google Careers and go from there.) What’s your assessment of the company’s
work environment?
2. 11-19 Google is doing a lot for its employees, but obviously not enough to retain some
talented employees. Using what you’ve learned from studying the various motivation
theories, what does this situation tell you about employee motivation?
3. 11-20 What do you think is Google’s biggest challenge in keeping employees motivated?
4. 11-21 If you were managing a team of Google employees, how would you keep them
motivated?
5. 11-22 Reread the chapter section on motivating professionals. Using this information,
what would you tell managers at Google?
Case Application #3
Passionate Pursuits
At its headquarters in Ventura, California, Patagonia’s office space feels more like a national
park lodge than the main office of a $600 million retailer.77
It has a Douglas fir staircase and a
portrait of Yosemite’s El Capitan. The company’s café serves organic food and drinks. There’s
an infant and toddler child-care room for employees’ children. An easy one-block walk from the
Pacific Ocean, employees’ surfboards are lined up by the cafeteria, ready at a moment’s notice to
catch some waves. (Current wave reports are noted on a whiteboard in the lobby.) After surfing
or jogging or biking, employees can freshen up in the showers found in the restrooms. And no
one has a private office. If an employee doesn’t want to be disturbed, he or she wears
headphones. Visitors are evident by the business attire they wear. The company encourages

celebrations to boost employee morale. For instance, at the Reno store, the “Fun Patrol”
organizes parties throughout the year.
Motivating employees the RIGHT WAY
Patagonia has long been recognized as a great workplace for mothers. And it’s also earned a
reputation for loyal employees, something that many retailers struggle with. Its combined
voluntary and involuntary turnover in its retail stores was around 25 percent, while it was only 7
percent at headquarters. (The industry average for retail is around 44 percent.) Patagonia’s CEO
Casey Sheahan says the company’s culture, camaraderie, and way of doing business is very
meaningful to employees and they know that their work activities are helping protect and
preserve the outdoors that they all love and enjoy. Managers are coached to define expectations,
communicate deadlines, and then let employees figure out the best way to meet those.
Founded by Yvon Chouinard, an avid advocate of the natural environment, Patagonia’s first and
strongest passion is for the outdoors and the environment. And that attracts employees who are
also passionate about those things. But Patagonia’s executives do realize that they are first and
foremost a business and, even though they’re committed to doing the right thing, the company
needs to remain profitable to be able to continue to do the things it’s passionate about. But that
hasn’t seemed to be an issue since the recession in the early 1990s, when the company had to
make its only large-scale layoffs in its history.
1. 11-23 What would it be like to work at Patagonia? (Hint: Go to Patagonia’s Web site and
find the section on jobs in Company Info.) What’s your assessment of the company’s
work environment?
2. 11-24 Using what you’ve learned from studying the various motivation theories, what
does Patagonia’s situation tell you about employee motivation?
3. 11-25 What do you think might be Patagonia’s biggest challenge in keeping employees
motivated?
4. 11-26 If you were managing a team of Patagonia employees in the retail stores, how
would you keep them motivated?
Case Application #1
Developing Gen Y Leaders
How important are excellent leaders to organizations? Well, the answer,in theory of course,
would be very important. However, the answer as practiced by countless organizations might
indicate otherwise. Only 38 percent of organizations have a formal frontline leadership
development program in place.71
It’s important for organizations to commit to strong leadership
development, and it’s particularly important for organizations to begin grooming their Gen Y

employees to move into critical leadership positions. Why? Within 10 years (by 2025), these
Millennials are set to comprise 75 percent of the global workforce. That’s why organizational
leadership development programs are absolutely essential.72
Let’s look at what some companies
are doing to prepare the next generation for leadership.
Excellent leaders have to be developed and cultivated.
3M’s leadership development program is so effective that it has been one of the “Top 20
Companies for Leadership” in six of the last seven years and ranks as one of the top 25
companies for grooming leadership talent according to consultant Hay Group.73
What is 3M’s
leadership program all about? A few years ago, the company’s former CEO and his top team
spent 18 months developing a leadership model for the company. After numerous brainstorming
sessions and much heated debate, the group finally agreed on six “leadership attributes” that they
believed were essential for managers to have in order for the company to become skilled at
executing strategy and being accountable. Those six attributes included the ability to: develop a
plan and implement that plan; motivate and rouse others; be ethical and trustworthy and abide by
the rules; achieve outcomes; strive for excellence; and be a capable and creative innovator. The
company has continued to reinforce its pursuit of leadership excellence with these six attributes.
Other companies, such as Ernst & Young, start early in recruiting and investing in future leaders,
often going after talented college freshmen who have leadership potential. They take the best
talent and involve them in various leadership development programs both while in school and
after graduation.74
Deloitte, another company rated high for its leadership development
programs, is deeply committed to helping its Millennial employees learn and absorb the
leadership skills they will need to lead the company in the future.75
It starts with a very specific
recruiting strategy for hiring Millennials and continues with a yearlong “Welcome to Deloitte”
program. This program is all about teaching this age group client-management skills and team-
building skills, and offering professional development opportunities. And, not surprisingly, it’s
done largely through social media using interactive experiences such as role-plays, simulations,
games, and a tool to help these employees track their first-year tasks.
At Facebook, the first Millennial-run organization to become a Fortune 500 company, leadership
development is designed around the needs of a fast-moving, fast-growing company.76
The head
of leadership development at Facebook says that the only way leadership development works
there is by making it consistent with the types of engineering tech types that comprise the
company. Engineers are concerned only with “what works.” And it’s the same for any type of
leadership development to be successful here; the focus has to be on what works. Also, since
Facebook is an extremely flat organization with few levels of management, employees find out
early on that in order to get anything done, they’re going to have to be able to influence and
inspire people. That’s why leaders at Facebook don’t have to be convinced of the need for people
skills. They won’t survive long without them.

1. 12-14 Why do you think that there’s a huge gap in theory (what we know we should do)
and practice (what we’re actually doing) of leadership development?
2. 12-15 What are some reasons that companies might not be addressing Gen Y leadership
development programs?
3. 12-16 Take each of the six leadership attributes that 3M feels is important. Explain what
you think each one involves. Then discuss how those attributes might be developed and
measured.
4. 12-17 Would any of those six leadership attributes be appropriate for any of the other
companies mentioned? Explain.
5. 12-18 Three different types of organizations are described here: 3M is primarily a
manufacturing organization. Ernst & Young and Deloitte are professional services
organizations. Facebook is a tech company. Compare and contrast their differing
approaches to Gen Y leadership development.
Case Application #2
Serving Up Leaders
Here’s something to consider: $35 million; 5,000 live coffee plants; 1,000 lighting instruments;
120 speakers; 21 projection screens. These are just a few of the “numbers” describing the
spectacle known as the Starbucks Leadership Lab.77
For three days in the fall of 2012, some
9,600 Starbucks store managers trekked to a conference center in Houston to be immersed in a
massive interactive experience. While there, these managers were steeped in the Starbucks
brand.
Immerse yourself in a leadership experience.
The Leadership Lab was part leadership training and part trade show. The company’s store
managers were given a behind-the-scenes look and introduced up close and personal to what
makes Starbucks go. From an exhibit featuring live coffee shrubs to a drying patio where they
could get hands-on experience raking through coffee beans, to an enormous exhibit of used shoes
with customer experiences noted on cards (sort of a “walk in my shoes” theme). Most of these
experiences were designed to be instructive for the store managers. However, in addition, the
store managers—who are on the “firing line” day in and day out—had the opportunity to interact
with top managers of the company’s roasting process, blend development, and customer service
functions. Managers also were encouraged to share what they had learned from the Leadership
Lab by stopping at a station lined with laptops.
The lights, the music, and the dramatic presentation were all designed to immerse the store
managers in the Starbucks brand and culture. The goal was to “mobilize its employees to become
brand evangelists.” And since presentation is a significant component of what the Starbucks
experience is built on—the sights, the sounds, the smells—the entire presentation at the
Leadership Lab was well thought out and intentional.

1. 12-19 Describe the leadership lessons you think Starbucks Leadership Lab provided store
managers.
2. 12-20 What role do you think an organization’s culture plays in how its leaders lead?
Relate this to the story told above.
3. 12-21 Using the behavioral theories as a guideline, what do you think would be more
important to a Starbucks store manager: focus on task, focus on people, or both? Explain.
4. 12-22 How might a Starbucks store manager use situational leadership theory? Path-goal
theory? Transformational leadership?
Case Application #3
Leadership Legacy
A lot has been written about the late Steve Jobs.78
How he took Apple, a niche business, and
turned it into the most valuable company in the world as measured by market capitalization. How
he was extremely charismatic and extremely compelling in getting people to join with him and
believe in his vision. But also how he was despotic, tyrannical, abrasive, uncompromising, and a
perfectionist. So what is his leadership legacy?
Insanely Great Leadership
Everything that Jobs did and how he did it was motivated by his desire to have Apple make
innovative products—products that were “insanely great”—“insanely” being one of his favorite
descriptors. That singular focus shaped his leadership style, which has been described as
autocratic and yet persuasive. As one reporter said, Jobs “violated every rule of management. He
was not a consensus builder but a dictator who listened mainly to his own intuition. He was a
maniacal micromanager. . . . He could be absolutely brutal in meetings.”79
His verbal assaults on
staff could be terrifying. The story is told that when Apple launched its first version of the
iPhone that worked on 3G mobile networks, it included MobileMe, an e-mail system that was
supposed to provide seamless synchronization features similar to that used by the fanatical
corporate users of BlackBerry phones. The problem? It didn’t work well at all and product
reviews were quite critical. Since “Steve Jobs doesn’t tolerate duds,”80
it wasn’t long after the
launch that he gathered the MobileMe team in an auditorium on Apple’s campus. According to a
participant in that meeting, Jobs walked in—in his trademark black mock turtleneck and jeans—
and simply asked if anyone could tell him what MobileMe was designed to do. When he finally
got an acceptable answer, he asked plainly why the *#$% it didn’t do that. Then, for the next 30
minutes, Jobs blasted criticisms at the team. “You’ve tarnished Apple’s reputation. You should
hate each other for having let each other down.”81
Ouch. And this wasn’t the only example of his
taking employees to task. He was tough on the people around him. When asked about his
tendency to be rough on people, Jobs responded, “Look at the results. These are all smart people

I work with, and any of them could get a top job at another place if they were truly feeling
brutalized. But they don’t.”82
On the other hand, Steve Jobs could be thoughtful, passionate, and “insanely” charismatic. He
could encourage and get people to do what they didn’t think was possible. And there’s no
arguing with the fact that the results from the company he co-founded have been market-
changing. From the Macs and iPods to the iPhones and iPads, Apple’s products have
revolutionized industries and created a fan base of consumers who are very loyal to the Apple
brand and employees who are very loyal to the company.
1. 12-23 Think about what you thought you knew about Steve Jobs prior to reading this
Case Application. How would you have described his leadership style?
2. 12-24 After reading this Case Application, how would you describe his leadership style?
3. 12-25 What were you most surprised about after reading this Case Application?
4. 12-26 Would Steve Jobs’s leadership approach work for others? Discuss.
Case Application #1
Social Benefit or Social Disaster?
Tweets. Twittering. Prior to 2006, the only definition we would have known for these words
would have involved birds and the sounds they make. Now, practically everyone knows that
Twitter is also an online service—with 974 million registered users, 302 million monthly active
users, 500 million tweets daily, and 1.6 billion daily search queries—used to trade short
messages of 140 characters or less via the Web, cell phones, and other devices.56
According to its
founders (Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams), Twitter is many things: a messaging
service, a customer-service tool to reach customers, a real-time search tool, and microblogging.
And as the numbers show, it’s become quite popular!
The Good and the Bad of TWITTER
One place where Twitter has caught on is the sports world, especially in college sports. For
instance, Mike Riley, head football coach at the University of Nebraska, uses Twitter to keep
fans informed. He understands the power of instant communication. Coach Hugh Freeze of the
University of Mississippi was an early adopter of social media to communicate recruitment
news. He’s discovered that tweeting is an easy and fun way to communicate quick tidbits of
information to fans, alumni boosters, and other interested people who subscribe to Twitter. And
it’s a convenient way for the football staff and football recruiting prospects to communicate with
each other. There are pretty strict rules the NCAA has about contact allowed between potential
recruits and coaches, but NCAA rules do allow unlimited direct messaging. However, coaches
still are cautious about committing recruiting violations. So, using Twitter to announce their

destinations on the recruiting trail, coaches can indirectly share their recruitment news without
naming names.57
However, many universities and college coaches are monitoring and, in some cases, banning
athletes’ use of social media. A potentially precarious issue can arise if an athlete tweets some
comment that could put the university in a negative light, offend boosters, or possibly violate an
NCAA regulation. Here are a couple of tweeting slip-ups: A Western Kentucky running back
was suspended after he tweeted critical comments about the team’s fans; the NCAA pulled 15
football scholarships after an investigation based on a player’s tweet; and a Lehigh University
wide receiver was suspended for retweeting a racial slur. We even saw how tweeting backfired at
the London Olympics. The first “casualty”—a Greek triple jumper—was banned from the
Games over some racially charged tweets. That seems to be good reason for the managers (i.e.,
coaches and administrators) of these programs to attempt to control the information flow. But is
banning the answer? Some analysts say no. They argue that those setting up rules and regulations
don’t understand what social media is all about and the value it provides as a marketing and
recruiting tool, and they argue that it’s necessary to understand First Amendment rights (part of
which includes freedom of speech). Rather than banning the use of social media, many
universities are hiring companies to monitor athletes’ posts. This, however, requires athletes to
give access to their accounts, which some call an invasion of privacy. But as time goes on, social
media conversations are becoming more common and more expected. By the time the Sochi
Olympics rolled around, social media had changed the way Olympics news and views were
conveyed.58
1. 13-13 What are the advantages and drawbacks of universities using social media to
communicate with various stakeholders—students, potential students, alumni, donors,
etc.?
2. 13-14 Do you think there are more or fewer communication barriers when using social
media? Discuss.
3. 13-15 What should managers do to be sure they communicate effectively when using
social media?
4. 13-16 Looking at the rules and regulations that universities are establishing, do you think
that business organizations should have rules for employees using social media? What
types of rules do you think would be necessary? Be as specific as possible.
5. 13-17 What have been your experiences—both positive and negative—with social
media? From your experiences, what guidelines could you suggest for managers and
organizations?
Case Application #2
Banning E-Mail. Banning Voice Mail.

It’s estimated that the average corporate user sends and receives some 112 e-mails daily.59
That’s
about 14 e-mails per hour, and even if half of those don’t require a lot of time and concentration,
that level of e-mail volume can be stressful and lead to unproductive time. Once imagined to be a
time-saver, has the inbox become a burden? What about voice mails? Are phone messages even
necessary for organizational communication? These and other concerns are forcing many
organizations to take a closer look at how information is communicated.
Several years ago, U.S. Cellular’s executive vice president implemented a ban on e-mail every
Friday. In his memo announcing the change to employees, he told them to get out and meet the
people they work with rather than sending an e-mail. That directive went over with a thud. One
employee confronted him saying that Ellison didn’t understand how much work had to get done
and how much easier it was when using e-mail. Eventually, however, employees were won over.
Forced to use the phone, one employee learned that a coworker he thought was across the
country was, instead, across the hall. Now, other executives are discovering the benefits of
banning e-mail.
What IS necessary for organizational communication?
Jessica Rovello, cofounder and president of Arkadium, which develops games, has described e-
mail as “a form of business attention-deficit disorder.” She found herself—and her employees—
putting e-mail in the inbox ahead of everything else being worked on. What she decided to do
was only check her e-mail four times a day and to turn off her e-mail notification. Another
executive, Tim Fry of Weber Shandwick, a global public relations firm, spent a year preparing to
“wean” his employees off their e-mail system. His goal: dramatically reduce how much e-mail
employees send and receive. His approach started with the firm’s interoffice communication
system, which became an internal social network, with elements of Facebook, work group
collaboration software, and an employee bulletin board. And then there’s Thierry Breton, head of
Europe’s largest IT firm, Atos. He announced a “zero e-mail policy” to be replaced with a
service more like Facebook and Twitter combined.
The latest casualty in organizational communication choices is voice mail. Under pressure to cut
costs, several large financial institutions, including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., and
Bank of America Corp., are deleting or cutting back on phone voice mail. Some company
executives explaining their actions cite the reality that few people use voice mail anymore. The
question remains, however, whether customers still expect to be able to maintain voice contact
with their financial advisors.
1. 13-18 What do you think of this? Do you agree that e-mail and voice mail can be
unproductive in the workplace?
2. 13-19 Were you surprised at the volume of e-mail an average employee receives daily?
What are the challenges of dealing with this volume of e-mail? How much e-mail would
you say you receive daily? Has your volume of e-mail increased? Have you had to
change your e-mail habits?

3. 13-20 What do you think of the e-mail “replacement” some businesses are using—more
of a social media tool? In what ways might it be better? Worse?
4. 13-21 What role should customer service play in choosing which organizational
communication methods to use?
Case Application #3
Delivering Bad News
One thing that’s always hard for managers/executives to do is deliver bad news to employees.60
However, that’s all the more reason to be sure to think through those decisions. And not every
CEO or executive has done that! Here are some recent examples. See what you think!
Choose your CHANNEL wisely!
• IBM CEO Ginni Rometty, after a disappointing earnings report, publicly reprimanded all
the company’s 434,000 employees through a five-minute internal video message. She
specifically pointed to the sales staff for missing out on several large deals. When the
press heard about it, many referred to it as a public spanking.61
• AOL’s CEO, Tim Armstrong, broke the news about the company’s decision to cut
employee 401k benefits on television network CNBC. Only after informing Wall Street
did Armstrong hold a companywide conference call with employees to discuss the
announcement and explain the rationale. Employees complained about “secret” cuts on
Twitter and other social media sites. And Armstrong only added fuel to the fire after he
tried to blame the change on the new federal health-care law and medical expenses
associated with two “distressed babies” of AOL employees. After a week of bad
publicity, Armstrong informed employees through e-mail that he was reversing his
decision and apologized for his controversial comments.62
• Some 90 workers at Ford Motor Company’s Chicago assembly plant got an automated
phone message announcing they had just been laid off.63
Although each of the managers involved in these communications probably thought they were
doing the right thing, the choices they made led to an outcome they weren’t expecting.
1. 13-22 What’s your impression of what took place in these scenarios? Did the managers in
each of these scenarios communicate effectively? Why or why not?
2. 13-23 For each of the scenarios, discuss what might have been a better way to
communicate the message.
3. 13-24 How could the guidelines to ethical communication have been used in these
situations?

4. 13-25 What could other managers learn from this about communication or
miscommunication?
Case Application #1
Top Secret
“Prisons are easier to enter than Visa’s top-secret Operations Center East (OCE), its biggest,
newest and most advanced U.S. data center.”56
And Rick Knight, senior vice president at Visa
and formerly the head of global operations and engineering, is responsible for its security and
functioning. Why all the precautions? Because Visa acknowledges that (1) hackers are
increasingly savvy, (2) data is an increasingly desirable black-market commodity, and (3) the
best way to keep itself safe is with an information network in a fortress that instantly responds to
threats.
Prisons are easier to enter than Visa’s OCE!
In a year’s time, Visa processes more than 91.6 billion retail electronic payments from around
the globe. And every day, Visa’s system connects up to 2.2 billion debit and credit cards,
millions of acceptance locations, 2.1 million ATMs, and 14,400 financial institutions.57
Visa,
which completes an annual “stress test” of its system in preparation for the holiday season,
recently processed a peak volume of 56,000 messages per second.58
(Do some math on that and
be amazed!) So what seems to us a simple swipe of a card or keying in our card numbers on an
online transaction actually triggers a robust set of activities including the basic sales transaction
processing, risk management, and information-based services. That’s why OCE’s workers have
two jobs: “Keep hackers out and keep the network up, no matter what.” And that’s why Visa
doesn’t reveal the location of OCE—on the eastern seaboard is as specific as the description gets.
Beneath the road leading to the OCE, hydraulic posts can rise up fast enough to stop a car going
50 miles per hour. And a car won’t be able to go that fast or it will miss a “vicious hairpin turn”
and drive off into a drainage pond. Back in medieval days, that would have been known as the
castle moat, which was also designed as protection. There are also hundreds of security cameras
and a superb security team of former military personnel. If you’re lucky enough to be invited as a
guest to OCE (which few people are), you’ll have your photo taken and right index fingerprint
encoded on a badge. Then you’re locked into a “mantrap portal” where you put your badge on a
reader that makes sure you are you, and then put it on another reader with your finger on a
fingerprint detector. If you make it through, you’re clear to enter the network operations center.
With a wall of screens in front of them, each employee sits at a desk with four monitors. In a
room behind the main center, three top-notch security experts keep an eye on things. Knight says
that “about 60 incidents a day warrant attention.”
Although hackers are a primary concern, OCE also worries about network capacity. Right now,
maximum capacity is currently at 56,000 transactions per second. If the network goes over that
capacity, the network wouldn’t just stop processing one message, it would stop processing all of

them. OCE is described as a “Tier-4” center, which is a certification from a data center
organization. To achieve that certification, every (and yes, we mean every) mainframe, air
conditioner, and battery has a backup.
1. 14-14 Is Visa being overly cautious? Why or why not?
2. 14-15 Why is this level of managerial controls necessary?
3. 14-16 Which controls would be more important to Visa: feedforward, concurrent, or
feedback? Explain.
4. 14-17 What other managerial controls might be useful to the company?
Case Application #2
If You Can’t Say Something Nice, Don’t Say
Anything at All
Controlling employee performance is a vitally important responsibility of managers. After all,
it’s your employees who are working to accomplish established goals, and you want to see that
those goals are being accomplished as planned. So wouldn’t it seem that managing employees’
performance would cover the good and the not-so-good? Well, some organizations are
encouraging managers to lighten up on the harsh feedback and focus only on the positive.59
No Negativism Allowed!
At consulting firm the Boston Consulting Group, managers now frequently praise employees,
encourage them to celebrate even small victories, and conduct performance reviews focusing on
an individual employee’s strengths instead of any mistakes that may have happened. And
managers are to bring up only one or two areas that require improvement and development. It
never used to be this way. When employees didn’t do a good job with a client’s assignment,
managers would focus on what went wrong and where and how the employee needed to improve
and develop his or her skills. This shift towards more positive feedback occurred after the
company noticed some employees leaving the company and other employees who were still
upset for a period of time after a negative performance review. And BCG isn’t the only company
taking this approach. Others are increasing the use of positive feedback and minimizing any
discussion of the areas that need improvement. At PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, for instance,
managers are asked to have discussions with employees about their future with the organization.
These “career outlook” discussions focus more on where an employee fits in, rather than on
where they screwed up. The company also encourages its staff to send shout-outs via e-cards
praising colleagues or subordinates for work done. Managers have also allocated money to
further reward positive accomplishments.

But there are companies not following this positivism trend. These companies take a more
“tough-love” approach and don’t shy away from giving negative feedback. For instance, at
Netflix, CEO Reed Hasting’s view is that they’re a “pro sports team, not a Little League squad,”
noting that “adequate performance gets a generous severance package.” Not everyone in the
company is going to get a trophy. There’s little doubt as to what that company’s performance
expectations are.
1. 14-18 Is controlling employee performance an important responsibility of managers?
Discuss.
2. 14-19 Why should managers focus on positive feedback?
3. 14-20 What are the risks associated with providing employees only positive feedback and
providing limited feedback on areas of improvement?
4. 14-21 Where would you be more comfortable? An organization with a performance
review approach more like the Boston Consulting Group or more like Netflix? Why?
Case Application #3
Too Relaxed
As yoga classes gained in popularity, one company that had benefited greatly was Lululemon. In
fact, at one point, it was on Fortune’s Fastest-Growing Companies List three years in a row.
Company executives had positioned the company as a lifestyle brand and customers were
hooked and loyal. Then, a rare stumble happened. The company had to recall a large batch of its
signature black “Luon” yoga pants because the fabric was too sheer.60
Losing your pose…
Lululemon was founded by Dennis (Chip) Wilson, who had noticed in his yoga class that other
students’ yoga pants became see-through when they bent over after class to roll up their mats.
Having just sold his surf/skateboard/snowboard clothing company, he sensed an opportunity to
pair his expertise in “technical” athletic wear with the surging demand by yoga enthusiasts. What
he developed was revolutionary! Instead of following what others had done—essentially cutting
down men’s workout wear and then selling them in feminine colors—Wilson believed that
women would prefer working out in clothes that actually fit them. So, in addition to fashionable
styles, he concentrated on technical elements including seamless stitching and breathable fabrics.
And surprise, surprise: women were willing to pay $100 or more for his company’s workout
clothes. Lululemon was off and running. Like many smaller companies, executives focused on
the product and not so much on the “infrastructure” side of the business (human resources, IT,
finance). That works … up to a point. When the chief information officer was hired, she actually
found it fairly easy to implement the technology she felt was needed because there wasn’t really
anything in place to work around.

One area where former executives felt focus was lacking was in the production area. No rigorous
manufacturing model was in place. There were no schedules or deadlines. The company
countered that by saying it wanted to remain flexible. But the manufacturing weakness was also
evident in the lack of people who had expertise in the technical aspects of clothing
manufacturing, such as quality control or control over raw materials. Which brings us to the
problem of sheer yoga pants—yoga pants being a core product of the company. As customers
began returning the product and as the product complaint rate hit 12 percent, Lululemon had no
choice but to pull the pants off the store shelves. The CEO at that time said the pants had passed
quality assurance tests, but admitted that the only way to actually quality test the product was to
put them on and bend over. And the company hadn’t done that … until it was too late.
That was in 2013, and the company is still trying to get back to where it was in terms of
customer loyalty and sales numbers. Although the company’s core business is still women, it is
seeing strong growth in men’s and girl’s businesses. It’s no longer one of the fastest-growing
companies, but it has certainly learned something about the importance of control!
1. 14-22 What type (or types) of control—feedforward, concurrent, or feedback—do you
think would have been helpful in this situation? Explain your choice.
2. 14-23 Using Exhibit 14–2, discuss if and how this situation could have been prevented.
3. 14-24 Could Lululemon’s controls have been more effective? How?
4. 14-25 What role would information controls play in this situation? Customer interaction
controls? What other controls do you think might have been useful?
Case Application #1
Tragedy in Fashion
Although one fortunate and lucky young woman was pulled out alive after 17 days buried in the
rubble, over 1,100 workers perished in a deadly factory building collapse in Dhaka, Bangladesh,
in April 2013.59
The Rana Plaza building collapse is now considered the deadliest disaster in the
history of the clothing industry. As stated in this chapter, the dynamic competitive environment
facing contemporary global organizations demands new solutions, but, as this story illustrates,
sometimes those solutions have consequences—tragic consequences. As global apparel retailers
reassess their operations management strategies, changes are likely to be forthcoming.
Rock-bottom labor costs enticed global clothing giants to Bangladesh during the mid-2000s.
Many of the retailers that have relied on these factories are known for cheap, “fast” apparel:
H&M, Zara, Lee, Wrangler, J.C. Penney, and Walmart. And when you’re selling many articles
of clothing for $20 and under, it means your costs (especially when being shipped from another
location halfway around the world) need to be tightly controlled. Also, the concept of fashion

trends has changed over the last two decades. Where fashion used to be “good” for an entire
season, now fashion styles, colors, shapes, and so forth, change, seemingly overnight.
The deadliest disaster in the history of the clothing industry
Retailers like Zara and H&M have hooked customers on fast fashion—that is, clothes that go
from concept and design to being in your local mall stores in a matter of weeks—and clothing
has become a sort of “single-serving disposable item.” Now consumers are wanting new and
different items almost continuously. There’s a “constant, ceaseless rotation through looks and
styles.” Providing for that demand has placed a significant strain on the operations system behind
this fast, cheap fashion. Hasty expansion of factory capacity, lax governmental enforcement of
permits and approvals, and a focus on keeping costs as low as possible in whatever ways needed
have become the focus of factory work culture in this developing country. Because garment
factories in Bangladesh don’t have a lot of the more sophisticated machinery like China, their
edge in the fashion industry had always been basic, simply-constructed clothing. And as the
fashion industry’s fashion emphasis changed, Bangladesh’s importance to the global clothing
trade rose. In fact, in six years, it rose from the 8th top clothing exporter to the 3rd (after China
and Italy). Both Bangladeshi factory owners and the government were fully aware of the
importance of this industry to the country.
Working conditions for factory employees in developing countries have long been less than
desirable. Explosions and fires have been a continual problem, as have other unsafe work
conditions. (Unfortunately, this isn’t just a problem of the retail fashion industry.) Workplace
protections are expensive, which doesn’t work with consumers hooked on fashionable “cheap”
clothing. However, with this latest tragic loss of life at this specific garment factory, the fashion
industry’s decisions—good and bad—are now on the world stage for everyone to see and
criticize. Says one outspoken critic, “What happened in Bangladesh is a game-changer because
of the gravity of the situation and tremendous loss of life.” Now public policy and governmental
groups around the world are turning up the heat on Bangladesh to reform its labor standards and
are pressuring global retailers to more carefully monitor their sourcing standards. Recently,
several of the world’s largest apparel companies agreed to a significant plan to help fund fire
safety and building improvements. Part of this five-year agreement is to not hire/use
manufacturers whose clothing factories fail to meet safety standards. Well-known European
retailers who have signed on include Hennes & Mauritz AB (H&M), Inditex (the Spanish parent
company of Zara), Tesco PLC, and others. Major U.S. retailers, including Walmart, Target, and
Gap, chose not to sign that agreement because they felt it exposed them to unlimited liability.
However, a group of nearly 20 U.S. North American retailers did sign a pact in which they
agreed to inspect all the factories they do business with and to set up basic safety standards.60
The Bangladeshi government also has pledged to raise wages for garment workers and to fix
labor laws, making it easier for workers to form labor unions.
1. 15-14 Discuss this from a value chain management perspective. What happened? How
did it happen? Why did it happen?

2. 15-15 How do incidents like this affect how managers work with a value chain?
3. 15-16 Do some research on offshoring. What is it? What are the benefits and the
drawbacks of offshoring as far as managing the operations system?
4. 15-17 What can managers learn about managing operations from this situation?
5. 15-18 Societal moral issue: Although enforcement of worker safety in Bangladesh is
clearly lax, government officials clearly don’t want global businesses withdrawing from
the country (and moving the problem somewhere else) and driving it deeper into poverty.
Discuss.
6. 15-19 Personal moral issue: Would you pay a higher price for “ethical” clothing? Why or
why not? Discuss.
Case Application #2
Dreamliner Nightmare
The 787 Dreamliner was born out of desperation.61
The year was 2003 and Boeing had just lost
its title as the world’s largest plane manufacturer to European rival Airbus. Boeing’s then CEO
had just resigned in a defense-contract scandal. And the company’s stock price had plunged to its
lowest price in a decade. Remember, this was two years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and
financially troubled airlines were reluctant to invest in new equipment. Boeing needed something
revolutionary to win back customers.
That something was a technologically advanced aircraft that would be developed and built by a
global network of suppliers. Major parts for the airplane would be preassembled all over the
world and then shipped to Everett, Washington, where they would be “snapped together” in three
days, compared with a month the traditional way. And it was Boeing’s first aircraft built with
lightweight composite materials (graphite, titanium, carbon fiber) rather than traditional metals,
making the 787 a lighter and more efficient aircraft than previous models. Why was this so
revolutionary? The 787 could fly farther, burn less fuel, and offer more passenger comforts than
what was currently available. The 787 had built-in sensors designed to help counter the effects of
turbulence, making for a smoother flight. And it was designed to have more humid air, quieter
engines, improved lighting, and the largest windows in the industry. Of course, airlines were
eager to save money and entice customers and ordered a record number of the planes. Despite its
innovative features (or, as some critics said, maybe because of), the 787 faced many production
setbacks and delays (the plane was originally scheduled to be delivered in May 2008). These
delays were due to several issues, including design and manufacturing challenges—coordinating
that many global suppliers, using new materials in the plane, and assembling the sophisticated
components. However, three years after its first expected delivery date, Boeing handed over the
first 787 on a rainy and blustery day in Everett, Washington, to Japan’s All Nippon Airways Co.
on September 26, 2011. The chief executive of Boeing’s commercial airplanes division said
“Today . . . will always be remembered as the dawn of a new day in commercial aviation.”
The Boeing 787: Developed and built by a global network of suppliers

In the 787’s first year of service, at least four aircraft suffered some type of electrical problem.
Although such problems are not unusual, especially in the first year of a newly designed aircraft,
a number of incidents, including an electrical fire aboard an All Nippon Dreamliner plane and a
similar fire aboard a landed 787 at Boston’s Logan International Airport, led the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to order a review of the design and manufacture of the
Dreamliner. There obviously was enough concern over what the FAA found because it
proceeded to ground the entire Boeing 787 fleet. Aviation safety investigators focused their
attention on the 787’s lithium-ion batteries, manufactured by a Japanese company, GS Yuasa of
Kyoto. Boeing’s team immediately set to work to solve the issue because a grounded fleet is a
BIG problem! In mid-March 2013, Boeing announced that it had come up with solutions for the
Dreamliner problems. The 787’s chief engineer said, “We may never get to a single root cause.”
But the engineers had looked at some 80 potential problems that could lead to a battery fire,
categorized them into four groups, and come up with solutions for each group. A major part of
the “fix” was a battery enclosure made of stainless steel, not designed to contain a fire, but to
prevent the battery from ever having a fire to begin with by quickly starving any flame of
oxygen. With the fix in place and approved by the FAA, a team of Dreamliner technicians
fanned out around the globe modifying the 787’s batteries. By the end of April 2013, the
Dreamliner fleet went back into service.
1. 15-20 What role does innovation play in managing an organization’s operations?
2. 15-21 What role does technology play in managing an organization’s operations? (Take a
look back at the Technology and the Manager’s Job box here.)
3. 15-22 Describe the operations management issues that the Dreamliner team faced. Could
these issues have been avoided? Why or why not?
4. 15-23 Is a global network of suppliers the future of operations management? Discuss.
5. 15-24 What other lessons about operations management can you see in this story?
Case Application #3
Stirring Things Up
The steaming cup of coffee placed in a customer’s hand at any Starbucks store location starts as
coffee beans (berries) plucked from fields of coffee plants.62
From harvest to storage to roasting
to retail to cup, Starbucks understands the important role each value chain participant plays.
Starbucks offers a selection of coffees from around the world, and its coffee buyers personally
travel to the coffee-growing regions of Latin America, Africa/Arabia, and Asia/Pacific to select
and purchase the highest-quality arabica beans. Once the beans arrive at any one of its six
roasting facilities (in Washington, Pennsylvania, Nevada, South Carolina, Georgia, or
Amsterdam), Starbucks’ master professional roasters do their “magic” in creating the company’s
rich signature roast coffees. There are many potential challenges in “transforming” the raw

material into the quality product and experience that customers expect at Starbucks—weather,
shipping and logistics, technology, political instability, and so forth. All could potentially affect
the company. Although those operations management challenges are significant, the most
challenging issue facing Starbucks today is balancing its vision of the uniquely Starbucks’ coffee
experience with the realities of selling a $4 latte in today’s world. Starbucks products have
become an unaffordable luxury for many. As revenues and profits declined during the economic
downturn, CEO Howard Schultz realized that Starbucks had to evaluate everything about how
the company operated and to make changes where needed. Although it built its business as “the
anti-fast-food joint,” the recession and growing competition forced Starbucks to become more
streamlined. Under one new initiative put into effect at its U.S. stores, employee time wasters
such as bending over to scoop coffee from below the counter, idly standing by waiting for
expired coffee to drain, or dawdling at the pastry case were discouraged. Instead, employees
were to keep busy doing something, such as helping customers or cleaning. At one of the first
stores to implement the “lean” techniques, the store manager looked for ways for her employees
to be more efficient with simple things like keeping items in the same place, moving drink
toppings closer to where drinks are handed to customers, and altering the order of assembly.
After two months under the new methods, her store experienced a 10 percent increase in
transactions.
Starbucks Value Chain: From Bean to Cup to You
Another thing that Schultz did that was quite unprecedented was to close every one of its stores
for three hours on one Tuesday evening to train ALL of their over 135,000 baristas (a barista is a
person who prepares and serves espresso-based coffee drinks). During that training, baristas were
reminded that they played an important role in creating not only a fabulous product but a
fabulous customer experience. Despite warnings that closing the stores would be a public
relations nightmare and a financial mistake, the decision seemed to be a sound one. In the weeks
following the retraining, quality scores for the company’s beverages went up and stayed there.
1. 15-25 Would you describe production/operations technology in Starbucks retail stores as
unit, mass, or process? Explain your choice. (Hint: You may need to review this material
found in Chapter 6.) How does its production/operations technology approach affect the
way products are produced?
2. 15-26 What uncertainties does Starbucks face in its value chain? Can Starbucks manage
those uncertainties? If so, how? If not, why not?
3. 15-27 Go to the company’s Web site at www.starbucks.com and find the information on
the company’s environmental activities from bean to cup. Select one of the steps in the
chain (or your professor may assign one). Describe what environmental actions it’s
taking. How might these affect the way Starbucks “produces” its products?
4. 15-28 Research the concept of lean organizations. What benefits does “lean” offer? How
might a business like Starbucks further utilize the concepts of being lean?
5. 15-29 What lessons could other organizations learn from Starbucks’ actions?

Name:
BM 250-06
Professor Marino
The Social Network Q’s
Mark Zuckerberg Eduardo
Saverin
Winklevoss
Twins
1 reason Good
Manager
1 reason Bad
Manager

Name:
BM 250-06
Professor Marino
Maslow and Herzberg Worksheet
Where do you think you currently sit on the Hierarchy of Needs? Why?

Name:
BM 250-06
Professor Marino
Maslow and Herzberg Worksheet
Do you believe there are other things can cause dissatisfaction or satisfaction in the workplace? List three for each.
Dissatisfaction
1.
2.
3.
Satisfaction
4.
5.
6.

MOTIVATING PEOPLE
What Maslow’s Hierarchy Won’t
Tell You About Motivation
by Susan Fowler
NOVEMBER 26, 2014
YOU AND YOUR TEAM
At some point in their careers, most leaders have
either consciously — or, more likely, unwittingly —
based (or justiﬁed) their approach to motivation
on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s idea
that people are motivated by satisfying lower-
level needs such as food, water, shelter, and
security, before they can move on to being
motivated by higher-level needs such as self-
actualization, is the most well-known motivation
theory in the world. There is nothing wrong with
helping people satisfy what Maslow characterized
as lower-level needs. Improvements in workplace
conditions and safety should be applauded as the
right thing to do. Seeing that people have enough
food and water to meet their biological needs is
the humane thing to do. Getting people oﬀ the
streets into healthy environments is the decent
thing to do. But the truth is, individuals can
experience higher-level motivation anytime and
anywhere.

Engaging Employees
Best practices for keeping your team focused and
motivated.
Despite the popularity of Maslow’s Hierarchy,
there is not much recent data to support it.
Contemporary science — speciﬁcally Dr. Edward
Deci, hundreds of Self-Determination Theory
researchers, and thousands of studies — instead
points to three universal psychological needs. If you really want to advantage of this new science –
rather than focusing on a pyramid of needs – you should focus on: autonomy, relatedness, and
competence.
Autonomy is people’s need to perceive that they have choices, that what they are doing is of their
own volition, and that they are the source of their own actions. The way leaders frame information
and situations either promotes the likelihood that a person will perceive autonomy or undermines
it. To promote autonomy:
1. Frame goals and timelines as essential information to assure a person’s success, rather than as
dictates or ways to hold people accountable.
2. Refrain from incentivizing people through competitions and games. Few people have learned the
skill of shifting the reason why they’re competing from an external one (winning a prize or
gaining status) to a higher-quality one (an opportunity to fulﬁll a meaningful goal).
3. Don’t apply pressure to perform. Sustained peak performance is a result of people acting because
they choose to — not because they feel they have to.
Relatedness is people’s need to care about and be cared about by others, to feel connected to others
without concerns about ulterior motives, and to feel that they are contributing to something greater
than themselves. Leaders have a great opportunity to help people derive meaning from their work.
To deepen relatedness:
1. Validate the exploration of feelings in the workplace. Be willing to ask people how they feel about
an assigned project or goal and listen to their response. All behavior may not be acceptable, but
all feelings are worth exploring.
2. Take time to facilitate the development of people’s values at work — then help them align those
values with their goals. It is impossible to link work to values if individuals don’t know what their
values are.
3. Connect people’s work to a noble purpose.

Competence is people’s need to feel effective at meeting every-day challenges and opportunities,
demonstrating skill over time, and feeling a sense of growth and flourishing. Leaders can rekindle
people’s desire to grow and learn. To develop people’s competence:
1. Make resources available for learning. What message does it send about values for learning and
developing competence when training budgets are the first casualty of economic cutbacks?
2. Set learning goals — not just the traditional results-oriented and outcome goals.
3. At the end of each day, instead of asking, “What did you achieve today?” ask “What did you learn
today? How did you grow today in ways that will help you and others tomorrow?”
Unlike Maslow’s needs, these three basic needs are not hierarchical or sequential. They are
foundational to all human beings and our ability to flourish.
The exciting message to leaders is that when the three basic psychological needs are satisfied in the
workplace, people experience the day-to-day high-quality motivation that fuels employee work
passion — and all the inherent benefits that come from actively engaged individuals at work. To take
advantage of the science requires shifting your leadership focus from, “What can I give people to
motivate them?” to “How can I facilitate people’s satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness, and
competence?”
Leaders have opportunities every day to integrate these motivational practices. For example, a
leader I coach was about to launch a company-wide message to announce mandatory training on
green solutions compliance. Ironically, his well-intentioned message dictated people’s actions —
undermining people’s sense of autonomy and probably guaranteeing their defiance rather than
compliance. His message didn’t provide a values-based rationale or ask individuals to consider how
their own values might be aligned to the initiative. After reconsidering his approach, he created this
message embedded with ways for people to experience autonomy, relatedness, and competence:
There are three ways you can share our commitment for implementing green solutions as an
essential part of our Corporate Social Responsibility initiative.
Join others who are passionate about reducing their carbon footprint for a fun and interactive
training session on November 15. (Relatedness)

Read the attached manifesto and take a quick quiz to see what you learned by November 18.
(Competence)
Send us your story about what you are doing at work to be environmentally responsible by
November 14. (Autonomy, competence, and relatedness)
You can choose any or all three options. (Autonomy) Let us know your preference(s) by email
(Autonomy) by October 31 or stop by our table at the all-company Halloween party (Relatedness).
If you choose to opt out of all three choices (Autonomy), please tell us what we can do to appeal
more directly to your values around corporate social responsibility (Relatedness).
Don’t underestimate your people’s capacity — indeed, their longing — to experience high-quality
motivation at work anytime and anywhere.
Susan Fowleris Senior Consulting Partner with The Ken Blanchard Companies, and author of Why Motivating People
Doesn’t Work…And What Does: The New Science of Leading, Energizing, and Engaging (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2014)
Related Topics: MANAGING PEOPLE
This article is about MOTIVATING PEOPLE
 FOLLOW THIS TOPIC
Comments
Leave a Comment
P O S T
29 COMMENTS
Pablo Jarvis

REPLY 0  0 
Pablo Jarvis 4 months ago
I actually see merit in Maslov's hierarchy. I believe one form of cognitive dissonance could be considered in the
imbalance between an individual's short term needs and long term inspirational goals in discordance at one point in
time.
POSTING GUIDELINES
We hope the conversations that take place on HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers must sign in or
register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will review all comments and may edit them for clarity, length, and relevance.
Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted per the moderators' judgment. All postings become the property of
Harvard Business Publishing.
 JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Name:
BM 250-06
Professor Marino
Ethics Worksheet
1. Which is your view of ethics? Utilitarian? Rights view? Theory of Justice view? Why?
2. What is the most influential factor on ethical behavior?
3. Describe a scenario where you were an ethical leader.

Equal Employment Opportunity is
THE LAW
Private Employers, State and Local Governments, Educational Institutions, Employment Agencies and Labor Organizations �
Applicants to and employees of most private employers, state and local governments, educational institutions,
employment agencies and labor organizations are protected under Federal law from discrimination on the following bases: �
RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects applicants and
employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits,
job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin. Religious
discrimination includes failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious
practices where the accommodation does not impose undue hardship.
DISABILITY
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, protect
qualified individuals from discrimination on the basis of disability in hiring, promotion,
discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other
aspects of employment. Disability discrimination includes not making reasonable
accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified
individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, barring undue hardship.
AGE
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, protects
applicants and employees 40 years of age or older from discrimination based on
age in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification,
referral, and other aspects of employment.
SEX (WAGES)
In addition to sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as
amended, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended, prohibits sex discrimination in
the payment of wages to women and men performing substantially equal work,
in jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, under similar working
conditions, in the same establishment.
GENETICS
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 protects applicants
and employees from discrimination based on genetic information in hiring,
promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and
other aspects of employment. GINA also restricts employers’ acquisition of genetic
information and strictly limits disclosure of genetic information. Genetic information
includes information about genetic tests of applicants, employees, or their family
members; the manifestation of diseases or disorders in family members (family
medical history); and requests for or receipt of genetic services by applicants,
employees, or their family members.
RETALIATION
All of these Federal laws prohibit covered entities from retaliating against a
person who files a charge of discrimination, participates in a discrimination
proceeding, or otherwise opposes an unlawful employment practice.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU BELIEVE DISCRIMINATION HAS OCCURRED
There are strict time limits for filing charges of employment discrimination. To
preserve the ability of EEOC to act on your behalf and to protect your right to file a
private lawsuit, should you ultimately need to, you should contact EEOC promptly
when discrimination is suspected:
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 1-800-669-4000
(toll-free) or 1-800-669-6820 (toll-free TTY number for individuals with hearing
impairments). EEOC field office information is available at www.eeoc.gov or
in most telephone directories in the U.S. Government or Federal Government
section. Additional information about EEOC, including information about charge
filing, is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Employers Holding Federal Contracts or Subcontracts
Applicants to and employees of companies with a Federal government contract or subcontract
are protected under Federal law from discrimination on the following bases:
RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN
Executive Order 11246, as amended, prohibits job discrimination on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and requires affirmative action to
ensure equality of opportunity in all aspects of employment.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, protects qualified
individuals from discrimination on the basis of disability in hiring, promotion,
discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and
other aspects of employment. Disability discrimination includes not making
reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an
otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee,
barring undue hardship. Section 503 also requires that Federal contractors take
affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals
with disabilities at all levels of employment, including the executive level.
DISABLED, RECENTLY SEPARATED, OTHER PROTECTED,
AND ARMED FORCES SERVICE MEDAL VETERANS
The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended, 38
U.S.C. 4212, prohibits job discrimination and requires affirmative action to employ
and advance in employment disabled veterans, recently separated veterans (within
three years of discharge or release from active duty), other protected veterans
(veterans who served during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a
campaign badge has been authorized), and Armed Forces service medal veterans
(veterans who, while on active duty, participated in a U.S. military operation for
which an Armed Forces service medal was awarded).
RETALIATION
Retaliation is prohibited against a person who files a complaint of discrimination,
participates in an OFCCP proceeding, or otherwise opposes discrimination
under these Federal laws.
Any person who believes a contractor has violated its nondiscrimination or
affirmative action obligations under the authorities above should contact
immediately:
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20210, 1-800-397-6251 (toll-free) or (202) 693-1337 (TTY). OFCCP may also be
contacted by e-mail at OFCCP-Public@dol.gov, or by calling an OFCCP regional
or district office, listed in most telephone directories under U.S. Government,
Department of Labor.
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance
RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
In addition to the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits employment
amended, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity which receives
discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs or Federal financial assistance. Discrimination is prohibited in all aspects of
activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Employment discrimination employment against persons with disabilities who, with or without reasonable
is covered by Title VI if the primary objective of the financial assistance is accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job.
provision of employment, or where employment discrimination causes or may
If you believe you have been discriminated against in a program of any
cause discrimination in providing services under such programs. Title IX of the
institution which receives Federal financial assistance, you should immediately
Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits employment discrimination on the
contact the Federal agency providing such assistance.
basis of sex in educational programs or activities which receive Federal financial
assistance.
EEOC 9/02 and OFCCP 8/08 Versions Useable With 11/09 Supplement EEOC-P/E-1 (Revised 11/09)

Name:
BM 250-06
Professor Marino
Decision Scenarios Worksheet
Scenario One: The Gossip
On Karen’s first day of work she went to the company cafeteria with one of her new co-
workers, Irene, and they had lunch together. During lunch Irene talked about their
manager, Bob Dol. Irene claimed that Bob Dol was in trouble with his superiors. Next,
Irene told her about Ronald, the janitor. She told Karen that Ronald spreads rumors and
was not to be trusted. She talked about Tyrus, the accountant and said that he was an
alcoholic who frequently took sips from a whisky bottle at his desk.
Question: What might happen if Karen gets close to Irene? Have you ever been in
a similar situation?

Scenario Two: What's Your Style?
During his first week on the job, Raul was eager to learn everything and to know
everyone in his department. He gave his opinion freely in discussions. He worked
overtime and did excellent work.
Blanche started work on the same day as Raul. Blanche kept to herself. She
concentrated on her job and stayed in her area. She tried to learn from others and
listened to others in order to understand situations before jumping in with suggestions.
Question: Who do you think will have a better future? Raul or Blanche?

Scenario Three: Absenteeism
After having spent a great weekend camping, Marie woke up Monday morning with a
fever and a bad stomach ache; realizing that she would have to call in sick. She also
had to call in sick on Tuesday and Wednesday. Even after three days at home she still
didn't feel well, but figured that she had better get back to work in order not to
jeopardize her job. She went to work on Thursday and struggled through until the
weekend.
The next Monday Marie feels in top shape and starts telling everyone about the fun she
had on her camping trip. She was so busy talking about her fun weekend that she forgot
to thank her coworkers for covering for her. Soon she noticed tension between herself
and her co-workers. Her supervisor also seemed more demanding.
Question: What mistake did Marie make? Is there anything wrong with being
absent when you first start a job?

Name:
BM 250-06
Professor Marino
Goal Setting Worksheet
Today’s Date: _______________
Target Date: ________________
Start Date: _________________
Goal:
___________________________________________________________________________
Verify that your goal is SMART
Specific: What exactly will you accomplish?
Measurable: How will you know when you have reached this goal?
Achievable: Is achieving this goal realistic with effort and commitment? Have you got the
resources to achieve this goal? If not, how will you get them?
Relevant: Why is this goal significant to your life?
Timely: When will you achieve this goal?

This goal is important because:
The benefits of achieving this goal will be:
Potential Obstacles Potential Solutions
Who are the people you will ask to help you?
Specific Action Steps: What steps need to be taken to get you to your goal?

World Applied Sciences Journal 23 (6): 764-770, 2013
ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2013
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.23.06.313
Corresponding Author: Khalid Zaman, Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
Abbottabad, Pakistan.
764
Relationship Between Job Stress, Workload, Environment and
Employees Turnover Intentions: What We Know, What Should We Know
Muhammad Imran Qureshi, Mehwish Iftikhar, Syed Gohar Abbas,
1 1 1
Umar Hassan, Khalid Khan and Khalid Zaman
1 2 1
Management Sciences,
1
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan
Virtual COMSATS, Islamabad, Pakistan
2
Submitted: Feb 19, 2013; Accepted: Mar 30, 2013; Published: Jul 27, 2013
Abstract: In this competitive era, organizations are continuously looking new ways to develop their human
capital. This leads to a new challenge i.e., how organizations can retain their skilled human resource. Present
study is focused to find out the relationship among job stressor, workload, work place environment and
employee turnover intentions. A random sample of 250 employees from textile industry of Pakistan is selected.
Total 109 employees responded and filled the questionnaire, with a response rate of 44%. Structural modelling
is used for empirical analysis of data using AMOS 18 software. Results reveal that employee turnover intentions
are positively related with job stressor and work load. While negative relationship with work place environment
is reported.
Key words: Job stress Work load Environment Turnover intentions Structural Modelling Pakistan
INTRODUCTION of low productivity, reduced profit, high rates of staff
Stress at work is a relatively a new phenomenon of staff [2].
modern life styles. The nature of work is gone through This is a continuous concern of the management to
drastic changes over the last few decades and it is still retain their work force. Current study will help
changing at rapid speed. It is now became a universal organizations in this regard and will find the relationship
element and persons from nearly every walk of life have to between job stress and employee turnover intentions.
face stress. They have toughed almost all profession, Employers today are critically analyzing the stress
starting from an artist to a surgeon, or a commercial pilot management issues that contribute to dissatisfaction and
to a sales executives and obviously stress leads toward high turnover intention ultimately affecting organizational
leaving the job. goals and objectives. How stress affects on employees
Stress exists in every organization either big or small behavior and consequences of high stress that tend him
the work places and organizations have become so much towards turnover intention are basic aims of the study.
complex due to which it exists; work place stress has Higher level of stress existed with no managerial concern
significant effects over the employees job performance for solution consequently lowering the employee
and the organizations are trying to cope with this scenario performance; staking organizational reputation and loss
[1]. Researchers identify that Job stress has cost of skilled employees. These situations call for immediate
organization billion of dollars all over the world. Job stress concern from organization management for employing
costs American business an estimated $200 billion effective stress management practices to increase
annually, the UK £63 billion and Australia $15 billion. employee satisfaction level and reduce their turnover
This is the cost for health care, higher rate of absenteeism, intention. This study played an important role for mangers
turnover and lower performance. The cost are felt in term and for the organization to deal with stress and employees
turnover and cost of recruiting and training replacement

World Appl. Sci. J., 23 (6): 764-770, 2013
765
turnover issues. The stressors impact on turnover result in tiredness with the muscles feeling weak;
intention is analyzed in this research. All the results digestive difficulties with a craving for sweet, starchy
statistically analyzed and generalized it for the population food; dizziness; and disturbances of sleep [10].
through this research.
The Objectives of this Research Are as Follows: of stress by different research findings. These include
To identify the relationship of job stress and for people, Participation, Financial insecurity, Lack of
turnover intention. feedback, keeping up with quick technological change,
To find out the effects of workload and its impact Being in an innovative role, Career growth); Overload:
over employees turnover intention. excessive work or work that is outside one's capability
To find out the relationship between work [11], Role Ambiguity: Role insufficient information
environment and turnover intention. concerning powers, authority and duties to perform one's
The Study Divides in to the Following Sections: After place contradictory demands on the individual [13].
introduction which is presented above, Section 2 Responsibility for people: Responsibility for people,
describes literature review. Data source and well-being works, job security and professional
methodological framework are shown in Section 3. development; Participation: Extent to which one has
Results are discussed in Section 4. Final section influence over decisions relevant to one's job [14, 15]];
concludes the study. Financial insecurity: financial insecure condition of
Literature Review about job performance [17, 18]; Keeping up with rapid
Job Stress: Stress is a term with which everyone is technological change: Keeping up with rapid changes in
familiar; in fact modern times have been called as the the information processing field; Being in an innovative
“age of anxiety and stress” [3], however it is notoriously role: Having to bring about change in the organization [19,
difficult to define. There are many definitions in the 20]; Career development: Impact of status dissimilarity,
literature and the term is often used to describe feelings of lack of job security, let down ambition [21, 22].
fatigue, distress and inability to cope. Nevertheless, [4]
had defined stress as a situation which will force a person Turnover Intention: Focusing on the causes of employee
to deviate from normal functioning due to the change intentions to stay or leave has been one of the recent
(i.e. disrupt or enhance) in his/her psychological and/or research approaches in an organizational turnover
physiological condition, such that the person is forced to literature” [23]). According to Naumann [24], turnover as
deviate from normal functioning. “Work overload has a it “typically refers to the separation of an employee
strong influence on work exhaustion” [5, 6] and sooner or from the firm”. Conversely turnover intention is defined
later causes a number of diseases. General Stress includes as a conscious and deliberate willingness to leave the
“three scales measuring general stress, emotional stress organization [25]. Although, there is no standard
and social stress with their consequences” [7]. framework for understanding the employees turnover
Symptoms of Stress: Stress affects everyone in a unique found useful in interpreting employee turnover [26, 27].
way; there are certain factors that are common On the job turnover factors such as communication at
symptoms of stress. A person may face physical as well workplace, environment, assignment given, salary and
as psychological problems from stress like headache, benefit received not satisfy the employee. The employee
more frequent cold or flu, sleeping problems, general will dissatisfy if the assignment received is too many and
anxiety, fuzzy thinking, feeling of frustration and libido at the same time they need to meet dateline [28].
[8, 9]. The prolonged effect of the stress response is that
the body's immune system is lowered and blood pressure Stress and Turnover Intention: Stress among employees
is raised which may lead to essential hypertension and and their turnover intention have always been important
headaches. The adrenal gland may malfunction which can issues for managers. Studies have attempted to answer
Causes of Stress: Ten forces are used as an antecedent
(Overload, Role ambiguity, Role conflict, Responsibility
role [12], Role Conflict: Supervisors or subordinates
employees [16]; Lack of Feedback: Lack of information
process as whole, a wide range of factors have been

World Appl. Sci. J., 23 (6): 764-770, 2013
766
the question of what determines people's intention to quit On the basis of above discussion following
by investigating possible antecedents of employees’
intentions to quit. Firth et al. [29], identified that the
experience of job related stress; the range factors that
lead to job related stress (stressors) make employees to
quit the organization. An unstable, unsecured work
environment that includes job security, continuity,
procedural justice deviate the employees satisfaction
level, insert to stress at work and as a result increase their
turnover intention. Mano & Shay [20] argue that financial
insecure condition of employees generates stress among
them and they often quit from organization due financial
reasons in order to search the better opportunities. Role
stressors also lead to employees’ turnover. This causes
uncertainty about what our role should be. It can be a
result of misunderstanding what is expected, how to meet
the expectations, or the employee thinking the job should
be different [19]. Insufficient information on how to
perform the job adequately, unclear expectations of peers
and supervisors, extensive job pressures and lack of
consensus on job functions or duties may cause
employees to feel less involved and less satisfied with
their jobs and careers, less committed to their
organizations, undergo stress and eventually display a
propensity to leave the organization [30]. Lack of job
security and status dissimilarity among employees and
the same level also cause stress which may lead their
intention to leave the organization [31, 32].
WorkOverloadandTurnoverIntention:Workloadrefers
to the amount of work that is allocated to an employee to
do. A number of researchers have supported a positive
relationship between workload, stress and turnover
intention [33]. Glaser et al. [34] found that significant
relationships between workload and stress and stress and
turnover, this research assumes that stress will play an
arbitrator role between workload and turnover intentions.
Working Environment and Turnover Intention:
One among high turnover factors within the workplace
is organization working environment which comprise
communication at workplace, political environment,
colleagues and manager behavior will not satisfy the
employee [35-38]. Unfavorable and poor working
conditions are cited as a major reason for high turnover
intention among employees [20]. The quality of
supervision was a significant influence on intent to leave
across settings. Little supervision and less support from
manager in conducting the assignment will lead towards
high level of stress and turnover intention [39-42].
hypotheses could be developed
H1: There exists a significant relationship between Job
stress and turnover intention.
H2: There exists a significant relationship between Work
overload and turnover intention.
H3: There exists a significant relationship between
Working environment and turnover intention.
A multivariate statistical technique, namely, the
SEM was then used to empirically test the proposed
hypotheses.
Data Source and Methodology: The primary data was
collected through questionnaire. The questionnaire
was based on five point Likert-scales, comprise of 26
questions to measure the dependent and independent
i.e. job stress, work overload, working environment
and employee’s turnover intention. Structural
questionnaires is used to collect data through a mail
survey of textile sector of Pakistan. The telephonic
interview was adopted to follow up to those respondents
who did not reply within four weeks after the
questionnaires were posted. Two hundred and fifty
potential respondents were randomly selected from textile
sector of Pakistan. One hundred and nine replies were
received, which constituted a response rate of 43.6%.
About 70% of respondents were holding a managerial
position;
Kasl [14] instrument was used to measure constructs
for all latent variables, namely, Job stressor, Workload,
environment and turnover intentions. Each construct
contains a set of indicators. Respondents were presented
with 26 measurement items grouped under different
construct headings. A 5-point interval rating scale system
was used in the survey, with 5 equaling the highest extent
or degree. A reliability and validity test was then applied
to examine these predetermined constructs. Specifically,
Cronbach’s a reliability estimate test and within-scale
factor analyses were applied.
The former was used to assess the internal
consistency of the constructs, while the latter was used
to measure the extent to which all indicators in a construct
measure the same multivariate construct. When applying
those tests, we removed the measurement item that might
be noted as not being part of our predetermined
constructs. Figure 1 shows the research framework of the
study.

World Appl. Sci. J., 23 (6): 764-770, 2013
767
Fig. 1: Research framework
Table 1: Reliability Analysis
Construct No. of items Cronbach’s Alpha
Turnover intentions 6 0.73
Job stressor 8 0.71
Workload 6 0.84
Environment 6 0.87
Table 1 presents the summary of reliability estimates
for each construct used in this study. It is observed from
this table that almost all of our research constructs are
with Cronbach’s a larger than 0.7, which reveal high
reliability of our measurements.
The test of the conceptual model was carried out
using the AMOS 17. AMOS is one of the most popular
SEM software packages used by researchers. Following
the details of the process described by Anderson and
Gerbing [1], Beehr [4], Naumann [24], Ali [18], the
measurement model and structural model were checked to
ensure the results were acceptable and were consistent
with the underlying theory. The formal model (i.e. the
measurement model) deals with the reliability and validity
of the constructs in measuring the latent variables, while
the latter model (i.e. the structural model) is concerned
with the direct and indirect relations among the latent
variables. SEM technique is therefore suited for our
research purposes.
RESULTS
Model Fit Summary: Results of the SME was quite
satisfactory with GFI equaling to 0.823 and AGFI equaling
to 0.712 but the major problem exists with RMESA which
Table 2:Model Fitness summary
Values Acceptable values
CMIN/df 1.078 <3
GFI 0.901 p>0.95
AGI 0.821 Near to 1
RMESA 0.07 P<0.08
NFI 0.816 Near to 1
CFI 0.89 Near to 1
Table 3: Regression estimates
Path Estimate S.E. C.R. P
Turnover Intentions <--- Work overload .36 .027 4.54 .004
Turnover Intentions <--- Job stressor .62 .045 -5.52 .001
Turnover Intentions <--- Work Environment -.79 .095 -4.02 .009
has a value of 1.15, which is quite higher and
disturbing goodness of fit of the model. To cop this
problem model was run again with modification
indices threshold 4. The results indicated that the
indicator WO1 is causing major problem and have
strong correlations of its error term with other is the
major issue in fitness of model. Another problem
with indicators of turnover intentions is also detected,
but this problem could be solved by placing covariances
between those error terms which have high covariance
indices i.e 25 or above. The model is run again and result
indicated goodness of fit. Table 2 shows the fitness of the
model.
With respect to our measurement model indicators
of all three constructs showed high factor loadings which
indicate the reliability of each construct. Figure 2 shows
the modified model.
Hypotheses Testing: Table 3 is showing the regressions
results and hypotheses results. There exists a positive
relationship with workload and turnover intentions having
value 0.36 and p value 0.004 shows the significance of
results.
Results show that with the increase in workload
turnover intentions are also increased, which supports
our first hypothesis i.e.,
H1: There exists a negative relationship between Work
overload and turnover intention.
Regressions estimates of job stressor and turnover
intention is 0.62, which indicates the positive association
of both variable, p values less than 0.05 shows the
significance of relationship. This shows the acceptance of
our second hypothesis.

World Appl. Sci. J., 23 (6): 764-770, 2013
768
Fig. 2: Modified Model
H2: There exists a significant relationship between Job to leave the job when they are over burden. Similarly
stress and turnover intention. workplace environment is also a key factor to retain
The work environment and turn over intentions environment will lead to the less employee turnover
are negatively associated with each other and intentions.
estimated value is -0.79 which shows good working
conditions can reduce employee turnover intentions. p REFERENCES
value indicates the significance of relationship and
acceptance of third hypothesis (H3: There exists a 1. Anderson, R., 2003. Stress at work: the current
significant relationship between Working environment perspective. The Journal of The Royal Society for the
and turnover intention). Promotion of Health, 123: 81.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS organizational commitment, turnover intention: Path
Results depict that employee turnover intentions are Psycholog, 46: 259-293.
positively related with job stressor. With the increase in 3. Coleman, J.C., 1976. Abnormal Psychology and
job stress employee turn over intentions increases. If Modern Life (Indian reprint), Taraporewalla, Bombay.
organizations are willing to retain their intellectual capital 4. Beehr, T.A., 1976. Perceived Situational Moderators
they must reduce the job stressors which may cause the of the Relationship between Subjective Role
job stress and ultimately this leads to the employee Ambiguity and Role Strain. Journal of Applied
turnover. Another major factor is workload which is Psychology, 61: 35-40.
positively related to the employee turnover intentions. A 5. Naumann, E., 1992. A ConceptualModel of Expatriate
rational workload is win-win situation for the organization, Turnover. Journal of International Business Studies,
study provide the empirical evidence that employee thinks 23(3): 499-531.
employees. Study proved that a good and health work
2. Tett, R.P. and J.P. Meyer, 1993. Job satisfaction,
analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel

World Appl. Sci. J., 23 (6): 764-770, 2013
769
6. Ahuja, M.K., K.M. Chudoba, C.J. Kacmar, 20. Mano Rita -Negrin and Shay S. Tzafrir, 2004. Job
D.H. McKnight and J.F. George, 2007. IT Road
Warriors: Balancing Work Family Conflict, Job
Autonomy and Work Overload to mitigate Turnover
Intentions. MIS Quarterly, 31(1): 1-17.
7. Davis, H., T. Orzeck and P. Keelan, 2006.
Psychometric item evaluations of the Recovery-
Stress Questionnaire for athletes. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise.
8. Elizabeth Scott and M.S., 2009. Common Symptoms
of Too Much Stress. About.com Guide, Updated
October 11, 2009.
9. Paula Silva, 2006. Effects of disposition on hospitality
employee job satisfaction and commitment.
Department of management, California State
University, Northridge, California, USA. Int. J.
Contemp. Hospit. Manage, 18: 317-328.
10. Poon, 2003. Effects of performance appraisal politics
on job satisfaction and turnover intention. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, 33: 322-334.
11. French, J.R.P., Jr., and R.D. Caplan, 1972.
Organizational Stress and Individual Strain. in A.J.
Marrow, ed., The Failure of Success, AMACOM,
New York.
12. Kahn, R.L., D.M. Wolfe, R.P. Quinn, J.D. Snoek
and R.A. Rosenthal, 1964. Organizational stress:
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York:
Wiley.
13. Caplan, R.D. and K.W. Jones, 1975. Effects of Work
Load, Role Ambiguity and Type A Personality on
Anxiety, Depression and Heart Rate. Journal of
Applied Psychology, pp: 713-719.
14. Kasl, S.V., 1973. Mental Health and the Work
Environment. Journal of Occupational Medicine,
15: 509-518.
15. Martin, T.N., 1979. A Contextual Model of Employee
Turnover Intentions. The Academy of Management
Journal, 22(2): 313-324.
16. Margolis, B.L., W.H. Kroes and R.P. Quinn, 1974. Job
Stress: An Unlisted Occupational Hazard. Journal of
Occupational Medicine, pp: 659-661.
17. Al-Aameri, A.S., 2003. Source of job stress for nurses
in public hospitals, Saudi Medical Journal,
24(11): 1183-1187.
18. Ali, Baloch, 2008. Impact of Job Satisfaction on
Turnover Intention: An Empirical Evidence. Journal
of Managerial Sciences, 2(1): 23-41.
19. Kevin, M.M., L.C. Joan and J.W. Adrian, 2004.
“Organizational change and employee turnover”
Personnel Rev., 33(2): 161-166.
search modes and Turnover” Career Development
International, 5: 442-446.
21. Brook, A., 1973. Mental Stress at Work. The
Practitioner, 210: 500-506.
22. Erickson, J., W.M. Pugh and E.K.E. Gunderson, 1972.
Status Congruency as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction
and Life Stress. Journal of Applied Psychology,
56: 523-525.
23. Milman, A., 2002. Hourly employee retention in the
attraction industry: research from small and medium-
size facilities in Orlando, Florida, Journal of Leisure
Property, 2: 40-51.
24. Niosh, 1999. Stress at Work. U.S. National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication Number, pp: 99-101.
25. Tor Guinmaraes J.E. Owen, 1997. Assessing
employee turnover intentions before and after TQM.
International J. Qual. Reliability manage, 14(1): 46-63.
26. Henry Ongori, 2007. A review of the literature on
employee turnover. African Journal of Business
Management, pp: 049-054.
27. Lawrence, P. and J. Lorsch, 1967. Organization
and Environment: Managing Differentiation and
Integration.
28. Palmer, S. and W. Dryden, 1995. Counselling for
Stress Problems. London: Sage. Copyright, S. Palmer,
1995.
29. Firth, L., David J. Mellor, Kathleen A. Moore and
Claude Loquet, 2007. How can managers reduce
employee intention to quit? J. manage. Psychol.,
19(2): 170-187.
30. Vance, R.J., 2006. Employee engagement and
commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring
and increasing engagement in your organization.
SHRM Foundation: Alexandria, VA.
31. Alexandros-Stamatios, G.A., J.D. Matilyn and
L.C. Cary, 2003. Occupational Stress, Job satisfaction
and health state in male and female junior hospital
doctors in Greece, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
18(6): 592-621.
32. Andrew, J. Wefald, Michael R. Smith, Tony C.
Savastano and Ronald G. Downey, 2008. A structural
model of workload, job attitudes, stress and turnover
intentions. Kansas State University,
33. Diane Brannon, Teta Barry, Peter Kemper andrea
Schreiner and Joe Vasey, 2007. Job Perceptions and
Intent to Leave Among Direct Care Workers:
Evidence From the Better Jobs Better Care
Demonstrations. The Gerontological Society of
America, 47(6): 820-829.

World Appl. Sci. J., 23 (6): 764-770, 2013
770
34. Glaser, D.N., B.C. Tatum, D.M. Nebeker, 39. Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of
R.C. Sorenson and J.R. Aiello, 1999. Workload and employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
social support: Effects on performance and stress. Psychology, 21: 600-619.
Human Performance, 12: 155-176. 40. Shah, Fakhr, Ahmad and Zaman, 2010. Measuring
35. Jamal, M., 1984. Job Stress and job Performance push, pull and personal factors affecting turnover
controversy: an empirical assessment in two intention: A case study of university teachers in
countries. Organizational Behavior and Human Pakistan. Review of Economic and Business Studies,
Performance, 33: 1-21. 3(1): 167-192
36. Jeremy Laurance, 2007. High-stress jobs 'double 41. Shahu, Gole, 2008. Effect of Job Stress and Job
chances of depression'. The Independent, Satisfaction on Performance: An Empirical Study.
www.independent.co.uk, Thursday, 2 August 2007 AIMS International Journal of Management,
37. Jex, S.M., T.A. Beehr and C.K. Roberts, 1992. The 2(3): 237-246.
meaning of occupational stress items to survey 42. Wofford, J.C., V.L. Goodwin and P.S. Daly, 1999.
respondents. Journal of Applied Psychology, Cognitive-Affective Stress Propensity: A Field
77: 623-628. Study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
38. Moore, J.E., 2000. One Road to Turnover: An 20(5): 687-707.
Examination of Work Exhaustion in Technology 43. Yahaya, Arshad, Ismail, Jaalam and Zakariya, 2009.
Professionals. MIS Quarterly, 24(1): 141-168. Occupational Stress and its Effects towards the
Organization Management. Journal of Social
Sciences, 5(4): 390- 97.

BM 250-06
Principles of Management and Organizational Behavior
Professor Marino
Group Project Instructions
Over the course of BM 250-06 there will be two group projects required. Group Project 1 will be
submitted on October 18th
, 2017 by 6PM on eCampus. Group Project 2 will be submitted on November
8th
, 2017 by 6PM on eCampus. Group Project 1 will be “presented” in class on October 23rd
, 2017. Group
Project 2 will be “presented” in class on November 13th
, 2017.
Group Projects will be submitted prior to the “presentation” to allow me to provide feedback; in
case changes are needed.
Additionally, there is a homework assignment called Group Assessment associated with this
project.
For Group Project 1 I have assigned the group members and group topic [see eCampus].
Additionally, each group has been provided its own discussion thread on eCampus to discuss what
option to choose, meetings, etc. For Group Project 2 I will provide a list of topics to choose from [see
eCampus]. Students will choose their own groups for Group Project 2 [limit 5 members per group].
I am providing 5 options to choose from for the Group Project:
• PowerPoint presentation
• Skit
• Sales Pitch
• Research Paper
• Debate
Each option will have its own instructions and rubric associated with it.

PowerPoint presentation:
The PowerPoint itself needs to be 15 slides long featuring an introductory slide and a reference slide.
Your other slides should focus on the content of your topic. All members must participate. Should be 10
to 15 minutes. Including a short video [under 3 minutes] is allowed. Submit the PowerPoint file to
eCampus. Include speaker notes; as appropriate. Rubric on next page.

PowerPoint Rubric
Criteria
Full
credit
Partial
credit
No
credit
15 slides are included
25 points 10 points 0 points
The first slide is a title slide with the topic and group
members listed
Speaker notes are included [Extra Credit]
Video is embedded or linked [Extra Credit]
Presentation is cohesive: font face, font size, color,
and formatting of objects
There are no spelling or grammatical errors.
A References slide is included

Skit:
The skit must provide information related to your topic so that your classmates understand what your
topic is about. Skit should be entertaining and engaging. All members must participate. Should be 10 to
15 minutes. Creativity encouraged. Think of a scene from a television show as the skit. Submit the
talking script on eCampus. Rubric on next page.

Rubric for Skit
Criteria Exceptional Admirable Acceptable Attempted
Understanding
of Topic
40
Points
Factual information is
accurate
Indicates a clear
understanding of topic
40 Points
mostly accurate
Good understanding of
topic
30 Points
somewhat accurate
Fair understanding of
topic
20 Points
Information is
inaccurate
Skit is off topic
10 Points
Cooperation
30
Points
All members contribute
30 Points
Some members
contribute
20 Points
Few members
contribute
10 Points
One person does all the
work
5 Points
Presentation
30
Points
Shows confidence
Informative
Entertaining; engages
audience
Speaks loudly and
clearly
Appropriate use of body
language
30 Points
Shows some confidence
Presents some
information
Engages audience
Can be heard
Some use of body
language
20 Points
Unsure of responsibility
Somewhat informative
Engages audience
intermittently
Hard to hear
Some movement
10 Points
Portrayal stalls
Lacks information
Audience bored
Mumbles
Body language is
lacking; inappropriate
5 Points
Final Score ________________

Sales Pitch:
The sales pitch must provide information related to your topic so that your classmates understand what
your topic is about. Sales pitch should be engaging and entertaining. A visual aid should be used. All
members must participate. Sales pitch should be 10 to 15 minutes. Creativity is encouraged. Think of
infomercials. Submit the talking script and picture of visual aid on eCampus. Rubric on next page.

Sales Pitch Rubric
Rubric Requirements Good Poor Incomplete
Introduction
(25 Points)
• Attention getter
• Slogan
• Audience involvement
25
Points
15
Points
5 Points
Body Language
(20 Points)
• Interest in pitch 20
Points
10
Points
5 Points
Conclusion
(25 Points)
• Draws together content
with pitch
25
Points
15
Points
5 Points
Visuals
(10 Points)
• Include something to
engage classmates
10
Points
5
Points
0 Points
Eye
Contact/Voice
(20 Points)
• Eye contact on audience
• Audience can hear the
pitch
20
Points
10
Points
5 Points

Research Paper:
The research paper needs to be 10 to 15 pages related to your topic and include at least 5 scholarly
sources. All members must participate. Group members should collaborate on the paper and put it
together afterward. Make each section color coated and indicate which group member wrote each
section. Should be written in APA format, but does not need to include an abstract. The research paper
option does not require students to provide an in-class presentation. Be sure to check your submission
for plagiarism. Submit the completed paper on eCampus. Rubric on next page.

Criteria
Full credit Partial credit No credit
Student Name, Instructor, Course Number, and Date
APA Format
Citations in body of paper
Student used at least 5 scholarly sources
Student provided sufficient information for the topic.
Paper is between 10-15 pages
The document is free of spelling and grammatical errors
15 points 10 points
0 points

Debate:
The debate should have group members split into two teams [like a debate]. Group members should
argue two opposing sides related to their topic. Group members need to provide factual evidence
behind their arguments. All members should participate. Debate should be 15 minutes long; with each
side providing 5 minutes for their initial debate and 2.5 minutes to respond to the other sides’ claims.
Debate should be respectful and show decorum. Practice the debate prior to the class presentation.
Submit debate notes and retorts on eCampus. Rubric on next page.

CLASSROOM DEBATE RUBRIC
Levels of Performance
Criteria 5 Points 10 Points 15 Points 20 Points
1. Organization and
Clarity:
viewpoints and responses are
outlined both clearly and
orderly.
Unclear in most
parts
Clear in some
parts but not over
all
Most clear and
orderly in all
parts
Completely clear
and orderly
presentation
2. Use of Arguments:
reasons are given to support
viewpoint.
Few or no
relevant reasons
given
Some relevant
reasons given
Most reasons
given: most
relevant
Most relevant
reasons given in
support
3. Use of Examples and
Facts:
examples and facts are given
to support reasons.
Few or no
relevant
supporting
examples/facts
Some relevant
examples/facts
given
Many
examples/facts
given: most
relevant
Many relevant
supporting
examples and
facts given
4. Use of Rebuttal:
arguments made by the other
teams are responded to and
dealt with effectively.
No effective
counter-
arguments made
Few effective
counter-
arguments made
Some effective
counter-
arguments made
Many effective
counter-
arguments made
5. Presentation Style:
tone of voice, use of
gestures, and level of
enthusiasm are convincing to
audience.
Few style
features were
used; not
convincingly
Few style
features were
used
convincingly
All style features
were used, most
convincingly
All style features
were used
convincingly

Peer Evaluation Form for Group Work on Group Project 1
Your name ____________________________________________________
Write the name of each of your group members in a separate column. For each person, indicate the extent to which you agree
with the statement on the left, using a scale of 1-4 (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree). Total the
numbers in each column.
Evaluation Criteria Group member: Group member: Group member: Group member:
Attends group meetings regularly
and arrives on time.
Contributes meaningfully to group
discussions.
Completes group assignments on
time.
Prepares work in a quality
manner.
Demonstrates a cooperative and
supportive attitude.
Contributes significantly to the
success of the project.
TOTALS

Feedback on team dynamics:
1. How effectively did your group work?
2. Were any of your team members particularly valuable or detrimental to the team? Explain.
3. What did you learn about working in a group from this project that you will carry into your next group experience?

Peer Evaluation Form for Group Work on Group Project 2
Your name ____________________________________________________
Write the name of each of your group members in a separate column. For each person, indicate the extent to which you agree
with the statement on the left, using a scale of 1-4 (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree). Total the
numbers in each column.
Evaluation Criteria Group member: Group member: Group member: Group member:
Attends group meetings regularly
and arrives on time.
Contributes meaningfully to group
discussions.
Completes group assignments on
time.
Prepares work in a quality
manner.
Demonstrates a cooperative and
supportive attitude.
Contributes significantly to the
success of the project.
TOTALS

Feedback on team dynamics:
4. How effectively did your group work?
5. Were any of your team members particularly valuable or detrimental to the team? Explain.
6. What did you carry into this group experience from your last group project?

Name:
BM 250-06
Professor Marino
Control Worksheet
1. Why is control important to managers? Why is control important to non-managers?
2. Describe a way to correct performance.
3. Based on the types of control discussed in class discuss what type you would use as a manager.
Why?

Share
Company culture is an oft spoken about subject affecting
(among other things) company performance, client
retention, and staff retention and recruitment.
Important stuff! The problem is that company culture is
harder to put your finger on than more quantitative-based
issues such as revenue or cost base. Plus, depending on the
size of the business, it can be fiendishly difficult to change.
Having taken over and run businesses with pre-existing
cultures (albeit by no means a serial entrepreneur), here is my
two cents on the subject.
Do not underestimate the importance
Your team members are one of the most important, if not the
most important asset to your business. Especially in a service
based business. As such, ensuring they are aligned with
whatever culture you are trying to create is paramount to your
success. This becomes absolutely critical during growth
stages. As you grow, culture becomes more and more difficult
to change so be hot on the subject now and you will save
yourself a lot of heartbreak in the future.
Creating a Culture
Without goals or objectives you will find yourself trying to
create something you do not truly understand yourself.
Therefore the first step is getting to grips with what you are
trying to achieve. This might involve you sitting in a dark
room by yourself or taking a day out with your business
partner(s) to discuss the type of business you are running.
Beyond Foosball:
Creating &
Changing Company
Culture
SIMON ENSOR

Culture is influenced by a variety of factors including (not an
exhaustive list):
How your prospects, clients and market perceive you
Your team’s motivations and goals
More tangible items such as offices, holiday
allowance, working hours
The projects that you work on
Daily aspects such as team communication
Take our London-based digital marketing agency as an
example. Digital marketing agencies are a dime a dozen, so
there were a few key points we wanted (and are still working
on) to be central to the business in order to be successful:
The more business our clients get as a result of our
work, the more business we get. There should be no
losers in our business deals with clients.
We want our team to enjoy coming to work, which
involves factors such as working on good projects,
providing flexibility where possible, removing
negative problems such as cramped offices and
everyone getting along such as enjoying going for a
beer after work.
Our clients should trust us as advisers. If a client calls
us up for advice on marketing that’s awesome, if they
call us up for advice on something not related to a
project or even not related to marketing, than even
better! It shows we have earned their trust.
Quality over quantity. Marketing is a portfolio and
case studies lead to business. To be sustainable, we
should be able to use every project as a case study.
Professional development. Give the team ownership.
Don’t be scared to fail, but fail fast and don’t repeat
mistakes.
Treat people like people. Be honest.
Your goals may not be revolutionary (we don’t think that ours
are either), but bear in mind it is in the execution of these
goals where the difference is really felt.
Make sure you do not make too many goals and don’t try to
solve them all at once. Remember culture is a slow burner, it

"Remember culture is a slow burner, it does not
change overnight."
~ Simon Ensor, Yellowball
Evaluating Your Culture
Evaluation. Auditing. Questioning. Change.
Those four words don’t tend to make people excited. I would
guess they probably make the majority of people a little
clammy and for good reason. It involves criticism, and whilst
people may shroud criticism under the pretense of it being
‘constructive,’ in the end it often involves some swallowing
of pride and inward reflection. Without it though you simply
won’t be able to evaluate your culture properly.
The first step we took was to get together as a management
team and document where we thought the culture stood in
relation to our goals. It’s easy to be generous to yourself in
terms of your own grading but try not to, it only makes the
next stage worse...
Obviously it all depends on your business and your
objectives, but the very best evaluation for us was to ask our
team and our clients. We used a combination of face-to-face
feedback sessions and anonymous feedback forms with
questions that were associated with our goals. It was great to
get a direct line to where we needed to implement change and
where our perception and the reality were not aligned. The
level of honesty will clearly vary depending on your
relationship with your team and clients but encourage them to
be as straight as possible. After all, the process is designed to
implement change that will positively impact them.
These feedback sessions should provide you with data upon
which to prioritize your roadmap to your ideal culture.
Improving a Culture
Creating a plan and evaluating your current culture are all
very positive steps. However, without implementation it
really does mean diddly-squat. Furthermore, you may have
gone ahead and given false hope to your team and clients
through the feedback sessions - so what better reason to kick
yourself into gear and start implementing!
As mentioned previously, changing culture is by no means an
instant process. It takes time, can take a considerable amount
of effort and requires prioritization so be prepared. It took us
roughly double the amount of time we had originally
planned…and we’re still on our own journey.
Without continuous effort and buy in from your team it can
quickly turn into an uphill struggle. Habits become ingrained
in people and different team members will adapt at different
rates, so make sure everyone is on board with what you are
trying to achieve and set out a roadmap to achieve your goals.

be a daily concern, right up until the point (and beyond) that
it becomes habitual.
Possibly the most important point, and somewhat cliché, is
that change needs leadership. Improving a company’s culture
comes right from the top and we’re not just talking about
CEOs here or managing directors. Senior management and
management teams need to be the driving force behind the
change with full clarity on the roadmap.
Ownership and accountability are also powerful factors. Give
people ownership of implementing change in order to help
the strategy spread through the company quickly.
"Give people ownership of implementing change in
order to help the strategy spread through the
company quickly."
~ Simon Ensor, Yellowball
For people to have ownership they need to understand the
benefits and goals of the strategy so if necessary go right back
to the beginning and ensure that your strategy is clear, concise
and that there is a viable plan in place to make it happen.
One step at a time
The likelihood is that you won’t solve all of your issues. Or if
you do, other items will be added to the list. The reality is that
company culture is an ever evolving beast that is influenced
largely by personalities, the business environment and wider
market factors so be patient. You may achieve some of your
goals relatively quickly, others you may struggle with. Take it
one step at a time and view it as incremental change!
About the Author
Simon Ensor is the Managing Director
of Yellowball, a digital marketing agency
in London specializing in Web
design, SEO, social media and email
marketing.

MOTIVATING PEOPLE
Beyond Theory Y
by John J. Morse and Jay W. Lorsch
FROM THE MAY 1970 ISSUE
During the past 30 years, managers have been bombarded with two competing approaches
to the problems of human administration and organization. The first, usually called the
classical school of organization, emphasizes the need for well-established lines of
authority, clearly defined jobs, and authority equal to responsibility. The second, often called the
participative approach, focuses on the desirability of involving organization members in decision
making so that they will be more highly motivated.
Douglas McGregor, through his well-known “Theory X and Theory Y,” drew a distinction between
the assumptions about human motivation which underlie these two approaches, to this effect:
Theory X assumes that people dislike work and must be coerced, controlled, and directed toward
organizational goals. Furthermore, most people prefer to be treated this way, so they can avoid
responsibility.
Theory Y—the integration of goals—emphasizes the average person’s intrinsic interest in his work,
his desire to be self-directing and to seek responsibility, and his capacity to be creative in solving
business problems.
It is McGregor’s conclusion, of course, that the latter approach to organization is the more desirable
one for managers to follow.
McGregor’s position causes confusion for the managers who try to choose between these two
conflicting approaches. The classical organizational approach that McGregor associated with Theory
X does work well in some situations, although, as McGregor himself pointed out, there are also some
1

situations where it does not work effectively. At the same time, the approach based on Theory Y,
while it has produced good results in some situations, does not always do so. That is, each approach
is effective in some cases but not in others. Why is this? How can managers resolve the confusion?
A New Approach
Recent work by a number of students of management and organization may help to answer such
questions. These studies indicate that there is not one best organizational approach; rather, the
best approach depends on the nature of the work to be done. Enterprises with highly predictable
tasks perform better with organizations characterized by the highly formalized procedures and
management hierarchies of the classical approach. With highly uncertain tasks that require more
extensive problem solving, on the other hand, organizations that are less formalized and emphasize
self-control and member participation in decision making are more effective. In essence, according
to these newer studies, managers must design and develop organizations so that the organizational
characteristics fit the nature of the task to be done.
While the conclusions of this newer approach will make sense to most experienced managers and
can alleviate much of the confusion about which approach to choose, there are still two important
questions unanswered:
1. How does the more formalized and controlling organization affect the motivation of organization
members? (McGregor’s most telling criticism of the classical approach was that it did not unleash the
potential in an enterprise’s human resources.)
2. Equally important, does a less formalized organization always provide a high level of motivation
for its members? (This is the implication many managers have drawn from McGregor’s work.)
We have recently been involved in a study that provides surprising answers to these questions and,
when taken together with other recent work, suggests a new set of basic assumptions which move
beyond Theory Y into what we call “Contingency Theory: the fit between task, organization, and
people.” These theoretical assumptions emphasize that the appropriate pattern of organization is
contingent on the nature of the work to be done and on the particular needs of the people involved.
2

We should emphasize that we have labeled these assumptions as a step beyond Theory Y because of
McGregor’s own recognition that the Theory Y assumptions would probably be supplanted by new
knowledge within a short time.
The Study Design
Our study was conducted in four organizational units. Two of these performed the relatively certain
task of manufacturing standardized containers on high-speed, automated production lines. The
other two performed the relatively uncertain work of research and development in communications
technology. Each pair of units performing the same kind of task were in the same large company,
and each pair had previously been evaluated by that company’s management as containing one
highly effective unit and a less effective one. The study design is summarized in Exhibit I.
Exhibit I. Study Design in “Fit” of Organizational Characteristics
The objective was to explore more fully how the fit between organization and task was related to
successful performance. That is, does a good fit between organizational characteristics and task
requirements increase the motivation of individuals and hence produce more effective individual
and organizational performance?
An especially useful approach to answering this question is to recognize that an individual has a
strong need to master the world around him, including the task that he faces as a member of a work
organization. The accumulated feelings of satisfaction that come from successfully mastering one’s
environment can be called a “sense of competence.” We saw this sense of competence in performing
a particular task as helpful in understanding how a fit between task and organizational
characteristics could motivate people toward successful performance.
Organizational dimensions
3
4

Because the four study sites had already been evaluated by the respective corporate managers as
high and low performers of tasks, we expected that such differences in performance would be a
preliminary clue to differences in the “fit” of the organizational characteristics to the job to be done.
But, first, we had to define what kinds of organizational characteristics would determine how
appropriate the organization was to the particular task.
We grouped these organizational characteristics into two sets of factors:
1. Formal characteristics, which could be used to judge the fit between the kind of task being worked
on and the formal practices of the organization.
2. Climate characteristics, or the subjective perceptions and orientations that had developed among
the individuals about their organizational setting. (These too must fit the task to be performed if the
organization is to be effective.)
We measured these attributes through questionnaires and interviews with about 40 managers in
each unit to determine the appropriateness of the organization to the kind of task being performed.
We also measured the feelings of competence of the people in the organizations so that we could
link the appropriateness of the organizational attributes with a sense of competence.
Major ndings
The principal findings of the survey are best highlighted by contrasting the highly successful Akron
plant and the high-performing Stockton laboratory. Because each performed very different tasks
(the former a relatively certain manufacturing task and the latter a relatively uncertain research
task), we expected, as brought out earlier, that there would have to be major differences between
them in organizational characteristics if they were to perform effectively. And this is what we did
find. But we also found that each of these effective units had a better fit with its particular task than
did its less effective counterpart.
While our major purpose in this article is to explore how the fit between task and organizational
characteristics is related to motivation, we first want to explore more fully the organizational
characteristics of these units, so the reader will better understand what we mean by a fit between
task and organization and how it can lead to more effective behavior. To do this, we shall place the

major emphasis on the contrast between the high-performing units (the Akron plant and Stockton
laboratory), but we shall also compare each of these with its less effective mate (the Hartford plant
and Carmel laboratory respectively).
Formal characteristics
Beginning with differences in formal characteristics, we found that both the Akron and Stockton
organizations fit their respective tasks much better than did their less successful counterparts. In the
predictable manufacturing task environment, Akron had a pattern of formal relationships and duties
that was highly structured and precisely defined. Stockton, with its unpredictable research task, had
a low degree of structure and much less precision of definition (see Exhibit II).
Exhibit II. Differences in Formal Characteristics in High-performing Organizations
Akron’s pattern of formal rules, procedures, and control systems was so specific and comprehensive
that it prompted one manager to remark:
“We’ve got rules here for everything from how much powder to use in cleaning the toilet bowls to
how to cart a dead body out of the plant.”
In contrast, Stockton’s formal rules were so minimal, loose, and flexible that one scientist, when
asked whether he felt the rules ought to be tightened, said:
“If a man puts a nut on a screw all day long, you may need more rules and a job definition for him.
But we’re not novices here. We’re professionals and not the kind who need close supervision. People
around here do produce, and produce under relaxed conditions. Why tamper with success?”

These differences in formal organizational characteristics were well suited to the differences in tasks
of the two organizations. Thus:
Akron’s highly structured formal practices fit its predictable task because behavior had to be
rigidly defined and controlled around the automated, high-speed production line. There was
really only one way to accomplish the plant’s very routine and programmable job; managers
defined it precisely and insisted (through the plant’s formal practices) that each man do what was
expected of him.
On the other hand, Stockton’s highly unstructured formal practices made just as much sense
because the required activities in the laboratory simply could not be rigidly defined in advance.
With such an unpredictable, fast-changing task as communications technology research, there were
numerous approaches to getting the job done well. As a consequence, Stockton managers used a less
structured pattern of formal practices that left the scientists in the lab free to respond to the
changing task situation.
Akron’s formal practices were very much geared to short-term and manufacturing concerns as its
task demanded. For example, formal production reports and operating review sessions were daily
occurrences, consistent with the fact that the through-put time for their products was typically
only a few hours.
By contrast, Stockton’s formal practices were geared to long-term and scientific concerns, as its task
demanded. Formal reports and reviews were made only quarterly, reflecting the fact that research
often does not come to fruition for three to five years.
At the two less effective sites (i.e., the Hartford plant and the Carmel laboratory), the formal
organizational characteristics did not fit their respective tasks nearly as well. For example, Hartford’s
formal practices were much less structured and controlling than were Akron’s, while Carmel’s were
more restraining and restricting than were Stockton’s. A scientist in Carmel commented:
“There’s something here that keeps you from being scientific. It’s hard to put your finger on, but I
guess I’d call it ‘Mickey Mouse.’ There are rules and things here that get in your way regarding doing
your job as a researcher.”
Climate characteristics

Climate characteristics
As with formal practices, the climate in both high-performing Akron and Stockton suited the
respective tasks much better than did the climates at the less successful Hartford and Carmel sites.
Perception of structure:
The people in the Akron plant perceived a great deal of structure, with their behavior tightly
controlled and defined. One manager in the plant said:
“We can’t let the lines run unattended. We lose money whenever they do. So we make sure each
man knows his job, knows when he can take a break, knows how to handle a change in shifts, etc.
It’s all spelled out clearly for him the day he comes to work here.”
In contrast, the scientists in the Stockton laboratory perceived very little structure, with their
behavior only minimally controlled. Such perceptions encouraged the individualistic and creative
behavior that the uncertain, rapidly changing research task needed. Scientists in the less successful
Carmel laboratory perceived much more structure in their organization and voiced the feeling that
this was “getting in their way” and making it difficult to do effective research.
Distribution of inuence:
The Akron plant and the Stockton laboratory also differed substantially in how influence was
distributed and on the character of superior-subordinate and colleague relations. Akron personnel
felt that they had much less influence over decisions in their plant than Stockton’s scientists did in
their laboratory. The task at Akron had already been clearly defined and that definition had, in a
sense, been incorporated into the automated production flow itself. Therefore, there was less need
for individuals to have a say in decisions concerning the work process.
Moreover, in Akron, influence was perceived to be concentrated in the upper levels of the formal
structure (a hierarchical or “top-heavy” distribution), while in Stockton influence was perceived to
be more evenly spread out among more levels of the formal structure (an egalitarian distribution).
Akron’s members perceived themselves to have a low degree of freedom vis-à-vis superiors both in
choosing the jobs they work on and in handling these jobs on their own. They also described the
type of supervision in the plant as being relatively directive. Stockton’s scientists, on the other hand,

felt that they had a great deal of freedom vis-à-vis their superiors both in choosing the tasks and
projects, and in handling them in the way that they wanted to. They described supervision in the
laboratory as being very participatory.
It is interesting to note that the less successful Carmel laboratory had more of its decisions made at
the top. Because of this, there was a definite feeling by the scientists that their particular expertise
was not being effectively used in choosing projects.
Relations with others:
The people at Akron perceived a great deal of similarity among themselves in background, prior
work experiences, and approaches for tackling job-related problems. They also perceived the degree
of coordination of effort among colleagues to be very high. Because Akron’s task was so precisely
defined and the behavior of its members so rigidly controlled around the automated lines, it is easy
to see that this pattern also made sense.
By contrast, Stockton’s scientists perceived not only a great many differences among themselves,
especially in education and background, but also that the coordination of effort among colleagues
was relatively low. This was appropriate for a laboratory in which a great variety of disciplines and
skills were present and individual projects were important to solve technological problems.
Time orientation:
As we would expect, Akron’s individuals were highly oriented toward a relatively short time span
and manufacturing goals. They responded to quick feedback concerning the quality and service that
the plant was providing. This was essential, given the nature of their task.
Stockton’s researchers were highly oriented toward a longer time span and scientific goals. These
orientations meant that they were willing to wait for long-term feedback from a research project that
might take years to complete. A scientist in Stockton said:
“We’re not the kind of people here who need a pat on the back every day. We can wait for months if
necessary before we get feedback from colleagues and the profession. I’ve been working on one
project now for three months and I’m still not sure where it’s going to take me. I can live with that,
though.”

This is precisely the kind of behavior and attitude that spells success on this kind of task.
Managerial style:
Finally, the individuals in both Akron and Stockton perceived their chief executive to have a
“managerial style” that expressed more of a concern for the task than for people or relationships,
but this seemed to fit both tasks.
In Akron, the technology of the task was so dominant that top managerial behavior which was not
focused primarily on the task might have reduced the effectiveness of performance. On the other
hand, although Stockton’s research task called for more individualistic problem-solving behavior,
that sort of behavior could have become segmented and uncoordinated, unless the top executive in
the lab focused the group’s attention on the overall research task. Given the individualistic bent of
the scientists, this was an important force in achieving unity of effort.
All these differences in climate characteristics in the two high performers are summarized in Exhibit
III.
Exhibit III. Differences in “Climate” Characteristics in High-performing Organizations
As with formal attributes, the less effective Hartford and Carmel sites had organization climates that
showed a perceptibly lower degree of fit with their respective tasks. For example, the Hartford plant
had an egalitarian distribution of influence, perceptions of a low degree of structure, and a more

participatory type of supervision. The Carmel laboratory had a somewhat top-heavy distribution of
influence, perceptions of high structure, and a more directive type of supervision.
Competence Motivation
Because of the difference in organizational characteristics at Akron and Stockton, the two sites were
strikingly different places in which to work. But these organizations had two very important things
in common. First, each organization fit very well the requirements of its task. Second, although the
behavior in the two organizations was different, the result in both cases was effective task
performance.
Since, as we indicated earlier, our primary concern in this study was to link the fit between
organization and task with individual motivation to perform effectively, we devised a two-part test
to measure the sense of competence motivation of the individuals at both sites. Thus:
The first part asked a participant to write creative and imaginative stories in response to six
ambiguous pictures.
The second asked him to write a creative and imaginative story about what he would be doing,
thinking, and feeling “tomorrow” on his job. This is called a “projective” test because it is assumed
that the respondent projects into his stories his own attitudes, thoughts, feelings, needs, and wants,
all of which can be measured from the stories.
The results indicated that the individuals in Akron and Stockton showed significantly more feelings
of competence than did their counterparts in the lower-fit Hartford and Carmel organizations. We
found that the organization-task fit is simultaneously linked to and interdependent with both
individual motivation and effective unit performance. (This interdependency is illustrated in Exhibit
IV.)
5
6

Exhibit IV. Basic Contingent Relationships
Putting the conclusions in this form raises the question of cause and effect. Does effective unit
performance result from the task-organization fit or from higher motivation, or perhaps from both?
Does higher sense of competence motivation result from effective unit performance or from fit?
Our answer to these questions is that we do not think there are any single cause-and-effect
relationships, but that these factors are mutually interrelated. This has important implications for
management theory and practice.
Contingency Theory
Returning to McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y assumptions, we can now question the validity of
some of his conclusions. While Theory Y might help to explain the findings in the two laboratories,
we clearly need something other than Theory X or Y assumptions to explain the findings in the
plants.
For example, the managers at Akron worked in a formalized organization setting with relatively little
participation in decision making, and yet they were highly motivated. According to Theory X,
people would work hard in such a setting only because they were coerced to do so. According to
Theory Y, they should have been involved in decision making and been self-directed to feel so
motivated. Nothing in our data indicates that either set of assumptions was valid at Akron.

Conversely, the managers at Hartford, the low-performing plant, were in a less formalized
organization with more participation in decision making, and yet they were not as highly motivated
like the Akron managers. The Theory Y assumptions would suggest that they should have been more
motivated.
A way out of such paradoxes is to state a new set of assumptions, the Contingency Theory, that
seems to explain the findings at all four sites:
1. Human beings bring varying patterns of needs and motives into the work organization, but one
central need is to achieve a sense of competence.
2. The sense of competence motive, while it exists in all human beings, may be fulfilled in different
ways by different people depending on how this need interacts with the strengths of the individuals’
other needs—such as those for power, independence, structure, achievement, and affiliation.
3. Competence motivation is most likely to be fulfilled when there is a fit between task and
organization.
4. Sense of competence continues to motivate even when a competence goal is achieved; once one
goal is reached, a new, higher one is set.
While the central thrust of these points is clear from the preceding discussion of the study, some
elaboration can be made. First, the idea that different people have different needs is well understood
by psychologists. However, all too often, managers assume that all people have similar needs. Lest
we be accused of the same error, we are saying only that all people have a need to feel competent; in
this one way they are similar. But in many other dimensions of personality, individuals differ, and
these differences will determine how a particular person achieves a sense of competence.
Thus, for example, the people in the Akron plant seemed to be very different from those in the
Stockton laboratory in their underlying attitudes toward uncertainty, authority, and relationships
with their peers. And because they had different need patterns along these dimensions, both groups
were highly motivated by achieving competence from quite different activities and settings.

While there is a need to further investigate how people who work in different settings differ in their
psychological makeup, one important implication of the Contingency Theory is that we must not
only seek a fit between organization and task, but also between task and people and between people
and organization.
A further point which requires elaboration is that one’s sense of competence never really comes to
rest. Rather, the real satisfaction of this need is in the successful performance itself, with no
diminishing of the motivation as one goal is reached. Since feelings of competence are thus
reinforced by successful performance, they can be a more consistent and reliable motivator than
salary and benefits.
Implications for managers
The major managerial implication of the Contingency Theory seems to rest in the task-organization-
people fit. Although this interrelationship is complex, the best possibility for managerial action
probably is in tailoring the organization to fit the task and the people. If such a fit is achieved, both
effective unit performance and a higher sense of competence motivation seem to result.
Managers can start this process by considering how certain the task is, how frequently feedback
about task performance is available, and what goals are implicit in the task. The answers to these
questions will guide their decisions about the design of the management hierarchy, the specificity of
job assignments, and the utilization of rewards and control procedures. Selective use of training
programs and a general emphasis on appropriate management styles will move them toward a task-
organization fit.
The problem of achieving a fit among task, organization, and people is something we know less
about. As we have already suggested, we need further investigation of what personality
characteristics fit various tasks and organizations. Even with our limited knowledge, however, there
are indications that people will gradually gravitate into organizations that fit their particular
personalities. Managers can help this process by becoming more aware of what psychological needs
seem to best fit the tasks available and the organizational setting, and by trying to shape personnel
selection criteria to take account of these needs.

In arguing for an approach which emphasizes the fit among task, organization, and people, we are
putting to rest the question of which organizational approach—the classical or the participative—is
best. In its place we are raising a new question: What organizational approach is most appropriate
given the task and the people involved?
For many enterprises, given the new needs of younger employees for more autonomy, and the rapid
rates of social and technological change, it may well be that the more participative approach is the
most appropriate. But there will still be many situations in which the more controlled and
formalized organization is desirable. Such an organization need not be coercive or punitive. If it
makes sense to the individuals involved, given their needs and their jobs, they will find it rewarding
and motivating.
Concluding Note
The reader will recognize that the complexity we have described is not of our own making. The basic
deficiency with earlier approaches is that they did not recognize the variability in tasks and people
which produces this complexity. The strength of the contingency approach we have outlined is that
it begins to provide a way of thinking about this complexity, rather than ignoring it. While our
knowledge in this area is still growing, we are certain that any adequate theory of motivation and
organization will have to take account of the contingent relationship between task, organization,
and people.
1. Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1960), pp. 34–35 and pp. 47–48.
2. See for example Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment (Boston,
Harvard Business School, Division of Research, 1967); Joan Woodward, Industrial Organization:
Theory & Practice (New York, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1965); Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker, The
Management of Innovation (London, Tavistock Publications, 1961); Harold J. Leavitt, “Unhuman
Organizations,” HBR July–August 1962, p. 90.
3. McGregor, op. cit., p. 245.

4. See Robert W. White, “Ego and Reality in Psychoanalytic Theory,” Psychological Issues, Vol. III, No.
3 (New York, International Universities Press, 1963).
5. For a more detailed description of this survey, see John J. Morse, Internal Organizational
Patterning and Sense of Competence Motivation (Boston, Harvard Business School, unpublished
doctoral dissertation, 1969).
6. Diﬀerences between the two container plants are signiﬁcant at .001 and between the research
laboratories at .01 (one-tailed probability).
A version of this article appeared in the May 1970 issue of Harvard Business Review.
Mr. Morse is Assistant Professor of Behavioral Science at the Graduate School of Business Administration of the University of
California at Los Angeles. Part of the research described in this article was done by Morse for his doctoral thesis at the
Harvard Business School.
Jay W. Lorschis the Louis E. Kirstein Professor of Human Relations at Harvard Business
School.
Related Topics: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE | DEVELOPING EMPLOYEES
This article is about MOTIVATING PEOPLE
Comments
Leave a Comment

P O S T
0 COMMENTS
POSTING GUIDELINES

DEVELOPING EMPLOYEES
Job Enrichment Pays Off
by William J. Paul, Jr., Keith B. Robertson, and Frederick Herzberg
FROM THE MARCH 1969 ISSUE
I
This article reports on five of a number of job enrichment studies which were and are still being
carried out in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited and other British companies. The purpose of the
studies was an attempt to shed light on important job enrichment questions dealing with(1) the
generality of the findings, (2) the feasibility of making changes, and (3) the consequences to be
expected. In addition, the studies set out to determine how the concept of job enrichment may be
most effectively applied in furthering the attainment of companies’ business objectives. Among
them, they cover not only widely different business areas and company functions, but also many
types and levels of jobs. Collectively, they provide insights which add to management
understanding of both theory and practice.
n his pioneering article, “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?” Frederick
Herzberg put forward some principles of scientific job enrichment and reported a successful
application of them involving the stockholder correspondents employed by a large corporation.
According to him, job enrichment seeks to improve both task efficiency and human satisfaction by
means of building into people’s jobs, quite specifically, greater scope for personal achievement and
its recognition, more challenging and responsible work, and more opportunity for individual
advancement and growth. It is concerned only incidentally with matters such as pay and working
conditions, organizational structure, communications, and training, important and necessary
though these may be in their own right.
But like a lot of pioneering work, Herzberg’s study raised more questions than it answered. Some
seemed t o us to merit further consideration, particularly those in regard to the (1)generality of the
findings, (2) feasibility of making changes, and (3) consequences to be expected. Consider:
1

1. Generality—Can similarly positive results be obtained elsewhere with other people doing different
jobs? How widespread is the scope or need for equivalent change in other jobs? Can meaningful
results be obtained only in jobs with large numbers of people all doing the same work and where
performance measures are easily available?
2. Feasibility—Are there not situations where the operational risk is so high that it would be
foolhardy to attempt to pass responsibility and scope for achievement down the line? Because
people’s ability and sense of responsibility vary so much, is it not necessary to make changes
selectively? Do all employees welcome having their jobs enriched, or are there not some who prefer
things to be left as they are? Can one enrich jobs without inevitably facing demands for higher pay or
better conditions to match the new responsibilities? And, in any case, is not the best route to
motivational change through participation?
3. Consequences—In view of so many possible difficulties in the way, are the gains to be expected
from job enrichment significant or only marginal? Do they relate primarily to job satisfaction or to
performance? What are the consequences for supervision if jobs are loaded with new tasks taken
from above—i.e., does one man’s enrichment become another’s impoverishment? Finally, what are
the consequences for management if motivational change becomes a reality? Is the manager’s role
affected? If so, how? And what are the implications for management development?
There are undoubtedly more questions that could be raised and investigated. But these seem
particularly important from a corporate point of view if job enrichment is to take place on a
widespread basis, as part of management practice rather than as a research activity. Accordingly, the
purpose of this article is to probe into the complexities of job enrichment in an attempt to shed light
on these questions and to determine how the concept may be most effectively applied in furthering
the attainment of corporate business objectives.
In order to do this, we shall report in Part I on five studies carried out in Imperial Chemical
Industries Limited and other British companies. Two of the studies—covering laboratory technicians
in an R&D department and sales representatives in three companies-will be examined in some
detail. The other three—encompassing design engineers, production foremen on shift work, and

engineering foremen on day work—will be summarized. In Part II, the main conclusions emerging
from the studies will be presented in the form of answers to the questions raised at the beginning of
this article.
Each study was initiated in response to a particular problem posed by management, and the
conclusions drawn from any one can be only tentative. Among them, however, they cover not only
widely different business areas and company functions, but also many types and levels of jobs.
Collectively, they provide material which adds to our understanding of both theory and practice.
Part I: The Job Enrichment Studies
As in all studies on job satisfaction and performance, the need to measure results introduced certain
constraints which do not exist in normal managerial situations. Consequently, three main features
were common to the studies we are reporting in this discussion:
First, the “hygiene” was held constant. This means that no deliberate changes were made as part of
the investigation, in matters such as pay, security, or working conditions. The studies were
specifically trying to measure the extent of those gains which could be attributed solely to change in
job content.
Second, recognition of the normal hygiene changes led to the need to have an “experimental group”
for whom the specific changes in job content were made, and a “control group” whose job content
remained the same.
Third, the studies had to be kept confidential to avoid the well-known tendency of people to behave
in an artificial way when they know they are the subject of a controlled study. Naturally, there was
no secret about the changes themselves, only about the fact that performance was being measured.
All studies set out to measure job satisfaction and performance for both the experimental and
control groups over a trial period following the implementation of the changes. The trial period itself
generally lasted a year and was never less than six months. The performance measures always were
specific to the group concerned and were determined by local management of the subject company.
To measure job satisfaction, we relied throughout on a job reaction survey which measures the
degree of people’s satisfaction with the motivators in their job as they themselves perceive them.

Laboratory technicians
Managers in an industrial research department were concerned about the morale of laboratory
technicians, or “experimental officers” (EOs). This group’s job was to implement experimental
programs devised by scientists. The EOs set up the appropriate apparatus, recorded data, and
supervised laboratory assistants, who carried out the simpler operations. The EOs were
professionally qualified people, but lacked the honors or doctorate degrees possessed by the
scientists.
The average age of the experimental officers was increasing. A quarter of them had reached their
salary maximums, and fewer now had the chance to move out of the department. Their normal
promotion route into plant management had become blocked as manufacturing processes grew
more complex and more highly qualified people filled the available jobs. Management’s view of the
situation was confirmed by the initial job reaction survey. Not only were the EOs’ scores low, but
many wrote of their frustration. They felt their technical ability and experience was being wasted by
the scientists’ refusal to delegate anything but routine work.
Against this background, the research manager’s specific objective was to develop the EOs into
“better scientists.” If job enrichment was to be useful, it would have to contribute to the attainment
of that goal.
Changes & experimental design
Here is the specific program of action devised and implemented for the experimental officers.
Technical:
EOs were encouraged to write the final report, or “minute,” on any research project for which they
had been responsible. Such minutes carried the author’s name and were issued along with those of
the scientists. It was up to each EO to decide for himself whether he wanted the minute checked by
his supervisor before issue, but in any case he was fully responsible for answering any query arising
from it.
EOs were involved in planning projects and experiments, and were given more chance to assist in
work planning and target setting.

They were given time, on request, to follow up their own ideas, even if these went beyond the
planned framework of research. Written reports had to be submitted on all such work.
Financial:
EOs were authorized to requisition materials and equipment, to request analysis, and to order
services such as maintenance, all on their own signature.
Managerial:
Senior EOs were made responsible for devising and implementing a training program for their junior
staff. In doing so, they could call on facilities and advice available within the company.
Senior EOs were involved in interviewing candidates for laboratory assistant jobs, and they also
acted as first assessor in any staff assessment of their own laboratory assistants.
These changes drew on all the motivators. Each one gave important chances for achievement;
together, they were designed to make the work more challenging. Recognition of achievement came
in the authorship of reports. Authority to order supplies and services was a responsibility applying
to all the EOs involved. The new managerial responsibilities reserved to senior EOs opened up room
for advancement within the job, while the technical changes, particularly the opportunity for self-
initiated work, gave scope for professional growth.
Some 40 EOs in all were involved in the study. Two sections of the department acted as
experimental groups (N = 15) and two as control groups (N = 29). One experimental and one control
group worked closely together on the same type of research, and it was anticipated that there would
be some interaction between them. The other two groups were separate geographically and engaged
on quite different research.
The changes were implemented for the experimental groups during October and November 1966,
and the trial period ran for the next twelve months. After six months, the same changes were
introduced into one of the control groups, thus converting it into an experimental group (N = 14).
This was done to see whether a similar pattern of performance revealed itself, thereby safeguarding
against any remote possibility of coincidence in the choice of the original groups.

Research work is notoriously difficult to measure, but as the aim was to encourage more scientific
contribution from EOs, this was what had to be judged in as objective a way as possible. All EOs were
asked to write monthly progress reports of work done. Those written by experimental and control
group EOs were assessed by a panel of three managers, not members of the department, who were
familiar with the research work concerned.
Reports were scored against eight specifically defined criteria thought to reflect the kind of growth
being sought: knowledge, comprehension, synthesis, evaluation, original thought, practical initiative,
industry, and skill in report writing. Whenever the assessor found particular evidence of one of these
qualities in a report, he would award it one mark, the total score for a report being simply the sum of
these marks.
In order to establish a baseline for clarifying standards and testing the assessors’ consistency of
marking, reports were collected for three months prior to the introduction of any job enrichment
changes. The very high consistency found between the marking of the three assessors encouraged
confidence in the system. The assessors, naturally, were never told which were the experimental
and control groups, though it became easy for them to guess as the trial period went on.
The other main measure was to use the same system to assess research minutes written by the EOs.
These were compared against an equivalent sample of minutes written by scientists over the same
period, which were submitted to the panel for assessment, again without identification.
Motivational results
The assessment of monthly reports written by the experimental officers is given in Exhibit I, which
compares the mean score achieved by all experimental group EOs each month with that achieved by
all control group EOs. On occasions when a monthly report had obviously suffered because of the
attention devoted to writing a research minute covering much the same ground, a marginal
weighting factor was added to the score depending on the quality of the minute concerned. Both
experimental and control groups improved their monthly report scores at about the same rate
during the first five months. There is no doubt that with practice all were getting better at report
writing, and it may be that the mere fact of being asked to write monthly reports itself acted as a
motivator for both groups.

Exhibit I. Assessment of EOs monthly reports
Once the changes had been fully implemented in the experimental groups, however, performance
began to diverge. Although the reports of the control groups continued to improve for a time, they
were far outpaced by those of the experimental groups. With some fluctuations, this performance
differential was maintained throughout the rest of the trial period. When, after six months, the
motivators were fed into one of the two control groups, its performance improved dramatically,
following the pattern achieved by the original experimental groups. Meanwhile, the performance of
the other control group, unaffected by what was happening elsewhere, began to slip back toward its
original starting point.
During the 12 months of the trial period, a total of 34 research minutes were written by EOs, all from
the experimental groups, compared with 2 from the department as a whole during the previous 12-
month period. There were also a number of minutes jointly authored by scientists and EOs, which
are excluded from this analysis. Of the 34 being considered, 9 were written by EOs in the control
group which was converted into an experimental group, but all came from the time after the
changes had been introduced.

It is one thing for laboratory technicians to write research minutes, but whether the minutes they
write are any good or not is a diﬀerent matter. Exhibit II shows the quality of the EOs’ minutes
compared with that of the scientists’. The EOs’ mean score was 8.7; the scientists’ 9.8. All EO scores
except three fell within the range of scores obtained by the scientists; the three exceptions were
written by one man. Three of the EOs’ minutes, one in fact written by a laboratory assistant with
guidance from an EO, were judged to be as good as the best of the scientists’ minutes.
Exhibit II. Assessment of EOs research minutes
Encouraged by the success of a training scheme designed for laboratory assistants, the EOs initiated
one for themselves. It aimed to give them the opportunity to come to terms with the ideas and
terminology of chemical engineering. Managers judged it to have been of considerable value, and
one EO summed it up by saying, “A couple of pages of chemical engineering calculations and
formulas won’t frighten us oﬀ now.”
One original idea followed up, as the changes now permitted, by an EO from an experimental group
resulted in an important discovery with possible applications in certain kinds of national emergency.
The idea was investigated further by a government department, which described it as the most

promising of some 200 ideas submitted on that topic.
Three staff assessments on EOs were carried out—at the beginning, middle, and end of the trial
period. Each followed the normal company procedure. The only group which showed a consistent
improvement was one of the experimental groups.
The job reaction survey was given both before and after the trial period. In the initial survey,
experimental and control group EOs could not be specifically identified, and so an exact comparison
of the before and after scores of each group cannot be made. The overall mean score attained by all
EOs in the department was no higher at the end of the trial period than it had been at the beginning.
Although managers believed there had been a positive change in job satisfaction, that is not a
conclusion which can be supported with data.
An internal company report, written by the personnel officer who managed and coordinated the
study throughout, concluded that there had been definite evidence of growth among the EOs,
particularly in one group, and that much useful work had been accomplished during the exercise.
One of the experimental groups had been able to keep abreast of its commitments even though it
lost the services of two of its six scientists during the trial period and functioned without a manager
for the last five months of the study. There can be little doubt that job enrichment in this case helped
to further the research manager’s objective of tackling a morale problem by getting at the root of the
matter and developing experimental officers as scientists in their own right.
Sales representatives
To investigate the potential of job enrichment in the sales field, work has been done in three British
companies dealing with quite different products and markets, both wholesale and retail. In only one
study, however, were experimental conditions strictly observed.
The company concerned had long enjoyed a healthy share of the domestic market in one particular
product range, but its position was threatened by competition. A decline in market share had been
stabilized before the study began, but 1967 sales still showed no improvement over those of 1966.
So far as could be judged, the company’s products were fully competitive in both price and quality.
The critical factor in the situation appeared to be sales representatives’ effort.

The representatives’ salaries—they were not paid a commission—and conditions of employment
were known to compare well with the average for the industry. Their mean score in the job reaction
survey, like that of other groups of salesmen, was higher than most employees of equivalent
seniority, which suggested that they enjoyed considerable job satisfaction.
The problem in this case, therefore, was that for the vital business objective of regaining the
initiative in an important market, sustained extra effort was needed from a group of people already
comparatively well treated and reasonably satisfied with their jobs. Here, job enrichment would
stand or fall by the sales figures achieved.
Here is the specific program of action devised and implemented for the sales representatives.
Technical:
Sales representatives were no longer obliged to write reports on every customer call. They were
asked simply to pass on information when they thought it appropriate or request action as they
thought it was required.
Responsibility for determining calling frequencies was put wholly with the representatives
themselves, who kept the only records for purposes such as staff reviews.
The technical service department agreed to provide service “on demand” from the representatives;
nominated technicians regarded such calls as their first priority. Communication was by direct
contact, paperwork being cleared after the event.
Financial:
In cases of customer complaint about product performance, representatives were authorized to
make immediate settlements of up to $250 if they were satisfied that consequential liability would
not be prejudiced.
If faulty material had been delivered or if the customer was holding material for which he had no
further use, the representative now had complete authority, with no upper limit in sales value, to
decide how best to deal with the matter. He could buy back unwanted stock even if it was no longer

on the company’s selling range.
Representatives were given a discretionary range of about 10% on the prices of most products,
especially those considered to be critical from the point of view of market potential. The lower limit
given was often below any price previously quoted by the company. All quotations other than at list
price had to be reported by the representative.
The theme of all the changes was to build the sales representative’s job so that it became more
complete in its own right. Instead of always having to refer back to headquarters, the representative
now had the authority to make decisions on his own—he was someone the customer could really do
business with. Every change implied a greater responsibility; together they gave the freedom and
challenge necessary for self-development.
The company sold to many different industries, or “trades.” In view of the initial effort needed to
determine limit prices and to make the technical service arrangements, it was decided that the study
should concentrate on three trades chosen to be typical of the business as a whole. These three
trades gave a good geographical spread and covered many types of customers; each had an annual
sales turnover of about $1 million.
The experimental group (N = 15) was selected to be representative of the sales force as a whole in
age range, experience, and ability. An important part of each member’s selling responsibility lay
within the nominated trades. The rest of the sales force (N = 23) acted as the control group. The
changes were introduced during December 1967, and the trial period ran from January 1 to
September 30, 1968.
The background of static sales and the objective of recapturing the market initiative dictated that
sales turnover would be the critical measure, checked by gross margin. The difficulties of comparing
unequal sales values and allowing for monthly fluctuations and seasonal trends were overcome by
making all comparisons on a cumulative basis in terms of the percentage gain or loss for each group
against the equivalent period of the previous year.

Since they were selling in the same trades in the same parts of the country, the performance of all
the representatives was presumably influenced by the same broad economic and commercial
factors. In two of the trades, the experimental group had the bigger share of the business and tended
to sell to the larger customers. In these cases it may be surmised that prevailing market conditions
affected the experimental group’s performance, favorably or unfavorably, more than the control
group’s. As it happened, in one of these trades commercial trends were favorable, while in the other
they were distinctly unfavorable. In the third trade, the experimental and control groups were
evenly matched. Taken together, then, the three trades give as fair a comparison as can be obtained
between the performances of sales representatives under those two sets of conditions.
During the trial period the experimental group increased its sales by almost 19% over the same
period of the previous year, a gain of over $300,000 in sales value. The control group’s sales in the
meantime declined by 5%. The equivalent change for both groups the previous year had been a
decline of 3%. The difference in performance between the two groups is statistically significant at
the 0.01 level of confidence.
Exhibit III shows the month-to-month performance of the two groups, plotted cumulatively. It can
be seen that the control group in fact started the year extremely well, with January/ February sales
in the region of 30% above the equivalent 1967 figures. This improvement was not sustained,
however, and by May cumulative sales had dropped below their 1967 level. By the last five months
of the trial period, performance was running true to the previous year’s form, showing a decline of
about 3%.

Exhibit III. Sales turnover within trades chosen as typical of the business as a whole
The experimental group, on the other hand, started more modestly, not exceeding a 20%
improvement during the first quarter. During the second quarter, outstanding results in May
compensated for poorer figures in April and June. The third quarter showed a steady, if slight, rise in
the rate of improvement over 1967. This sustained increase of just under 20% was in marked
contrast to the previously declining performance of the trades as a whole.
Comparisons with other trades suffer from the disadvantage that different economic and
commercial factors affect the various parts of the business. Nevertheless, the experimental group’s
performance was consistently between 6% and 7% better than that for the rest of the business.
Exhibit IV shows the month-to-month picture. It can be seen not only that the experimental group
maintained a higher rate of improvement than the rest of the business throughout the trial period,
but that the gap widened if anything as time went on. At the 1967 rates of turnover, this
performance differential in all trades would be worth $1.5 million in sales value in a full year.

Exhibit IV. Sales turnover: experimental group and rest of business
In view of the greater negotiating authority granted to the experimental group representatives, it is
important to check whether their substantial increase in turnover was achieved at the expense of
proﬁt. As all quotations other than at list price were reported by the representatives, it was possible
to analyze the gross margin achieved by both groups. The analysis showed without doubt that the
gross margin of the experimental group’s sales was proportionally as high, if not higher, than that of
the control group’s sales.
Managers had the impression that representatives actually used their price discretion less often than
they had previously asked for special prices to be quoted by the sales oﬃce. Also, in the sales
manager’s view, once the representatives were given real negotiating authority, they discovered that
price was not the obstacle to sales which they had always imagined it to be. Under the new
arrangements, they were able to assess more completely what the true obstacles to sales were in
each individual case.
Over the trial period the control group’s mean score in the job reaction survey remained static. In
contrast, the experimental group’s score rose by 11%.

Design engineers
The engineering director of one of the divisions of ICI wanted to see whether the job of design
engineer might lend itself to motivational change. His design department faced an increasing work
load as more design work for the division’s plants was being done internally. The situation was
exacerbated by difficulties in recruiting qualified design engineers. People at all levels in the
department were being overloaded and development work was suffering.
Here is the specific program of action devised and implemented for the design engineers.
Technical:
Experienced engineers were given a completely independent role in running their projects; the less
experienced technical men were given as much independence as possible. Occasions on which
reference to supervision remained obligatory were reduced to an absolute minimum. The aim was
that each engineer should judge for himself when and to what extent he should seek advice.
Group managers sponsored occasional investigatory jobs, and engineers were encouraged to
become departmental experts in particular fields. They were expected to follow up completed
projects as they thought appropriate.
When authority to allocate work to outside consultants was given, the engineers were to have the
responsibility for making the choice of consultants.
Financial:
Within a sanctioned project with a budget already agreed on, all arbitrary limits on engineers’
authority to spend money were removed. They themselves had to ensure that each “physical intent”
was adequately defined and that an appropriate sum was allocated for it in the project budget. That
done, no financial ceiling limited their authority to place orders.
Managerial:

Engineers were involved in the selection and placing of designers (drawing office staff). They
manned selection panels, and a recruit would only be allocated to a particular engineer if the latter
agreed to accept him.
Experienced engineers were asked to make the initial salary recommendations for all their junior
staff members.
Engineers were allowed to authorize overtime, cash advances, and traveling expenses for staff:
In summary fashion, these are the deductions that can be drawn from this study:
Senior managers saw a change in both the amount and the kind of consultation between
experimental group design engineers and their immediate supervisors. The supervisors’ routine
involvement in projects was much reduced, and they were able to give more emphasis in their
work to technical development. Some engineers still needed frequent guidance, others operated
independently with confidence. The point is that not all were restricted for the benefit of some;
those who could were allowed to find their own feet.
The encouragement of specialist expertise among design engineers was a long-term proposition,
but progress was made during the trial period.
The removal of any financial ceiling on engineers’ authority to place orders within an approved
project with an agreed budget proved entirely effective. Whereas before the design engineers had
to seek approval from as many as three higher levels of management for any expenditure over
$5,000—a time-consuming process for all concerned—now they could, and did, place orders for as
much as $500,000 worth of equipment on their own authority.
There is no evidence of any poor decision having been taken as a result of the new arrangements.
In fact, at the end of the trial period, none of the senior managers concerned wanted to revert to
the old system.
The changes involving the engineers in supervisory roles were thought by the senior managers to
be at least as important as the other changes, possibly more so in the long term.

There was no doubt about the design engineers’ greater involvement in the selection process,
which they fully accepted and appreciated. Significantly, they began to show a greater feel for the
constraints involved in selection.
The responsibility for overtime and travel claims was fully effective and taken in people’s stride.
There was no adverse effect from a budgetary control point of view.
The involvement of design engineers in making salary recommendations for their staff was
considered by the senior managers to have been a major improvement. If anything, engineers
tended to be “tighter” in their salary recommendations than more senior management. There was
general agreement that the effectiveness of this change would increase over time.
Senior managers felt that none of the changes of its own accord had had an overriding effect, nor
had all problems been solved. But there was no doubt that the cumulative effect of the changes
had been significant and that the direction of solutions to some important problems had been
indicated.
The changes may have been effective, but in this particular study the important question was
whether they had a significant impact on job satisfaction. Some of the motivators introduced into
the experimental groups had been in operation in the control group for some time; others—because
of the specialist nature of the control group’s work—were not as important to it as to the
experimental groups. The control group had scored high in the initial job reaction survey, while the
experimental groups had both achieved very low scores. If the experimental groups’ scores did not
improve, doubt would inevitably be cast on the relationship between job content and job
satisfaction. As it turned out, comparison results of the before and after job reaction surveys
revealed that the mean scores of the two experimental groups had increased by 21% and 16%, while
those of the control group and all other design engineers in the department had remained static.
Factory supervisors
The final two studies, one in ICI and one in another British company, concerned factory supervisors:
production foremen on shift work fabricating nonferrous metals, and engineering foremen on day
work providing maintenance services. As the two studies seem to be complementary, they are
considered jointly.

In both cases management was concerned about the degree to which the traditional role of the
foreman had been eroded in recent years. The increasing complexity of organizational structures,
plant and equipment, and industrial relations had left the foreman isolated. Decisions in the areas of
planning, technical control, and discipline—originally in his province—were now passed up the line
or turned over to a specialist staff. Many managers believed that as a consequence small problems
too often escalated unnecessarily, managers were being overloaded, and day-to-day relationships
between the foreman and his men had been weakened.
Here is the specific program of action devised and implemented for the production and engineering
foremen.
Technical:
Foremen were involved more in planning. Production foremen were authorized to modify schedules
for loading and sequencing; engineering foremen were consulted more about organizational
developments, given more responsibility for preventive maintenance, and encouraged to comment
on design.
All were assigned projects on specific problems such as quality control, and could draw on the
necessary resources for their implementation.
Other changes included giving foremen more “on the spot” responsibility, official deputizing for
engineers, the writing of monthly reports, and more recognition of foremen’s achievement of plans.
Financial:
Engineering foremen were given complete control of certain “on cost” budgets. Production foremen
were encouraged to make all decisions on nonstandard payments.
Managerial:
Production foremen were given the authority to hire labor against agreed manning targets. They
interviewed candidates for jobs and made the decision on their selection.

All the foremen were given complete disciplinary authority, except for dismissal. They decided what
disciplinary action to take, consulted the personnel department if they thought it necessary,
conducted the interviews, and kept the records.
All were given formal responsibility for the assessment, training, and development of their
subordinates, and in some cases for the appointment of their own deputies. On the production side,
a newly appointed training officer acted as a resource person for the foremen. Engineering foremen
were involved more in the application of a job appraisement scheme and in joint consultation and
negotiation with union officials.
The objective of integrating the foreman more fully into the managerial team dictated that
responsibility should be the motivator chiefly concerned in these changes. Control of his own labor
force, backed up by more technical and financial responsibility, was designed to give the foreman
more opportunities for achievement and personal growth in the job. The main issue in these studies
was whether foremen would prove themselves capable of carrying the increased responsibility.
Thus, in monitoring the effectiveness of the changes, the aim was primarily to detect any instability
or shortcomings in performance.
In summary fashion, these are the deductions that can be drawn from this study:
In six months the production foremen recruited nearly 100 men, and were judged by the
personnel officer to be “hiring a better caliber of man at an improved rate.” Their immediate
supervisors were categorical in their approval and noted that the foremen were taking special care
to “design their own shifts.” Recruitment interviews were said to have improved the foremen’s
ability to handle encounters with existing staff and shop stewards.
Training was handled equally successfully by the production foremen. For each job it was
specified that there should be a certain number of men trained to take over in an emergency.
During the trial period, the margin by which the target number was missed was reduced from 94
to 55; the number of operators unable to do another’s job fell by 12%, and the number of
assistants unable to do the job of the man they assisted fell by 37%. No comparable improvement
was achieved in the control group.

It became clear from both studies that foremen were fully capable of carrying disciplinary
responsibility. An analysis of all cases arising during the trial year showed that there had been a
reduction in the number of “repeat offenses” among employees with poor disciplinary records
and a substantial reduction in short-term work stoppages. The analysis concluded that foremen
were not prone to take one kind of action rather than another, they had developed a purposeful
approach to such problems, and there had been no adverse union reaction.
About 50% of the engineering foremen’s monthly reports during the trial year referred to
consultation and negotiation with union officials—this on a site not noted for its harmonious
industrial relations. Topics included demarcation, special payments, and the easing of bans
imposed on “call outs.” The incidence of such reports was spread evenly throughout the
experimental group; their frequency increased during the trial period as the foremen became
more confident of their abilities. All such matters appear to have been handled capably.
From both studies came evidence, confirming what has long been demonstrated in training
courses, that special investigatory projects give foremen much needed opportunity to contribute
their experience and expertise to the solution of long-standing technical and organizational
problems. In only three cases where financial evaluation was possible, the estimated annual
savings totaled more than $125,000.
Regarding the engineering foremen’s control of budgets, in some cases the aim was to meet the
target exactly; in others it was to reduce costs as much as possible. Both aims were achieved by
the foremen at least as well as they had been by the managers. There is no evidence that plant
efficiency or work effectiveness suffered in any way as a result of cost savings achieved by the
foremen.
In the case of the engineering foremen, the experimental group’s staff assessments at the end of
the trial year were markedly better than those of the control groups. Despite the attempt made in
the initial selection of experimental and control groups to achieve as good a balance as possible in
ability and experience, there can be little doubt that the experimental group did in any case
contain some more able men. But no one anticipated that such a large difference would show
itself at the end of the trial period. As evidence of development, 45% of the experimental group’s
assessments referred to significant improvements in performance during the year, and 36% made
particular mention of how effectively the foreman had dealt with increased responsibility

received during the year. These assessments were written by managers who were not party to the
study.
In the production foremen’s study, superintendents reported that the new conditions were
“separating the wheat from the chaff”; some of those who had previously been thought to be
among the best of the foremen had not lived up to their reputations in a situation which placed
little value on compliance, while others had improved enormously.
The production foremen’s job reaction survey scores showed no particular improvement over the
trial period. In the case of the engineering foremen, the experimental group’s mean score showed
a 12% increase, while the control group’s had only risen by 3%.
Part II: The Main Conclusions
What has been described in the first part of this article is the consistent application of theory in an
area where custom and practice are normally only challenged by individual hunch or intuition. As
we have seen, each study posed a separate problem concerning a different group of employees; the
only common element among them was the conceptual framework brought to bear on the problem,
enabling a specific program of action to be devised and implemented. Much was learned in the
process, by ourselves and managers alike.
Now in Part II, the main conclusions which emerged from the job enrichment studies are presented
in the form of answers to the questions raised at the beginning of this article.
Generality of ndings
Can similarly positive results be obtained elsewhere with other people doing different jobs?
Yes. The studies reflect a diversity of type and level of job in several company functions in more than
one industry. From the evidence now available, it is clear that results are not dependent on any
particular set of circumstances at the place of study. Our investigation has highlighted one
important aspect of the process of management and has shown that disciplined attention to it brings
results. The findings are relevant wherever people are being managed.
How widespread is the scope or need for equivalent change in other jobs?

The scope seems enormous. In brainstorming sessions held to generate ideas for change in the jobs
covered by the studies, it was not uncommon for over a hundred suggestions to be entertained. The
process of change in these particular jobs has started, not finished. In many places it has not even
started. Though there probably are jobs which do not lend themselves to enrichment, we have never
encountered a level or a function where some change has not seemed possible. It is difficult to say in
advance what jobs are going to offer the most scope; the most unlikely sometimes turn out to have
important possibilities. We have certainly not been able to conclude that any area of work can safely
be left out of consideration.
The need is as deep as the scope is wide. The responsiveness of so many people to changes with a
common theme suggests that an important and widespread human need has indeed been identified
in the motivators. Moreover, it would seem to be a need which manifests itself in a variety of ways.
If, from a company point of view, a gain once demonstrated to be possible is accepted as a need,
then the performance improvements registered in these studies would seem to betray an
organizational need which is far from fully recognized as yet.
Can meaningful results be obtained only in jobs with large numbers of people all doing the same work,
and where performance measures are easily available?
No. Meaningful results can be obtained in situations very far from the experimental ideal. Indeed,
the very awkwardness of many “real-life” situations leads to perceptions which could not come
from a laboratory experiment.
Organizational changes are made, work loads fluctuate, people fall sick, managers are moved,
emergencies have to be dealt with. The amount of attention which can be given to managing
changes designed to enrich people’s jobs is often slight. When a man’s immediate supervisor does
not even know that a study is taking place, there is no vested interest in its success. In circumstances
such as these, whatever is done stands or falls by its own merits.
In few of the studies could members of the experimental groups be said to be doing exactly the same
work. Changes sometimes had to be tailor-made to suit specific individual jobs. Yet from the
diversity of application came an understanding of the commonality of the process. Although

laboratory technicians were engaged in quite different kinds of research, they were all doing
research work; although foremen were looking after radically different operations, they were all
supervising.
The changes that seemed to have the most impact were precisely those which related to the
common heart and substance of the role played by people whose jobs differed in many important
details. More than this, it became clear that all of them—the laboratory technician following up an
original idea, the design engineer buying equipment, the foreman taking disciplinary action, the
sales representative negotiating in the customer’s office—are essentially in the same situation, the
crux of which is the private encounter between an individual and his task. Only a change which
impacts on this central relationship, we believe, can be truly effective in a motivational sense.
Real-life conditions not only give an investigation authenticity; they highlight the problem of
measurement. What is most meaningful to a manager, of course—a foreman’s proprietary attitude
toward his shift, for example—is not always quantifiable. An important discovery, however, was that
the better the motivator, the more likely it was to provide its own measure. Employees’ “sense of
responsibility,” judged in a vacuum, is a matter of speculation; but the exercise of a specific
responsibility, once given, is usually capable of meaningful analysis. Laboratory technicians may or
may not be thought to have innate potential; the number and quality of their research minutes can
be measured. Several times managers commented that job enrichment had opened up measurement
opportunities which not only allowed a more accurate assessment of individual performance, but
often led to a better diagnosis of technical problems as well.
Feasibility of change
Are there not situations where the operational risk is so high that it would be foolhardy to attempt to
pass responsibility and scope for achievement down the line?
Probably there are, but we have not encountered one. The risks attached to some of the changes in
the sales representatives’ study seemed frightening at the time. Few managers who have not tried it
can accept with equanimity the thought of their subordinates placing orders for $500,000 worth of
equipment on their own authority, even within a sanctioned project. The research manager in the
laboratory technicians’ study concluded that a change was only likely to be motivational for his
subordinates if it made him lose sleep at nights.

Yet in no case did disaster result. In reviewing the results of the studies with the managers
concerned, it was difficult in fact for us as outsiders not to have a sense of anticlimax. By the end of
the trial period, the nerve-racking gambles of a few months before were hardly worth a mention.
The new conditions seemed perfectly ordinary. Managers had completely revised their probability
judgments in the light of experience.
Theory provides an explanation for the remarkable absence of disaster experienced in practice. Bad
hygiene, such as oppressive supervision and ineffectual control systems, constrains and limits
performance, and may even lead to sabotage. Administrative procedures that guard against
hypothetical errors and imaginary irresponsibility breed the very carelessness and apathy which
result in inefficiency. With too many controls, responsibility becomes so divided that it gets lost.
Hygiene improvements at best lift the constraints.
The motivators, on the other hand, make it possible for the individual to advance the base line of his
performance. The road is open for improvement, while present standards remain available as a
reference point and guide. When a man is given the chance to achieve more, he may not take that
chance, but he has no reason to achieve less. The message of both theory and practice is that people
respond cautiously to new responsibility; they feel their way and seek advice. When responsibility is
put squarely with the person doing a job, he is the one who wants and needs feedback in order to do
his job. His use of the motivators, not our use of hygiene, is what really controls performance
standards.
As managers, we start having positive control of the job only when we stop concentrating on trying
to control people. Mistakes are less likely, not more likely, than before; those which do occur are
more likely to be turned to account, learned from, and prevented in the future, for they are seen to
matter. Monitoring continues, but its purpose has changed. Now it provides the jobholder with
necessary information and enables management to see how much more can be added to a job rather
than how much should be subtracted from it. That way, continual improvement, while not being
guaranteed, at least becomes possible as the scope for the motivators is extended. It is the nearest
thing to a performance insurance policy that management can have.

Such is the theory, and from the evidence of the studies, practice bears it out. If the studies show
anything, they show that it pays to experiment. No one is being asked to accept anything on faith;
what is required is the courage to put old assumptions and old fears to the test. For the manager, the
process is like learning to swim: it may not be necessary to jump in at the deep end, but it surely is
necessary to leave the shallow end. Only those who have done so are able to conquer the fear which
perverts our whole diagnosis of the problem of managing people.
Because people’s ability and sense of responsibility vary so much, is it not necessary to make changes
selectively?
No. To make changes selectively is never to leave the shallow end of the pool. We are in no position
to decide, before the event, who deserves to have his job enriched and who does not. In almost
every study managers were surprised by the response of individuals, which varied certainly, but not
always in the way that would have been forecast. As the job changed, so did the criteria of successful
performance change. Some people who had been thought to be sound and responsible under the old
conditions turned out merely to have been yes-men once those conditions were changed; their
performance was the same as it had always been, but now compliance was no longer valued so
highly. At the other extreme was one classic example of an awkward employee, about to be sacked,
who turned out to be unusually inventive and responsible when he has given the opportunity to be
so.
In one study, not reported, a promising set of changes brought relatively disappointing results—the
changes had been implemented selectively. When pressed to explain the grounds on which people
had been chosen, the manager quoted as an example someone who had already carried similar
responsibility in a previous job. It is exactly this kind of vicious circle that job enrichment seeks to
break.
When changes are made unselectively, the genuinely good performers get better. Some poor
performers remain poor, but nothing is lost. Because the changes are opportunities and not
demands, all that happens is that the less able ignore them and go on as before. Some people,
however, develop as they never could under the old conditions, and do better than others originally
rated much higher. This is the bonus from job enrichment. Not only is overall performance
improved, but a clearer picture emerges of individual diﬀerences and potential.

So long as a foundation of new job opportunities available to all is firmly established, there is no
harm in restricting certain changes to the more senior of the jobholders. Such changes can be seen in
both the laboratory technicians’ and the design engineers’ studies. This is a very different matter
from introducing changes selectively in the first place. It is a way of providing scope for personal
advancement within the job and recognizing the achievements of those who build well on the
foundation of opportunity already provided.
Do all employees welcome having their jobs enriched, or are there not some who prefer things to be left
as they are?
Individual reaction to job enrichment is as difficult to forecast in terms of attitudes as it is in terms of
performance. Those already genuinely interested in their work develop real enthusiasm. Not all
people welcome having their jobs enriched, certainly, but so long as the changes are opportunities
rather than demands, there is no reason to fear an adverse reaction. If someone prefers things the
way they are, he merely keeps them the way they are, by continuing to refer matters to his
supervisor, for example. Again, there is nothing lost.
On the other hand, some of the very people whom one might expect to duck their chance seize it
with both hands, developing a keenness one would never have anticipated. In attitudes as well as in
performance, the existence of individual differences is no bar to investigating the possibilities of job
enrichment.
Can you enrich jobs without inevitably facing demands for higher pay or better conditions to match the
new responsibilities?
Yes. In no instance did management face a demand of this kind as a result of changes made in the
studies. It would seem that changes in working practice can be made without always having a price
tag attached.
Here, as in the matter of operational risk, what is surprising in practice is easily explicable in terms
of theory. The motivators and the hygiene factors may not be separate dimensions in a manager’s
analysis of a situation, but they are in people’s experience. It is time that our diagnosis of problems
took more account of people’s experience. The studies demonstrate again that, when presented with

an opportunity for achievement, people either achieve something or they do not; when allowed to
develop, they either respond or stay as they are. Whatever the result, it is a self-contained
experience, a private encounter between a person and his task.
It is something quite separate when the same person becomes annoyed by his poor working
conditions, worries about his status or security, or sees his neighbors enjoying a higher standard of
living. The cause-effect relationship between hygiene and motivation scarcely exists. Motivation is
not the product of good hygiene, even if bad hygiene sometimes leads to sabotage. Higher pay may
temporarily buy more work, but it does not buy commitment. Nor does commitment to a task, by
itself, bring demand for better hygiene.
Managers often complain of their lack of room for maneuver. In doing so, they are generalizing from
the rules of the hygiene game to the total management situation. There is little evidence that the
workforce in fact prostitutes its commitment to a task, although incentive bonus schemes,
productivity bargaining, and the like assiduously encourage such prostitution. Before the process
goes too far, it seems worth exploring more fully the room for maneuver freely available on the
motivator dimension.
This is not to say, however, that the motivators should be used as an alibi for the neglect of hygiene.
If people genuinely are achieving more, taking more responsibility, and developing greater
competence, that is no reason to take advantage of them for a short-term profit. Any tendency to
exploitation on management’s part could destroy the whole process.
Is not the best route to motivational change through participation?
Yes and no. We have to define our terms. So far as the process of job enrichment itself is concerned,
experimental constraints in the studies dictated that there could be no participation by jobholders
themselves in deciding what changes were to be made in their jobs. The changes nevertheless
seemed to be effective. On the other hand, when people were invited to participate—not in any of
the reported studies—results were disappointing. In one case, for example, a group of personnel
specialists suggested fewer than 30 fairly minor changes in their jobs, whereas their managers had
compiled a list of over 100 much more substantial possibilities.

It seems that employees themselves are not in a good position to test out the validity of the
boundaries of their jobs. So long as the aim is not to measure experimentally the effects of job
enrichment alone, there is undoubtedly benefit in the sharing of ideas. Our experience merely
suggests that it would be unwise to pin too many hopes to it—or the wrong hopes.
Participation is sometimes held, consciously or unconsciously, to be an alternative to job
enrichment. Instead of passing responsibility down the line and possibly losing control, the manager
can consult his subordinates before making a decision, involve them, make them feel part of the
team. It all seems to be a matter of degree, after all. Participation, in this sense of consultation, is
seen as a safe halfway house to job enrichment, productive and satisfying to all concerned.
A multitude of techniques are available to help the manager be more effective in consultation: he
can be trained to be more sensitive to interpersonal conflict, more sophisticated in his handling of
groups, more ready to listen, more oriented toward valuing others’ contributions. Better decisions
result, especially in problem-solving meetings that bring together colleagues or opponents in
different roles or functions.
But in the specific context of the management of subordinates, it is worth asking who is motivated
in this kind of participation. The answer would seem to be the person who needs a second opinion
to make sure he comes to the right decision—the manager in fact. The subordinate does not have the
same professional or work-inspired need for the encounter, for he is not the one who has to live with
responsibility for the decision. It is doubtful whether his “sense of involvement” even makes him
feel good for long, for an appeal to personal vanity wears thin without more substance. However
well-intentioned, this halfway-house kind of participative management smacks of conscience
money; and receivers of charity are notoriously ungrateful. In the case of professional staff it is
downright patronizing, for the subordinate is paid to offer his opinion anyway.
Theory clarifies the position. It is not a matter of degree at all. The difference between consultation
and enrichment is a difference in kind. Consultation does not give a subordinate the chance for
personal achievement which he can recognize; through involvement, it subtly denies him the
exercise of responsibility which would lead to his development, however humbly, as an executive in

his own right. Far from being the best route to motivational change, this kind of participation is a red
herring. It is hygiene masquerading as a motivator, diverting attention from the real problem. It may
help to prevent dissatisfaction, but it does not motivate.
The laboratory technicians, sales representatives, design engineers, and foremen did indeed
participate, but not in a consultative exercise designed to keep them happy or to help their
managers reach better decisions. Nor was it participation in ambiguity—an all too common
occurrence in which, although no one quite knows where he stands or what may happen, the mere
fact of participation is supposed to bring success. The participation of employees involved in the
studies consisted of doing things which had always previously been done by more senior people. In
all cases consultation continued, but now it was consultation upward. In consultation upward there
is no ambiguity; tasks and roles are clear. Both parties are motivated, the subordinate by the need to
make the best decision, to satisfy himself, to justify the trust placed in him, to enhance his
professional reputation; the manager by the need to develop his staff.
When design engineers consulted their more senior colleagues, it was on questions of technical
difficulty, commercial delicacy, or professional integrity—all more to the point than the mere price of
a piece of equipment. Foremen consulted their managers on unusual budgetary worries, or the
personnel department on tricky disciplinary problems. Sales representatives consulted headquarters
on matters such as the stock position on a certain product before negotiating special terms with a
customer.
Participation is indeed the best route to motivational change, but only when it is participation in the
act of management, no matter at what level it takes place. And the test of the genuineness of that
participation is simple—it must be left to the subordinate to be the prime mover in consultation on
those topics where he carries personal responsibility. For the manager, as for the subordinate, the
right to be consulted must be earned by competence in giving help. Therein lies the only authority
worth having.
Expected consequences
In view of so many possible difficulties in the way, are the gains to be expected from job enrichment
significant or only marginal?

We believe the gains are significant, but the evidence must speak for itself. In all, 100 people were in
the experimental groups in the studies described. A conservative reckoning of the financial benefit
achieved, arrived at by halving all estimated annual gains or savings, would still be over $200,000
per year. Cost was measurable in a few days of managers’ time at each place.
Do the gains relate primarily to job satisfaction or to performance?
Contrary to expectation, the gains, initially at least, seem to relate primarily to performance.
Wherever a direct measure of performance was possible, an immediate gain was registered. In one
or two instances, performance seemed to peak and then drop back somewhat, though it stayed well
above its starting point and well above the control group’s performance. Elsewhere there seemed to
be a more gradual improvement; if anything it gained momentum through the trial period. We have
no evidence to suggest that performance gains, once firmly established, are not capable of being
sustained.
In the short term, gains in job satisfaction would seem to be less spectacular. Attitudes do not
change overnight. Satisfaction is the result of performance, not vice versa, and there is a long history
of frustration to be overcome. When direct measurement of job satisfaction was possible, the most
significant gains seemed to come when the trial period was longest. There is every reason to think
that in the long term attitudes catch up with performance and that job enrichment initiates a steady
and prolonged improvement in both.
What are the consequences for supervision if jobs are loaded with new tasks taken from above—i.e.,
does one man’s enrichment become another’s impoverishment?
The more subordinates’ jobs are enriched, the more superfluous does supervision, in its old sense,
become. Several of the studies showed that short-term absences of the experimental groups’
supervisors could be coped with more easily as day-to-day concern for operational problems shifted
downward. The need for the supervisor to be always “on the job” diminished; greater organizational
flexibility was gained.

But though supervision may become redundant, supervisors do not. Fears of loss of authority or
prestige were never realized. Far from their jobs being impoverished, supervisors now found that
they had time available to do more important work. Design engineers’ supervisors were able to
devote more effort to technical development; production foremen’s supervisors found themselves
playing a fuller managerial role.
The enrichment of lower-level jobs seems to set up a chain reaction resulting in the enrichment of
supervisors’ jobs as well. Fears that the supervisor may somehow miss out are based on the premise
that there is a finite pool of responsibility in the organization which is shared among its members. In
practice new higher-order responsibilities are born.
Even when subordinates are given responsibilities not previously held by their own supervisors, as
happened in the sales representatives’ study and to a lesser extent in some of the others, there is no
evidence that supervisors feel bypassed or deprived, except perhaps very temporarily. It soon
becomes apparent to all concerned that to supervise people with authority of their own is a more
demanding, rewarding, and enjoyable task than to rule over a bunch of automatons, checking their
every move.
Finally, what are the consequences for management if motivational change becomes a reality? Is the
manager’s role affected? If so, how? And what are the implications for management development?
The main consequence is that management becomes a service, its purpose to enable, encourage,
assist, and reinforce achievement by employees. Task organization and task support are the central
features of the manager’s new role. In task organization two complementary criteria emerge: (1)
tasks have to be authentic—i.e., the more opportunity they give employees to contribute to business
objectives, the more effective they are likely to be motivationally; (2) tasks have to be motivational—
i.e., the more they draw upon the motivators, the more likely they are to produce an effective
contribution to business objectives. In task support, factors such as company policy and
administration, technical supervision, interpersonal relations, and working conditions all have to be
pressed into the service of the motivators. Control of the job is achieved by providing people with
the tools of their trade, with the information they require, with training as appropriate, and with
advice when sought.

The job itself becomes the prime vehicle of all individual development, of which management
development is only one kind. In aiding the process of development, our starting point, as always, is
problem diagnosis—in this case, assessment of individual abilities, potentials, and needs. When
people are underemployed, we have no way of distinguishing between those who are near the limit
of their abilities and those who have a great deal more to contribute. All too often, potential has to
be inferred from risky and subjective judgments about personality. Such judgments, once made,
tend to be static; people become categorized. The studies show that when tasks are organized to be
as authentic and motivational as possible, management receives a more accurate and a continuing
feedback on individual strengths and weaknesses, ability, and potential. Task support becomes a
flexible instrument of management, responsive to feedback.
If the job itself is the prime vehicle of individual development, task support is the means by which
management can influence it. We still think of individual development, especially management
development, far too much as something which can be imposed from outside. We pay lip service to
on-the-job training but go on running courses as a refuge. We speak of self-development, but we are
at a loss to know how to encourage it. Now, however, we can postulate a criterion: self-development
is likely to be most effective when the task a person is engaged in is authentic and motivational and
when in doing it he receives understanding, imaginative, and capable support. When these
conditions are met, the job itself becomes a true learning situation, its ingredients the motivators.
Though only one study set out specifically to measure individual development, the most pervasive
impression from all was one of development and personal growth achieved. The latent inspirational
value of jobs appeared to have been released. People were able to demonstrate and utilize skills they
already possessed, and go on to learn new ones. Each new facet of the task required a response in
terms of individual development, and results suggest that that response was seldom lacking.
The best evidence of development came, however, not from the experimental groups in the studies,
but from the managers who put the studies into effect. It is sometimes said that attitude change is
the key to success. But in seeking to improve the performance of our business, perhaps we rely too
much on efforts to change managers’ attitudes. These studies went ahead without waiting for
miracles of conversion first. Just as the experimental groups in the studies represented a cross
section of employees engaged on those jobs, so the managers who put the studies into effect

represented a cross section of managers. Enthusiasts and skeptics alike agreed to judge the studies
by their results. They did, and the eﬀect was clear for the observer to see. Success proved to be the
key to attitude change. In retrospect, who would want it otherwise?
1. HBR January–February 1968, p 53.
A version of this article appeared in the March 1969 issue of Harvard Business Review.
Of the two men who conducted the tests and have written this report, Mr. Paul is a Management Consultant in England,
specializing in behavioral science and personnel research; and
Mr. Robertson is a member of the Personnel Department of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited.
Frederick Herzberg, Distinguished Professor of Management at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, was head
of the department of psychology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland when he wrote this article. His writings
include the book Work and the Nature of Man (World, 1966).
Related Topics: MANAGING YOURSELF | MOTIVATING PEOPLE
This article is about DEVELOPING EMPLOYEES
Comments
Leave a Comment
P O S T
0 COMMENTS

POSTING GUIDELINES

     Login Subscribe
Share
:: A 26-Year-Old Serial Entrepreneur’s Tips for Successful Startup CEOs ::
Don’t be a founder if you truly don’t want it
I tried working a normal job as an employee--once. In my observation, people become entrepreneurs for one of two main reasons: Either they are
passionate about something to the point of obsession, or they have dif culties falling in line with the rest of the squad. Both types are generally
creative in envisioning solutions, and work independently, but still require the rest of the team to make it work. An entrepreneurial personality is
unique, but no more or less important than people who prefer contributing powerfully to a healthy corporate team. Start-ups need both. At the
end of the day, you need to look at what makes you happy, founder, or an employee.
Ageism can cut both ways
Even in an era heavy with Zuckerberg-like successes, my own lack of grey hair can lead people to dismiss me as well. For both old and young
entrepreneurs, we have to look smarter, work harder and deliver better, consistently, to be taken seriously. Flip it, use it to your advantage, go
ahead and let the 800-pound industry gorilla ignore you, while you dramatically improve a product and grab market share. Our unguided
creativity and development cycles free of drama and policy will allow us to blaze a fresh trail in your industry.
Filter the advice
As your business grows, you may be surrounded by experienced consultants in many industries where you aren’t an expert. You need to lter
good advice from bad. They’ll give wise strategy, but your gut may scream at you to do something diametrically opposed. Have the courage to say,
"I value your advice, but my instinct says to go another way.” If your instinct sucks in certain areas, hire someone to cover you there the most
important thing you can do is cover your blind spots.
Welcome Risk
Entrepreneurs aren’t easily scared. You have to live lean while building, and be willing to fail. I have had two businesses that succeeded, but one
failed. I sold the rst successful venture at age 15. The second tanked because, frankly, the idea was a bit too far ahead of both consumer
technology and how people were accustomed to using the Internet, but I remained undeterred. Visionary people can’t stop generating ideas. I
trust my innate ability to succeed, so does my team. We’re all in it together.
Be Willing to Say You Were Wrong
Taking risks, rejecting advice, moving fast, reiterating on results, and telling more seasoned professionals how the world is changing means you
might screw up.
As a founder, it's important to own your mistakes, and show your employees, partners, and clients that you can course correct. This instills loyalty,
because people trust your transparency. And, it keeps your employees failing forward along with you.
Getting Funding:The Real Secret
It’s not for everyone - and neither is my advice, but for those who want independence in their business but still want the funds to grow know this:
Prove it.
Investors give you money based on their assessment of the risk and potential for pro ts in the future. The second you take their money it’s about
mitigating risk for them and maximizing pro ts. If you can show them you’re in control of that before hand, you will attract the type of investors
that will allow you to continue doing what you're doing and only add complementary nuggets of advice to you.
Do yourself a favor and give yourself an upper hand, turn a pro t. Show the investors you’re not some hair-brained lunatic trying to take their
money in an attempt to create the next sel e stick or dget spinner. You’re running a business: Prove it.
Being an entrepreneur is all I can ever envision doing. If you share this unique view on the world and how you can change your own corner of it,
I’d love to be in touch.
Who Should Be an Entrepreneur?
LUCAS MCCARTHY
Posted on 11.01.2017
About
R
How Customer Experience is Disrupting the Role of the CMO

About the Author
Lucas McCarthy is the founder and CEO of startup ticketing solution, Showpass. A serial entrepreneur, Lucas is focused on revolutionizing the
ticketing industry, one ticket at a time.
Sponsored Content
Recommended by
Leave Your Comment
LOGIN TO COMMENT
Become a Member
Not already a part of our community?
Sign up to participate in the discussion. It's free
and quick.
SIGN UP
Leave a comment
PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE
Tiny Device To Be In 50 Billion
Products By 2020
Banyan Hill Publishing
Keep Them Out. Best Anti
Virus Software
Yahoo! Search
Laurelton, New Jersey: This
Brilliant Company Is
Disrupting a $200 Billion
EverQuote
6 Surprising Things That Can
Trigger Skin Issues
Health Central
Financial Foresight Predictive Analytics
Transforms the Travel and
Transportation Industry
Is Planning & Performance
Management a Marriage
Made in Heaven?
A Buyer's Guide to
Enterprise Resource Planning
for Fintech Companies
Today's Top Picks for Our Readers: Recommended by
REQUEST WEBSITE MAGAZINE'S
FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS
Resources
Subscriptions
Daily Weblog
BrightInfo
   



The Ultimate
Guide to
Personalization
DOWNLOAD NOW
View Channels

Case Study Instructions-merged.pdf

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Case Study Instructions-merged.pdf (20)

More from MattMarino13 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Case Study Instructions-merged.pdf