Bankrupt Cultures

Related to Isil's post on bullying is an article from the Wednesday NYT on the organizational culture at the Tribune Company. We will talk more about organizational cultures under the symbolic frame, but given that we have started this conversation, I thought I'd pass this on now.   According to the article, "[Randy] Michaels’s and his executives’ use of sexual innuendo, poisonous workplace banter and profane invective shocked and offended people throughout the company. Tribune Tower, the architectural symbol of the staid company, came to resemble a frat house, complete with poker parties, juke boxes and pervasive sex talk."

What is fascinating about the "case study" is: 1) the usual debate about whether this style is in fact effective. One board member says, “Randy is a tremendous motivator, very charismatic, but he is very nontraditional, He has the kind of approach that motivates many people and offends others, but we think he’s done a great job.”; 2) the fact that although it sound like a "boys club", female executives also perpetuated the culture (see incident about half way through the article).

The full article is at:
At Flagging Tribune, Tales of a Bankrupt Culture
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/business/media/06tribune.html

John

Vicious Cycle of Workplace Bullying

We talked about workplace bullying in the last class. This video tells about it, saying that a bullied employee can turn to unions or HR Dpt, but in most cases the superior who bullies gets worse. If the law does not protect employees against bullying, then who/what will?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSLtIwBlsYM&feature=related

Isil Nart

Body Language & Emotions

After last night's discussion on emotions in the workplace it occured to me as we were ready to move on - what about the importance of body language and the impressions we give off, as well as perceive?  This is SO important.   When dealing with difficult people sometimes we might not realize that even when we are trying to remain calm, professional and collected, we sometimes betray our emotions unconsciously.  We may also read what people are trying to hide from us.

Check this out: http://www.enotes.com/management-encyclopedia/body-language

Over time I have discovered that perceiving body language has a positive side, and a negative side.  In the link above the example of someone with a migraine headache "may squint, look down and grimace..." thus giving a false impression.  How do we discern the difference?  Is it appropriate to ask a person if what you are perceiving accurate or not?  I don't think it is because the person can so easily lie, or in the case of a difficult person it may lead to conflict.  However, I am really curious what all of you think about body language and non verbal communication?  Anyone ever confront someone about something there were perceiveing?

Yesterday I made the point that sometimes expressing anger can be really effective!  But I ask you all - in what circumstances is it appropriate to get mad, and when is it not?  Anyone have any stories?

I once fired someone because he was verbally disrespctful to me and other colleagues, and he took smoking breaks when we all were working.  After trying to talk to him several times and getting no where I fired him "effective immediately" one afternoon.   BUT, I shot myself in the foot because I was so angry at that point I was yelling.  This guy went over my head to my supervisor, who then actually made me keep this guy on.  I'll tell you what happened next at the end of this post.

And, what about email?  Email lacks visual cues...although sometimes THIS IS CONSIDERED YELLING...but, sometimes people think that is for highlighting a particularly important point, not yelling.  A colleague of mine actually did this for the longest time.  She is in fact a very difficult person and one day I was really annoyed with her HIGHLIGHTING, and I told her so.  We actually argued over the email! My point was that in my actual in person interactions with this individual her body language always conveys hostility, so in email I find myself reading her HIGHLIGHTING as if it were written with hostility.  She thought I was being too sensitive, and I pointed to the tone.  Even in email there can be subleties, so how one conveys themselves in person, as well as how one is perceived is all too important - in my opinion all are intertwined and related.  With the increasing speed of technology will we be able to keep up with communication styles?  How do we need to adjust in a fast paced world where most often we do not have time to make every message (in person, or electronic) "nice" but rather need to get to the point?

Your Thoughts?

Re: the guy I fired..., he did have a track record, and my boss actually agreed with me, but because I reacted impulsively and angrily he felt we needed to keep the guy on.  Fortunately the guy was only contracted for a few more weeks so were able to not renew!

-Ken

When some people are laid off, the 'survivors' do not remain very happy

I came across this article in New York Times by Prof. Robert J. Shiller, professor of economics and finance at Yale and co-founder and chief economist of MacroMarkets LLC. Here is what he talks about:

In a period where lots of people are being laid off due to economic instabilities, many corporate managers try to clear out the less important employees at once (so that they do not need to do the same again), and they keep the “core” team members.  Then what is needed to be done is keeping these members happy and fully paid.

However, remaining workers must work harder, taking on some of the work of their missing colleagues, and productivity rises. They also feel guilty that they are kept in the organization and some of their friends were let go. Also, they work strictly in track of the regular work process. A manager says, “There is more uncertainty, and everybody is afraid. Do your job. Keep employed. Don’t come up with a new idea.” In his own company, the manager said, “Everybody is doing the same thing.”

So, new problems arise. Decreasing company’s expenses for personnel services might increase productivity, but maybe it is not going to be a long-term trend. Performance of remaining employees might go down because they are required to accomplish more than they used to, their colleagues are gone, and they cannot try new things in their job.

What can be a better solution? Not ending too many people’s job at once seems logical. I think decreasing everyone’s salary in a small percentage and trying to keep as many as people working in the company might be considered. Trying to change working times –assigning part-time or project-based work to each employee every so often so that they come and work when they are really needed might be an alternative, too.  

You can read the article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/business/economy/03view.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=&st=nyt

Isil Nart

The video in this post is slightly inappropriate, but Prof. Casey endorsed it!

I couldn’t think of a better title to get you to see the video in my post (sorry to throw you under the bus, professor). 

Many of us were recently inspired by our class discussion on women as good leaders/managers... and I recently found an interesting and slightly inappropriate case example to add to that discussion….

Through an organization called The White House Project, I heard about a new campaign targeting sexism in the media – specifically on behalf of women running for office – by calling out male public office candidates on harassing comments and holding them accountable publically.  The campaign is called, “Name It, Change It”.

The campaign website contains quotes from current male Rep. & Dem. candidates that are inappropriate (so you can get a sense of why this is an emerging issue) and proves a valid point that a movement like this one is necessary and timely. 

I think the campaign’s video does a good (and humorous) job of capturing a very real perception of women as leaders in public office positions.  Check it out:  http://www.nameitchangeit.org/

What do you think about this campaign? 

Shikha Dalal

"Measuring Success by Mission, Not Profit"

Today I came to across this article "Measuring Success by Mission, Not Profit" at New York Times-Business session, and I want to share it with my classmates. The author changes her job from a vice-president of a financial form to a senior director of facilities initiatives in National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. At her new job, she immediately noticed the difference between the private and not profit organization. In profit organization, how much profit has been make is the key to determine the degree of success However, in not profit organization, it is measured by completion of mission.
I am agree with the author regarding the measurement of success in private and not profit organization.  I worked at a small private whole sell company at my pervious job, Eight years later, I still remembered clearly that my manager, also the owner  of the company, kept asking the quantity of the order we received everyday. If he heard the small number or no order at all, he would go back to his office and closed his door behind him. The sales would become nervous.I have been working for the not profit organization for almost 8 years now. Our company mission is to "support CUNY faculty and staff in identifying and obtaining external external support (Pre-ward) form government and private and is responsible for the administration of all such funded programs (post-award)." According to the 2010 annual report, award excess 375.5 millions compare to 344 millions last year. :) I am enjoy with what I am doing now just like the author.

You can read this article at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/business/03pre.html?ref=business

Yu Mei Wu

Managing Relief For The BP Spill

On a 60 minutes episode that aired on October 3, 2010 Ken Feinberg manager of relief effort for BP was interviewed giving viewers an inside look into what his job entails on a day-to-day basis. This interview was fascinating because Feinberg was challenged daily by the people who were directly effected by the disastrous spill on the gulf coast. In the interviews Feinberd stated that is credibility is only as good as the last program he administers. This statement holds true largely in the public sector of management. Feinberg was praised for his efforts post September 11^th attacks for dispensing the relief funds to families, emergency workers, rescue crews, and other lives that were effected by the attack. Although Feinberg has a good track record it was clear in this 60 minutes episode that the victims of the BP spill were not concerned about Feinberg’s previous accomplishments. Although he has developed a two step claims process to disperse the 20 billion dollars in relief funds, people were not please about how long it took for them to be compensated.

As a manager of this effort Feinberg is facing some immense challenges. The business culture of fisherman is not to keep documentation for transactions. As stated in the episode most fishermen accept cash transactions and a handshake as an agreement for payment. With this idea it is not easy to determine the total loss caused by the disaster.

Another conflict is the hostile nature of the victims in meetings and forums designed to understand the public need and here the public’s grievances. People are angry; their businesses are failing, and they feel that they are not being helped in a timely manner. Another issue is fraud. People who are seeking to receive benefits from this relief effort without having been directly effected, They claiming to be fishermen, or claiming to have lost revenue from the spill.

While watching this episode I constantly thought about how I would address each conflict individually in this situation to ensure that citizens get what they deserve while also working for the other client, BP. In reality Feinberg was hired to help BP avoid future litigation. As a manager how would I devise a plan that will successfully address all of these issues.

Shawnta Washington