The purpose of the one-page reports is to get you thinking critically about some of the topics we discuss in the course (see the Class Schedule for due dates). Please submit your assignment through Moodle. Write a one-page report (single spaced, 1” margins, 12 point Times New Roman font) based on the assigned readings where you answer the following questions:
(1) What is the article saying? Here you provide a brief summary of the article
(2) What do I agree with? Outline the strengths of the article.
(3) What do I disagree with? Outline the weaknesses of the article.
(4) What else should the author(s) have included? Here you discuss what you think is omitted from the article. For example, did the authors miss a key piece of information?
(5) Would I recommend this article to managers? Provide justification for your answer.
Please put your name in the header of the report in the top right corner. There is no need to include a title page. Do not format it like an essay (e.g., intro, body, conclusion). Instead answer each question by indicating the number (e.g., 1., 2., etc); there is no need to include the question in your report. Also the marks will be distributed across the questions, so ensure that your answer to each question is roughly proportionate. For example, if half of the page is the summary of the article, you won’t get full marks. According to policy, a grader will be responsible for marking the reports.
The professor will use software (e.g., turnitin.com), so academic dishonesty is quite easily detected. Forms of cheating include (but are not limited to) plagiarizing someone else’s work (e.g., paraphrasing without citing another source), submitting work prepared in collaboration with other members, and submitting work prepared by another person (e.g., paying someone else to write your report). Academic misconduct is a very serious issue with potential consequences ranging from failure in the course to dismissal from the university.
108 How to Practice Evidence-Based Management if 0 0 0 T’ ””T+”’”
Research on the link between talent and organizational performance re- ‘:3
veals why these findings aren’t surprising. It is not that all employees deserve
equal treatment. All human organizations, or for that matter, all mammal
groups, have status hierarchies. Some members are valued, respected, and _.5
have great influence. Others are held in low esteem, shunned, and made pow- _’ ii:
erless. Those at the top of the heap feel pride; those at the bottom feel shame.
It would be impossible, and probably undesirable, for any leader to elimi- -’ – n
nate status differences. People who help the organization succeed deserve pres- § E E E‘ g D
tige, and those who help it fail deserve to be shunned. Figuring out who
deserves a place at the top-and the bottom-of the pecking order, and how 5
to get them where they deserve to be, is part of a manager’s job. ;:;,:-=_;;_ I
But we can’t find a shred of evidence that it is better to have just a few .:: i’i’,:3_§’_;‘
alpha dogs at the top and to treat everyone else as inferior. Rather, the best
performance comes in organizations where as many people as possible are if
treated as top dogs. If you want people to keep working together and learn-
ing together, it is better to grant prestige to many rather than few, and to
avoid big gaps between who gets the most and least rewards and kudos. A
related, and equally crucial, lesson is that smart people are typically granted
more prestige than they deserve, and wise people are granted less. Smartness
is important, but wisdom is more crucial for fueling organizational (and in-
dividual) performance over the long haul.
We also can’t find any evidence that organizations benefit from routinely
firing people in the bottom 10 percent or 20 percent. If an organization se- HERE’s A LOT OF MONEY in financial incentives. Type the word
lects and trains people right, and places them in an effective system, there is Compensation into Amazmmom and You get mom than 47,000 book
no reason why 10 percent or 20 percent would automatically become in- . entries, with some 43,000 entries associated with the word incentive.
competent every year. On the other hand, research on maintaining group Hordes of people are clearly interested in reading-and writing-about
and organizational culture shows that stigrnatizing and removing destruc- f compensation and incentives. There are large compensation consulting
tive misfits is crucial to organizational health. There are sound reasons for if. companies such as Towers Perrin, Hewitt Associates, Mercer, and Watson
f€5€fV-mg the bottom T111135 for P601316 Who DEVCI‘ bmhef tol€31“f1 HEW things, Wyatt, plus scores of small ones, that make good money selling advice
doE1,t hell? Others 1631-”I1: Or donst “Y to lmP17oVe hoW the ofgafliZ3tioI1 Wof1<5- about how to design incentive systems that attract, retain, and motivate
If reeducating them, or even ignoring and shaming them, doesn’t change _f employees. Human resource executives devote huge chunks of time to de-
their ways, it is probably best to expel them. Getting rid of such people sig- – signing pay systems and dealing with unusual cases and complaints from
nals that their behavior is destructive and unnecessary. I‘ employees, contract workers, and consultants about compensation issues.
Compensation committees of boards of directors devote vast energy to in-
stalling the right incentives for senior executives. These efforts typically
involve “aligning the interests of executive officers with the long-term intere
ests of the company’s stockholders.” 1
These tremendous efforts to “get the pay system right” are guided by sev-
era] deeply held, widely shared, and intertwined beliefs and assumptions about
TO ORDER FOR THIS QUESTION OR A SIMILAR ONE, CLICK THE ORDER NOW BUTTON AND ON THE ORDER FORM, FILL ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS THEN TRACE THE DISCOUNT CODE,
TYPE IT ON THE DISCOUNT BOX AND CLICK ON ‘USE CODE’ TO EFFECT YOUR DISCOUNT. THANK YOU