lunes, 21 de febrero de 2011

The Rise of Multinational Corporations

CORPORATION: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility (Ambrose Bierce. The Devils Dictionary, 1911)

In many countries (especially developed ones), parents are responsible for the actions that their kids commit e.g. in New York (USA), if kids are found skipping class, parents may even end up paying huge fines. But why are parents responsible for what another human being is or does? Why should they be blamed for committed actions that aren’t theirs? Even though they are their children, to what degree is a parent responsible? Is "being a child" a sufficient excuse to blame his/her parent?

Stepping aside from the previous statement, we can concentrate on Corporations. If we compare what a corporation IS to the previous statement, I think we could say that it relates: if parents can be held responsible for their children’s actions, shouldn’t corporations "parents" respond for their "children’s" actions? IS IT correct to address companies as "children"? If a corporation is considered as a person (juridical person, but still a person), it must have parents from which it came from, or is it a mistake to think such a thing? In this blog, I would like to try to analyze the following question:
Should individuals (directors, employees, shareholders) bear any responsibility for the actions of a corporation? If so, to what degree?

1
Im Juan Pablo and Im a CEO for XXX corp. Should I focus on what is right or should I just keep making Money?

ALL corporations state to have different goals (according to their economical activity, the sector they move around in, the country they belong to, and so on), but at the end, they all converge with the same goal: to make the shareholders richer. How? By doing what they do best, finally translating to "reducing costs". I think we are all fed up from hearing this over and over again. But what we don’t here so often is who’s to blame when in this process something goes wrong, when a felony is committed, when a crime is made. If we were to answer this question, we could see it from the legal aspect and the ethical aspect:
If we were to blame legally a corporation, the person responsible for its actions would be the CEO, the manager or the representative. Why? Because that person swore to pay for what its company did.
If we were to see it from an ethical point of view, I think that ALL the people involved inside the company, would have to pay for its actions. Some might think that it isn’t fare, but of course it isn’t; how can we compare the responsibility of a CEO to that of a janitor from the same tobacco company? Who is guiltier? In my personal opinion, the CEO.
Let’s make things even clearer:
If I own a motorcycle, I know that I’m responsible to keep it clean, keep it tuned, and keep it nice and pretty. Let’s say that someday, that bike gets stolen and a felony is committed by another person but riding my bike. Do you think that I won’t be blamed for anything at all? Because of a mistake, should I pass unpunished? I think that it’s the same thing for corporations: if a group of people own a company (they together have all the shares of that company), shouldn’t they be always aware of what the company does? Shouldn’t they pay for the actions committed by their own assets? But let’s say that a problem started because of one employee. Who should pay? I think that both, but the owners have more responsibility.

2
I think that we are not far away from this reality...

As a final conclusion, I think that the way corporations, technology and societies grow, there’s not a chance for ethics and morality to keep up; it is not easy to judge something that isn’t fully regulated. These aspects have to be considered quickly, because corporations can go unpunished just because there isn’t a specific law for it. And if not, why should a person who kills another person is incarcerated if a CEO passes unpunished for killing slowly and painfully the entire planet? Isn’t it the same when a person steals a thousand pesos to when he steals a bank? Why blame at all?
THINK ABOUT IT!!!


Bibliography
Pictures
Videos
Publicado por en 1 comentario:

miércoles, 2 de febrero de 2011

Motivation

“The motivation of a person covers all the reasons for which he chooses to act in a certain manner” (Adair, 2006).

1
are you THAT person? is money you carrot?
I´m currently working at a company that makes commercializes and exports cakes. I began to work half time on 11 January 2011, but I´ve been coming since last semester to assess the company on how to deal with international commerce. Since the day I began until today, I have noticed a certain pattern in the CEO´s behavior and how it affects the employees motivation: given that the CEO has only studied until the 6th grade, he is not familiarized with the different motivation theories there are, he does not understand how a company is driven besides making money, he does not realize that employees are just more than expendable assets. The reaction that I have seen amongst employees is that they work because they have to, they joke A LOT about quitting, they complain about the CEO, they don’t feel committed to the company, they don’t seem happy, etc. 

2





MONEY ISN’T ALWAYS THE SOLUTION; SOMETIMES IT’S NOT EVEN A SOLUTION







Thanks to the lecture with our teacher Gina, to our readings on this subject and my experience in this company (and in other ones), I have noticed that motivation plays a VERY IMPORTANT ROLE in the success of a company; a great leader is not only the one that punishes the hardest, or the one that makes the most money. A great leader is the one that knows how to get to his employees, looking finally to achieve as a team, the company’s goals. So the questions we have to ask ourselves (if someday we want to be leaders [and this applies to everything, not only companies, but also community leaders, family leaders, sports leaders, and so on]) are:
Is economic retribution enough to motivate employees? Does enough money make an employee work harder?
In order to answer these questions, I think that we have to base first on the theory:
  • Maslow’s hierarchy of needs states that we have a pyramid of needs and that we fulfill the top levels when we have satisfied the lower levels.
  • Frederick Herzberg’s two factors theory states that when a job is executed properly, the employee will be motivated.   
  • The equity theory states that people are most motivated when treated equally.
And so on, there are a lot more theories that talk about motivation.
If we analyze closely these theories, many of them state that money is merely ONE of the MANY motivations sources there are. Money is a motivation factor that works only in the short term. Why? Because an employee will be happy once he is announced a raise and will probably be as happy when he receives two or three payments, but when he starts to get used to this income and accommodates his spending according to this money, he will return once again to square one, and eventually will want more and more. On the other hand, a bonus can be quite enthusiastic but the continuity of this method could probably create bad rivalry inside the company.
In my personal experience, I have found good reactions when I walk into the office and say “hi”; I have seen that talking to other coworkers that are below you (in staff position) in a friendly environment instead of a work environment, can allow them to open up and express what they truly feel and think; and so on, I have analyzed inside the company I work in that a happy employee is a motivated employee, and a motivated employee is a triumph oriented employee.
As a conclusion, I think it is evident to say that money is one of many methods to motivate an employee, and sometimes, it could be the least preferred and resourceful.
According to the needs of the company, there are many factors that motivate employees in the short, medium and long term such as:
  • talking to each employee in a non employer way.
  • offering possibilities to study and work at the same time.
  • arranging a day where every employee brings one or two family members.
  • and so on.
IMAGES:
Publicado por en No hay comentarios:

National and organizational culture

Although corporate culture is a very influencing factor in companies today, many of them dont take it into account (i.e. no one identifies with the company) and many others push it to its limits (i.e.people that LIVE for their companies). Issues like these make me ask myself if companies really want their employees to be free of what they think and believe about or if they really try to hide ones true ways of being buy putting a "corporate uniform" on them?


1


In todays entry, I would like to discuss a very important question about corporate culture: is it a way to manipulate employees?



  • If you go over to the company Quala S.A., you will see how all the employees talk about their company as almost a religion; they sing the corporate anthem every morning, they wear uniforms, they cheer each other every time they can, etc.
  • Instead, the so famouse Wal-Mart uses a different strategy: instead of calling superiors by Mr. o Mrs. and their last name, they encourage people to adress to others by their first name. This strategy is probably used to diminish the barriers of employee/employer or boss/subordinate.
  • HP is famous for treating each employee as a family member: the trendto hire and fire doesnt exist; people are allowed to leave early from their jos in order to spend time with family; remuneration goes beyond money awards, instead they offer scholarships for employees and family members.
These types of behaviors could probably be seen as strategies that the company imposes in order to grow and sell more. They impose the common thinking, beliefs, values, etc., in order to establish common goals. But it is almost logical to think that a company has to do it, because a work team that has a smiliar culture will probably try harder to acheive a common goal. But what happens when a new person enters the company? from the interview, that person is evaluated and tested ir order to find out if he fits into the company´s culture; if he is accepted, he will probably have to adapt to the culture imposed by the company.
I believe that in all cultures certain ranks of power are imposed wether they are inforced or not. By establishing who is higher or lower in power, people can have more influence over others, and eventually being able to manipulate them. I.e. a new person comes into a company and even though everyone treats each other as equals, that new person knows that he is below some people, so he will be easily influenced by his superiors, and could potentially by manipulated under the circumstance that the corporate culture establishes that everyone is equal.

Finally, I think that corporate culture has its pros and cons. Under this case, it is always a win-win situation. Why? because the company has more motivated employees that seek harder their goals and the employees are retributed with money, breaks, less labor hours, scholarships, etc.
2
IMAGES:
  1. http://graphicsfile.finaldownload.com/screenshotimages/changing_organizational_culture_software-93589.jpg - image accessed on 02/02/2011
  2. http://www.funonthenet.in/images/stories/forwards/corporate-culture/corporate-culture-1.jpg - image accessed on 02/02/2011
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Publicado por en No hay comentarios:
Suscribirse a: Entradas (Atom)