Class reflection

This class was, by far, one of my favorite classes I've taken.  As a student who has already been in the workforce, I found the class to play toward my intrigue of how the "human wrench" throws itself into the gears of the organization.  Learning why a buyer or seller has incentive (or dis-incentive) to lie about his value or cost, played very much toward my interest in the psychology behind organizations.

Something we touched on today and in our project, was the important role HR plays in the organization.  While I would have loved this course to have spent more time on this subject, I can't imagine finding the time to fit this in the course.  It also would certainly draw the course away from the Economics and more toward the Labor and Employment Relations discipline.  I think, though, the course was a fabulous blend of interdisciplinary subjects and made me really want to further explore organizational economics.

This brings me to the books.  I think these books were the best books I've ever had for a college course.  I thoroughly enjoyed reading from both books.  I found them extremely clear, chock full of great examples and distinct explanations.  I was so disappointed in myself for renting the Bohlman and Deal book, that I just ended up buying it from Amazon, because I know I'll read it in the future.

The biggest opportunity, I think, would be to increase class participation/enthusiasm.  I think if students were forced to be involved (by being called on) after the first week or so, folks might be prepared to answer more often.  I very often found myself correctly answering in my head, but naturally concerned myself with whether I was correct or not (this is probably more my problem than yours).  In classes where I experienced the most involvement by the students, I attribute the success of that involvement to the culture of the class.  I might also suggest a small percentage, perhaps 10-15% of the time, questions were somewhat vague and difficult to understand what exactly was being asked.

One way participation might improve would include a minor grade (maybe inclusive of the 5% grade for comment responses) which required students to reply to one other blog each week.  It wouldn't necessarily have to be meaningful, so you wouldn't have to grade the content, but it might help students feel more comfortable with each other and thus more comfortable to share in class.

In terms of assignments, I found the team project interesting and insightful about how theories on organizations might form.  I also think the project was also a great way to introduce us to real journal articles and help us learn how to interpret and the need for (possible) disagreement with the concepts.  The project also forced a discussion between myself and my teammate about the topics we had discussed in class, and allowed us to apply them together and work out the real-life applications.

The Excel homeworks became sneakingly more difficult as the class progressed and I found myself not only using the included text, but reaching out to other resources to find guidance.  I mostly found that when I could follow the math from beginning to end, I had more success.  When assumptions were made or equations given without derivation, I had difficulty understanding the concept and by working out the math myself or using some combination of an outside source, the excel text and my own derivations, I could understand concepts more clearly.  This is probably more specific to my talents/abilities because my brain functions on a much more math-based level.  The graphs in these homeworks were very helpful to visualize and further understand the concepts, especially those where we could adjust curves with up and down arrows.  I would estimate I spent a minimum of 1 hour, but normally two or three working on the excel homework and trying to understand the text within.

Blog posts were a great addition to this course.  I really liked sharing and thinking about how my real world experiences apply to the course material.  If the course is to be changed, this should definitely be included in the next iteration.  I spent most of the week thinking about what I would write about thinking through multiple scenarios (which also helped the material sink in) and then write about one of them in depth.  The time I spent writing was about two hours and I found, in the second half of the semester when I tied my writings to past concepts, the writing much more interesting.

Reputation

As a manager for Walmart, I was constantly relying on my reputation and along with that, I had a constant flow of "cashing it in" and building it up again.  I will mainly discuss my reputation with my associates in this post.  One of the things I absolutely abhor about Walmart is its lack of respect and responsibility to its associates.

The culture mainly consisted of a disregard for associate needs and outside responsibilities.  What I mean by that is, if any associate wanted to go to college and work at Walmart, the company was (and still is) extremely unaccommodating to this end.  As a manager, I recognized this fact and maintained an open, communicative relationship with my employees, during which I expected my employees to inform me about any outside activities which I would accommodate time off to the best of my abilities.  There were many times when I took much of the blame from the store manager for having understaffed departments during the day (when my folks were in school) but I would be so bold as to suggest that my employees were the happiest employees in the store.  I maintained extremely low turnover and staff from other areas of the store wanted to work for me because they knew I was understanding of their needs.

I was also very understanding when an associate was late, and rarely gave them "points" toward a formal write-up for simply being late.  While it is possible for an associate to be terminated after showing up late just 10 times, I never gave points to my associates when they were late.  When tardiness became routine, I had frank discussions with my associates and explained the importance of their promptness.  They could see my side of the story and understand the pressures their tardiness imposed on those around them, and it made them want to come to work on time (even if it was out of guilt).

All of my understanding and willingness to help did not come free, though.  My employees knew that as a result of accommodating their needs, they would need to accommodate mine.  Once I felt I had given an employee enough, I would call upon them to give something in return.  Many times this involved working over night for two or three nights with me and a couple of peers to reset the floor displays.  Very rarely did an employee ever tell me that they weren't willing to help me during an extenuating circumstance, because I had done the same for them.

I realize this concept is very much like gift exchange which we've discussed in the past.  But, I think this applies here because the gift giving was reliant upon my dedication and reputation of helping my employees with their needs.  I also think this is very closely related to teamwork because each member of my team also had a reputation which they wanted to uphold to help the entire team.  I think guilt was a strong driving force for making my team successful, as they felt guilty if they ever let one of us down.  They also felt guilty about the possibility of tarnishing their reputation, if they did not do what I asked them to do during a given day.

The point of convergance

I have dealt with two different principals many, many times in my career/life.  This concept takes into account a number of previous items I posted on, so I may, at times, allude to or directly point out these facts during this real-life, triangle example.  Serving two principals over the course of the past three months took a toll on me, and I'm hopeful I can describe it in all it's glory!

On the first day on the job at Urban and Regional Planning, I became aware of the program's ongoing accreditation renewal.  The process began sometime in May, and before I arrived a report had been sent to the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB) and was under review by the Site Team Visit (SVT) in preparation for their visit to our department.  My boss told me I would be involved in the process, but since I had just begun, she wasn't sure to what extent.  Over the course of the next two months, I quickly became aware that the SVT's visit would lie squarely on my shoulders.  I connected with the Executive Director of the PAB and she provided me with a multitude of materials to read in order to plan an excellent visit.  On top of this was the Self-Study Report which our department put together and I needed to become aware of, per my boss.  At the onset, the reading wasn't difficult and understanding the logistics was something I had been familiar with in a previous position.  Very quickly, you will notice that I began receiving information from both sides, PAB and my Department, and each needed tending.  I also, filled my plate with new responsibilities in my new role, many of which required in-depth training or simply becoming familiar with office routines.

My boss assigned me the task of assembling the schedule for the team and organizing all meals, travel, and guests (PAB requires the team meet with employers, alumni, current students, faculty, Deans, Provosts, etc.)  During the initial planning stages, I prepared a Site Visit in direct accordance of the rules set forth by the manual provided to me by the Executive Director of PAB.  My boss told me she was happy with the schedule I had created and I reiterated to her that it checked off all of the bureaucratic boxes required by PAB.  With the satisfied schedule in hand I began contacting the groups of guests we would invite for the meetings, as well as faculty with their specific times.  I should add here, that I took the liberty to schedule around the faculty teaching schedules and this was appreciated by my boss and she gave me a "pat on the back" for taking this into consideration.  Upon receiving confirmations from all attendees, I forwarded the final schedule to the Executive Director of the PAB.  Here is where things got hairy...

The Executive Director told me that, while I did a good job scheduling all of the proper meetings, the days were too long for the SVT, and I would need to shave off time, by combining meetings of tenured faculty and shortening a couple of meetings.  After following these instructions, I reduced the scheduled work day.  Then, I explained to my boss that due to the combined meetings, there would be many faculty who may not be able to attend due to teaching commitments.  This was not acceptable to my boss, so I was once again back to the drawing board with my schedule.  (After about three iterations like this, the inefficiency became belligerent and I became more frustrated.)  Finally, I produced a schedule that was both acceptable to my boss as well as to the PAB, but there was one set of meetings I had yet to confirm: the Interim Provost and the Acting Dean of our College.  I wrote to the Assistant of these persons (who, in a way, acts as the head of UEO assistants and in turn, a boss-like figure) and she could not make the appointments happen the way I had scheduled them.  I explained this to the Executive Director of PAB and she refused to give me any wiggle room, and yet again, I rearranged the schedule.  In the end, I spent hundreds of hours undoing and redoing, and the inefficiencies that arose from such an arrangement, where I had to please both my boss and the PAB, were innumerable.

Conflict presented itself in this situation, but because the Accreditation Board had so much power over the program, we could not very easily go against their wishes, even when their wishes were nearly impossible to grant.  Conflict arose among our unit between myself and the UEO, because we did not agree on the best solutions, and conflict also arose between my boss and the PAB team because she felt they were being unreasonable.  My boss could not contact the team (due to confidentiality rules) which may have been a good thing since she was so frustrated.  But, as I said, this frustration could not be voiced or made obvious by even me, for fear it would affect the outcome of the accreditation review.  I would also have to suggest the PAB seemed to be operating opportunistically as they offered no room for compromise.  It was "their way or the highway" with total disregard for how it might affect our daily operation schedules.

The last thing I have to say about this situation is that it brought me and my boss closer because she saw how hard I worked to produce an excellent output, and we also learned how to solve problems together.  While we operate in a hierarchy type organizational structure, we still learned to problem-solve together and determine the best course of action for responding to the PAB in their requests, even though it was ultimately my responsibility for assembling the schedule and pleasing both principals.

In the end, I'm thrilled our accreditation Site Visit ended Wednesday and that I am relieved of the extreme amount of stress it brought me.

Conflict? What conflict? I didn't even know there was a problem...

From past posts, you know that I served as an Assistant Store Manager at Walmart for a number of years, so from that you might guess the number of conflicts I've encountered are innumerable.  And you'd be right!  But I'm not going to tell you about the daily conflicts I had with customers about not validating returns or associates that were upset by the instruction I gave them.  Instead, I will describe a conflict that ran much deeper and over a longer period of time.  And, as you might have guessed from the title, one I didn't know existed until after I tried to reprimand an associate for his actions.

The Background
To set the scene, so-to-speak, you should know I ran the night shift at the Champaign store where I successfully changed work performance of associates by improving shelf stocking accuracy and speed, in turn, directly impacted the sales to reflect the increased attention to detail.  As a result of this success, the Market Manager requested that I be transferred to the Urbana store.  The store experienced significant sales declines over the previous three quarters and managed more inventory than we housed at the Champaign store; a store that sells four times the amount of product.  When I arrived, I took time to determine the problems by observing tendencies of associates and performing private follow-up evaluations of their work.  The responsibilities of the overnight manager are extensive and his/her knowledge must be equally as extensive because s/he must oversee every area of operation, from maintenance to stocking to checkout procedures.  I took these responsibilities very seriously and noted that maintenance concerned me more than anything else in the store.  More often than not, daily tasks went incomplete without punishment, and the maintenance associates consistently distracted the folks responsible for stocking the shelves.  While I did not perform teach/train moments like I did with stocking associates, I typically gave them goals and expressed my disappointment when they went unfulfilled.  Looking back, I realize now, the lack of teaching/training brought me to the conflict.

What was the conflict?
The two maintenance associates, we'll call them Joe and Lucy, worked side-by-side, day in and day out.  They talked while they slowly pushed brooms, they stopped to talk to stockers, they even stopped to watch TV, and worst of all, they were negative Nancys.  Shelf-stockers were constantly influenced by Joe and Lucy, always being told that it didn't matter what we did, we'd still get in trouble, and that I was a terrible manager because I was too young to know anything.  Reflecting now, I don't take offense to that, because I was young, I didn't know everything, but I worked darn hard to learn as much as I could (and I was a manager, while he continued to push a broom around).  I tried repeatedly to make Joe and Lucy understand the importance of everyone's jobs and the reasons we needed to put our best foot forward.  When I would have such discussions, I received little to no response, so I assumed they heard me and yet I still observed no improved performance.

Finally, one day, a shelf-stocker (call him Eric) came to me and told me that he observed Joe and Lucy standing in Pharmacy talking to another shelf-stocker.  He indicated the topic of conversation was my managerial ability and style and from the sound of it, they were unpleased and trying to convince the stocker to think the same way.  In an effort to halt the poor attitude and attempt to stop it from spreading, I pulled Joe and Lucy in to the office (separately, due to Walmart policy) with one of my support staff managers.  During the conversation I explained to each Joe and Lucy, that I had information that they had been disrespectful and trying to undermine my authority.  Lucy seemed extremely receptive to the conversation (I was visibly upset and strongly encouraged her to communicate her understanding with me).  The conversation ended very cordially and I felt I achieved my goal.  Then I pulled Joe in to the office, and that's when it happened.  For the first time, Joe responded to my frustration with his performance, but not how I had hoped.  Joe used a wide variety of "colorful" language that I will refrain from posting.  The long and short--clearly he had been upset with me and the general operations of the store for a very long time (it turns out the length of time directly correlates with the beginning of a new female store manager).  During the course of all of my interactions with him, he never once communicated his disapproval of my actions or managerial style, but during this conversation, he seemed to blurt out all of the pent-up frustrations.  Because it was pent-up anger he was very disrespectful, spoke erratically and with unclear thoughts filled with angry emotions.  In the end his disrespect in the meeting earned him a formal write up.  I intended to resolve the problem by discussing with him, my disapproval of his actions as I had done in the past, but because he never spoke his concerns in the past, he couldn't control his emotions.  Naturally, the formal write-up only made him more angry and I took the heat of several nasty threats.

What next...
Coincidentally, the Store Manager determined I fixed the problems in her overnight crew, shortly thereafter, and I was moved to the day shift to correct issues happening there.  This occurred only two weeks after the "blow up" and I was thrilled to be rid of the responsibility for Joe.  He never once spoke to me again, I tried to say "hi" when I arrived in the mornings, and was greeted with a cold stare.  Fortunately, I grew extremely thick skin while working for Walmart and reactions like this fail to affect me the way the delivery is meant.

What could've been different?
There are many things that could have gone differently, most notably: Joe should have voiced his concern during the multiple opportunities I gave him throughout our working together.  I think I could have been more "in tune" with his feelings in order to understand that he felt this way and was very upset, but I think that would've been far beyond my formal training in psychology, which is nil.  If I had known he was going to be so angry, I could have met with him and Lucy on the floor in a more informal fashion to decrease the chances of him becoming so vulgar.  I think the biggest problem though, was that he was purely unhappy with his job, and there were, more-than-likely, personal problems happening which I was blithely unaware of.  Overall, communication would have done each of us a huge favor in reducing the level of stress we created for each other.

Working together pays off

Let's consider the case of a "team" project for a college course in which the team needs to create a written assignment.  This team consists of two contributors and each is equally knowledgeable of applicable material pertaining to the project and each is equally as talented in the field of writing about the subject-matter.

In order to get the highest grade there must be a level of coordination during the project.  Coordination is crucial because if one student has to do all the work, then he will "whistle-blow" on his non-contributive partner and the teacher will have to give him a failing grade as a result of the effort, or lack-there-of.  If both students were to contribute equally, it will create some work to integrate the thoughts of each into one cohesive written assignment, but they will feel equally accomplished and take pride in the final project as a result of collaboration and problem resolution.  In the theory given by the "How to Get the Rich to Share," the students will each give their best efforts in order to both receive a high grade.  This is a result of the fact that one student may be a phenomenal writer while the other understands the theory of the subject matter.  One will contribute his writing skills with the understanding that in return the other will contribute his knowledge of the subject.  By both maintaining high levels of skill in different areas the two can engage in a simple gift exchange where they both gain by putting forth best efforts.

As I said, this is simply a theory and I have found that this does not tend to be the case (especially when expanded to include more than three players).  Last year, I involved myself in a two person writing project which was later followed by a powerpoint presentation.  While my partner certainly was knowledgeable about the subject matter, she displayed through her efforts during the project, that she did not care about the class.  I tried, repeatedly, to get her involved in the project, but simply could not give her enough encouragement to put the effort forth.  This is a case where I pulled both ends of the rope myself, and because I'm a nice guy, I didn't "whistle-blow" on her.  Looking back, maybe that was a mistake.  Maybe I should've told the professor we were having issues, but at some point it just doesn't seem worth it to me to spend my time telling on someone else.  The way I look at it...she'll get what's coming to her eventually.  I would imagine that she didn't fair very well in the class anyway, since the project was only about 15% of our grade.  But, alas, maybe that was the problem, had the professor increased the value of the project, maybe she would've tried harder.  In the end I knew I was proud of the work and I knew I earned the A, but she was going to have to live with her actions.

I would say that this is generally how things work in a position where you are incentivized with money.  Those that want the extra money (in my case, high grade) will work harder than the others, and those that don't care and are happy with their minimum paycheck, just keep chugging along.

On the other hand, if the entire group is strong, it presents the proposed theory in the article.  This goes back to a post where I talked about my positive office-mates, where we kept each other strong by sharing our bits of knowledge to make the others in our office better.  If we had one weak link, she may not have stopped the other two of us, but she certainly would not reap the benefits.  In that case, we did share the marbles, and as a result all three of us have been promoted.

Income risk aversion...

I faced career altering (and in turn life-altering) decisions many years ago and, in this post will discuss some of the decisions I made in the moment and some that I made to manage (and in many cases, not manage) future income risk.

Before I graduated high school, I "knew" what I wanted to be.  I convinced myself mechanical engineering would be best suited for my strengths in math and science.  And in my naivete, it seemed that engineering was the logical and only answer to what I should do.  Of course, when I originally made the decision to pursue this degree, there was a level of risk aversion that played in to my train of thought. The starting salaries of engineers was among the highest of all majors, so I was immediately hooked.  By choosing this career path, I knew I'd make a lot of money!  100 credit hours and two engineering internships later, I realized engineering was NOT for me.  I didn't like anything about my internships and I despised the real world experience.  

Instead of continuing my degree and accepting the guaranteed salary in a field I hated, I took a position with Walmart in management.  I didn't have any experience in the field, but the salary, in the moment, was enough to justify quitting school and pursuing a career with the company.  This was not something I was particularly proud of, but I knew if I would quit school, the supplemental income from my parents would soon cease to exist, so I had to find a job. Fortunately for me, this job paid well enough that I didn't feel too terribly guilty and I swore I would go back to school once I decided what field would better suit me.

It took me five years to decide that I needed to go back to school in the field of Economics, but what got me there?  Walmart began changing it's policies for management and it would be more difficult for me to continue climbing the ladder.  While I did promote 5 times during my time with the company, it became clear the end of the line had come, (or would soon come) for me.  Here is where I made my biggest decision to avoid income risk.  I took a 10k dollar pay cut to leave my job and work for the University.  While the nominal value seems high, I determined that the value of receiving a degree with a waived tuition was worth far more than my pay cut.  Additionally, the possibility of larger salaries in the future is a reality at the University unlike the inevitable at Walmart.

At Walmart, there was zero job security.  I could have been fired at any moment, for any reason.  To me, the job security far out-weighed the pay.  With the University's clear-cut structure, it was also obvious that I could continue to work my way through the system and make a significant amount more than I would've ever made with Walmart (without my degree).

That all being said, after I complete my degree in Economics, I may consider returning to Walmart in the future as a consultant at their corporate offices.  Offices with more job security and greater opportunities to "climb the ladder."

I think many would say I made the "wrong" choice in the moment, when I decided to work for Walmart many years ago, but I think it was the best "wrong" decision I ever made.  I figured out what I like to do, while maintaining a livable salary, and then found a suitable solution to avoid future income risk, despite a slight salary setback.  Needless-to-say, I will walk away debt free from college knowing what I'm good at.  The lesson I learned was valuable and, in the end, I feel I will come away happier.

I must add to this, emotions are one thing economics seems to struggle with.  Emotions play a vital role in daily decisions of not only individuals, but organizations too.  I find myself constantly writing about my emotions in these blogs, which is not something that can easily be addressed by economic theory.  We can however, rank our preferences, which is one way that determining a level of "happiest" is strategically possible.

Illinibucks to bucks in my pocket!

What would happen if the University of Illinois gave "Illinibucks" to each of its students to use on any campus resources?  Given the variety of possibilities, a massive number of transaction costs would necessarily be incurred by the campus to regulate the use of these "monies."  I will address these costs toward the end of this post, but for now, I would like to share my thoughts on what might be considered an item, or head-of-line, candidate.

The obvious candidate is registering for classes.  But, when we actually consider this possibility, we might find it not to be a valid candidate at all.  Allow me to, briefly, explain.  If all students were allocated the same number of Illinibucks to be spent on any service provided by the University, I believe the following would happen: students who consider registration for their preferred classes a top priority, would be willing to spend all of their Illinibucks on this service to get to the head of the line.  But if everyone has the same amount then there will still be hundreds of students "tied" for first, and presumably, the tie breaker would be class-standing, just as it is now.  Rendering Illinibucks useless for registration purposes.  As a University employee, I am very familiar with the patterns of student registration, those that deem it a priority, register as soon as possible after their time ticket, and those that don't care about which classes they take, wait until the first week of classes.  Due to these patterns of all-or-nothing, I believe it can be assumed that if students had Illinibucks, there would be little to no change in the registration process.

Fair candidates that might be considered for eligibility in the Illinibucks program could include tickets to sporting events and important campus events (career fairs, quad day, etc.).  I believe these to be good candidates as there is a middle-ground ranking of priority for students on these types of events.  Some students will find them more important than others, and it would be more likely that a varied number of Illinibucks would be offered in exchange for a certain place in line.

Candidates I believe to be ideal for this program would be internet access, access to library books (specifically those required for classes), and processing paperwork pertinent to specific student status(es).  I believe these to be excellent candidates because they are not always needed and encourage use of Illinibucks on educational enhancement.  They also provide the most viable option for "price" setting by the University.  At a certain price minimum there will be students that do not feel the price is worth it, and others that would pay more than the minimum to be at the head of the line.  A price set too high would create a huge surplus and maybe some students would never use the services, finding ways around it by using internet at home or purchasing books online to avoid the hassle of Illinibucks.  A price set too low would cause an enormous shortage and it would naturally drive prices up, possibly causing auction-style bidding for the services.

I would use my Illinibucks to be the first in line to rent the required texts from the library.  I really don't like spending money on textbooks and would much prefer to rent them so, to me, saving money is the priority.  To many, spending their Illinibucks on a social activity would be much more valuable, but my financial obligations mean my social activities have a much lower opportunity cost if I forgo them.  So in essence, I would find every which way to turn Illinibucks in to actual, real, dollars saved.

A well-oiled machine

In a job I held in the recent past, I worked on a very high-functioning well-organized team, that operated with great efficiency and success.  To the "clients" we served, no single member of the team was stronger than another, but I attribute much of this viewpoint to the successes of our communication and understanding of roles, responsibilities, knowledge and ability to recognize each other's value.  The office was a small office--only three of us to serve a team of three advisors and more than 25 faculty.  And while sometimes we stepped on each others toes, it was normally for good reason, and borne of this overlap were great ideas and processes to simplify our work and unify our outbound "products" (i.e. requested information, budgets, logistics, events, etc.).

In this team my colleague and I (I'll call her Sally for the sake of anonymity) answered to one boss (I'll call her Harriet).  Sally had a defined role in which she handled anything associated with graduate studies.  Nothing happened on the graduate side of the department without Sally's approval.  Similarly, I handled everything on the undergraduate side of the department.  Harriet managed Sally and I and everything associated with human resources and the financial processes (as these naturally connect to the undergrad and grad side of the department).  Admittedly, this is a somewhat oversimplification of our job responsibilities, but should provide enough information that you get the picture.

While I did use the words "one boss" in the above description, I should clarify that that is not the type of structure our office had.  Technically speaking, we worked in a simple hierarchy and Harriet reported directly to the Department Head.  But a hierarchy is not how we operated on a daily basis (probably due to the lack of need for daily Department Head supervision).  A more accurate description would be: our staff of three operated as an all-channel network like that described by Bolman and Deal.  Let me describe further...

As part of my job, I also directed people to the appropriate point of contact who could give the most accurate response.  In a sense, I "conducted the train," if you will, and as a result I solved much of the "assignment problem."  By establishing me as a conductor, Harriet made a conscious decision that I would need to know what everyone else knows.  Harriet sent an announcement to our clients informing them that all questions should initially be directed to me.  From there, I would send them to the correct contact.  This allowed me to avoid knowing the answer to every question and instead, who could appropriately answer the question.  This division of responsibility narrowed our fields of focus, and then we were accountable for knowing the minutiae associated with our field.  As a result of our focused knowledge, rarely did we receive a question that we could not answer immediately.

If a faculty member asked a question to which we did not know an answer, our skills continued to prevail.  By quickly consulting with one another, we developed responses that combined our knowledge of University processes/policies/procedures and provided superior responses to invariably tricky questions.  Without fail, we could produce an accurate response.  The key to our facade of perfection, was a result of our efforts to know as much as we could and share it when the time was right.  I should mention that the close proximity of our offices (located in one suite) may have been a significant factor in the ability to quickly and easily communicate and provide solutions.  There was no need to wait on a set of correspondences or clarifying terms--we simply walked in to one another's offices and asked questions.

A parenthetical note:
I should mention quickly, though, this idea of walking in to one another's offices probably produced a certain number of inefficiencies.  Interrupting one person's work to get their input definitely creates some wasted time.  On the other hand, answering difficult questions with a team of colleagues, generates new knowledge and creates a sense of community among the team.  I should also mention quickly that the transaction costs in terms of monitoring each other was extremely low which probably led to a happier boss and less stressful work environment.  From the time I was hired, I noticed the team was comprised of hard-working individuals and there would be no question as to who was pulling their weight.  If one of us needed assistance, the other two quickly offered their expertise.

The last thing I would like to mention is that our personalities clicked.  While this is not something we discussed in the context of this class, I think it is important to mention.  With such a small team, had even just one of us not felt a sense of responsibility to the team, the result would've been catastrophic.  While technically Harriet was our boss, she would better be described as a member of the team with the responsibility of making the final decision on discretionary matters.  I suppose part of her responsibility would have been to take action to correct poor performance by any member of the team, but our superior staff was not subject to such action.

Overall, our team could not have been described as anything less than a well-oiled machine.  We operated at a peak level of efficiency and quickly corrected problems that tend to exist in poorly functioning teams.  I would be so inclined to suggest that our team was "self-managed."

Opportunism: best-served bored

I will use my posting of this very blog as an example of a time I did not act opportunistically.  Today, while working my normal 8AM to 5PM hours, I had the perfect chance to take advantage of the fact that my boss, and three colleagues from the office were not at work.  As a result of their absence, I was the only one in the office and could have taken the opportunity to work on things like school-work, catch up with my friends on social media, or just sit back, relax and enjoy a show on Netflix.  Alas, this is not what happened but, even though I checked off a number of items on my work tasklist, no one would've been the wiser.

A little background that may be relevant to this situation, and then I'll explain my rationale for working instead of "playing."  I took this position just 6 weeks ago, and consider myself quite new to the role.  This role is one I earned by proving my ability to perform at a previous department and then applying for an open promotional-rank position.  Despite possessing the knowledge and skills to complete the tasks required of me, the ways in which my colleagues (and the department) operate still presents me with a tremendous learning curve.  Additionally, it should be noted that I am responsible for a number of critical departmentally sponsored events this semester, including accreditation, an alumni event in Chicago, and a new lecture series sponsored by an important (wealthy) alumnus.  Since joining the team in my new position, I was tasked with all aspects of these events which have proven to be more than time-consuming.

That's where I was at the beginning of today--caterings to confirm, people to contact, designs to review, people to research, all for the small list of large events.  So, when I arrived at work today, and realized I would be the only one in the office, I realized the world was my oyster.  Who would've known if I was just playing on Facebook?  Who would've known if I spent a couple of hours typing up this post?  The answer was clear: no one.  But what happened, you ask?  I worked on my list.  But why, you ask, when I had so much freedom?  The answers are many, but I will attempt to address them below.

First and foremost, I have a LOT of work to do, and while I know I could've pushed myself harder on Monday to get more done, I decided I didn't want that kind of Monday.  Monday's are stressful as it is--tons of emails to answer, people to meet, etc., I just didn't want to make it worse.  I think this is one of my biggest motivators, personally.  I like to "spread the wealth," try not to make any day too difficult, or worse than it has to be.  I already feel that I have a high-pressure, high-stress job, why make it worse?  This type of motivation comes only from within.  Self-motivation is hard to find, but it is nice to know my Monday won't be so bad.

Next, and maybe this really is more like the first reason I completed "work" while at work: it makes me feel good.  I find much of my self motivation is getting to the end and feeling accomplished.  I also have a personal system of rewarding myself.  If I get to a certain point in my work, I get to take a break and have a snack.  Today, that was after I finished reviewing and sending a mass-mail to a number of potential donors and important practitioners in the Chicago area.  This type of motivation probably doesn't work for everyone, but I know that forcing myself to be patient leads to the greatest rewards, not only physical, but emotional--feeling good--too.

Another reason for working on, well, work, is the external motivation: if I prove myself at this job, I can earn another promotion.  Of course promotions come with raises, so essentially the motivation there is financial incentive.  I can talk myself into doing most tasks that I deem difficult and overwhelming, as long as I focus on the long haul.  I write all of my accomplishments down so I can review them at the end of each year and take note of things I should mention at interviews.  It is a great feeling to add something to the list.  Now, I know that today wouldn't have been the end-all, be-all for possible future promotions, but what I do know is that I have been a manager before.  I know what it's like to return to work and learn that your associate hasn't completed anything while you were gone.  While one time may not lead to termination or even punishment, a series of non-productive days leads to difficult discussions.  I want to be promoted, and difficult discussions will only present a roadblock in that plan.

I also find that I work each day because it makes the days go by faster.  If I have to work for another 40 years, I might as well do something to make the time go by quickly.  Being bored leads to opportunism, and I hate being bored, days go by much slower.  I suppose this is an internal motivator, but it also makes me feel like I get home sooner.  And hanging out at home with my family is a huge motivator, so this is also kind of an external motivator, too.

Lastly, I worked on work today because I have a moral obligation to do so.  I know that I'm being paid for every hour I am at my desk and I know they aren't paying me to play on Facebook or write this blog post.  So, in order to not feel guilty, which sure is a STRONG internal motivator, I feel the need to work, and work hard, even when no one is watching.

I feel all of the reasons I have presented above are similar in some ways and different in others.  Some are internal motivators, some external.  Some are emotional and some are ethical, but it is the combination of these things that drives me to work hard every day, and push myself to excel.

Organizational Structure (at Walmart)

I know, I know, Walmart is like one of those giant elephants in the room no one ever wants to talk about, but I'm going to (probably more than you want to hear about) because I spent 5 years there as a salaried manager.  And while it was difficult, and I was treated with little-to-no respect, there is much to be learned from my experience, and so much that fascinates me, specifically regarding their organizational structure.  Don't get me wrong, they are inefficient to the point of debilitating, but somehow they work, and somehow they operate with these bare-bones staff.  They save on staff costs (for better or worse) like no other.  They seem to be overwhelmingly compelled by the "ratchet effect" similar to what the USSR faced just before their collapse (Milgrom & Roberts).  Always reducing costs, increasing profits.  The driving force behind the retail giant is an organization with a clear structure, designated roles and responsibilities, and yet no boundaries separating the leaders from the worker-bees, rendering these divisions of labor useless.  (Leading to inefficiencies too numerous to name)

The basic structure at Walmart is similar to that of the University of Illinois, hundreds of workers at the bottom that report to supervisors, who report to their supervisors, and so-on, all the way up to the CEO, Doug Mcmillon.  I will just focus on the local structure in this post.  A Regional Manager oversees a region of about 100 stores and about 12 Market Managers, who each oversee about 10 stores and their managers who oversee a team of Co-Managers, overseeing Assistant Managers, overseeing Zone Managers, overseeing Department Managers, overseeing sales associates.  (I can't help but chuckle to myself as I write this...talk about too many chiefs and not enough Indians, it's a miracle we accomplished anything!)  While intuitively it seems the flow of information is straightforward, trust me when I say: "it isn't."  Each person along the chain of managers give instructions to subordinates (anyone lower on the chain) to complete tasks.  This results in questions like "who should I listen to?" or "what does this mean?" or "I'm getting conflicting tasks, which one should I complete?"

Maybe this is blatant, but the structure should operate like this: managers at the top create the largest form of concept and allow ideas to trickle down through the chain, each person adding bits of information until it reaches the bottom where an associate is assigned a simple task that can be completed with the training s/he has been given in the time allotted.  Unfortunately, it is commonplace for managers (not direct supervisors) to direct an associate to a task that is not part of his or her supervisor's priorities.  Generally, this leads to incomplete daily tasks, incorrectly performed tasks, and even tasks that must be repeated to fulfill a different set of guidelines.  It is this repetition that is most frustrating and appalling.  Many times ensuring tasks were completed according to corporate communications rendered useless, because the Market Manager would come to the store, decide he disagreed with the corporate communication, and we would spend hours redoing a project instead of focusing on the next task.

So what am I getting at?  Structure requires boundaries.  It is easy to draw a chart and pontificate on the simple flow of information, but there must be a level of accountability to ensure superiors give direction (or bad direction, in this case) only to their direct subordinates.  There are costs associated with every bad piece of information given to a worker.  Time is the biggest cost for an employer, and should be carefully considered when institutionalizing a organizational structure.

Joseph Stiglitz-No big deal, being a Nobel laureate and all

I can't help but think our obsession with inequality is a result of the tremendous efforts of research, publications, and other media resulting from Joseph Stiglitz's lifetime of dedication to the matter.  Granted, I frequently wonder if academics like Stiglitz get the idea to research such topics as a result of endless complaining and frequent berating of the bureaucracy for their decisions on the matter, but who am I to know.  Back to our economist at hand with a little formal background for all the geeks out there, like me--from the beginning, Stiglitz has been a brilliant and influential economist.  He earned his undergraduate degree from MIT and continued his research there while pursuing a PhD until the late 60s.  It was then he left for Cambridge and studied as a Fulbright scholar for the last 4 years of the decade.  Following formal schooling up to present day, Stiglitz taught at the most prestigious of universities throughout the nation including Yale, Stanford, and Oxford.

On to the fun stuff--Stiglitz's research is world renowned and his list of publications and media outlets is so extensive that his vita is 73 pages long.  That's 73 pages of listing accomplishments, including more than 45 honorary doctorates.  I completely geeked out looking over this CV and anyone that wants to see impressive accomplishments should check it out.  One of the most notable accomplishments of Joseph Stiglitz is winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, for his research on the "analysis of markets with asymmetric information."  I won't bore you with the details of this research, but it should be noted it was investigated with well-known economists Akerlof and Spence.

In conjunction with his successful career as a professor and scholar, Stiglitz also contributed, significantly, throughout political history.  As the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, Stiglitz advised President Clinton on a number of economic matters including climate change.  A topic on which he co-authored a book "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

I could go on for pages on Stiglitz's accomplishments, but the accomplishment, or research, I find to be most intriguing is that which I feel is most relevant to today's world. In his most recent book publication titled "The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them" he continues on from a book he wrote in 2012, about the inequality of the American Society and how it should be counter-acted.  I look forward to the opportunity to read and understand these publications at a higher level in the near future.  On a side note: there is a video called "Inequality for All" hosted by Robert Reich, (who served with Stiglitz in Clinton's cabinet) that is a nice compliment to Stiglitz's work (and I recommend all of you uber-nerds like me to catch it on Netflix).

Stiglitz is currently a Professor at the Columbia Business School.

Information courtesy of:

josephstiglitz.com
nobelprize.org

test post

This is a test post, to ensure I have properly set up my blog...crossing fingers!