Branding - Facebook Development Opportunities Assignment

Branding - Facebook Development Opportunities - Assignment Example This is mainly because; the craze of online media is increasing at a rapid pace as compared to others. Among many other social networking sites, face-book is one of the most renowned and prominent site. It helps in attracting a large array of customers towards the brand thereby presenting various feedback, comments and likes. As a result, an entrepreneur or marketer attains the facility of obtaining numerous customers from a single site thereby amplifying the profitability and brand image of the product among others. Other than this, the amount of investment over promotion or advertisement also gets reduced to a certain extent, which is quite worthy for an organization. And so, the level of revenues and profit margin of the brand also gets enhanced to a significant extent thereby amplifying its dominance in the market. This is the prime reason for which, maximum extent of the marketers or entrepreneurs in today’s age desire to select online networking site Facebook for the pro motion of their products or services. The report is presented in two parts. The first part depicts the strengths and challenges faced by the social networking site, face-book in this globe among others. Along with this, it also includes the threats and weakness faced by the site, due to extreme bargaining power of the buyers and extensive rivalry among the existing parties. On the other hand, the second part resembles the planning part of the networking site, face-book. This part mainly reveals the need for repositioning of the site in the global market among other contending site. Part A- Report Overview of Face-book In order to cope up with the challenges of economic meltdown, promotion or advertisement is the most essential requirement. This is because, by promoting the effectiveness or features of a product or service, large array of customers might be attracted towards the brand. As a result of it, the demand and profit margin of the product might get enhanced thereby amplifying the reputation in the entre segment a mong others. However, this might be possible only with the help of a social networking site, face-book. It is recognised as the most essential and reputed site used for promotion of the products or services in this competitive age. As, maximum extent of the individual desire to visit this site for attaining valuable information and ideas, that might prove effective in future. So, if a single product is promoted in this site, huge traffic might be attracted within a very small time –frame as compared to any other advertisement media. Such a prominent invention came into limelight due to the extensive efforts of Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz, Chris Hughes, Eduardo Saverin in the year 2004. Within next one year i.e. by the end of 2005, Facebook attained a user base of 1 million. And so, it became one of the prominent sites for the marketers to promote their products or services. By doing so, the demand and brand value of the product or services might also be enhanced to a significant extent among others such as bing, Google +, yahoo, rediff etc. So, the importance and efficiency of face-book enhanced to a significant extent as compared to others. Macro environmental Analysis of Face-book PEST analysis is recognised as

Ip4 diversity in the workplace Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Ip4 diversity in the workplace - Research Paper Example The civil rights of 1964 prohibits any form of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, colour and national origin and sex. The document is a judicial reference that fosters equality among all the citizens of the United States (Hasday, 2007). The Civil Rights Act, Title VII of 1964 legislation was aimed at promoting equality among the citizens of the United States of America thus allowing them to exercise their basic rights such as the right to vote and acquire education. The act was also designed with the aim of extending the commission of civil rights; prevent discrimination in all federal assist programs and to form a commission on equal employment opportunities (Hasday, 2007). This stipulates the rights of an American citizen to participate in any job application program regardless of the discrimination elements such as race, skin colour and originality. A religious accommodation is any necessary adjustment to the work environment that will allow an applicant of an employee to practice his or her religion. Chapter VII necessitates the job of federal agencies in reasonable accommodation of religious practices or beliefs practiced or performed by employees which may conflict with the working requirements, unless the accommodation would create undue hardship (Gregory, 2011). If it does not pose any undue hardship, the employer is obliged to abide by the federal rule and grant the employee the accommodation. Some of the undue hardships that might lead to the employer denying religious accommodation rights include: if the accommodation is costly, decreases workplace efficiency, compromises work place safety or if the practice conflicts with special requirements. Application process or tasks entailed in the working environment (Gregory, 2011). Religious accommodation may be inform of dressing, for instance, nuns and Muslim women are excep ted from job dressing requirement as they are bound by their religion

DeLone McLean IS success models

DeLone McLean IS success models DeLone McLean IS success models According to Grover(1996), there is no definition of IS success. Each group of stakeholders who assess IS success in an organization has a different definition. From a software developer’s perspective, a successful information system is completed on time and under budget, has a set of features consistent with specifications, and functions correctly. Users may find an information system successful if it improves their work satisfaction or work performance. From an organizational perspective, a successful information system contributes to the company’s profits or creates a competitive advantage. Furthermore, IS success also depends on the type of system that is evaluated (Seddon et al. 1999, p. 21). IS success had seen different definitions given by many authors. According to Bailey and Pearson (1983) IS success is defined as â€Å"Measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction is motivated by management’s desire to improve the productivity of information systems.† Authors Goodhue and Thompson (1995, p. 213) had given definition to IS success as â€Å"†¦MIS success ultimately corresponds to what DeLone and McLean (1992) label individual impact or organizational impact. DM reviewed the literature published in 1981-1987 in seven publications to develop a taxonomy of IS success. This taxonomy was based upon Mason’s modification of the Shannon and Weaver model (C.E. Shannon Weaver 1949)ofcommunications which had identified three levels of information: the technical level (accuracy and efficiency of the system that produces it), the semantic level (its ability to transfer the intended message), and the effectiveness level (its impact on the receiver). M ason adapted this theory for IS and expanded the effectiveness level into three categories: receipt of information, influence on the recipient, and influence on the system (R.O. Mason 1978). DM identified categories for system success by mapping an aspect of IS success to each of Mason’s effectiveness levels. This analysis yielded six variables of IS success: System Quality, Information Quality, Use, User Satisfaction, Individual Impact, and Organizational Impact. System Quality was equivalent to the technical level of communication, while Information Quality was equivalent to the semantic level of communication. The other four variables mapped to Mason’s subcategories of the effectiveness level. Use related to Mason’s ‘‘receipt of information.’’ User Satisfaction and Individual Impact were associated with the ‘‘information’s influence on the recipient.’’ Organizational Impact was the ‘‘influ ence of the information on the system.’’ DM developed their initial taxonomy using established theories of communication adapted to IS. These theories suggested that the flow of information was linear; however, they suggested that for IS, these different measures of success were independent, but that there was interdependency among them. Fig. 1 shows the original model. DM suggested that researchers should use this model in a predictive manner, yet they cautioned that one must measure and/ or control each of the variables in the model to ensure a complete understanding of IS success. DM called upon others to validate their model .† In order to provide a more general and comprehensive definition of IS success that covers these different points of view, DeLone and McLean (1992) reviewed the existing definitions of IS success and their corresponding measures, classifying them into six major categories. They created a multidimensional measuring model with interdependencies between the different success categories. The original DM IS success model According to DeLone and McLean (1992), measurement of IS success is critical for understanding the value and efficacy of IS management actions and IS investments. One of the most important and popular works on IS success model is the DeLone and McLean model (DM IS success model). DeLone and McLean proposed in 1992 a taxonomy and an interactive model as the frameworks for conceptualizing IS success. Driven by the need of a process to understand IS and its impacts, they developed a multi-dimension integrated view of IS success model. DeLone and McLean (1992) comprehensively reviewed IS success measures and concluded with a model of interrelationships between six IS success variable categories: (1) system quality, (2) information quality, (3) IS use, (4) user satisfaction, (5) individual impact, and (6) organization impact (see Fig. 1). This model makes two important contributions to the understanding of IS success. First, it provides a scheme for categorizing the multitude of IS success measures which have been used in the research literature. Second, it suggests a model of temporal and causainterdependencies between the categories (McGill, Hobbs, Klobas, 2003; Seddon, 1997). Since 1992, a number of studies have undertaken empirical investigations of the multidimensional relationships among the measures of IS success. Seddon and Kiew (1994) tested part of the DeLone and McLean (1992) model using a structural equation model. They replaced â€Å"use† with â€Å"usefulness† and added a new variable called â€Å"user involvement,† and their results partially supported the DeLone and McLean (1992) model. The description and examples of measures for these six dimensions are: First, system quality denotes system performance like data accuracy, system efficiency, response time, etc. Second, information quality refers to the quality of the IS product, such as currency, relevance, reliability, and completeness. Third, use refers to the frequency an information system is used, examining items like the number of functions used, frequency of access, and amount of connect time. Fourth, user satisfaction records the satisfaction level as reported by system users, including overall satisfaction and satisfaction of interface, etc. Fifth, individual impact refers to measuring the impacts brough t about by the information system on individual users, such as changes in productivity, decision model, and decision making. Sixth, organizational impact requires the evaluation of the changes caused by the information system to the organization, such as decrease in operating cost, savings in labor costs, and growth in profits. This original model identified six interrelated dimensions of IS success. It suggested that the success can be represented by the system quality, the output information quality, consumption (use) of the output, the user’s response (user satisfaction), the effect of the IS on the behavior of the user (individual impact), and the effect of the IS on organizational performance organizational impact). This model provided a scheme for classifying the multitude of IS success measures and suggested the temporal and causal interdependencies between the six dimensions. Motivated by DeLone and McLean’s call for further development and validation of their model, many researchers have attempted to extend or respecify the original model. A number of researchers claim that the DM IS success model is incomplete. They suggest that more dimensions should be included in the model, or present alternative success. Other researchers focus on the application and validation of the model (Rai et al. 2002). Following the Seddon’s extension of Delone McLean IS success model in 1997 into partial behavioural model of IS use and IS process model for IS success, Garrity and Sanders (1998) further adapted the model taking into account the organisational and sociotechnical systems. The model was further extended by Molla and Licker (2001) to measure e-Commerce success. The New DM IS model Information systems (IS) success is one of the most researched topics in IS literature. De Loneand McLean (1992) become aware of the complex reality that surrounds the identification and definition of the IS success concept. They organize the large number of studies on IS success and present a comprehensive and integrative model. DeLone and McLean, in their study, identify six main dimensions for categorizing the different measures of IS success: system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact. They develop an IS success model in which these categories are interrelated, shaping a process construct. Their model proposes that â€Å"system quality and information quality singularly and jointly affect both use and user satisfaction. Additionally, the amount of use can affect the degreeof user satisfaction as well as the reverse being true. Use and user satisfaction are direct antecedents of individual impact; and, lastly, this impact on individual performance should eventually have some organizational impact† (DeLone McLean, 1992) (Figure 2). DeLone and McLean (1992) state that their model is â€Å"an attempt to reflect the interdependent, process nature of IS success†, undertaking to describe the IS success concept and the causes for the success. According to Ballantin other researchers (1996) and Seddon (1997), DeLone and McLean’s work makes several important contributions to the understanding of IS success. First, it consolidates previous research. Second, it provides a scheme for classifying the different measures of IS success that have been proposed in the literature into six dimensions. Third, it suggests a model of temporal and causal interdependencies between the identified categories. Fourth, it makes the first moves to identify different stakeholder groups in the process. Fifth, it has been considered an appropriate base for further empirical and theoretical research. Sixth, it has met general acceptance in the IS community. In the years that followed, several researchers altered or extended the model, while others adapted it for specific applications, such as knowledge management or e-commerce (W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean 2004) systems. Recognizing these potential improvements over their original model, DM acknowledged these modifications and revised their model accordingly (W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean 2003). The updated model is shown in Fig. 2. DM also modified their model to address some limitations of the original model. A key addition in the updated model was the inclusion of Service Quality as an additional aspect of IS success (L.F. Pitt, R.T. Watson, C.B. Kavan 1995); it was added because the changing nature of IS required the need to assess service quality when evaluating IS success. DM also recommended assigning different weights to System Quality, Information Quality, and Service Quality depending on the context and application of the model. There has been an intense debate about whether system use is a good measure of IS success. Although some authors (P.B. Seddon 1997) have suggested that it is better to remove system use as an IS success variable, DeLone andMcLean argued that systemusewas an appropriate measure. They asserted that the source of the problem was a too simplistic definition of system use, and that researchers must consider the extent, nature, quality, and appropriateness of it. Simply measuring the amount of time a system is in use is not enough: informed and effective use is an important indication of IS success. The DeLone and McLean Information System Success model, published in 1992, supplies a general framework to measure information systems success through the analysis of six different but interdependent factors: â€Å"system quality† on a technical level, â€Å"information quality† on a semantic level and â€Å"use†, â€Å"user satisfaction†, â€Å"individual impacts† and â€Å"organization impacts† on an effectiveness level. All these factors relate each other both on a temporal and a causal model; in the temporal model we first find system quality and information quality, which characterize an information system when it is just created; in a second stage of this process come use and user satisfaction, which feed or restrain each other and that are strongly influenced by the first two factors; finally, both in a temporal and in a causal way, comes first the individual impact and then the organizational impact, which is not seen as a simple sum of individual impacts but as a complex network of consequences. The generic nature of each of these entities makes the framework suitable for a variety of different information systems and contexts. During the last decade hundreds of articles have been written to confirm or challenge the validity of DeLone and McLean conclusions; in 2003 a new article was written by the same two authors to refine the whole model by taking into account all the suggestions/critiques made to the original article. The primary purpose of the original 1992 DM IS success model was to synthesize previous researches on IS success into a more coherent body of knowledge and to provide guidance to future researchers (DeLone and McLean, 2003). The role of IS has changed and progressed during the last decade. Similarly, academic inquiry into the measurement of IS Although it may be more desirable to measure system benefits in terms of numeric costs (e.g cost savings, expanded markets, incremental additional sales, and time savings), such measures are often not possible because of intangible system impacts and intervening environmental variables that may influence the numbers (T. McGill, V. Hobbs 2003).Therefore, there has been little consensus on how net benefits should be measured objectively and thus they are usually measured by the perceptions of those who use the IS. Therefore, ‘‘perceived system benefits’’ or ‘‘perceived usefulness’’ has been adopted as an important surrogate of IS success (B.H. Wixom, H.J. Watson 2001) The right-hand side of the DeLone and McLean’s model, which assumed linear causality between system use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact, has not been authenticated. Seddon contended that the model was too encompassing and introduced some confusion because it mixed process and causal explanation of IS success. He further argued that system use must precede impacts and benefits, but that it did not cause them. Accordingly, system use would be a behavior that reflects an expectation of system benefits from using an IS and thus would be a consequence of IS success, rather than a determinant of system net benefits. Some empirical surveys (M. Gelderman 1998) also found that the association between system use and system benefit was not statistically significant. System use is necessary but not sufficient to create system benefits. User satisfaction results from the feelings and attitudes from aggregating all the benefits that a person hopes to receive from interaction with the IS (B. Ives, M.H. Olson, J.J. Baroudi 1983). In fact, attitude cannot influence system benefits—on the contrary, perceived system benefits can influence user satisfaction. Therefore, individual impact and net benefits can cause user satisfaction (rather than vice versa). There has been an intense debate about whether system use is a good measure of IS success. Although some authors (P.B. Seddon 1997) have suggested that it is better to remove system use as an IS success variable, DeLone andMcLean argued that systemusewas an appropriate measure. They asserted that the source of the problem was a too simplistic definition of system use, and that researchers must consider the extent, nature, quality, and appropriateness of it. Simply measuring the amount of time a system is in use is not enough: informed and effective use is an important indication of IS success. Although it may be more desirable to measure system benefits in terms of numeric costs (e.g. cost savings, expanded markets, incremental additional sales, and time savings), such measures are often not possible because of intangible system impacts and intervening environmental variables that may influence the numbers (T. McGill, V. Hobbs 2003).Therefore, there has been little consensus on how net benefits should be measured objectively and thus they are usually measured by the perceptions of those who use the IS. Therefore, ‘‘perceived system benefits’’ or ‘‘perceived usefulness’’ has been adopted as an important surrogate of IS success (B.H. Wixom, H.J. Watson 2001) The right-hand side of the DeLone and McLean’s model, which assumed linear causality between system use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact, has not been authenticated. Seddon contended that the model was too encompassing and introduced some confusion because it mixed process and causal explanation of IS success. He further argued that system use must precede impacts and benefits, but that it did not cause them. Accordingly, system use would be a behavior that reflects an expectation of system benefits from using an IS and thus would be a consequence of IS success, rather than a determinant of system net benefits. Some empirical surveys (M. Gelderman 1998) also found that the association between system use and system benefit was not statistically significant. System use is necessary but not sufficient to create system benefits. User satisfaction results from the feelings and attitudes from aggregating all the benefits that a person hopes to receive from interaction with the IS (B. Ives, M.H. Olson, J.J. Baroudi 1983). In fact, attitude cannot influence system benefits—on the contrary, perceived system benefits can influence user satisfaction. Therefore, individual impact and net benefits can cause user satisfaction (rather than vice versa). The measurement of IS success or effectiveness is critical to our understanding of the value and efficacy of IS management and investments (DeLone and McLean, 2003). They have striven to bring both awareness and structure to the â€Å"dependent variable†- IS success in IS research, and the result is the so-called updated DM IS success model (Figure 2). Their major contribution is proposing a taxonomy and an interactive model as frameworks for conceptualizing and operationalizing IS success for future researchers. In response to the progresses in IS applications, DeLone and McLean refined their original model and proposed an updated version in 2003. Service quality was added into the success model, and the individual impact and organizational impact were combined into a single variable named â€Å"net benefits† as shown in Figure 4. To catch up with the advancements of its applications, IS needs not only to provide users information products but also to meet users’. In addition, some researchers (J.J. Baroudi, M.H. Olson, B. Ives 1986) have suggested that user satisfaction causes system use rather than vice versa. Thus, the Delone and McLean’s assertion that system use causes user satisfaction seems to be merely a temporal rather than causal relationship. Many models based on that of DeLone and McLean have been presented. However, they often confuse the independent variable and dependent variables of IS success. ‘‘Technological support’’, ‘‘knowledge strategy or process’’, and ‘‘support and service’’ are three examples of suggested additions but these clearly cause success (rather than being part of it). The variables should be dependent; i.e. surrogate measures for success. DeLone and McLean suggested that the IS success model should include service quality for electronic commerce systems. DeLone McLean (2003) argue that Seddon’s (1997) reformulation of the DeLone McLean (1992) model into two partial variance models (i.e. IS success model and partial behavioural model of IS Use) unduly complicates the success model, and thus assert that System Use or Intention to Use is still an important measure of IS success. Given that Systems Use/Intention to Use is included in their updated IS success model, DeLone McLean (2003; 2004), however, did not attempt to reconcile their model with Seddon’s (1997) Perceived Usefulness measure and Davis’s (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that explains system use behaviour. Thus, there is a need for research to combine the updated DM model with Seddon’s (1997) Perceived Usefulness construct and the IS acceptance/adoption literature to give it the richness in theoretical perspective that it presently lacks. While the updated DM model is a generic, comprehensive e-commerce systems success model, it suffer s from certain difficulties. First, the Net Benefit measure in the model is conceptually too broad to define. As DeLone McLean (2004) suggest, ‘The new net benefits construct immediately raises three issues that must be addressed: what qualifies as a benefit? for whom? and at what level of analysis’ Thus, when using the updated DM model, researchers need to clearly and carefully define the stakeholders and the context in which Net Benefits are to be measured (DeLone McLean, 2004). DeLone and McLean (2003) propose an updated IS success model (Fig. 2) and evaluate its usefulness in light of the dramatic changes in IS practice, especially the advent and explosive growth of ecommerce. They agree with Seddons premise that the combination of variance and process explanations of IS success in one model can be confusing, but argue that Seddons reformulation of the DeLone and McLean (1992) model into two partial variance models unduly complicates the success model, and defeats the intent of the original model. Based on prior studies, DeLone and McLean (2003) propose an updated model of IS success by adding a â€Å"service quality† measure as a new dimension of the IS success model, and by grouping all the â€Å"impact† measures into a single impact or benefit category called â€Å"net benefit.† DeLone McLean (2004) propose several e-commerce systems success measures identified in the management information systems (MIS) and marketing literature, t he nomological structure of the updated DM model is not fully consistent with the quality- value-satisfaction-loyalty chain in the marketing and consumer behavior. Thus, continued research is also required to reconcile the updated DM model with the marketing research literature. Although some researchers claim that service quality is merely a subset of the models systems quality, the changes in the role of IS over the last decade argue for a separate variable called the â€Å"service quality† dimension (DeLone McLean, 2003). On the other hand, while researchers have suggested several IS impact measures, such as individual, work group impacts, organizational impacts (DeLone McLean, 1992), interorganizational impacts, consumerimpacts, and societal impacts (Seddon, 1997), DeLone and McLean (2003) move in the opposite direction and group all of the impact measures into a single net benefits variable, to avoid complicating the model with more success measures. Given that system usage continues to be used as a dependent variable in a number of empirical studies, and takes on a new importance in Internet-based system success measurements, where system use is Voluntary, â€Å"system usage† and the alternative â€Å"intention to use† are still considered as Important measures of IS success in the updated DeLone and McLean model. References Seddon PB, Staples S, Patnayakuni R, Bowtell M (1999) Dimensions of information systems success. Communications of the AIS Grover V, Jeong SR, Segars AH (1996) Information systems effectiveness: the construct space and patters of application. Information Management 31(4):177-191 Goodhue DL, Thompson RL (1995) Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2):213 DeLone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research DeLone WH, McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems McGill, T., Hobbs, V., Klobas, J. (2003). User-developed applications and information systems success: A test of DeLone and McLeans model. Information resources Management Journal, R.O. Mason, Measuring information output: a communication systems approach, Information Management Seddon, P. B. Kiew, M.-Y. (1994). A partial test and development of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. In J. I. De Gross, S. L. Huff, M. C. Munro (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on information systems Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems Rai, A., Lang, S.S. Welker, R.B. (2002) Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information Systems Research, Molla, A. Licker, P.S. (2001) E-commerce systems success: an attempt to extend and respecify the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research Taylor, S. and Todd, P. â€Å"Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models,† Information Systems Research

Stock Options Essay -- GCSE Business Marketing Coursework

Stock Options Since the late 1980’s more and more people have been given the opportunity to purchase stock options. As of 2001, ten million employees have chosen to purchase stock options. Another survey established that 97 of the top 100 e-commerce companies gave the choice of options this year. For these reasons, it is important to understand what stock options are, the different types of options, and their advantages and disadvantages. A stock option gives any employee the right to buy a certain number of shares in the company at a fixed price for a certain number of years. Employees who have been given the choice of stock options hope that the share price will go up and that they will be able to cash in by purchasing the stock at the lower grant price and then selling the stock at the current market price. Stock option plans can be a flexible way for companies to share ownership with employees, reward them for performance, and attract and retain a motivated staff. These plans could also encourage the employees to look in that best interest of the company and other shareholders. For growth-oriented smaller companies, options are a great way to preserve cash while giving employees a piece of future growth. They can also work for public firms whose benefit plans are well established, but who want to include employees in ownership. Options are not a mechanism for existing owners to sell shares and are usually inappropriate for companies whose future growth is uncertain. They can also be unappealing in small, closely held companies that do not want to go public or be sold because they may find it difficult to create a market for the share. There have been disagreement on whether or not options are actual ownership. Some believe they are ownership because employees do not receive them for free, they use their own money to purchase the share. Others believe that since the employees can sell their shares a short time after purchasing them they do not have the long-term ownership goal. A few simple terms with stock options are a call, a put, and a premium. A call is the right to buy the stock, a put is the right to sell the stock and its premium is the price of the option. Overall, options allow you to participate in price movements without committing the large amount of funds needed to buy stock outright. ... ...s are even hired, stock options enable companies to recruit better employees. Once the employees are hired, they work harder for the sake of the company as well as a rise in their shares, and therefore, the company is able to retain hard working elites. Another positive remark about stock options is that companies are not required by GAP to record them as an expense which, in turn, inflates their earnings. Just as before with the employee’s stock income, the company receives a tax deduction as well. When the employee exercises his stock then sells it in the market he receives an income, and this amount received by the employee is equal to the tax break granted to the company. Hence, the larger the price difference, the better it is for both the employee and employer. To conclude, stock options are increasingly being used as incentives for employees in companies around the world. Statistics state that the increased use of stock options privileges has increased the work ethic of employees, thus increasing sales. Stock options are a good non-cash compensation for increasing the moral of employees, but one should note that the underlying tax regulations could be complicated.

Name Your Price Essay

Name Your Price: Compensation Negotiation Whole Health Management Group 6 Abhisek Jha 10PGHR04 Annesha Pramanik 10PGHR08 Kunal Dayani 10PGHR21 Priyanka Gupta 10PGHR30 Ria Ghosh 10PGHR42 Tanu Mehta 10PGHR51 Base Salary Status: $100000 per year paid semi monthly †¢ Reason: Since Whole Health Management is a mid cap company and it wishes to pay competitive package at HBS , we have chosen median base salary of health sector from exhibit 6. †¢ Also, since the CEO, Jim Hummer is willing mentor and provide a lot of challenging opportunities to Munroe, which he might not get anywhere else so he would be ready to compromise with the monetary benefits and not choose 75% base salary Stock options Stock options: Options to purchase 10000 shares at $2.7 per share according to vesting schedule †¢ Reason: It is the standard equity plan for incoming executives †¢ Also since, Jim mentioned in exhibit 2, that the company might grow 3 folds by year end 2006, Munroe would want to invest in the firm’s equity †¢ And Jim also mentioned that the organic growth strategy may generate many opportunities for Munroe, being in a leadership role he would like to have more stake in the company Bonus Bonus: Up to $30000 based on agreed upon goals †¢ Reason- Since the median total additional compensation given in exhibit 6 is 30% of the median base salary The agreed upon goals would ascribe to 3 roles specified: †¢ Manage client relationships and contracts †¢ Goals: a) Repeat business from existing clients of the three contracts given to Munroe †¢ b) Customer satisfaction Index > 90% †¢ Grow existing client contracts †¢ Goals: a) Increase revenue ( existing-$10M to $12M) from the contract that he is managing by 15% †¢ Develop new client business †¢ Goals: a) Expand the client base and get 2 more contracts with combined worth of atleast $4M NOTE: The bonus of $30000 is proportionally divided on all goals with each role carrying equal weightage Relocation Allowance Relocation Allowance: $10000 to relocate to Cleveland; additional allowance to be determined for any future relocations †¢ Reason: From internet cost of living comparison calculators we found that even with a 30% decrease in Munroe’s salary, he could maintain his standard of living in Cleveland as it is a less expensive city as compared to Boston. †¢ Thus we have allocated a nominal amount of $10000 towards movers and packers charges Source for cost of living comparison: http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-costof-living-calculator.aspx Continuing Education Stipend and Dues & Licensures Continuing Education Stipend: 70% of tuition fee for further education, if approved Dues and Licensures: Sponsor(100%) the certifications and other dues and licensures in future THANK YOU

The Manager as a Critical Thinker

The 10 steps of critical thinking Include: What are the issue and conclusion, what are the reasons, what words or phrases are ambiguous, what are the value and descriptive assumptions, are there any fallacies in the reasoning, how good is the evidence, are there any rival causes, are the statistics deceptive, what significant information has been omitted, what reasonable conclusions are possible. The book stated that â€Å"an Issue Is a question or controversy responsible for the conversation or discussion. It Is the stimulus for what is being said† (Browne & Kelley, 2012).The book goes on to dividing the issue into two categories: descriptive and prescriptive. The book defines descriptive issues as those that cause people to question the accuracy of vents In the past, present or future. And prescriptive Issues are those that raise questions about what is the right thing versus the wrong thing to do, good versus bad, what we should do. The issue in this scenario falls under th e descriptive category. The CEO of PAS Manufacturing, Raymond Sesame's compensation is significantly higher compared to the salary of Coos in other companies with similar characteristics.James was hired In 2003 for a five year appointment with the starting salary at $400,000. During the first three years, the contract promised him raises of %, 5% and 7% consecutively. After the first three years, the Coo's compensation continued to increase significantly while the company experienced zero growth In the year of 2006 and continued to experience loss ever since without signs of recovery. The impact of Sesame's high compensation made headlines in a local newspaper. Employees of PAS are also expressing discontent with their current CEO.As a conclusion, the senior vice president of Human Resources at PAS wrote a memo to the Board of Directors advising the board that the compensation for the current CEO s misaligned with the industry average. He is hoping that the Board would consider sear ching for a new candidate to replace James who would be able to contribute to the company's growth. There are several reasons provided by the Director of HRS to support his recommendation In replacing the current CEO with a new candidate. Browne and Kelley define reason as explanations or rationales that support the validity of a conclusion (2012, P. 30).In this case, the first reason is evidently provided in the table that compares the Coo's salary to the company's growth rate from 2003 o 2009. The Coo's raise percentage continued to rise by 2 percent every year while the company's growth seized In year 2006 and exhibit a loss trend In subsequent years. The HRS Director believes that compensation should be based on performance, 1 OFF reflect his performance. Another reason is that other Coo's from companies with the same characteristics as PAS were only averaging about $391 ,659 in 2007 while Sesame's salary was as much as $100,000 over the national average.It indicates that the co mpany is spending â€Å"unnecessary' money. Lastly, the number of dissatisfaction or the current CEO is growing among the employees of PAS. The HRS Director fears that if union workers have lost respect for the CEO, it would be hard to stop other groups from losing faith as well. The next step is identifying the words or phrases that seem ambiguous in this situation. The book stated that ambiguous words or phrases should be looked in the reasons or conclusion areas because the author wants the reader to accept a conclusion. Therefore, I should look for words or phrases that affect my decision (P. 41).In the last sentence, the HRS Director said that e hopes the successor â€Å"will be more hard-working and willing to do what is necessary' which all sound very ambiguous. Because he never mentioned previously what constitutes as hard-working. Hard-working could mean different things to different people. And â€Å"willing to do what is necessary', what does that mean exactly? There s eems to be implied meanings to this phrase. A person might think doing whatever necessary as breaking the laws to achieve the goal while others might have an entirely different interpretation. Another ambiguous word is â€Å"greatness† in the same sentence.Greatness could also mean many things in this case. It could mean that the company is able to recover its losses or the company is able to regain the trust from partners and employees. Once again, it is hard to determine exactly what the Director want to express by using these words and phrases. The next stage of critical thinking is identifying the value and descriptive assumptions. According to the text, â€Å"a value assumption is an implicit preference for one value over another in a particular context† while â€Å"a descriptive assumption is an unstated belief about how the world was, is or will become† (P. ). The HRS Director considers pay for performance as the best method to determine compensation. By supporting this idea, he believes that productivity is the determining factor in evaluating how good a worker is. Therefore, he prefers his company to follow the industry best practices in determining the Coo's pay rather than the current practice. The descriptive assumption in this case is the belief that the company's performance will improve under the direction and management of a new CEO. In other words, the company's status cannot be improved by other means except for the replacement of the CEO.There are several fallacies that the author used to persuade the reader's opinion in this situation. The author attacked the Coo's personality by pointing out that a local newspaper recently quoted the CEO saying the following line; â€Å"I'm worth every penny I'm paid; this town owes everything to me and my family'. This is an attempt to show that the CEO has disputable character and that he is a cocky ungrateful man. The author also went on to say that the CEO is a very wealthy man as the only grandson of the company's founder. And because of his financial status, he has no inventive to ark hard for this company to strive.Another fallacy that was used is the slippery slope technique in which the author assumes that one event will set off a chain of uncontrollable and undesirable outcomes. The author said that once union workers lose respect for the CEO by circulating an unflattering comic representation it will losing faith in the CEO as well. Next step in critical thinking is to determine the validity of the evidence presented. The first evidence provided by the author is the table listing the Coo's annual raise versus the company's annual growth rate from he company's Human Resources Department.This evidence could be considered as valid because these are probably based on exact figures provided on payroll as well as the company's financial statements. The next evidence that the author presents is the average salary for other CEO in the same industry. At first glance, by using the phrase â€Å"according to the Economic Research Institute†, it would cause the reader to think that this must be a reliable source. But when looking at the footnote at the bottom of the page, the source was Just a salary calculator providing estimates.There re no concrete facts to support that the figure presented was the actual average for the industry. That makes the source not very reliable on its accuracy. The author went on to say that research shows that Coo's median total compensation fell yet the source for this research is from wick. Wick is not considered as a scholarly source for research. The next evidence provided is the survey of executive pay practices. The author stated that 64% from that survey reported salary freeze yet the author never stated how large the sample size was and failed to mention if the sample was Mandalay selected or not.Surveys are often biased because it fail to truly represent how people truly feel instead people fill out answers as they think they have to give. Lastly, the author quoted another cite citing other cities. The author used a source that was quoted in the Baltimore Sun without examining to see if the original source is dependable or not. Lastly, the statement that â€Å"everyone in the Human Resources field knows† is a generalization. The book defines this as â€Å"a person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experience with only a few members of the group.The author clearly has not met with everyone in the HRS field, therefore, he use his experience as being the HRS director to support his claim that this is the thinking of the whole field. The next step in critical thinking in the book is looking for rival causes. The books definition of â€Å"a rival cause is a plausible alternative explanation that can explain why a certain outcome occurred† (P. 128). The author was citing several sources to support his claim that the median compensation for CEO in the industry fell during Sesame's terms, as well as a lot of companies were freezing or rimming salaries for their executives.The author also cited another claim from a source stating that indeed, excessive CEO compensation was the actual cost of the economic recession in the United States during those years. This is the cause that the writer wants the readers to believe that the growth of PAS has stalled over the years is due to excessive compensation. There could be many other reasons that could arguably be the reason why the United States was experiencing a recession during that period such as high unemployment rate, foreign policy, war spending, amount of unsecured loans, etc.Clearly, high CEO compensation cannot be considered as the sole cause of the recession as the author wants us to believe. The author in this scenario used several statistics in trying to support his claim. First he said that the medial total compensation fell by 7. 5 percent, in this case, we weren't provided w ith the base number to determine if 7. 5 percent was significant or not. Once again, the author claimed that 64 percent of companies responding to the survey reported that omitted the total number of companies. 64 percent is an impressive number and we old have been easily swayed if we didn't question the use of statistics.

Interview with Book Designer Nuno Moreira

Interview with Book Designer Nuno Moreira The Perfect Book Cover: An Interview with Graphic Designer Nuno Moreira â€Å"The perfect cover is seductive, mysterious, puzzling.†At Reedsy, we have the chance to work with exceptionally talented and creative people. Whether they express themselves in words or images, they are always striving for their creative output to reach a level of perfection that each of them defines and idealizes in a different way.Today, Nuno Moreira, a Portuguese graphic artist now residing in Tokyo, offers us what may be the â€Å"perfect† definition of a book cover. Before that, he outlines the differences between working for a publisher and working directly with an independent author; and explains how a lousy cover first got him into book design.But get to the â€Å"perfect cover† question. It’s worth it.Hi Nuno, great to have you here. You’re a freelance cover designer based in Tokyo, and work predominantly with independent authors and small presses. How did you first get into book design?Hi there, thank you for the opportunity. I starte d working with books and editorial design back in Portugal, in 2007, designing books for a handful of publishers, most of them no longer in activity nowadays. It all started because I was reading a book by Alejandro Jodorowsky and the cover was just horrible. I stopped and thought to myself: how can such provocative ideas be hidden behind such a lousy cover? So, I immediately put the book aside and wrote an email to the publisher. Months later I found myself working not for that publisher, but for two others and then things just gradually took from there. Basically, Jodorowsky is to blame for my book cover practice!I always loved reading and being surrounded by books and magazines and with time it only got worse (in a good sense of course). Since then I started art directing for Editorial Estampa - a publisher with over 50 years in Portugal - and then, slowly I started taking commissions from varied publishers and authors. These last 4 years I’ve been designing mostly for ind ependent presses and self-published authors in the US and UK.