W7: Fern&ez-Araoz, C. (2014) 21st century talent spotting: Prob: Earlier ‘competencies’Jobs= skills & filled with c&idates having m. 21 st century- biz more volatile, complex & mkt for top talent too tight (bcoz of globalization (global biz expansions), demographics (talent retiring/nt in ideal ages), pipelines (of future leaders) Sol (4 al levels): hr focus on potential (ability to adapt to dynamic biz env & grow into challenging roles) Tools: 5 key indicators for measuring potential- right motivation, curiosity, insight, engagement (wrt connecting wid ppl), & determination. n help best get better wid smart retention (autonomy (4t’s:time, task, team, technique), mastery, purpose) & stretch dev (assignments, job rotations) CEO succession: ideally start wen new leader starts bt latest 3-4 yrs before he wud leave. 1st step:Better hiring (in-depth interviews, career discussion with egs, history) 2nd: tools Fern&ez-Araoz, C., Groysberg, B. & Nohria, N. (2009) definitive guide to recruiting in good times & bad: C level group -“top-x grp”. Issues: ad hoc quality, lack of specified criteria, inconsistency of practices among cos; End to end best practices-7 steps of recruiting- anticipating need for new hires, specifying job (2006 HBR article “Are leaders portable”-portfolio model of human capital- job based competencies, team based competencies, firm based competencies), dev c&idate pool (nt true-wider pool greater likelihood of finding right person; consider insiders, inside-outsiders, outside-insiders in pool, network-sourcing strat like ppl in periphery like suppliers, peer nominations), assessing c&idates (mamatical models t quantify expected profitability of investing in generating more c&idates; improve quality of assessments is 3x more profitable than getting c&idate to accept lower compensation; robust assess process: 1)use small no of high caliber, well trained, properly motivated interviewers 2)rigourous behavioural event interviews, detailed reference checks 3)include top stakeholders), closing deal (Org commitment: demonstrate active support for c&idate’s interest, job: describing it realistically, involving hr mgr personaly n nt just hr in closing, compensation: fair, involving c-level for top positions), integrating new comer (using veteran top performers like mentors, making sure newcomer checks in regularly wid boss, mentor, HR), reviewing effectiveness of hiring process (audit n review- remove bad hires within 1st yr, review recruitment practices, rewarding excellent interviewers, holding assesors a/cable 4 eval quality). Proactive hiring process beter talent acquisition, retention. Take-Aways from “Hiring Success: A Step by Step Guide”- Video: Staffing- recruitment n selection. Recruitment- searching n attracting sufficient c&idates (till job application) Selection: difftiating among ppl to hire ppl wid likelihood of success (ends @ integration of new). 8 step: 1) Job description: job requirements or specifications (KSOA- knwl, skil, ability, or attribtes), duties & responsibilities. w/o jd info from job incumbents & immediate supervisor. WRT Job requirements don’t be too restrictive. WRT duties/resp distinguish essential from non-essential duties 2) Announcement: position internally or externally, Internal- more efficient, supportiveness, n emp appreciate. Fern&ez-Araoz et al (2009) (internals knw co & ppl better). Internal (job postings on bulletin board or intranet), external (print ads, co website, search firms, job fairs, referrals, etc). method depends on skill & responsibility level, labor mkt, budget, time, prior success). Shud b detailed (qualified encouraged), generate interest & intiate action 3) Review of Applications/Resumes: Pre-screen ppl, pool nt gud n extend search, don’t read too much in cv (unusual signs pay attention)4) Telefon interview: discretionary; bt help in clarify info, begin socialization process, c&idates qs too. 5) face 2 face interview: # of interviews depends on imp of hire, empis on staffing in org. Precautions to avoid sources of error- plan qs ahead, ensure job relatedness of qs, avoid forming 1st impressions. Eg: halo (1st impression dominating overall assessment), anr (impre led to verbal & non-verbal cues like more or less eye contact, etc), use semi-structured qss (content & go deep too), behavioural descriptive (event) qss, hypotical qss 6) Getting Anr Opinion: hiring supervisor or committee f/b from all interviewers 7) Check References: Prior supervisors, 2 things to make gud ref check (written consent from applicant, prior employers comment on factual info & past behaviours 8) making an offer: expect negotiations, formal written offer letter, time given to c&idate to accept offer Or suggestions: hw staffing decisions influenced by Organizational policies (eg: promotion from within), Ability to attract (eg; org location, etc), Amount of time available & number of vacancies to fill (eg: word of mouth, uni job fairs) Blinds to Go (BTG): Determinants of biz suces.eg. inimitability of 48hr turnaround. Better ppl mgmt enhance growth strat & capitalize on benefits of being a 1st mover-quality manufacturer/retailer in retail fabricator mkt Competitive strat: focus on sub-segment of All Windows Coverings mkt cald retail fabricator mkt (vertically integrated manufacturer/merch&isers of blinds). Differentiates thru unique combo of quick manuf turnarounds (custom blinds in 48 hrs) & attention to retail customers’ needs. looking for senior mgrs: H&s-on & detail-oriented (e.g., mgrs are expected to roll ir sleeves up, nt think of any job as beneath m, & meet high quality st&ards), Entrepreneurial (e.g., mgrs are expected to underst& business, a strategic owner-like, long-term focus that empizes value creation & expansion), Team player (e.g., mgrs committed, share Executive Team’s vision & help dev ppl), Continuous learners & improvers (e.g., mgrs willing to discuss plans, nt ignore probs, be open to f/b & willing to learn from mistakes) VP’s leave BTG: top mgmt said factors such as incompetence, a steep learning curve, unwillingness to change or receive f/b, ego, short-term focus, etc. Bt actually nt fit with env: 1) VPs previously success in oder org & qualified to be selected by BTG, hence nt “inability” bt potentially env in which y expected to learn. 2) VPs Expectations violated- expected more autonomy in deci making based on prior exp in senior mgmt rar than being micro-mngd. BTG imp staffing process by providing more realistic job previews. 3) Culture of blame & paternalism: disconnect bw espoused & enacted values. Eg: value of learning from experience & thru mistakes valued bt what in fact be valued is conformity to views of Executive Team (mngers nt feel psychologically safe taking risks or being creative as mistakes lead m to be br&ed incompetent, dec continuous imp & innovation desired by BTG). Similarly, Udofia describes BTG as non-hierarchical bt few senior mngers influence over decision-making. limit flow of info that help Executive Team resolve its retention prob. ( appear to limit potential of VPs in areas such as engagement & determination as argued by Fern&ez-Araoz, 2014) 4) Inter-personal conflict: Udofia’s confrontational mgmt style is abrasive, makes f/b hard to listen to, & work unsatisfying; prob as Udofia is an imp socializing agent & imp impact on retention & perf of new recruits. Psychological contract of employment (Rousseau, 2004) wen emps “revise” original contract after perceiving it to be violated. Initially encouraged by both extrinsic & intrinsic rewards (e.g., generous stock options; opportunity to grow a business), perceived more open-ended relational contract while actual experiences opposite & prompted m to view ir employment more in transactional terms (e.g., little intrinsic reward for job & feelings of attachment only for cashing in on lucrative stock options or an eventual IPO). VPs felt unwilling to leave until able to cash in on stock options which a minimum vesting period (i.e., minimum time period before being able to be exercised). revised “transactional” view of ir responsibilities meant y nt very motivated to contribte in ways expected. Seeing disconnect with ir own expectations, Udofia & Stephen br&ed se VPs as having perf probs & fired m? VPs stay: accept contradiction bw being h&s-on, owner operators on one h&, & being conformists & deferring all decision making to executive team doesnt necessarily mean y are willing to become “psychologically involved”. who stay simply dev transactional attachment & stay for instrumental reasons (e.g., great pay, stock options, etc). transactional mindset ppl probatic in future given objectives to dev entrepreneurial minded emps. Alternatively, se stayers gain confidence of Udofia & Stephen, leading to more autonomy in tasks, opportunities to contribte (competence) & feel a part of something (relatedness), hence motivation Suggestions: Short run: 1) Internal dev: fil positions thru special projects & fast-track programs (internl grooming) 2) More realistic job previews among external recruits & focus on knwlg & skills or trainability of new hires (e.g., industry experience nt be nearly as imp as “potential” as defined by Fern&ez-Araoz, 2014). help clear “toxic” env or reputation & help m attract quality hires 3) Replace abrasive with supportive supervision: for Udofia. learn display more supportiveness & trust in skills/judgement, in turn VPs more valued feel. Or Udofia’s role in mentoring lessened. 4)Decentralize decision-making: stop micro-managing senior mngers, greater autonomy & authority to seniors, achieved in a manner consistent with aspirations of BTG executive team by holding senior mgmt accountable for outcomes now valued by m. senior mgmt team cannt ultimately create value for BTG if it doesn’t power & influence to do so. Long run: 1) Change culture: culture of hiding mistakes & denial of responsibility leading to attrition. Strengn: by exec team modeling approp behaviours consistent with values (eg: listen to senior mgrs so learning from exp more than conformity, dey can take interpersonal risks w/o blame, decision making. BTG ~100 superstores, still privately owned & aspires to double in size thru organic & new store growth over next 4 years

W8 Ibarra, H., Ely, R., &Kolb, D. (2013). Women rising: unseen barriers: Becoming leader: internalizing a leadership identity & dev a sense of purpose. Ppl become leaders iteratively: y er increasingly challenging roles, learn from mentors, experiment new beahviours. If perf affirmed, y repeat process. Research shows: process difficult for women coz of subtle biases (assertive behavior in men considered aggressive in women & denigrated than rewarded). Actions: educate men n women abt 2nd gen gender bias, create safe ‘identity workspaces’ to support transitions to bigger roles, anchor women’s dev efforts in a sense of leadership purpose than in hw women r perceived. Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2010) CEO succession planning: Finally at center stage of boardroom: Y outsiders: Outside succession = Change = Better perf (bolder changes can deviate from core competencies. Insiders hav underst&ing of core comp n deep root of firm), Inside c&idates are just nt that exciting (BOD didn’t recognize coz of constrints of internal c&idate’s current role), Underprepared boards & ir reliance on head hunters Consequences of outsiders n insiders: Perf consequences for firm(outsiders inferior to post sucesion perf than insiders, outsiders accompanied by t/o of or top mgmt, relay sucessions outperform non-relay- ceo prior learning opportunity n hence firm can use evals to promote n reduce post succ perf risk. After 3 yrs, bold changes of outsiders detrimental to firm than insiders), Conseq for outside CEOs (greater career risk hence greater compensation n severance packages, thus a vicious circle. Mgng succession planning process: Dev deep pipeline of exec talent, Set up effective nominating & search committee, Get incumbent CEO on board wid succession planning Kravitz, D.A. (2011). Can we take guesswork out of diversity practice selection?: Imp: Equal opportunity for all, Improved corporate image, Improved productivity Diversity practices 3 conceptual traditions: Institutional ory: div practs use org structures/processes to est responsibilities (eg: Affirmative Action Plan (AAP), Diversity Staff, Diversity Council/Committee), Social network analysis: integration of underrepresented grp members into org (Mentoring, Networking Programs), Social psychological ories: practices like diversity training & evaluation (f/b) designed to educate mngers about psychological bases of stereotyping. Institutionalized model best, social psychological poor. presence of a diversity committee & staff increased representation of all three “minority” groups studied, AAPs increased representation of White Women & Black Men. Institutional/responsibility structures (AAP, diversity staff & committee) increased impact of or practices. Conclusion: To improve diversity, recommend practices such as an AAP, diversity staff, & a diversity council as se assign responsibility for effect; Recommends use of targeted recruitment, work-family accommodations, & inclusion of minority groups in top mgmt team Santora, J. (2004). Passing baton: Does CEO relay succession work best?: Types of replacements Insiders (Horse Race, Relay Succession), Outsiders (Skills & Training, Org conditions/Enval factors, Social- political decisions); Hyposis: 1)More internal c&idates- Lower chance of relay succession approach, 2)Good pre-succession perf-Higher chance of relay 3) High Strategic Instability in firm - lower chance of relay 4) High industry instability- Lower chance of relay; Relay succession improve firm perf if: 5) co’s pre-succession perf poor, 6) Industry instability post succession high, 7) Strategic instability in firm high. 1,2,6,7 proved. Relay imp post succession perf if: high ind & strategic instability. Companies shud put a premium on putting CEOs-in-waiting thru an extensive grooming process. GE: mes for external hire: Specify job (KSAO’s & duties & responsibilities from video; or competency profiles as a more fluid alternative as empized by Fern&ez-Araoz et al., 2009), Target your recruitment message to identify ppl interested in position & most likely to meet your job requirements; message encourage qualified & discourage unqualified, Use selection tools that validly & reliably assess both person-job & person-organization fit & which provide a realistic preview of job, Once on-board, provide on-going support & socialization to ensure each parties’ expectations continue to be met, Review reasons for your department’s lack of preparedness for deving talent & remedy situation so that you can capitalize on “insider” advantage next time around GE’s Integrated HR System: Recruitment: Cultural Fit (Driven competitors, Team players, Mobile), Focused Targets (Night students/Mid-West, Ex-Military officers, MBA rebounds), Strategic Recruiting (Core globalization goal, Competitively targeted (e.g., Siemens), “Dev reputation” is a mngd asset), Dev: Intensive Personal Dev (EMS Reviews (open dialogue, honest f/b, explicit plans)), Disciplined Organizational Dev (Session C (linked to strategic priorities; mngers held accountable)), Powerful Informal Processes (Identify & follow talent, Personal mentoring), Tracking/Deployment: Corporate Talent Inventory & Deployment Process (Corporate Talent Inventory, Session C transparency, Talent is corporate resource (GE owns, businesses rent)), Informal Tracking Network (Entry level intern rotation, Top mgmt scanning, Network of EMS specialists), Training:Assimilation/Acculturation Role(New recruit programs,Executives as faculty, “Common coffee pot”), Knwlg, Skill Dev( Specialized entry level programs; Career staged dev courses), Organization Dev Role(Programs linked to strategic positions, Project based program components), Core HR Value (Meritocracy), Reward: (Clear St&ards, Objectives, Metrics(Metrics change with priorities, Nine Block Summary (perf & values; capability & promotability), Leveraged Recognition, Reward (Options to top 20%, VP Potential to EDC course, Showcase top Performers (Boca Raton), Bottom Performers Removed (Vitality Curve (20-70-10)) Jeff Inmelt be CEO if he a woman: Cant rule out powerful yet subtle effects of 2nd Generation Gender Bias: (Lack of female leaders limits role models, mentorship & sponsorship opportunities, Internal labour markets can be “segregated” by gender with men more likely in career enhancing sales/operations roles & women in dead end staff roles, Prestigious international assignments assume a “trailing spouse” with secondary career aspirations, Masculine traits (decisive, assertive, independent) are commonly associated with leadership while feminine traits (caring, cooperative) are associated with a support role which leads to a double bind (e.g., competence-likability trade-off)) Recommendations to Inmelt: Vitality Curve: Finer gradations for middle 70%?, Rewards less leveraged on top 20%?, we rank at all? Recruitment: Target marketing focused MBA’s?, Improve international recruitment efforts by offering more leadership dev tracks outside America? Executive B&s: Introduce more status differences in PL b&s in response to reward concerns of mngers in more hierarchical business cultures Success Factors Effective Talent Mgmt: Integrated, mutually supportive system, Belief that talent is a core strategic resource, HR professionals are respected partners, Linked to core value of meritocracy, Line mngers responsible & accountable for ppl dev.

W9 Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R.K., & Joo, H. (2012) Delivering effective perf f/b: strengths based approach: 1. Building up vs. breaking down 2. traditional weaknesses-based approach to f/b: assumption is that, absent such communication, emps will nt improve ir perf. That’s true bt several studies concluded that such f/b -ve consequences. Eg: emp dissatisfaction, defensive reactions, a decreased desire to improve ind perf, & less actual improvement. Perceived as inaccurate, & is unlikely to be accepted by person. 3. superior strengths-based approach to f/b: identify ir emps’ strengths - exceptional job perf, knwlg,skills, & talents; provide +ve f/b; finally, ask m to maintain or improve ir behaviors or results by thru use of ir strengths. Benefits: enhances ind well-being & engagement, less t/o, more biz unit perf, etc. However, execution is key (too vague f/b can reduce benefits) 4. Research-based recommendations for implementing approach: 1) Adopt strengths-based approach as primary means of providing f/b 2) Closely link any -ve f/b to emps’ knwlg & skills (changeable) than talents 3) Adopt a strengths-based approach to managing emps’ talent weaknesses (help emp imp on desired talents, Create a support system, show m dat strongest talents can compensate for talent weaknesses, help emp work with partners who possess talents, Re-design jobs) 4) Make sure person providing f/b is familiar with emp & emp’s job requirements 5) Choose an appropriate setting wen giving f/b 6) Deliver f/b in a considerate manner 7) Provide f/b ie specific & accurate 8) Tie f/b to imp consequences at various levels thruout org 9) Follow up(specific directions by including a dev plan & checking up on any progress). 5. Use 9 principles at play 6. Conclusion Latham, G. (2004) motivational benefits of goal-setting: Goal-setting ory: underlying premise is that one’s conscious goals affect what one achieves. Having a specific goal improves perf. Ppl wid specific hard goals ( “stretch”goals) perform better than those with vague goals. goal is a st&ard for assessing one’s satisfaction. Goal-setting instilled purpose,challenge, & meaning into task. Psychological outcomes of setting & attaining high goals like enhanced task interest, pride in perf,sense of personal effectiveness, many practical benefit (high pay, etc). W/o goal: no external referent for evaluation. Causal Mechanisms: divert attention toward goal-relevant activities, energize ppl, affect persistence, motivate ppl to use knwldg to attain goal. Conditions for Effectiveness: 1) person ability & knwlg to attain goal 2) goal commitment- Making goal public enhances commitment, leader is supportive create “dem& characteristics” (leader’s confidence keep), leader’s vision inspires, Monetary incentives 3) f/b on ir progress 4) complex tasks mitigate normally +ve effects of setting a specific high goal- soln like training, learning, subset goals, 5) situational constraints (leader help in giving resources n removing obstacles) Goal-Setting on Complex Jobs: perf who received monetary bonus = who received praise. Only in complex cases (nt in cases whr goal difficulty is constant), wen working smarter than harder, wen knwlg than effort (motivation) reqd, participation in decision-making leads to higher perf if it increases probability of finding an appropriate strat for performing task, & if it increases confidence of ppl that strat can be implemented effectively. Self-Mgmt; Downside of ory: Ppl try too hard for quantity than quality or vice versa, 2 or more goals- goal conflict in absence of emp participation, emp exhaustion. knwlg-based firms where emp lack info specific high learning set than outcome goals, in punitive env- fudge figures (hence ethical climates), If goal failure judged severely, emp take less risks Moss, S. & Sanchez, J. (2004) Are your emps avoiding you? Mngerial strat for closing f/b gap: F/b gap from emp or mngers esp in case of poor emp perf; learning- detection & correction of error. F/b gap bcoz of sense of discomfort or a lack of tolerance for poor perf & accoing emotionally charged reactions. F/b-Avoiding Behavior (FAB): Dodging F/b Bullet: costs associated seeking f/b outweigh obvious benefits; nt to seek f/b:potentially exposes an emp to various threats to her public reputation & private self-esteem. Emp influences (costs of fs(seeking)b like threat to self-esteem, fab temptations like maintaining consistency, personal factors encouraging fab like fear of –ve evals), mngerial influences (zero-tolerant mnger, micromnger (physically close to emp bt psychologically distant), conflict avoider ppl). Strat for Closing F/b Gap: Underst& All Potential Causes of Poor perf (attribtion training, seek accounts), Mng Physical & Psychological Distance (dist mgmt), Engage in Active Listening, Give Effective, Non-Threatening F/b (task/motivational level, private (emp discomfort), well-timed, DASR (Describe, Acknwlg, Specify, & Reaffirm), Dev a "Learning" Mindset)

McCarthy, J. (2002) Does having a proactive personality lead to career success?: being proactive is key to career progression. several factors connect a proactive personality to career success. 4 key characteristics thought to strongly influence career success. se included three behaviors (i.e., displaying "voice" or speaking up, being innovative, & exhibiting career initiative) & one cognitive variable (displaying political knwlg of organization). proactive personality nt directly connected to career progress. Instead, a proactive personality appears to drive career success indirectly thru a variety of intervening processes & behaviors. Specifically, respondents with proactive personalities more likely to exhibit innovation (e.g., actively seeking out change & offering sols), demonstrate political acumen in ir organizations, & take initiative to dev ir own careers (e.g., by seeking out career-oriented f/b). As strength of se behavioral tendencies increased, so too did likelihood that respondents experienced a significant & satisfying level of career progression. Elise Smart: Perf appraisal: practice of measuring, evaluating & communicating perf related info to inds. 2 purposes: Support Emp Dev (Future oriented, Evaluator as facilitator, Absolute st&ard), Support Reward Allocation Decisions (Past oriented, Evaluator as judge, Absolute or relative st&ard with latter for competitive processes). Effective PA sys: 1) measure perf in ways- valid (job-related) (Perf measures representative of major job functions or outcomes indicative of success on job), reliable (verifiable) (2 evaluators using same measures reach same conclusions about ind’s perf), controllable (Inds are being assessed on criteria that are within ir ability to influence). 2) Evaluate perf- against st&ards (nt ors) (st&ards- Underst&able, Voluntarily accepted, Realistic to achieve), view to underst&ing “drivers” of behaviour (Consider:Ability, Motivation, Resources/Support, Role clarity. Be mindful of attribtion biases) 3) communicate (Regularly, In private, without interruptions, To encourage receptivity (e.g., D.A.S.R. or strenghs based approach), To help emps reach ir own conclusions, proactively (e.g., an action plan to address probs, build strengths, etc.). Elise smart: Ketchum’s Perf Prob: Ability (Lack of aptitude for working independently on unstructured task?, Reduced stamina due to new parental responsibilities?, Lack of knwlg/skill with SWOT analysis, report writing?), Resources (Lack of coop from IT & tech centre staff?), Role Clarity (More appropriate to set multiple sub-goals/learning goals?, Smart been more directional given what she knew about evolving priorities for “cost effectiveness” at Millennium?), Motivation (Stretch goals are motivational as long as ind knwlg & skills, is committed to goal, gets appropriate f/b & re are no situational constraints) Narrowing F/b Gap- Costs of FSB exceeds benefits( Ketchum mngerial aspirations & doesn’t want to appear weak, incompetent or unable to work independently) FAB temptations (avoiding Smart to “buy time” to finish project), Elise Smart contribted to f/b gap by(Acting like a conflict avoider & failing to give timely f/b, Acting like a zero-tolerant mnger & showing little sensitivity/consideration to Ketchum’s situation), Elise Smart reduced f/b gap by encouraging more of a learning mindset with Ketchum. Rating to Darlene Ketchum: Options: Rate as “excellent” by glossing over perf deficiency &/or altering “deliverables” for 2 support centre issue, “satisfactory” by retroactively changing stretch goal so no longer a major goal bt a series of minor learning goals, Delay review due to maternity leave, Provide “needs improvement” rating. Excellent: +ve: Easiest “short term” sol, Consistent with earlier reviews by Smart’s VP who also supervised Ketchum, Minimizes confrontation with Ketchum, Doesn’t de-motivate Ketchum who is nt a poor emp just over her head with a stretch goal that might better been structured as a learning goal. -ve: Ignores Ketchum’s perf prob & need for an action plan to address it, Contrary to Smart’s values & undermines her integrity as a c&id, open, firm bt fair supervisor, Puts all blame on Smart who took a chance by sponsoring Ketchum, Undermines integrity of perf-reward linkage in appraisal process by creating an unjustified exception for Ketchum. Needs imp rating: Is “most likely for Smart given her style & reputation, Long term interests of Ketchum & Millenium Corp. served by addressing a potential perf deficiency relevant to her career interests in a mngerial position, Preservers integrity of perf appraisal process, Justified on basis of “fairness” given that Ketchum had all to gain by arrangement if she succeeded & while Smart’s role nt optimal neir it incompetent, Recommendation shares blame bw Ketchum (surfacing her perf prob) & Smart (taking hit in her own appraisal rating), teaching both to be more proactive in seeking f/b & lowering anticipated risk of stretch goals by structuring m as sub-goals or learning goals where appropriate. Deliver news: Primary objective unearth “cause” of perf prob & respond with appropriate action, Using concrete examples &/or script like D.A.S.R. to identify “how” & “in what way” Ketchum’s perf fell short of expectations, Invite Ketchum to shed light on why she didn’t achieve her goal, Dev a plan in consultation with Ketchum based on what heard, Encourage self-reflection on career path in mgmt if Ketchum lacks aptitude, talent or interest for this type of work, Structure future stretch goals as learning or sub- goals until knwlg/skills of Ketchum improves; or her work with ppl that can compensate for knwlg, skills she needs to dev. Conclusions: Beware f/b gap & what you need to do as a mnger to help close it with your emps, Recognize that specific, hard goals are nt always best (consider learning or sub goals where appropriate), Recognize re are often multiple causes to perf probs (ability, motivation, support/resources, direction/role clarity) & creating a climate of openness among emps- underst&ing se causes & fashioning an appropriate sol, Overall trust in integrity & fairness of perf appraisal process is built by consistent treatment, one emp at a time

W9 Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R.K. (2013) What monetary rewards can &cannt do: most powerful factors aff emp motivation & perf, emp to accept job offers, allow org to attract & retain. higher levels of pay & better pay-perf alignment valued by top performers. Why: help meet basic needs (food, shelter) & higher-level needs (belonging to a group, receiving respect from ors, achieving mastery in one’s work), purce status symbols such as bigger houses. Monetary cant do: 1) do nt improve emp’ job-relevant knwlg, skills, & abilities (KSAs) unless invested in training n dev. Perf determined by both motivation & KSAs 2) do nt necessarily improve quality of jobs (job enrichment- personal meaning like autonomy, etc). 3) unintentionally encouraging unethical & counterproductive emp behaviors. Bst practices: Define & measure perf accurately, Make rewards contingent on perf (consider cultural norms, consider indism-collectivism), Reward emps in a timely manner, Maintain justice in reward system, Use rewards- monetary & nonmonetary Campbell, D.J., Campbell, K.M., & Chia, H.B. (1998) Merit pay, perf appraisal, & ind motivation: Probs with merit pay: measurement issues (Low validity of supervisory ratings, Work dependencies among inds, Merit pay seems limited to

only some situations), perf appraisal (PA) f/b & acceptance issues (Disagreement with evaluation, Supervisors unskilled in giving f/b, Conflicting f/b objectives, Dissatisfaction with PA still consistently reported), reward desirability issues (Typical merit increase too small, Difficult to determine adequate percentage, Reluctance to increase expenditures, Unfairness of rewarding relative perf), system “noise” issues (Too great a time lapse time, Inconsistencies among reward systems, Factors or than perf affect merit, Effective implementation of sols difficult ), unintended consequences (Focus is only on merit-related activities, Loss of satisfaction & intrinsic motivation, No hard evidence supports a loosely coupled approach) Prob of Attribtion: Differential Perf Attribtions: If a supervisor infers that high (or low) perf is due to effort, he typically rates that perf higher (or lower) than if he infers same perf is due to ability. Actor(emp)-Observer (evaluator) Effects: actors highly conscious of env constraints & see se constraints as significant determinants of ir actions. Observers are less knwlgable about & less sensitive to situational dem&s. y tend to see personal characteristics as cause. Self-Serving Bias: attribte +ve outcomes to ir own effort & ability & attribte -ve to circumstances & ors’ actions A Work-Unit Based Alternative: attractiveness lies in (1) potential to stimulate high perf 2) transparent equity. Perf Indicators (PIs) & Work Group Evals: perf ratios (measures of a work unit’s key outputs in relation to critical inputs).created thru analysis of unit’s goals, functional process, products selected thru 1) measure’s imp& centrality, 2) cost & effort reqd, 3) measure’s “cycle” time (i.e., time needed for a change to register on measure), (4) its sensitivity to small changes, & (5) its relative subjectivity. Benefits (opp of all probs of merit pay) Probs: Non-Representative Ind Perf, Work Unit Level Probs (grp interdependencies). Transitioning to Grp Perf Mgmt (create gud PIs) Weyhrauch, W.S., & Culbertson, S.S. (2009) Creating perf incentive system: Can risk, distortion, & manipulation be succ balanced?: Risk includes controllable risk, to which an emp can react & adapt, & uncontrollable risk or noise, to which an emp no opportunity to react. Ideal perf indicators are high in controllable risk bt low in noise; Distortion to extent to which a perf indicator incorrectly empizes certain aspects of perf; indicators give appropriate weight to various perf facets; manipulation- perf indicator manipulated by emp to improve ir “perf. Measure to low manipulation. Considered “state of industry”, org scope (type of indicators used. Eg: unit/dept level). measures that account for controllable risk while avoiding probs of noise, distortion, & manipulation get most empis in incentive systems. additional measures used to balance weaknesses in a measure used to determine an emp’s primary bonus. if a primary measure didn’t encourage coop, a secondary measure that did lead to a relatively larger secondary bonus Santora, J., & Esposito, M. (2010) psychology of defined benefit pension plans?: more likely emps to view pension plan as a form of control (i.e., attempt to penalize emps for quitting versus a way to reward trusted, loyal emps), more -ve impact be on emp outcomes. Bt wen emps saw pensions as more relational in nature (trust, loyalty, support coming from firm) impact on work effort, job perf, & citizenship +ve. Merit of a Points-based Merit System at Edwards School of Business: Rewards. 3 types- Intrinsic(value or meaning one derives from work), extrinsic non-monetary (job sec, etc), extrinsic monetary. 2 emp behaviors that helps org- Membership (attraction, retention), job perf (in-role perf (JD roles), extra-role perf). More comprehensive rewards more potential for comprehensive emp bahviours. (Simple reward structures: bilnds to go, enron; Comprehensive: WJ, Microsoft, GE). Underst& behavioral consequences of reward strat. ESB: Job based pay system (asst, associate, full), salary based (perf levels, exp, merit). Goals of effective P-F-P: Attract & retain talent, motivate, control labor costs. Union & Merit Pay: Unions resist merit pay as it inc competition & division than coop n solidarity. Prefer seniority based incentives (as less arbitrary than an incentive that relies on subjective assessments of merit) Increased merit money: +ve: greater coverage across all faculty inc motivational potential, Rolled into base pay so imp salary progression & retention. –ve: Creates potential for “entitlement” mentality as system reward average & even below average perf. Departmental Allocation: +ve: Half of merit allocation here as departments idiosyncratic norms for publishing or teaching as well as rankings of journal quality. –ve: High & low performing departments get same allocation (though CollegeReviewCommite & President RC can rectify). Department vs. Department Head: +ve: Reduced favoritism & more transparency relative to older method under Dept Head –ve: Time commitment for ind faculty & potential conflict bw tenured & untenured colleagues. PBA vs JBA: PBA- transparent & objective & seen as fairer (PJ); however inflexible (e.g., exceptions nt easily dealt with; changes hard to make once PBA ested); & doesn’t really deal with quality-quantity tradeoff opening it up to be “gamed”. JBA- merit based on quality & WIP bt its subjectivity risks favoritism & social politics if Dept Head is untrustworthy. ESB Prevent Gaming: Checks & balances at 3 levels of review committee (department, college, university) where increments nt be allocated, Requirement for min points in each category ensures focus on research, teaching & service to university, Qualifiers been built in to adjust for quality, Periodic reviews for unintentional consequences. Pitfalls of Motivating Academics with Money: According to SDT, extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation of academics (e.g., Dr. Pohler & Excalibur case competition), bt nt if reduction in autonomy need is offset by satisfaction of competence need (recall how interpersonal env affects this tradeoff), Are extrinsic rewards really effective for higher level cognitive tasks? Long Term Implications: Consistent with goal setting, faculty will focus effort & prioritize time allocation toward rewarded activities & away from unrewarded activities, need to be monitored as it influence learning culture of certain stakeholders (e.g., students & case competitions) Non-Monetary Incentives: Instead of money, faculty appreciate: Teaching release, Provision of research funds or endowments, Access to professional dev opportunities, Public recognition of achievements Internal Alignment of PBA with Broader Org Strat: Tie in of PBA with overall strat of ESB & U of S is imp bt how much of this is done?, Is PBA explicitly linked with AACSB accreditation or with ESB focus on improving research culture?, Is PBA linked with st&ards empized for tenure or promotion?, Are or HR practices working toger with PBA to support teacher-scholar model at ESB & UofS?

W10 Brockner, J., Higgins, E.T., & Low, M.B. (2004) Regulatory focus ory & entrepreneurial process: Regulatory focus ory delineates how ppl engage in self-regulation, process of bringing oneself into alignment with one’s st&ards & goals. Self regulation/reg focus: promotion-focused, ppl’s growth & advancement needs motivate m to try to bring mselves into alignment with ir ideal selves (based on ir dreams & aspirations), reby heightening salience of potential gains to be attained (felt presence of +ve outcomes). Wen prevention-focused, ppl’s security & safety needs prompt m to attempt to bring mselves into alignment with ir ought selves (based on ir sense of duty & responsibility), reby increasing salience of potential losses to be avoided (felt absence of -ve outcomes). Ppl successful in ir self-regulatory efforts depends on- 1)resources, as supplied by mselves (e.g., knwlg, skills, & abilities) & envs (e.g., technology), (2) motivation, (3) strat. Success: success venture is greater wen needs of more relevant stakeholders are met for longer periods of time (needs met in ways that enhanced org resources). Ealry-Idea (Promotion focus), screening (prevention), resource procurement (both), prove idea viability, n prove biz model. Nxt stage (rollout stage- both focuses) (prod process, funding, grow emp), Maturity, renewal n growth/decline. Regulatory focus & responses to sunk costs. Promotion pride & prevention pride. (winning, or ensuring a hit) or nt winning, or making an error of omission). motivational intensity: promotion focus maintained or even increased by success (e.g., high-intensity ‘‘joy’’) bt reduced by failure (e.g., low-intensity ‘‘discouragement’’). prevention focus maintained or even increased by failure (e.g., high-intensity ‘‘worry’’) bt reduced by success (e.g., low-intensity ‘‘relaxed’’). asymmetrical effects of success & failure for promotion & prevention apply to anticipated & actual success & failure. 1) Selection: ppl depending on regulatory focus orientations 2) creating organizational conditions that influence its members’ regulatory focus orientations. Rhetoric of authorities focuses on ideals- more org promotion focus; Rhetoric focuses on responsibilities- prevention. Difft Factors affect regulatory focus strength & regulatory focus pride. antecedents of regulatory focus strength nt common with those of regulatory focus pride. Strength is measured by how quickly ppl can make regulatory focus judgments. Dispositional, org, Situational factors affect reg focus. entrepreneurial success requires a judicious combination of promotion- & prevention-focused activities

Wyld, D. (2011) Nature plus nurture: Do teenage activities predict entrepreneurial success?: unconditional & conditional intentions; big five” personality traits (extroversion (+), conscientiousness (+), openness(+), agreeableness(-), & neuroticism(-);personalities associated with ir propensity to engage in entrepreneurial behaviors, both in ir teenage years & later; Considering both person & early entrepreneurship-related experiences, y better explain y ppl become entrepreneurs. imp of nurturing entrepreneurs during teenage yrs Jaskiewicz, Luchak, Oh & Chlosta (2014): big 5 personality types + regulatory focus ory leads to a)Employment Intention (EmI) b) Entrepreneurial Intention (EI) (early stage entrepreneur) c) Entrepreneurial Status (ES) (late stage entrepreneur); Brockner et al (2004) If status implies more success than an intention, authors predict promotion & prevention focus higher for ES than EI Jaskiewicz et al (2014) (EmI prefer safety of status quo so EmI>EI,ES for prevention focus; Real risk of loss rises as progress from idea to rollout stage: EI>ES; Promotion focused look for opportunity beyond status quo: Emi<EI,ES; ES constrains options as values exploitation over exploration: EI>ES); Jaskiewicz et al (2014): Personality effects on entrepreneurial career choice are indirect thru motivation as conceptualized by RFT, Those intending employment careers are relatively more prevention than promotion focused, Those intending or having entrepreneurial careers relatively more promotion than prevention focus, with level of each declining as one moves toward later stages of entrepreneurship; Challenges of Growth (Greiner, HBR, 1998): Creativity (Leadership: Woodell mngs operations more efficiently; Knight joins full-time, centralizes operations & becomes CEO), Direction (Autonomy: Knight resists growing need for autonomy by attempting to professionalize w dress code; Knight reneges on equity agreement with top team), Delegation (Control: Strasser markets product too early; Hayes buys factory (both without Knight’s approval), Coordination (Red-Tape- Failure to see Reebok as competition), Collaboration (???). Conclusions: If personality traits predict entrepreneurial activity it is only indirectly thru a mediating motivational mechanism like regulatory focus ory, Successful founders (or founding teams) likely capacity to use a promotion &/or prevention focus depending on stage of entrepreneurial process, Decisions that provide sols to early probs can set organizations up for crises & create weaknesses later on (see Greiner, 1998), Founders avoid 51-49 equity splits as y need “equity slack” to dilute ir stake later on in order to attract human & financial resources without losing control of co, A founder interested in “control” avoid going public until s/he can build a more solid bargaining position vis-a-vis structure of IPO. Knight King: Founding of Nike: Nike’s success. Mgng own career: +ve: Showed foresight Launching business in industry where had deep knwlg & relationships, recognized opportunity in early set backs where ors did nt (e.g., Onitsuka breach), displayed innovation in early marketing methods (e.g., pyramid marketing plan). Improve: Did Knight wait too long to join Nike full-time?, Did Knight leverage his CPA training as fully as possible? Mgng biz partnerships: +ve: Partnership with Onitsuka secures distribtion rights & keeps fixed costs low, Financing with Nissho Iwai avoids equity dilution, Shifted from outsourcing production to in-house sols wen had resources Improve: Partnership with Onitsuka created a dependence that eventually threatened Nike with takeover & created a formidable competitor to its own br& Top Mgmt: Ownership, rewards: +ve 49% to Bowerman attracts key player & estes line of authority, Attract emps who are intrinsically motivated to work for Nike (e.g., Johnson) Improve: 51/49 split makes it harder to dilute equity to keep/attract key emps (e.g., Jeff Johnson) or secure financing; Recruitment +ve: Recruitment of athletes created strong culture of shared experience around value of teamwork Improve: Track athletes crowd out different perspectives (e.g., aerobic shoe market); Role Assignment: +ve: Knight gives lots of autonomy in decision making, Knight is open to market feedbacl (e.g., Nike instead of Dimension six) Improve: Lack of control & oversight of key ppl, Can act arbitrarily. Going public: +ve: For venture (Get financing, Reputation effect (i.e., is a sign of prestige), Scrutiny of investment analysts & media disciplining effect on co), For founder (IPO offers founder chance to liquidate equity stake & cash out on hard work) –ve: Venture (Fishbowl of public market means leadership is under intense scrutiny, Legal, accounting & SEC compliance costs can be onerous) Founder (Public ownership threatens founder’s control (if founder does nt enough equity to constitute a majority vote). Knight “personality profile” entrepreneur: Open to experience (+)Conceived idea “Can Japanese sports shoes do to German sports shoes what Japanese cameras did to German cameras”, Extraversion (+)(Vast network of inter-personal relationships thru supply chain (e.g., consumers of athletic shoes, suppliers, financiers)), Conscientious (+) Executes on long-term vision to overtake Adidas in U.S. market), Agreeable (-) (Limits competition thru sole distribtor contracts, 1966-72 Files lawsuit against Onitsuka for breach of contract), Neuroticism (-) (Comfortable with $650K line of credit with Nissho Iwai & placing order for 10K shoes with Nippon Rubber Factory), Proactive (+) (Foresaw need & put a plan in motion to est a new trademark (Nike Cortez) to compete directly against Onitsuka (Tiger Cortez)). Promotion Focus: Idea (Recognizes opportunity to compete against Adidas on quality for lower cost in U.S. market), Screening (-ve: Decides in one hour on 51-49 equity split with Coach Bowerman), Procuring (“Futures program” novel, shifting financial risk of production to large retailers in exchange for discounts & delivery guarantees), Rollout (Convinces Jeff Johnson to stay & est presence on east coast w vague promise of future ownership) Prevention focus: Idea(-ve: Delays working full-time with BRS (accountant & business instructor)), screening (Discusses potential market for Tiger Br& shoes with Coach Bowerman), Procuring (Del Hayes provides specialized expertise to acquire $200K of private financing), Rollout (Hires Bob Woodell to h&le operating & bookkeeping probs in early years of business)

W11 Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail: Chnge Mgmt takes time. No skipping of steps (it only creates illusion of speed n never satisfying result). 8 steps to t/f org: 1) Estb a sense of urgency (examining mkt n competitive realities, identifying n discussing crises, potential crises or major opportunities) 2) Forming a powerful guiding coalition (assembling a grp wid enough power to lead chnge effort, encouraging grp to work toger as team) 3) creating a vision (to help direct chng eff, dev strat for achieving vision) 4) comm vision (using every vehicle possible to comm new vision n strat, teaching new behaviours by example of guiding coalition) 5) empowering ors to act on vision (getting rid of obstacles to chnge, changing systems or structures that seriously undermine vision, encour risk taking n nontraditional ideas, activities, actions) 6)Planing for n creating short term wins (planning for visible perf impr, creating impr, recognizing n rewarding emp in impr) 7) consolidating impr n producing still more change (using increased credibility to chng systems, structures, policies that don’t fit vision; hiring, promoting, dev emp who can implement vision; reinvigorating process wid new projects, mes, chng agents) 8) Institutionalizing new approaches (articulating connections bw new behaviors n corporate success; dev means to ensure leadership dev n sucession) Katzenbach, J., Steffen, I., & Kronley, C. (2012) Cultural change that sticks: Start wid what’s already working. Four seasons, apple, Microsoft, southwest airlines- used 5 principles: 1)Mgn strat n culture (strat imposed on culture wil nt work. Culture trumps strat every time. Culture shud match n support strat) 2) focus on a few critical shifts in behavior 3) Honor strengths of existing culture 4) Integrate formal n informal interventions (eg google- informal)- 2 goals: reach ppl at emotional level, tap rational self interest 5) measure & monitor cultural evolution: 4 focus areas: biz perf, critical behaviours, milestones, underlying beliefs, feelings, mindsets. Coherence bw culture, strat, perf priorities

Coget, J. (2010) Perf orientation or learning orientation: Which helps salesppl better adapt to organizational change? Lewin-Schein ory (Perf takes an S curev)of change predicts that wen ppl begin adapting to change, y need to unfreeze ir habits & learn new ones. This learning effort takes energy away from job, which results in diminished perf. Predicts that next two stages of change after unfreezing are moving—hopefully upwards—& n refreezing. Salesppl whose perf dropped most initially later recover & perform at highest level. At same time, those whose perf dropped least initially are ones who recover at most modest level. perf orientation are motivated to achieve a +ve evaluation of ir current perf by ors, whereas ppl with a learning orientation are motivated to improve ir abilities Salesppl with a learning orientation are more likely to embrace change fully & will invest more of ir time to master new software suite. Perf oriented ppl opposite. Opening Books for Change at Norwest Labs: enval & agricultural testing industries. Norwest’s key success factors: This industry is highly competitive & saturated; testing become an efficiency based service business with customers valuing cost-efficient provision of reliable testing services. key success factors for Norwest are: high quality, reliable testing; short turn-around times; keeping costs low (customers appear price sensitive) Jean Crépin’s concerns & goals for Norwest: Crépin wants emps to think more like business owners (e.g., scientists currently don’t take business consequences into account wen performing ir jobs) so he can be freed up from day-to-day operational decisions & focus more on strategic needs of business (e.g., like deving future sources of revenue with impending de-regulation on horizon); this shift in focus implies more de-centralized decision-making authority for emps. Related to above, revenue is expected to shrink & expense are too high bt emps dont’ see relationship or urgency in need to contain costs. Crépin appears genuine in his interest in sharing wealth of Norwest with his emps. gain-sharing: Gain-sharing potential to solve all of Crépin’s concerns/goals (i.e., thinking like business owners; containing costs; sharing wealth). Crépin took several actions prior to implementing gain-sharing; se included (1) hiring consultants to diagnose readiness of Norwest for gain-sharing; (2) esting a centralized corporate services structure; (3) reading gain-sharing articles; (4) arranging for a staff meeting to introduce idea of gain-sharing to emps. Info revealed in each of se actions suggests Crépin be acting a little pre-maturely with gain-sharing initiative: (1) consultants readiness report indicated several barriers to change like low trust, poor communication, uncertainty/fear among emps; low morale, perceptions of Crépin as arbitrary that need to be addressed before initiating change; (2) estment of centralized services created conflict (e.g., general mngers at labs upset because y lost independence; some emps promoted into new jobs that y nt prepared to accept responsibility for); it pre-mature to redesign organizational structure without ensuring emps had necessary skills to perform new roles expected of m; (3) Crépin appears to deved a romanticized ntion that gain-sharing cure to his probs which pushed him down this route a little prematurely; (4) Crépin arranged a staff meeting on gain-sharing before even having met with Jack Stack from SRC,before even discussing matter with senior mngers; Crépin did nt even attend initial staff meeting where gain-sharing being discussed. As suggested by Kotter (1995), re no widespread sense of urgency & no significant coalition of support in place to run with gain-sharing idea (e.g., most mngers & emps didn’t recognize threat de-regulation posed; re minimal senior mgmt support to lead change as suggested by 2.5 out of 5 rating from consultant’s on preparedness of senior mgmt to lead change); Also, gain-sharing had been implemented before imp obstacles had been addressed or removed (e.g., emp trust still low & emps had nt yet shown signs of accepting more responsibility for acting more business-like). Using perspectives of Kotter (1995) & Katzenbach, Steffen & Kronley (2012) students are encouraged to think of or ways Norwest unprepared for change way in which gain-sharing plan designed & ultimately implemented: DRT appears properly constituted bt re no one with sufficient expertise to underst& accounting info given to it. DRT had to perform several of its consultations outside of business hours which is nt very supportive. Timing & opportunity ultimately become issues given lack of accounting & business skill on DRT; this evident day before DRT presenting ir design recommendations to Crépin, signaling that y lacked accounting expertise & planning to make design suggestions rar than recommendations. One example of a missing support system that Norwest had no accounting system to support quarterly assessments called for in gain-sharing plan; anr example of poor accounting controls is that in 1993/94 & 1994/95 surpluses of $400,000 & $600,000 expected bt deficits in same amounts actually experienced. 4 measures chosen to est gains in gain-sharing program (i.e., operating cash flow, controllable expenses, turn-around times, baseline) appear to be related to key success factors at Norwest & Crépin’s ultimate objectives; this assessment turn on certain assumptions (e.g., is re sufficient control & progress to be made on improving turn-around times; consistent with this argument is info in readiness assessment showing that customers increasingly value turn-around times & that re been rapid advances in testing equipment technology; inconsistent with this argument is point made by one scientist that turn-around times are relatively fixed). marketing exclusion is sensitive: it politically motivated? One thing ie for sure is that manner in which exclusion made (i.e., reversing DRT recommendation) reinforced emp perceptions of a lack of trust in Crépin & that he continues to act arbitrarily. One final point worth mentioning is that gain-sharing will lead to group, nt ind rewards; this places an empis on inds working cooperatively in teams rar than as inds; re is nt a lot of evidence that ppl work well toger at Norwest (e.g., lack of trust in Crépin might be generalized to a lack of trust in each or; lab mngers ignored reporting relationships created by centralized services structure) & we already know re is a lack of underst&ing of business challenges Norwest faces; se are imp considerations because group incentives are prone to free-rider probs that only can be remedied by strong group norms that empize working toger for a common cause; if ppl don’t underst& cause & don’t trust each or y will nt work cooperatively & gains will be unlikely to be realized. third quarter payment in 1994/95: third quarter payment highlights dilemmas of having to choose bw two options, each with ir own costs: (1) nt making payment preserves integrity of plan & wishes of mngers as determined by vote bt allows emp morale to sink even furr; (2) making payment allows Crépin to follow thru on expectation he fostered among emps that re be a payment bt by doing so he undermines credibility of gain-sharing plan, his efforts at decentralization, & furr reinforces his reputation for acting arbitrarily (i.e., he is ignoring 10-3 vote by mngers in favour of no payment). It is imp to realize that flaw in plan that contribted to prob (i.e., an accounting system unable to h&le necessary quarterly projections) is nt reason a payment nt be made; however, it does highlight how a design flaw can furr undermine a change effort built on a weak foundation (e.g., in this case, a change effort lead by a change agent who lacks credibility & trust & which involves emps participating in an incentive that y do nt completely underst& or skill/knwlg to influence very well). Though both choices costs, no payment be in best long-term interests of Norwest & Crépin’s behaviour change goals; Crépin might consider an open forum as a way to explain predicament & challenges facing Norwest & solicit emp input into some of ir needs & concerns in moving forward. Students think of how key principles of change mgmt from Kotter (1995) & Katzenbach, Steffen & Kronley (2012) been ignored. fundamental probs with gain-sharing: A lack of underst&ing of how business works & how emp effort translates into gains/rewards under plan. Emp involvement in process created & n ignored fostering furr probs of perceptions of arbitrariness & mistrust in Crépin & an unwillingness to support his change effort thru gain-sharing (e.g., some DRT recommendations reversed without consultation; DRT disb&ed & no one from this committee served on new committee created to work out flaws in plan; 10-3 vote of mgmt committee to nt make a third quarter payout ignored). Lack of trust & coop among everyone; lack of senior mngerial support to lead change. OBM: OBM is a practice designed to put financial info about organization (e.g., revenue, expenses, cost of goods, cash flow, expenses) into h&s of emps; idea is that financial info will help emps underst& what drives value creation in organization, leading m to be more financially accountable wen doing ir jobs, & giving m a sense of psychological ownership over ir work; To work effectively, OBM requires emps (a) be trained to underst& financial documents like income statements & balance sheets, (b) jobs designed to make use of such. info, & (c) be held accountable for using this info to improve perf (as for example thru reward contingency of gain-sharing), A fully functioning & successful OBM system will nt only be characterized by “top-down” info flow, bt in time, also include “bottom-up” communication from emps about cost-saving innovations & ideas. conclusions about organizational change: It is imp to lay appropriate ground work for organizational change well in advance of “flipping switch” (e.g., esting urgency for need to change; forming a coalition of supporters before communicating a vision; nt addressing &/or removing imp early obstacles to change such as mngers who refuse to model new behaviours for emps to follow or esting proper accounting controls to support need for quarterly projections). It is imp for a change agent to est trust & credibility to lead, especially where change is threatening to emps as in this case (a good system of communication & info sharing can be critical in this regard).Organizational re-design is an imp part of change; you can’t change a reward system without complementary adjustments being made in or areas to support that change (e.g., selecting, training ppl to possess right attitudes & skills needed to perform new roles in new env, changing communication mechanisms upward & downward to support change initiative, clarify role expectations, provide f/b on setbacks & progress, etc.). A leader’s commitment & perseverance to change is critical; despite all his faults, Crépin committed to his change initiative & persevered