BLOG.TJCUMMUTA.COM

Innovation through Accessing Creativity

inf@tjcummuta.com (Timothy J. Cummuta) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:37:54 GMT

Sustainable Leadership

By: Timothy J. Cummuta

Why is it that so many top companies struggle at the top? They hire, they
fire, and then they hire again, all within a few short years. Some of the
top names in industry such as HP have seen change after change after change.
Then there is GE. GE has seen two top leaders in the last thirty years or
so, Jack Welch and Jeff Immelt. GE is also considered by some to be the most
valuable company in the world. What is the difference between GE and those
companies where the CEO's office has a revolving door?

There are a number of reasons for GE's success for over 130 years. However,
the biggest reason for their success, stability, and sustainability at the
top is a commitment to ongoing leadership and succession planning. It seems
most companies today go on a fishing trip whenever a change in leadership is
necessary or required. They go out into the marketplace and look for a big
fish. There are a handful of CEOs that seem to move from one company to the
next, many times with little new success. One reason for the inconsistent
achievement in this ongoing process is little congruence between the
previous corporate strategy of the company in question and the incoming
leader's potential strategy or strategies.

While leadership is important and a company cannot be successful without
good leadership, congruence with an engrained corporate strategy is also
important.

For the rest of the Article visit http://www.AboutLeades.com.

2012, what can we expect?

inf@tjcummuta.com (Timothy J. Cummuta) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:21:41 GMT

Well once again we enter an election year. It seems to me every year is an election year lately. However, this one is about the Presidency of the United States. What does that mean to you and I. Beyond the unstoppable political rhetoric, commercials, and debates preempting all of our programs; it means we must choose who will run the country for the next four years.

Well first of all let me say Happy New Year to you. Now let’s really look at what we can see for the next year. While it will be full of political rhetoric, accusations, and counter-accusations, there will be one important thing missing, real leadership! You can say what you want, but there is a crisis of leadership in this country and has been for quite some time now. Neither of the primary two parties in this country has produced a real leader for many years of elections. Maybe this is because no one in their right mind would really want the office or job of president.

As I see it right now, it is coming down to the choice of either a rock star if we keep the same party in power, or an intellectual administrator if we elect the other party. It does not matter who runs for the republicans, they are all the same. Both parties today are little more than “Good old boys clubs, or girls clubs”. Whoever has earned the most longevity or has the most political charisma points will be the front runner for the party. And of course, the media will do everything within its corporate budget and means to sway us to vote for their personal choice instead of helping Americans make the right decision. Do you really think any of the media companies really cares what we really need in this country or what you or I actually think?

As a business professional and consultant, I know when an organization has a crisis of leadership. The organization drifts whichever way the wind is blowing. If the wind is blowing to the south, than the organization will follow it and drift to the south. If the wind shifts to the east, than the organization follows suit and begins to drift east. If the organization is unsure which way the wind is blowing, than nothing happens at all, somewhat like right now in America. If the political will within the governmental power circles drifts in any given direction, than the politicians will attempt to get the country to drift right along with it. I am not talking about the people’s political will, because very few in power in this country really cares what we want. It seems that nothing ever really gets accomplished without political infighting and accusations. The National Healthcare Plan was passed only because one political party owned the governing body totally for a short period of time, long enough to pass the legislation. However, the legislation will really do very little to ensure quality healthcare for all of the American people or reduce medical costs, the latter being the real problem.

Leadership requires that someone having the ability to bring together all of the players regardless of political affiliation to achieve a collaborative solution and then lead the way out of the mire. Who is really leading anything or anyone right now in our political system? Our current president, while well intentioned, cannot garner any real support outside of the political cronies of his own party. The other party cannot find anyone who can bring together their own party let alone get support from the other side. Where is the leadership?

I wonder what would happen if no one voted? Really, what would those in power do? Maybe leadership in this country should start with the American people. You and I after all are the ones who vote people in or out. Well that’s what the Constitution states anyway. Maybe it is time to quit listening to party rhetoric and start using our own brains to decide. I am awed year after year when I see people vote for a given party because that is the party they have always voted for. Every election it seems that there is a party for change. But once elected, nothing ever changes.

Let’s look at this through another unrelated example. In the late 1970s there was an oil embargo and gas prices shot through the ceiling. For the first time the American people were faced with the fact that some other country could have power over them. We began to realize that oil was not limitless and that at some point we would have to have alternative fuel sources for our vehicles. What was done about that, very little! Automakers threw a few junky high gas mileage vehicles at us for a little while and then went back to expensive gas guzzlers shortly thereafter. In the last few years we have once again seen the same type of crisis. Instead or working to find ways to build vehicles that could operate independently of gas or oil, the automakers continued as they had always done in the past and once again we face the same crisis all over.

You cannot tell me that the country that built the space shuttle and routinely sends space vehicles on multi-decade journeys into deep space without refueling could not have found a method to increase the gas mileage in our vehicles. If the American public refused to buy vehicles that did not get at least fifty miles to the gallon what do you think would happen? Within a year or two the automakers would have a whole host of vehicles that boasted of fifty or more miles to the gallon. However, we do not use this power. Instead we take what we are given and move on down the road complaining how nothing seems to go our way.

You and I wield the power in this country. Maybe no one has ever told you that before, but it is true. The politicians surely do not want you thinking for yourself so they will never tell you that. The media does not want us thinking for ourselves either. It is time for the American public to demand real leadership. There are real leaders out there, they’re always around. They will not however, usually generate the most gossip or look beautiful in photo shoots. You most likely will not see them on the cover of the news rags in the checkout line at the local store either. They are usually hardworking and attempting to accomplish something significant instead of trying to get on the nightly news.

I wish we Americans wanted solutions more than we want crazy reality TV. Maybe then we could actually accomplish something significant and lasting. There is nothing facing this country that cannot be solved. Some solutions may not be pretty or fun, but we can find our way out of this mess. If you are old enough to vote, than you are old enough to learn what is really going on and vote accordingly. Don’t just listen to your teacher, co-worker, or political partisan. Learn for yourself and find out what is real and what is not real and then vote accordingly. This may be hard to believe, but there are people around you who talk a great deal about this or that who in reality either do not have a clue what is going on, or have an agenda of their own to get you onboard. There are also those that will lie to you to get your vote, and they exist in both political parties.

Do you think I am wasting my time by writing this current segment of my blog, maybe? However, I cannot stand by one more year and watch our country once again waste away a moment of potential change without fighting for what I know is right! I wish more Americans would also join in and stand for nothing less than real leadership and not partisan political agendas or rhetoric. There are workable solutions and no one political party owns or can deliver them.

As far as I can see with the potential candidates we see at this particular juncture, the final choice comes down to more of the same as we have seen from the last four years if the democrats stay in power. Or, if the republicans gain the White House we will see more of the same we have seen over the last four years.

Without real leadership maybe our best hope is that the Mayans were in fact right about 2012!

Raising Student Academic Achievement Through Parental Engagement

inf@tjcummuta.com (Timothy J. Cummuta) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 03:00:35 GMT

Schools, Student Achievement, and Parental Engagement

It is no secret that U.S schools are ranked near the bottom of all western countries scholastically. According to Engler (2006) nearly half of tested high school seniors did not possess even basic skill levels in science. This means U.S. schools are graduating students without the basic skill sets to succeed in college let alone compete in life. Although government programs to revive our schools have been instituted and funded with billions, these programs have shown no demonstrative improvement in student academic achievement.

Whenever schools and administrators pursue full engagement with parents and communities, schools improve, student achievement rises, and the community benefits. The problem is that few schools will fully engage parents and communities beyond whatever activities benefit the school’s agenda. There is an invisible wall that keeps parents from substantive involvement in directing the school structure or participating with the school in attempting to boost student achievement.

Full engagement with parents and communities will help to create a working team dedicated to raising student achievement levels. Current research on parent engagement, although limited, has shown that academic achievement increases in schools where parents are involved. Full engagement means that parents, teachers, and administrators partner in the creation of an education system at the local level that works to raise student scores and achievement.

U.S. Schools 2011

In the 20^th Century the U.S. led the way into the high tech world we live in. The current U.S. expenditures on research & development dwarf the closest competitors, so states Engler, (2006). The mere fact that this country has been the prime producer of new and innovative concepts in the past is not a guaranty that it will continue to lead the way into the technological future. Pressures from serious high tech competitors come from locations never before believed possible, China, India, & Russia.

While Engler (2006) still considers the U.S. to be in a leadership role in most areas, many other economic competitors are graduating more engineers than are U.S. schools. What does this mean for the future of U.S. technological innovation? According to Engler (2006) no country will remain great without an innovative manufacturing base. What this should mean is that while political correctness seems to have taken more precedence in our school systems than the sciences and proper communications, political correctness will not economically sustain the U.S. society in the future. The country will lose its competitive leadership and the population will face less prosperity.

China and India in particular have made tremendous expenditures and strides in gaining a foothold in the realm of technological innovation leadership. Etter (2011) went as far as saying it is likely that the U.S. has already lost its leadership in the area of technological innovation. What is the problem? How is it that the country that sent astronauts to the moon; the country that has led the way in medical discovery has suddenly lost its way? The primary reason as stated by Etter (2011) is that the U.S. school system no longer stresses manufacturing and innovation in engineering. There are less and less individuals studying these technological necessities in colleges any more. It could be argued that this is a direct result of the lower science scores from high school seniors. How can students who do not possess the basic science skills in high school go on into engineering programs at the college level?

The U.S. which has led the way into the high tech high lifestyle or the modernized world has gone to sleep. Instead of innovating and developing products that meet or exceed demand, many corporations continue to send the same old tired line of products to the marketplace. Where is the creativity that made the U.S. the greatest nation in the world? One could argue that because our school systems no longer focuses on superior scientific education as it once did, creativity is no longer developed in our students.

In the 1950s and 60s Japanese products were considered by most people to be cheap junk. Today Japanese companies have past U.S. companies in U.S. patents (Moon & Goodrich, 1996). The authors go on to say that that the top three companies in U.S. patents are now Toshiba, Hitachi, and Canon. The U.S had clearly lost ground by 1996. Since the authors’ analysis in 1996, the U.S has not improved in the technological innovation battleground in 2011.

Is economic competition really a battleground? As Thornell (1993) states, the Japanese multinational companies view business competition as a war. He further expands this to show that this is one of the main reasons these multinational corporations have had so much success penetrating foreign markets leading Japan to become a world economic super power. This clearly shows that U.S. competitors consider economic leadership as a battleground. Japan is not the only economic threat the U.S. faces.

The technological battlefield has increased in size. Emerging marketplaces who used to buy U.S. products are now selling products to U.S. citizens and companies alike. These new players are not concerned with our innovative leadership but rather of taking market share away from the U.S. and then selling the new technologies back to the U.S. The U.S. has gone from being the main exporter of new and innovative technologies to one of the main world importers. It could be argued that this is one of the prime reasons why the balance of payments in the U.S. is so out of control. As Mann, (2002) puts it, the current obligations that the U.S. has to pay of principal and interest on the national debt could ultimately effect and reduce the country’s consumption and investment. This means at some point, most likely 2011, the country must rethink the internal consumption of products and services and begin reducing levels. When the U.S. economy led the way into innovation, manufacturing, and exporting, the economy continued to expand and the country was able to also expand its internal consumption and investment both internally and abroad. The U.S. leadership is now eroding at a dramatic pace.

In order for the U.S. to maintain its position let alone increase the country’s leadership role in technological innovation, something must be accomplished to raise the level of academic achievement of U.S. students. The U.S. cannot continue to let student scholastic levels drop or not be competitive and expect to successfully compete in a world economy. The U.S. must begin once again to innovate and create. This requires that the U.S. schools graduate more engineers and scientists.

It is imperative that something is done to make our school systems more competitive on a global level. In the past as the U.S. dominated technology innovation and development the country never had to worry about serious competition to its technological prowess. There were many countries that would take U.S. technology and develop it further into something less expensive and more useful. Japan during the 1950s and 60s is a prime example of a country taking another countries technology and making it cheaper and more accessible. Japan accomplished this even though the U.S remained the prime supplier of the new technologies. This meant the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens would directly benefit from U.S. technological leadership. As other countries begin to eat away at U.S. innovative leadership, the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens will feel the brunt of the changes as we may already be seeing now with the recent flurry of bad economic predicaments.

Today in 2011 the U.S. economy is suffering. After going through one of the largest recessions in history in 2008, the country still suffers three years later. Now, however, the U.S. economy still languishes because of the rest of the world’s financial woes. In year past the U.S. economy could withstand almost any other country’s economic instability. Now, other countries’ economies are causing the U.S economy and industries to suffer immense financial instability and setbacks. The primary reason of U.S. economic vulnerability is the loss of U.S. innovation leadership which in the past has been a stabilizing factor in the U.S. and the world.

The U.S. as an innovator is clearly losing ground in the world economy. Holmes (2003) writes the U.S. aviation industry which has led the world in aviation innovation has lost its lead in the aeronautics and aviation industry to the European Union. What does this portend for the U.S. aviation industry when as Holmes (2003) states the European Union intends to dominate the aeronautics and aviation industry by earmarking tens of billions of Euros for research & development? This means the U.S. cannot continue to lag behind the rest of the world in technological innovation. Competitors are willing to invest whatever is necessary and require whatever is necessary from students in school to take away leadership from the U.S. or any other country. How does this country fight back?

U.S. Schools Must Lead the Way

While there are many reasons and debates about what is the primary cause or causes for the loss of U.S. innovation. There is one simplified answer for the U.S. It is imperative the country bring the scholastic achievement levels of U.S. students up to or better than the competitive levels of other countries in the developed and developing world. While this may seem such a overly simplified answer, academic ability is the foundation for any technical society.

The U.S. government knows this and has been attempting to find ways to raise student achievement through billions of dollars being spent on government programs designed primarily to bring academic achievement up. However, as Gross, Booker, & Goldhaber, 2009 have shown, up to this point no amount of government intervention or subsidies have not demonstrated any academic improvement in U.S. tested schools. The authors go on to say with no significant improvement in academic achievement the U.S. government has abandoned numerous comprehensive programs. As stated previously, the issues are not simple and easily affected by throwing money or rhetoric at them.

While there has been and will continue to be an overabundance of rhetoric and ideological ideas bantered about on how to solve this problem, the U.S .needs to find serious and successful methods that work even if these methods do not meet a specific agenda or ideological perspective. What many politicians and bureaucrats fail to see is that this is not a debate on which political or ideological idea is right, it is a serious problem that must be resolved with research, analysis, and concrete methodologies.

If past government monetary intervention has produced nothing of notable value in increasing student achievement levels, what are some issues that might influence academic achievement in the U.S.? Are there any ideas that are working to realistically improve student achievement? One thing that has proven to positively influence academic achievement is parent and community involvement in the overall school structure and learning processes. Parents and teachers working together to raise the levels of academic achievement has shown success. Harris & Goodall (2008) have shown that a partnership between the parents, the students, and the schools has had a positive effect on learning and on raising student achievement levels.

Most primary school systems up to this point view the parents and school relationship as somewhat adversarial. Parents have been invited to work the bake sales or chaperone an activity, but they have been kept away from actually participating in the actual student learning process. To-date most of the parental input into the school systems in the U.S. has been what will meet the current school pre-determined agendas. If U.S. schools are truly expected to send academically prepared students on into college, then all of the stakeholders in the process must be given equal say in how education takes place at the local levels across the U.S.

Parents in many areas have felt left out of the student’s education even though parents are a major stakeholder in the outcome of the children’s education. Lawsuits have gone all the way to the Supreme Court to decide who is really in charge when it comes to developing good productive citizens out of the country’s children. Some feel that the young in the U.S.do not belong to the parents but rather to the state. “And since the young are both current and future citizens, the state must guard not only their current liberty, but also their future liberty. It thus must deny all others, including parents, the right to deprive the young either of their basic liberty during their immaturity, or their ability to develop the capacity to exercise their future liberty”, (Hamilton, V., 2010). Who decides what the student’s liberties are, the state in this case.

It is clear that some believe the state has the ultimate power in deciding what, when, and how students will learn. This is the genesis of the issues that have been building walls between parents and the schools for decades. As some believe citizenship and tolerance should be regarded above parenthood. While this extremely Orwellian philosophy may look good on paper or in some ideological circles, it has not proved realistic or effective and that is the bottom line of this paper. What will really improve student academic achievement? While it is imperative that students learn to be tolerant of those that are different, that tolerance should not take precedence over the traditional educational issues. The real issues in our schools that foster low academic achievement are not based on a lack of tolerance.

Experience has shown that this altruistic attempt at controlling a problem by government intervention such as setting the priorities in schools to focus on teaching tolerance has not really worked. This subject, tolerance, is one that is best addressed in the family. Families need to be engaged in the learning process as well as students. It is nearly impossible to teach tolerance in the school successfully when the student goes home to an intolerant family. Parents need to learn these important ideas also if the students are to really incorporate them into their lives in the long run. Unless the government plans to take away the children from the parents for the student’s whole adolescent life, the parents will retain more influence on the student’s citizenship outcome in life than the state will.

Ferlazzo (2011) a teacher, believes that the answer lies in creating a partnership between parents and the schools. One method to accomplish Ferlazzo’s ideas would be to open up the schools to potential parental and community scrutiny. The parents cannot control whether the children go to school or not, it is the law. However, the schools do not own the children. The parents are the student’s primary caregivers. No one has a better or stronger stake in the children succeeding than the parents. In a partnership all sides can work together to create, monitor, and structure learning for the students.

With the proper cooperation and coordination parents can influence children’s learning in ways teachers and schools alone cannot. Teachers and schools can influence student’s learning in ways parents alone cannot. The combination of the two different inputs and capabilities becomes synergistic for the students’ learning and academic achievement potential. One thing that will help students to be educated properly would be to be schooled in a creative, dynamic, and active learning environment.

This environment of creative, dynamic, and active learning is called the school climate by Godber (2002). This all encompassing school environment has only been studied from the perspective of the teachers and administrators to-date with some small participation from students. This shows that the parents’ point of view or perspective has been left out or ignored entirely. Considering that parents are a major stakeholder in the students’ overall upbringing and education makes this seem counterproductive or least limited in scope to productive student learning and achievement.

Davis & Lambie (2005) state that a high parental involvement in student learning can affect, in a strong positive manner, every area of concern about student achievement. Students will miss less school, push for higher grades, and ultimately be better equipped to compete at the college or university level than students whose parents are not involved. This means that it should be a high level concern for schools to get parents involved in the process of educating students. The authors further go on to say that a collaborative systemic approach is what is needed to create the most productive learning environment possible (Davis & Lambie 2005).

Parents do believe they have a role in the students learning process. This perceived role goes beyond what the schools have given them credit for in the past. In order to gain the parents support in the overall learning goals for the student, teachers and administrators must address the parent’s perceptions of the educational process for the students involved. As Auerbach (2009) noted, in order to gain the help or partnership of the parents, teachers must understand how the parents conceptualize their role in the education process. What the parents believe is their role, is what they will think and do in regards to participating in the student’s education. To-date the perceptions of what parent’s involvement should like has been dictated by what the schools think the parent’s involvement should be.

The incorrect perception of parental roles in student learning which school administrations now possess, needs to be replaced with a more correct perspective, that incorporates the parent’s viewpoint or at least some form of collaboration. School administrations have in the recent past begun to implement requirements that schools begin to incorporate parents more in the educational process.

While it seems obvious that schools and parents should work together, it is not happening to any significant levels within the U.S. primary school system as of the writing of this paper in spite of administrative directives to the contrary. The upper echelon of leadership within the U.S. school system does talk about parental engagement in the learning systems and processes. That same school system leadership is not mandating, nor pursuing that such parental engagement relationships are actually being undertaken, (Harris & Goodall, 2011). One of the impediments to engaging parents in student learning is that the school systems are biased somewhat against parental involvement and therefore are limited in how they view the issues. This demonstrates there is a leadership void within the schools that would attempt to engage parents. Real effective leadership training in this area is a necessity if anything positive is to be accomplished in the area of parental engagement. However, that leadership training should not come from within the school system due to the obvious bias, but rather this training should be directed by an outside unbiased observer.

The obvious leader in a full engagement program should be the teacher because the teacher interfaces with the student, the administration, and the family. The teacher by the inherent role they occupy in the learning process is automatically placed in the role of a collaborative leader or at least coordinator or arbiter. Someone needs to be able to coordinate the input and potential influence individual or individuals will have on the academic achievement of the student. The teacher is in a unique position to lead. However, they have not been trained in the essential skills to lead this team of diverse opinions and strategies. The training has not been sufficient to include leadership of parents as well as students. This must change if our schools are to meet the increased government scrutiny as well as the competitive economic pressure the future will present for the U.S. student base. A fully engaged team of stakeholders should direct the student’s learning and achievement.

One of the more significant recent initiatives the government has undertaken is the No Child Left Behind, NCLB Act of 2001. Mangin & Stoelinga (2010) believe the increased scrutiny and oversight of this legislation is one of the most pressing issues guiding school systems to push for greater academic leadership within U.S. schools. The standardized testing that is required and now takes place due to this legislative action, requires all students to meet specific levels of academic ability throughout the U.S. This means varied and low levels of academic achievement can no longer be tolerated. The schools must bring up the level of scholastic ability of the students if the schools are to meet the requirements of the legislation.

Once again, as in the past, government intervention is no panacea. As Scott (2004) believes the current regulations of the NCLB are based on previously flawed educational templates. The author goes on to state that NCLB does nothing to close the racial achievement gap, RAG (Scott, R., 2004). It is beyond debate that government and regulation is not the solution to the academic problems in U.S. schools. This is a far broader and deeper problem than can be rectified by simply requiring grades to be higher through regulations. More is needed to be done to resolve these issues. While efforts should be supported by the government, direction and management should come from the local level with full parental engagement. What is needed for the ultimate resolution should be decided by the primary stakeholders the teachers, the students, and the parents and not the federal or state governments.

However, due to the previous methods utilized to direct education, new procedures need to be developed for teachers, administrators, and now parents to be guided by. While there are some school systems embracing full parental engagement, there are no set procedures or guidelines to direct schools on how to engage parents properly and effectively. Someone needs to take leadership in this new paradigm of education. However, no one on a global level at this particular juncture is trained to take on such a role.

In order to bring up the levels of education and achievement better leadership training must be undertaken for teachers and administrators. As stated previously though, this training should come from outside sources and not form within the school hierarchy. Mangin and Stoelinga (2010) state that the future of leadership training for teachers should include training on leading parents as well as students in bettering the school systems in the U.S. This means the focus of schools in the U.S. should move away from a closed system which includes decisions on education by only those within the system to an open system that includes parents and the community allowing input at all levels of education. The only realistic method for teachers and administrators to understand and implement these new leadership concepts is if outside instructive input, non-school leadership instruction, is utilized in the school leadership training programs. If teachers are to lead properly in future schools proper leadership instruction must be undertaken for all teachers and school administrators moving away from prior preconceived biases.

Lest sight is lost on what is really important in doing whatever is necessary to bring academic achievement up in U.S. schools, it should be understood that business has as much at stake as do teachers, parents, and students. If U.S. businesses are to compete globally those companies will need to best most innovative workers the U.S. schools are capable of delivering. Therefore, U.S. businesses whether in the local communities or on a national level should also be working towards being a solution to the problem. Many companies offer scholarships to college for the scholastic high achievers in schools. However, more needs to be done to bring the overall level of the majority of students’ scholastic abilities up also. Students need to be helped to be better ready for what colleges and universities will expect them to be able to accomplish.

Business social responsibility is a new idea. There is a debate among business leaders as to whether business should really have any social responsibility or not. In Kraft, K. & Singhapakdi, A. (1995) the authors discuss that there has been little research on the issues of social responsibility in the real world practices in corporate organization productivity and decision making. However, it should be noted that working toward higher educational levels in schools is not just social responsibility. It is also a good business plan for long term success in the world economy.

Business in the U.S. is operated by people just as it everywhere else in the world. Many of these people have growing children who are in school too. If business wants motivated employees one thing that can be done is to help the employees prepare children to be better able to meet employment needs of the future. Employees of a company that is heavily involved helping the employees prepare children educationally will most likely be very motivated to work hard for such an employer. So it is not only socially responsible it is just plain smart for numerous reasons for business to get involved helping the schools in the U.S. prepare students to be competitive.

Business can work to support school activities that promote better education. Businesses can also offer work programs for students. Another aspect of help could be through apprenticeships or on-the-job training in specific areas of business for students. Business leaders might get involved with local school systems to help those stakeholders of education to design school programs that will meet the business needs of the future. All stakeholders, including business in the U.S., have a interest in seeing that U.S. students achieve more academically in the future.

Conclusion

Prior acceptance of lower standards of academic achievement has to be revised to reflect the competitive nature the U.S. students will face in the real world of global economic marketplace. Teachers need to be trained in areas beyond specific technical areas of expertise in order to make learning more effective and comprehensive. Students too must also work raise the personal level of academic learning that has existed prior to 2011. Parents must be given the opportunity to be fully engaged and involved in the school and student learning processes. It will be a total makeover of the lack luster learning process the U.S. has fallen into over the past few decades.

The economic world environment and the emergence of aggressive and technologically capable competitive countries gives the U.S. an unforgiving economic future if changes are not undertaken now and with great effort to improve our students’ abilities. There is no room for mediocrity in this process. The U.S. needs to abandon political correctness in regards to education and begin to mandate the proper technical education and student achievement goals for the near and long term future in the school systems. The U.S. can no longer tolerate low levels of academic achievement for students if this country is to stay at the top of innovation and technological breakthroughs.

The pace of change is astronomic in the technological world environment. No country can rest on past accomplishments to stay competitive and economically prosperous. In the future innovation and techno-creativity will dictate which countries rise to the top of the economic mountain. It is time that all the interested parties, the government, the schools, the parents, and the business community come to together to work out a real world solution to the problem of low academic achievement levels in U.S. schools. How well students accomplish the task of learning will affect every aspect of society in this country at some point in the future.

No one goes home to another planet. All people reside here and it is everyone’s responsibility to be aware of the real issues and work together toward effective solutions. This is a solvable problem if people can lay aside the agendas that have done little to nothing to resolve the issues of poor achievement in U.S. schools. There is no question that the U.S. government needs to invest more heavily in U.S. schools.

The U.S. needs to invest not just heavily but more accurately in good education. However, that does not mean blindly throwing billions into black hole programs created through some agenda that accomplishes nothing. Research needs to be completed on more promising ideas like full parental and community engagement. Consider for a moment the idea of parents, teachers, and the business communities working together to educate, train, and then potentially employ productive students. Washington is a long way from Main Street no matter how much rhetoric is stated to the opposite. These issues are better addressed by individuals more likely to be able to directly affect the outcomes. Funding form governmental sources should be sent in large measure to the local levels to be used by and at the stakeholders’ direction.

Much more research must be accomplished to ascertain what will impact student academic achievement positively for future U.S. student throughout the country. The research should be grounded with a lack of bias or agenda which from a governmental perspective is probably difficult. What is now seen instead of relationship building is wall building, or creating a buffer between the school and the parents which only allows parent involvement in what supports the school’s current agenda.

References

Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. The School Community Journal, 19(1), 9-31.

Davis, K.M., & Lambie, G.W. (2005). Family Engagement: A Collaborative, Systemic Approach for Middle School Counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9(2).

Engler, J. (2006). Sleepwalking schools are failing U.S. industry. Plant Engineering, 60(9).

Etter, D. (2011). Has the U.S. lost its technical edge? Mechanical Engineering, 133(5), 36-37.

Ferlazzo, L. (2011). Involvement or Engagement?. Educational Leadership, 68(8), 10-14. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Godber, Y. E. (2002). School climate: Understanding parent perspectives to strengthen family-school relationships. University of Minnesota: Author.

Gross, B., Booker, T. K., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 111-126.

Hamilton, V., (2010). Immature citizens and the state. Brigham Young University, Reuben Clark Law School, 2010(4).

Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research, 50(3), 277-289.

Holmes, K. (2003). U.S. aviation R&D under pressure. (2003). Mechanical Engineering, 125(5), 28-28.

Kraft, K. & Singhapakdi, A. (1995). The relative importance of social responsibility in determining organizational effectiveness: Student responses II: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(4).

Mann, K. (2002). Perspectives on the U.S. current account deficit and sustainability. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3).

Moon, H., Goodrich, J. (1996). Making U.S. industry more competitive: Myths and realities. Review of Business. 17(3).

Scott, R. (2004). Educational Quagmire: The high cost of ignoring biophysical and ecological factors. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies. 33(3).

Thornell, M. (1993). Not just ‘Japan Inc.’. CMA Magazine, 67(10).

Leadership 101

inf@tjcummuta.com (Timothy J. Cummuta) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:57:52 GMT

Introduction

Ajax HealthCare is the prime source for a great deal of the analysis here to give this analysis a realistic basis. However, this problem is not unique to Ajax or the insurance industry alone. Coercive management styles are often the management style by default for many companies in many industries.

This is a study of coercive management style utilized within the professional insurance sales force of a company called herein Ajax Healthcare. For many years coercive management styles have been the norm for management of most sales forces. In the insurance industry alone it tends to be more heavily utilized as the management style of choice for most companies. The primary intent of this study is to prove as to whether such aversive styles of management do in fact produce higher performance and productivity. The secondary intent of this study is to determine if there are any consequences or not that are demonstrated by lack of customer satisfaction and/or loyalty from this type of management style.

Numerous peer reviewed articles have been studied to determine what to any extent has been already studied or proven on this subject. This paper will show that employee motivation is not higher by the use of coercive management styles. In fact, the reverse is true and in many cases higher employee turnover usually of the most qualified experienced personnel is the lasting result of such tactics. This paper will further show that not only is performance and productivity hurt by such aversive tactics, in the long run employee attitudes are destroyed and ultimately customer satisfaction and loyalty are reduced. The long term result of such management styles can be, and has happened for many companies, complete company failure due to tough economic times. When the going gets tough, the employees will not be committed to the company’s survival and would rather jump ship and move on than stay and help.

Ajax Healthcare

Ajax Healthcare is in the business of providing health insurance to groups and individuals. Ajax provides health insurance for all age groups including Medicare insurance products to those Americans on the Medicare program. The analysis provided here is from a five year working period in the Ajax sales force as a field sales associate. During that five year period there were dramatic changes within Ajax that required extensive changes in product development, sales processes, and compensation changes. The primary driving force behind the organizational problem was the mandated changes in the Medicare program from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). These changes reduced the reimbursement rates provided to insurance carriers participating in the Medicare program as well as mandate serious changes to the way these carriers could conduct business with Medicare recipients.

As Ajax began undertaking the changes mandated by regulatory implementation, the company’s primary methods of operation and sales had to change dramatically in order for Ajax to adjust to the changing requirements and competitive marketplace. This meant that the company had to find immediate methods to reduce costs due to the lower reimbursement rates provided by Medicare. This also meant the company had to find alternative sources of income outside of the Medicare program products. The company needed to begin to sell other products that were value added sales to a substantial base of Medicare recipients. However, CMS had mandated changes to contacting methods for Medicare recipients.

CMS mandated how, when, and where these new products could be broached with Medicare recipients. Nothing could be demonstrated or talked about that was not directly related to Medicare at any appointment or meeting that had been billed as a Medicare meeting. Not only was it mandated that nothing could be said, shown, or inferred about non-Medicare products at any Medicare related contacts, sales people were not allowed to contact the Medicare recipients directly about other products outside of Medicare products. This meant the sales people basically had to find all new prospects and clients for these new products.

The field sales force which had been trained primarily on certain products, methods, and tactics for Medicare related products to makes sales was now faced with new product types, new sales processes, changes in compensation, and completely new sales methodologies and tactics in extremely short notice. Ajax did not provide any guidance or training on how to be productive in this radically changed working environment. Instead of providing the needed training and support to mitigate the stresses and pressures caused by these changes, the company chose a coercive management style instead to motivate the sales force through intimidation and threats of job loss to attain production requirements.

Due to CMS mandated changes to how, when, and where these new products could be sold to Medicare recipients, the sales force was forced to start all over finding and securing long term client relationships with all new demographics for potential clients. This would be analogous to the changes facing blacksmiths when horses went out of favor as the prime method of transportation for the general population. It was a drastic radical change in the ways business was to be conducted. Unlike what faced the blacksmiths, this happened almost overnight.

Problem discussion

At issue here is to determine whether coercive management styles such as utilized by Ajax Healthcare do in fact increase motivation, performance, and productivity. From experience it was determined that the sales force was not more motivated but highly frustrated and intimidated. As a consequence of that coercive management style, the more experienced sales professional slowly began to leave the ranks of the company. This began to slowly impact customer satisfaction due to the remaining experienced sales force being stretched and not able to address customer issues as quickly or in a quality manner as in the past.

Eventually Ajax began a hiring spree of new untrained inexperienced sales people. The company then began a systematic process of getting the more experienced sales people, higher compensated ones, to either produce at much greater levels, leave voluntarily, or be let go. This philosophy produced either higher revenue from coerced production increases, or lower immediate cost of doing business by eliminating the higher compensated employees. Tactics such as this can produce a better fiscal looking company in the short run, but over the long run the keeping of only the less experienced employees will have a dramatic impact on the bottom line of the company. This is because of customer satisfaction problems arising and/or going unresolved. This will not only hurt the company directly it will have a dramatic negative impact on employee motivation.

Motivational Theories

What constitutes employee motivation? There can be a significant difference between what is done from a management viewpoint and how it is perceived by the employee. How the employee perceives the action of management is what will affect the employee’s motivation. While there may be real strong reasons for changes within a business structure such as took place within Ajax, the end result on employee motivation is not a desirable outcome. As Elangovan demonstrated, “perceived legitimate power and coercive power of the supervisor were major predictors of subordinate stress,” (Elangovan 2000). As will be shown later in this paper employee stress causes major concerns for both the employees and the company.

While Ajax as a company had to restructure the sales force and products in dramatic fashion, field management was left to accomplish new goals by whatever means necessary. Since there was no one set up as a change agent and no training for managers on how to manage the changes, the managers for the most part chose coercion to accomplish the company goals and changes managers were face with.

Thoroughgood, C. N., Hunter, S. T., & Sawyer, K. B. (2011) showed what can happen and did happen within the management structure of Ajax. “Perceptions of organizational politics create an environment of uncertainty whereby leaders may seek to reestablish control by engaging in political influence tactics such as bullying,” (Thoroughgood, Hunter, & Sawyer, 2007). Since managers were left to accomplish corporate goals however they decided, most opted for coercive draconian methods like intimidation, innuendo, and open threats of termination. The executives supported whatever measures that were undertaken as long the measures did not violate any laws and produced results. While there may seem to be extenuating circumstance for the initial reactions to the changing environment for managers, at some point Ajax should have stepped up and established a better employee support system to work through the changes rather than allow first and second line managers to coerce employees to get on board or leave.

Coercion versus Persuasion

There is a significant difference between coercion and persuasion. Penny Powers (2007) reiterated that much of what we do in action seeks to “influence the thinking or behaviors of others,” (Powers, 2007). There is no questioning the fact that everyone seeks to influence others. How that influence is accomplished falls into one of two categories, coercion or persuasion. While coercion is generally thought to be unethical it is rampant and acceptable within the insurance sales industry. No matter how much support such activities receive they are still destructive. As Penny Powers (2007) stated it plainly, “Strategies to influence people backed up by credible research may be effective and still be unethical,” (Powers, 2007).

When one individual has the ability to cause another to adapt to the requirements the first person has established, they have power over the second individual. This is the bases of the management employee relationship. Power itself is not bad or destructive. It is essential in business. How one uses that power is what will constitute the good or bad use of that power. What becomes most important about this control or power is the perception of it by subordinates. It is not what managers think or do, but rather how the employees perceive manager or supervisor power. It is imperative that managers attempt to determine what subordinate perceptions are about the leader’s power and attempt to undertake, “managing the impression” (Hinkin, 1994) the employee has about the manager’s power. The employee’s perceptions of this power will ultimately affect the employee’s sense of justice in how the employee is treated and rewarded for efforts performed.

There needs to be a sense of justice in the methods utilized by management in dealing with employees. Clearly in a coercive organization such as at Ajax, there is a perception of injustice within the sales force instead. High performance goals with threats to back up lower potential productivity cause immense undue stress within the sales force. The result at Ajax was the best, brightest, and most experienced sales individuals began to leave the company resulting in an inexperienced sales group left behind. It is unknown at this time whether Ajax management lacked the proper education on true motivation and justice or was just not concerned about it. Stecher & Rosse (2007) believed that a sense of justice is absolutely necessary for the psychological well-being of employees. They further articulate that to mean that a sense of justice or injustice impacts the employee on and off the job. The employee’s perception of this could affect the intention to engage in either positive or negative work-related behaviors.

Motivation has been studied for thousands of years. While much of the research utilized here is from the past fifty years or so, there is no empirical data that shows coercion does not work, at least to some extent. While this may seem to be a weakness in the philosophy stated here, it really needs more research to clarify the real impact of such management styles on the overall company and its performance. There is clear research that demonstrates that proper persuasive techniques and perceived justice do increase such things as employee commitment and citizenship within the organization. The perception of justice resides with the employee, (Robbins & Judge, 2011, P. 224). Expectancy theory would state that this makes sense. If employees believe they are being treated ethically and are being rewarded properly for work performance, employee commitment and citizenship should increase.

Motivation and Productivity

There is a connection between motivation and productivity within a workforce. Simply stated, workers are more committed to companies that treat them with dignity, (Ahmadi & Ahmadi, 2011) and therefore usually become more productive. While this may seem straight forward and simple, it is not a concept that Ajax embraced as well as many other companies within the insurance industry. Ahmadi and Ahmadi believe that the people in an organization, the human capital, are that organization’s most important asset. Ahmadi and Ahmadi (2011) present this proposition as the (QWL) “Quality of Work Life,” (Ahmadi & Ahmadi, 2011) philosophy. The QWL philosophy states that in order to be fulfilled an employee’s work environment should be rewarding not overly stressful or containing other negative personal consequences, (Ahmadi & Ahmadi, 2011). Employee overall commitment to the company is tied directly to the QWL of the working environment.

As the QWL changed within Ajax more and more experienced long term sales employees began to leave. This resulted in a much lower experience level of sales people. These less experienced employees had much less commitment to the company than did the individuals being replaced. The inherent problem with this is that less experienced individuals can and often do wilt under the stressors placed on them by management. While research shows there can be a positive correlation between normal stress on the job and improved productivity when channeled properly into action, the data also shows that less experienced employees have less ability to channel the stressors properly into effective production, (Khan, N., Riaz, M. T., Bashir, H., Iftekhar, H., & Khattak, A., 2011). This is related to commitment. Employees with greater commitment had a much better chance of turning stress into production than those with less company commitment, (Khan, et al., 2011).

Stress and Longevity

“Employee stress also leads to significant costs for the organization by adversely affecting employee performance and prompting withdrawal behavior, as reflected by increased absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover,” (Elangoven, 2000). While it is clear the insurance sales environment is one of high stress, it is also clear that companies should do whatever is within the company’s power to alleviate unnecessary stressors. One of the drawbacks of an industry such as the health insurance industry is that those individuals that rise to management have not, in most cases, been realistically trained in management. They are typically just successful sales people who have been elevated to management. Management training within Ajax constitutes more of a logistical approach on how to manage the workload and not on how to treat the employees and get the best out of those employees.

The company training manuals at Ajax state all of the ethical issues properly. However, the organizationally induced stress goes unchecked. The pressure on lower level managers and supervisors is to get performance and productivity up at all costs and without excuses. The end result is coercive generated organizational stress. There is a bureaucratic order in place at Ajax that is demanding and unyielding. Individuals are placed where they fit and no one goes outside the accepted norm whether in management or not. Ideas not originating from the top down are seldom addressed or considered.

There are two basic areas that become important in evaluating Ajax, role conflict and organizationally induced stressors. Because of the mechanistic structure within Ajax, stress is created through lack of effective communication between managers and employees. Communications are one way, down. Role conflict comes into play because of two competing priorities for the sales force. First, the sales force is an extension of the company. The role then is that of employee with responsibilities toward the employer. The second role is that of customer or client agent. The customer considers the sales person to be a personal consultant in the area of health insurance. These two roles are often in conflict because what the company wants is not always in the best interest of the customer. This conflict creates tremendous stress for the conscientious sales person.

The second area of concern, organizationally induced stressors, is caused directly by the highly structured and inflexible nature within the hierarchy of Ajax in this case. The organizationally induced stressors are extremely counterproductive. This extra stress can manifest in many ways, poor performance, absenteeism, turnover, and more. In today’s highly competitive and highly charged work environments a company must pay attention to these added stressors which the company can control. “Today's organizations can ill afford the adoption of an organizational structure that does not account for the dysfunctional impact of work stress on their members' performance,” (Conner, & Douglas, 2005).

Personal effects of stress

Along with job performance issues stress of this sort and magnitude can have substantial personal effects on employee’s health and wellbeing. The anonymous author put it, “one way employees are subject to stress is through a combination of high work demands and low job control,” (Anonymous, 2003). The demanding aspect brought on by the rapid restructuring of Ajax increased the stress on employees. While many in the sales industry usually consider high stress to be normal and acceptable, additional stresses can induce significant physical issues for the employee. Recent studies on the health effects of high job strain and imbalances between an employee’s efforts and the subsequent rewards increase the potential for heart related deaths, (Anonymous, 2003). At Ajax the perspective of the employees is that employee health and welfare are not a priority in the least. While employee welfare may not be a priority for some businesses, stress at this level will have an impact ultimately on the bottom line through the employee’s interaction with customers.

Customer impact

While many insurance companies demonstrate little regard for employee welfare, all are concerned about obtaining and keeping customers. Company treatment of employees will impact employee attitudes. Employee attitudes will impact the customers where employees touch the customers in some fashion. From the employee’s perspective those that feel higher levels of job satisfaction believe they can and do deliver superior customer service, (Shmit & Allschied, 1995). Schmit and Allshied (1995) go onto say that studies have shown that employee attitudes can directly and positively impact customer satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction improves the company’s bottom line through customer retention, loyalty, further product sales, and potential referrals. Schmit & Allshied (1995) predict that higher organizational demands and employee difficulty in meeting management goals will likely result in the employee’s attitude deteriorating resulting in lower levels of customer service. What this says is that lower levels of customer service will affect customer satisfaction. Lower levels of customer satisfaction will ultimately impact the company’s bottom line negatively at some point. While this negative impact will not happen overnight in the long run it can have dramatic consequences for a company in an extremely competitive marketplace such Ajax Healthcare resides in.

Understanding customer desires and needs has become a significant determinant in management thinking since the 1990s, (Vilares, 2003). The concept of understanding and anticipating what the customer is going to want now and in the future is what many companies attempt to determine as quickly and precisely as possible in order to keep their respective competitive advantages. Since many products, services, or systems need time to develop and implement it is paramount that management know as accurately and as early as possible exactly what the needs of the customer will be in the future. The customer is the life blood of the company. What Ajax either does not know, or does care, is that Ajax employees, especially the sales employees, have a significant impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Vilares (2003) puts it this way, “employee variables like employee satisfaction, commitment and loyalty influence customer perception of the value of the product and service, which in turn influences customer satisfaction; customer satisfaction influences customer loyalty; and corporate financial results are directly influenced by customer loyalty,” (Vilares, 2003). There is a direct connection between an employee’s perception of personal welfare and customer loyalty and customer loyalty impacts company financial results.

Conclusion

The volatile economy today will not end soon. There are many variables that are worldwide in nature. No single country can bring this economic instability to an end. The competitive landscape for most companies in this economic environment will be tough requiring companies to maintain as many customers as possible. Gaining market share will be more and more difficult and only the best companies will prosper in the near future. The environment for the sales forces of these companies continues to become more and more complex and competitive. There is no substitute for experience when considering the complexities and stresses produced for these sales forces. If companies are to truly compete regionally, nationally, and globally, more needs to be done to reduce those negative characteristics of the work environment wherever possible.

As stated previously, the sales environment is comprised of a stressful, pressure packed working lifestyle. Individuals do not stay in sales unless they can thrive on stress and channel it into production. However, the existence of inherent stresses in the job and the ability of professional sales people to channel those stresses into productively does not mean increasing the level of stress will mean more productivity. If management wants to keep the company healthy long term they must work to increase employee job satisfaction. Proper effort/reward relationships must be established. Reducing and/or eliminating added stressors are of primary concern here.

Coercive management styles do not provide a healthy working environment for sales people. The overly stressful working life will have dramatic impact on employee attitudes and poses potential health hazards if endured over long periods of time. Contrary to the belief within Ajax, these changing attitudes will affect the financial stability of the company at some point in the future. Although Ajax is a Fortune 1000 company, there is no way of knowing how dramatically the negative impact will be if management continues to operate in the current status quo. Companies such as Enron and Global Crossing have proven beyond any doubt that size is no guaranty against failure when management undertakes defective or destructive management styles. The only difference between small or large company failures is that the failure of larger companies usually ends up hurting far more people.

If Ajax makes use of qualified change agents as discussed in Robbins and Judge (2011), this potential catastrophic problem could be addressed more effectively (p. 592). Even such drastic changes as those facing Ajax can be managed with the proper people undertaking the proper course of action. Ajax is not attempting to address any of the real concerns facing the sales employees in the company. If Ajax intelligently and proactively addresses these changes the company is faced with, Ajax could avert losing so many important skilled employees and keep customer satisfaction at a high level.

Recommendations

Ajax should undertake a revamping of its management philosophy. The first step would entail putting out a survey to the field sales people to ascertain what the sales forces feels should be done to improve relations between management and employees and how to adapt more effectively to a seriously changing sales environment. Ajax should work to become a learning organization, (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p. 604). The current changes mandated and which are being implemented is only the beginning. With current economic instability facing the U.S. coupled with the baby boom generation coming of Medicare age, there is no doubt that changes in Medicare are not now over. The Medicare program will continue to evolve in order to meet the new economic and regulatory environment of the future. This likely means more changes for those companies participating in the Medicare programs.

In Ajax’s case, sales force employees should also be given more of a voice in determining what will work in the field. No one knows how to do the job better than the individual already doing it successfully. As the field sales force is directly in contact with both current clients and prospects understanding what they are asking and desiring, the field force should have serious input into changing company policies in regards to this. As Glover (1992) showed in the solutions presented in the case of the failed company Sheetrock, Inc., “Employee input could have been used to design strategies to offset sales declines in economically depressed markets,” (Glover, 1992). In Glover’s (1992) opinion Sheetrock continued to use coercive top down management styles until the company ultimately failed.

Times change and tactics and techniques should evolve with the changing work environment. Sales today is a highly complex, technical, and ever evolving process. Once out of the sales environment for a period of time management loses touch with what really works in the field. At the current rate of change within the insurance industry sales processes can become obsolete in just a couple of years. Most of the upper management in Ajax has been out of the field for a decade or more.

Management should also work to reduce undue stressors or least not create any new stressors. One way to help facilitate the changes the field sales force must endure for a company such as Ajax is through support and training. Sales people need obstacles that are unnecessary removed from in front of them and also not have new obstacles placed in front of them. Coercion and intimidation only places more stress and obstacles in front of professional sales people. By providing the proper products, techniques, tactics, training, and support the company shows field sales employees the company stands ready to support all the sales forces’ efforts in an ongoing and constructive manner. This will send the message that will help the sales force endure the stresses involved in such dramatic changes as Ajax has already undergone and will undergo in the near future. This is not unlike Kotter’s eight step plan for implementing change, (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p.597).

Change in today’s global economy is the norm and not an aberration. In order for companies to prosper in the changing and competitive face of a world economy, companies must maintain experienced highly motivated employees. High turnover rates within companies in extremely competitive markets faced with dynamic changes will cause downward pressures on customer loyalty and ultimately impact company financial performance. By working to create satisfied employees through proper training and support, companies are more strategically positioned to compete and be successful.

References

Ahmadi, F., & Ahmadi, Y. (2011). Organizational factors impact on manpower productivity. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(3), 242-242-248.

Anonymous, (2003). Work stress doubles heart death risk. (2003). The Worklife Report, 14(4), 9-9.

Conner, D. S., & Douglas, S. C. (2005). Organizationally-induced work stress: The role of employee bureaucratic orientation. Personnel Review, 34(2), 210-210-224.

Elangovan, A. R. (2000). Effects of perceived power of supervisor on subordinate work attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(6), 319-319-328.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). An examination of subordinate-perceived relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and leader bases of power. Human Relations, 47(7), 779-779.

Glover, H. D. (1992). Organizational change and development: The consequences of misuse. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 13(1), 9-9.

Khan, N., Riaz, M. T., Bashir, H., Iftekhar, H., & Khattak, A. (2011). Effect of stress on sales person performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(2), 81-381-389.

Powers, P. (2007). Persuasion and coercion: A critical review of philosophical and empirical approaches. HEC Forum, 19(2), 125-125-43.

Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2011). Organizational behavior. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Schmit, M. J., & Allscheid, S. P. (1995). Employee attitudes and customer satisfaction: Making theoretical and empirical connections. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 521-521.

Stecher, M. D., & Rosse, J. G. (2007). Understanding reactions to workplace injustice through process theories of motivation: A teaching module and simulation. Journal of Management Education, 31(6), 777-777-796.

Thoroughgood, C. N., Hunter, S. T., & Sawyer, K. B. (2011). Bad apples, bad barrels, and broken followers? an empirical examination of contextual influences on follower perceptions and reactions to aversive leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 647-647-672.

Vilares, M. J. (2003). The employee-customer satisfaction chain in the ECSI model. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11), 1703-1703-1722.

(3 points)

Welcome

inf@tjcummuta.com (Timothy J. Cummuta) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:55:47 GMT

Welcome to my blog. Please check back soon for new entries.