Perhaps they believe that the employees are contributing to the revenue losses and are stealing merchandise. These are all self destructive in nature and could impact their ability to remain in business and keep good employees. Making the decision to close two stores without adequate justification drastically reduces it footprint in the market place. It appears that either the store supervisor or manager is not engaged with the employees and consumers; do not have sufficient training on company ethics policies to enforce them; or they do not have a fully robust ethics program in place to address to ongoing issues. PART B Company Q can take some immediate steps which I believe would turn a downward trend in to positive results.
If your compassion fails and you become hard-hearted, you may apply capricious and inappropriate solutions. Your Crisis: Failure and Confusion Unless you develop the practice of mindfulness and reflection, at some point you will face failure. No one can accomplish or acquire everything and the more you do, the less satisfying it becomes. Alternatively, you will confront the loss of your center, especially if you lose the role with which you have become identified. If you find you have few friends, it could be because your acquisitiveness or obsession with the responsibilities of your role drives them away.
This response likely had the added effect of offending their employee base by suggesting that their employees would utilize the program to steal from the company. This offense has the significant potential for lowering employee engagement and retention. Clearly, Company Q is not educated in how ethical conduct and social responsibility by a company can actually boost its profits. Their current position only serves to perpetuate the long lived consumer mind-set that companies are inherently dishonest and only have eyes on profit. It is unrealistic to believe that Company Q can instantly jump from their current posture to one of deep and meaningful social responsibility and corporate ethics.
Explain. In my opinion, from an equity theory standpoint, forced ranking performance appraisals would not work for most companies. In some instances, this could be viewed and considered by the employees a tool for companies that is used to eliminate under-producing employees. Such with major production companies whose bottom line is the perception, this approach to monitoring and cutting employees who do not meet certain production levels does not always motivate employees. Some employees will try to produce more for fear of losing their jobs, but this does not provide positive motivation which, in my opinion, is a better means of motivation.
This give the bounce make service users feel unworthy and can sincerely lower their confidence and self esteem. As a professional, if you pay heed this happening, it is your duty to challenge the worker. This can be done in a number of ways. Firstly, you can directly challenge cusses or other professionals who you believe are showing discriminatory practice. This can sometimes be difficult as it can cause conflict.
There are two key terms to Skinner’s ‘operant conditioning’ approach these are, negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is strengthening behaviour by removing an unpleasant stimulus. Many people get confused between a negative reinforcement with a ‘punishment’. Reinforcement and a ‘punishment’ are two different things. This is because reinforcement is done so that the behaviour occurs more, but punishments are given to decrease certain behaviour.
Zaslow’s perspective on this trend would most accurately be considered negative. It may be that as parents of this generation we tend to over rather than under praise our children, not giving them enough positive criticism, leading them to take it personally. Everything online is instantaneously judged and when workers don’t get immediate feedback, they tend to believe that they are working at a mediocre level or doing something wrong, “It has created a culture where you have to have instant feedback or you’ll fail” (Atwood). This inclination can backfire and worsen the problem it initially tried to solve. The fact that companies are hiring celebration assistants and dishing out confetti and kudos, has helped with job retention and self esteem at work.
However, we normally amplify the outcomes of our future events. Finally, we are wrong about everything that we predict. Using the term “impact bias”, defined as the difference between what we are looking for the feeling and what we virtually meet that feeling, Gertner explains, “You may have high hopes, but the impact bias suggests that it will almost certainly be less cool, and in a shorter time, than you imagine” (445). He comments that people need to overcome the obstacles between them and happiness to get what they want. People usually tend to get errors as they predict how bad when they missed opportunities in their life.
It becomes difficult for a person with respect for others to gain power over someone who does not mind trampling over others to get to the top. These people have the ability to harm someone because their morals do not stop them, whereas one with good morals may become powerless because taking any action would mean that they have defied their morals. The main characters’ father, Sydney, is often known as someone who is abused. Sydney’s friend Connie realizes that it easy for him to blame
Another weakness is the consequences, in some situations when consequences are too severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful thing to happen. The theory is too rigid, sometimes the consequences can change the rightness or a wrongness of an action, but in this theory the person is judged on the action which can be unfair. It’s inflexible as you should be able to break a rule if the individual’s circumstances warrant it. There is no consideration to human emotion, there are situation where individuals break rules because of emotions, for example if a person is scared they may lie to protect themselves which in Kant’s eyes this would be morally wrong. The theory is a priori, some claim we out our duty a priori but it is also argued we need to refer to experience to work out what is right.