Article

The last thing Eric Holt had expected to miss about New York City was its sunrises. Seeing one usually

meant he had pulled another all-nighter at the consulting firm where, as a vice president, he had

managed three teams of manufacturing specialists. But as he stood on the balcony of his new apartment

in the small Indiana city that was now his home, Eric suddenly felt a pang of nostalgia for the way the

dawn plays off the skyscrapers of Manhattan. In the next moment, though, he let out a sardonic laugh.

The dawn light was not what he missed about New York. What he missed was the feeling of

accomplishment that usually accompanied those sunrises.

An all-nighter in New York had meant hours of intense work with a cadre of committed, enthusiastic

colleagues. Give and take. Humor. Progress. Here, so far anyway, that was unthinkable. As the director

of strategy at FireArt, Inc., a regional glass manufacturer, Eric spent all his time trying to get his new

team to make it through a meeting without the tension level becoming unbearable. Six of the top-level

managers involved seemed determined to turn the company around, but the seventh seemed equally

determined to sabotage the process. Forget camaraderie. There had been three meetings so far, and

Eric hadn't even been able to get everyone on the same side of an issue.

Eric stepped inside his apartment and checked the clock: only three more hours before he had to watch

as Randy Louderback, FireArt's charismatic director of sales and marketing, either dominated the group's

discussion or withdrew entirely, tapping his pen on the table to indicate his boredom. Sometimes he

withheld information vital to the group's debate; other times he coolly denigrated people's comments.

Still, Eric realized, Randy held the group together because of his dynamic personality, his almost

legendary past, and his close relationship with FireArt's CEO that he could not be ignored. And at least

once during each meeting, he offered an insight about the industry or the company that was so

perceptive that Eric knew he shouldn't be ignored.

As he prepared to leave for the office, Eric felt the familiar frustration that had started building during

the team's first meeting a month earlier. It was then that Randy had first insinuated, with what sounded

like a joke, that he wasn't cut out to be a team player.

FireArt, Inc., was in trouble- not deep trouble, but enough for its CEO, Jack Derry, to make strategic

repositioning Eric's top and only task. The company, a family-owned maker of wine goblets, beer steins,

ashtrays, and other glass novelties had succeeded for nearly 80 years as a high-quality, high-price

producer, catering to hundreds of Midwestern clients. It traditionally did big business every football

season, selling commemorative knickknacks to the fans of teams such as the Fighting Irish, the

Wolverines, and the Golden Gophers. In the spring, there was always a rush of demand for senior prom

items -- champagne goblets emblazoned with a school's name or beer mugs with a school's crest, for

example. Fraternities and sororities were steady customers. Year after year, FireArt showed respectable

increases at the top and bottom lines, posting $86 million in revenues and $3 million in earnings three

years before Eric arrived.

In the last 18 months, though, sales and earnings had flattened. Jack, a grandnephew of the company's

founder, thought he knew what was happening. Until recently, large national glass companies had been

able to make money only through mass production. Now, however, thanks to new technologies in the

glassmaking industry, those companies could execute short runs profitably. They had begun to enter

FireArt's niche, Jack had told Eric, and, with their superior resources, it was just a matter of time before

they would own it.

"You have 1 responsibility as FireArt's new director of strategy," Jack had said to Eric on his first day.

"That's to put together a team of our top people, one person from each division, and have a plan for the

company's strategic realignment up, running, and winning within 6 months."

Eric had immediately compiled a list of the senior managers from human resources, manufacturing,

finance, distribution, design, and marketing, and had set a date for the first meeting. Then, drawing on

his years as a consultant who had worked almost solely in team environments, Eric had carefully

prepared a structure and guidelines for the group's discussions, disagreements, and decisions, which he

planned to propose to the members for their input before they began working together.

Successful groups are part art, part science, Eric knew, but he also believed that with every member's

full commitment, a team proved the adage that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Knowing

that managers at FireArt were unaccustomed to the team process, however, Eric imagined he might get

some resistance from one or two members.

For one, he had been worried about Ray LaPierre of manufacturing. Ray was a giant of a man who had

run the furnaces for some 35 years, following in his father's footsteps. Although he was a former high

school football star who was known among factory workers for his hearty laugh and practical jokes, Ray

usually didn't say much around FireArt's executives, citing his lack of higher education as the reason. Eric

had thought the team atmosphere might intimidate him.

Eric had also anticipated a bit of a fight from Maureen Turner of the design division, who was known to

complain that FireArt didn't appreciate its six artists. Eric expected Maureen might hesitate to

collaborate with people who didn't understand the design process.

Ironically, both those fears had proved groundless, but another, more difficult problem had arisen. The

wild card had turned out to be Randy. Eric had met Randy once before the team started its work and

had found him to be enormously intelligent, energetic, and good-humored. What's more, Jack Derry had

confirmed his impressions, telling him that Randy "had the best mind" at FireArt. It was also from Jack

that Eric had first learned of Randy's hardscrabble yet inspirational personal history.

Poor as a child, he had worked as a security guard and short-order cook to put himself through the state

college, from which he graduated with top honors. Soon after, he started his own advertising and market

research firm in Indianapolis, and within the decade, he had built it into a company employing 50 people

to service some of the region's most prestigious accounts. His success brought with it a measure of fame:

articles in the local media, invitations to the statehouse, even an honorary degree from an Indiana

business college. But in the late 1980s, Randy's firm suffered the same fate as many other advertising

shops, and he was forced to declare, bankruptcy. FireArt considered it a coup when it landed him as

director of marketing, since he had let it be known that he was offered at least two dozen other jobs.

"Randy is the future of this company," Jack Derry had told Eric. "If he can't help you, no one can. I look

forward to hearing what a team with his kind of horsepower can come up with to steer us away from

the mess we're in."

Those words echoed in Eric's mind as he sat, with increasing anxiety, through the team's first and second

meetings. Though Eric had planned an agenda for each meeting and tried to keep the discussions on

track, Randy always seemed to find a way to disrupt the process. Time and time again, he shot down

other people's ideas, or he simply didn't pay attention. He also answered most questions put to him with

maddening vagueness. "I'll have my assistant look into it when he gets a moment," he replied when one

team member asked him to list FireArt's five largest customers. "Some days you eat the bear, and other

days the bear eats you," he joked another time, when asked why sales to fraternities had recently nosedived.

Randy's negativism, however, was countered by occasional comments so insightful that they stopped

the conversation cold or turned it around entirely -- comments that demonstrated extraordinary

knowledge about competitors or glass technology or customers' buying patterns. The help wouldn't last,

though, Randy would quickly revert to his role as team renegade.

The third meeting, last week, had ended in chaos. Ray LaPierre, Maureen Turner, and the distribution

director, Carl Simmons, had each planned to present cost-cutting proposals, and at first it looked as

though the group were making good progress.

Ray opened the meeting, proposing a plan for FireArt to cut throughput time by 3% and raw-materials

costs by 2%, thereby positioning the company to compete better on price. It was obvious from his

detailed presentation that he had put a lot of thought into his comments, and it was evident that he was

fighting a certain amount of nervousness as he made them.

"I know I don't have the book smarts of most of you in this room," he had begun, "but here goes anyway."

During his presentation, Ray stopped several times to answer questions from the team, and as he went

on, his nervousness transformed into his usual ebullience. "That wasn't so bad!" he laughed to himself

as he sat down at the end, flashing a grin at Eric. "Maybe we can turn this old ship around."

Maureen Turner had followed Ray. While not disagreeing with him -- she praised his comments, in fact

-- she argued that FireArt also needed to invest in new artists, pitching its competitive advantage in

better design and wider variety. Unlike Ray, Maureen had made this case to FireArt's top executives

many times, only to be rebuffed, and some of her frustration seeped through as she explained her

reasoning yet again. At one point, her voice almost broke as she described how hard she had worked in

her first ten years at FireArt, hoping that someone in management would recognize the creativity of her

designs. "But no one did," she recalled with a sad shake of her head. "That's why when I was made

director of the department, I made sure all the artists were respected for what they are -- artists, not

worker ants. There's a difference, you know." However, just as with Ray LaPierre, Maureen's comments

lost their defensiveness as the group members, with the exception of Randy, who remained impassive,

greeted her words with nods of encouragement.

By the time Carl Simmons of distribution started to speak, the mood in the room was approaching

buoyant. Carl, a quiet and meticulous man, jumped from his seat and practically paced the room as he

described his ideas. FireArt, he said, should play to its strength as a service-oriented company and

restructure its trucking system to increase the speed of delivery. He described how a similar strategy had

been adopted with excellent results at his last job at a ceramics plant. Carl had joined FireArt just six

months earlier. It was when Carl began to describe those results in detail that Randy brought the meeting

to an unpleasant halt by letting out a loud groan. "Let's just do everything, why don't we, including

redesign the kitchen sink!" he cried with mock enthusiasm. That remark sent Carl back quickly to his

seat, where he halfheartedly summed up his comments. A few minutes later, he excused himself, saying

he had another meeting. Soon the others made excuses to leave, too, and the room became empty.

No wonder Eric was apprehensive about the fourth meeting. He was therefore surprised when he

entered the room and found the whole group, save Randy, already assembled.

Ten minutes passed in awkward small talk, and, looking from face to face, Eric could see his own

frustration reflected. He also detected an edge of panic -- just what he had hoped to avoid. He decided

he had to raise the topic of Randy's attitude openly, but just as he started, Randy ambled into the room,

smiling. "Sorry, folks," he said lightly, holding up a cup of coffee as if it were explanation enough for his

tardiness.

"Randy, I'm glad you're here," Eric began, "because I think today we should begin by talking about the

group itself -- "

Randy cut Eric off with a small, sarcastic laugh. "Uh-oh, I knew this was going to happen," he said.

Before Eric could answer, Ray LaPierre stood up and walked over to Randy, bending over to look him in

the eye.

"You just don't care, do you?" he began, his voice so angry it startled everyone in the room.

Everyone except Randy. "Quite the contrary -- I care very much," he answered breezily. "I just don't

believe this is how change should be made. A brilliant idea never came out of a team. Brilliant ideas

come from brilliant individuals, who then inspire others in the organization to implement them."

"That's a lot of bull," Ray shot back. "You just want all the credit for the success, and you don't want to

share it with anyone."

"That's absurd," Randy laughed again. "I'm not trying to impress anyone here at FireArt. I don't need to.

I want this company to succeed as much as you do, but I believe, and I believe passionately, that groups

are useless. Consensus means mediocrity. I'm sorry, but it does."

"But you haven't even tried to reach consensus with us," Maureen interjected. "It's as if you don't care

what we all have to say. We can't work alone for a solution -- we need to understand each other. Don't

you see that?"

The room was silent as Randy shrugged his shoulders noncommittally. He stared at the table, a blank

expression on his face.

It was Eric who broke the silence. "Randy, this is a team. You are part of it," he said, trying to catch

Randy's eye without success. "Perhaps we should start again -- "

Randy stopped him by holding up his cup, as if making a toast. "Okay, look, I'll behave from now on," he

said. The words held promise, but he was smirking as he spoke them -- something no one at the table

missed. Eric took a deep breath before he answered; as much as he wanted and needed Randy

Louderback's help, he was suddenly struck by the thought that perhaps Randy's personality and his past

experiences simply made it impossible for him to participate in the delicate process of ego surrender

that any kind of teamwork requires.

"Listen, everyone, I know this is a challenge," Eric began, but he was cut short by Randy's pencil-tapping

on the table. A moment later, Ray LaPierre was standing again.

"Forget it. This is never going to work. It's just a waste of time for all of us," he said, more resigned than

gruff. "We're all in this together, or there's no point." He headed for the door, and before Eric could stop

him, two others were at his heels.

Please answer the following questions from the article above.

Question:

1. Who is the least motivated person at FireArt and why? Recommend at least 2 actions Eric can take to more effectively motivate this employee. Explain how your recommendations are supported by a specific theory of motivation.

2. Randy Louderback believes that the best ideas “never came out of a team. Brilliant ideas come from brilliant individuals, who then inspire others in the organization to implement them." Under which conditions is this belief accurate? Under which conditions is this belief inaccurate?

3. How would you describe the level of task interdependence at FireArt? Describe 3 ways Eric Holt can increase task interdependence in his team (1 recommendation per type of task interdependence). Which of these recommendations do you believe would be most effective and why?

4. Which team roles are present and absent at FireArt? What are the implications of these roles for Eric Holt and his team’s performance?

5. What are the types and sources of conflict at FireArt? Which conflict handling styles are present and absent among FireArt employees? What are 2 ways Eric Holt can improve his conflict management?

6. Describe the organizational culture of FireArt? How does this culture affect Eric Holt’s experience and effectiveness as a manager? Based on the Model of Team Effectiveness, provide at least 5 recommendations to help Eric Holt better build and manage teams.

What are some pros and cons of Bitcoin? Would you feel safe using it?

Choose the appropriate quality mangemnt tool for each scenario presented below and defend your selection.

1. Your multi-discplinary performance improvement team is working on solutions to bed turnaround time. You have collected data on the issue and there are seven main problems. REcommend the quality managment tool to use to prioritize the problems by identifying those most responsible for them.

2. Unfortunatly, your healthcare organization has experianced a sentinel event, which is an unexpected death or serious physical injury. You will be part of the team that works on the root cause analysis. What quality management tool is most oftern useed in this process?

3. The chief os staffing is helping the HIM department reduced the number of delinquent charts. He has asked for an illustration that shows the various meducal departments (orthopedics, dermatology, ophthalmology, urology, respiratory) and the percentage of the overall delinquencies for which they are responsible. What quality managment tool will show this information appropriatetly?

4. Your performance improvemnt team has been tracking a ky preocess imporvement for the past year. What quality mangment tool will be of assistance in tracking any variances?

5. A process improvment team is collecting data to detemrine if there is a correlation between medicaiton errors and pharmacy tech overtime. What is the best tool to plot this data?

What is supply chain management? Describe the breadth and depth of the field? What are the objectives in terms of good management of supply chains? What are the functional pieces of supply chain management in the broadest sense? What are the flows involved? What are the relationships involved? Think about being asked this question on an interview

This is for business law. Please answer in this format:

I. Facts – What happened?

II. Issue – What is the question of law?

III. Holding – What is your decision?

IV. Reasoning – What principles of law did you base your decision on?

Employment Relationships. William Moore owned and operated Moore Enterprises, a wholesale tire business, in Idaho. While in high school, Williams son, Jonathan, worked as a Moore employee. Later, Jonathan started his own business, called Morecedes Tire. Morecedes regrooved tires and sold them to businesses, including Moore. Moore made payments for the tires not to Jonathan, but to Morecedes Tire, without tax withholding. A decade after Jonathan started Morecedes, William offered him work with Moore for $12 per hour.

Jonathan accepted but retained Morecedes Tire. On the first day, William told Jonathan to load some tires on a trailer. While Jonathan was unhooking the trailer, a jack handle struck him. He suffered several broken bones in his face and a detached retina. He was never paid for the work. He filed a workers' compensation claim. Under Idaho’s laws, an individual must be an employee-not an independent contractor-to obtain workers' compensation. What criteria do the courts use to determine employee status? How do they apply to Jonathan?

What experiences have you personally had with the ways in which cultural capital determines consumption?

2. Provide a one page report of your observations of work teams and groups from either your workplace or university. Answer the following questions in your report: Where have you observed teams or groups to be most effective? Why? What changes might be made at work in the university to make teams more effective.

1. "Step X of a project has been budgted for 600. It is 50% complete. You have spent 400 so far. Are you overbudget or underbudget. If you are underbudget, indicate the amount as a negative number. If you are overbudget, indicate the amount as a positive number (no plus)."

2. "Step X of a project has been budgted for 600. It is 90% complete. You have spent 400 so far. Are you overbudget or underbudget. If you are underbudget, indicate the amount as a negative number. If you are overbudget, indicate the amount as a positive number (no plus)."

3. "A project has 3 steps, Step 1 is 200 overbudget. Step 2 is 500 underbudget. Step 3 is 100 overbudget. Is the project overbudget or underbudget. Enter a negative number for underbudget. Enter a positive number for overbudget (no plus)."

4. "A project has 3 steps, Step 1 is 900 overbudget. Step 2 is 500 underbudget. Step 3 is 100 overbudget. Is the project overbudget or underbudget. Enter a negative number for underbudget. Enter a positive number for overbudget (no plus)."

5. "Step X normally takes 4 weeks and $800. You can crash it to 2 weeks and it cost $ 1200. What is the weekly crash cost? If this impossible, enter -999."

6. "Step X normally takes 4 weeks and $800. You can crash it to 2 weeks and it cost $ 1800. What is the weekly crash cost? If this impossible, enter -999."

7. "Step X normally takes 1 weeks and $800. You can crash it and it will cost $ 1200. What is the weekly crash cost? If this impossible, enter -999."

8. "Step X normally takes 4 weeks and $800. You can crash it to 4 weeks and it cost $ 1200. What is the weekly crash cost? If this impossible, enter -999."

9. "Step X: EST = 5, LST = 8, LFT = 9, What is EFT? (Enter -999 if node is impossible) "

10. "Step X: EST = 5, LST = 8, LFT = 7. What is the EFT? (If the node is in error, enter -999)"

11. "Step X: EST = 8, LST = 12, LST = 9, LFT = 12. What is slack? (enter -999 for impossible nodes) "

GEICO is the number-four U.S. car insurance firm, behind State Farm, Allstate, and Progressive yet its $500 million annual budget for marketing communications is by far the industry’s largest. GEICO uses this budget to great advantage with a wide variety of messages in a variety of media to influence consumers’ attitudes toward its insurance offerings, which include coverage for cars, motorcycles, homes, and recreational vehicles. In a product category in which consumers do not switch from one brand to another without considerable thought, GEICO’s communications give drivers something to think about and steer them toward positive brand attitudes.

The company’s messages use strong arguments focusing on savings and service to get consumers thinking about the cost of car insurance. Some of its comparative messages show exactly how much money a particular consumer saved by switching from a competing insurance company to GEICO, information that enhances the product’s believability. In a variation on this theme, many of its comparative ads say that “fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent.” This message encourages consumers to calculate how much less they could be paying for car insurance if they were GEICO customers. It also reassures consumers by telling them that making the switch to GEICO will be quick and easy.

Every ad not only mentions the brand name but also gives GEICO’s toll-free phone number or its website (or both)—a call to action for consumers to take the next step and get a free quote, read more about specific types of policies, or contact customer service with just a click or a call, day or night. Messages about GEICO’s high levels of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty have more credibility because they are based on expert sources named on the website: The University of Michigan’s American Customer Satisfaction Index and the Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement Index.

To support its aggressive expansion into motorcycle insurance, GEICO recently set up MyGreatRides.com as a social networking website for motorcycle enthusiasts. The idea is to provide an online forum for motorcycle owners to post upcoming events, exchange views about favorite bike brands, and show off their tricked-out rides. Although the GEICO brand is nowhere to be found on the website, the company sees it as an investment in learning how consumers think and feel about everything related to their bikes, including insurance. “If we can learn more about the needs of motorcycle riders and what kind of service they expect, we think it will help us with our current customers and potential ones,” says GEICO’s director of motorcycle products.

GEICO’s Corporate Community Citizens program fosters positive consumer attitudes through the company’s involvement with local causes and organizations. Not only does GEICO donate money to nonprofit groups all around the United States; its employees also volunteer their time for causes such as Habitat for Humanity home-building projects, Bikers for Tykes motorcycle rally fundraisers, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters activities. One of GEICO’s many auto safety initiatives is the Safety Belt Poster Contest, in which school-age children submit artwork for posters that remind drivers about the importance of buckling up for safety. Local efforts such as these link the GEICO name with worthwhile causes that touch an emotional chord with consumers.

Despite increased competition from its larger rivals, GEICO’s approach to marketing car and motorcycle insurance has been extremely effective. The company currently serves more than 7 million customers and, according to J.D. Power & Associates studies, enjoys high brand awareness as well as the highest new-customer acquisition rate among the major insurers. Watch for GEICO to keep driving toward higher market share by reaching out to car and motorcycle drivers all over the United States.

Does GEICO appear to be using marketing communications to change consumers’ beliefs, change their evaluations, add a new belief, encourage attitude formation based on imagined experience, or target normative beliefs? Explain your answer.

What role does source credibility play in GEICO’s marketing communications?

Do you agree with GEICO’s decision not to show its brand on the MyGreatRides.com website? How do you think this decision is likely to affect the website’s visitors’ attitudes toward GEICO

In your own words, write an introduction and conclusion, talking about customer privacy in business.

BUS115 Module 4 Assignment - Table Template

Student Name:

Overview

In this assignment, you will describe the consumer buying process of a significant purchase.

Additionally, using different models of basketball shoes, you will identify target markets. You will breakdown the marketing mix (Product, Price, Place, Promotion) for each segment, identifying each element including pricing strategies and tactics.

INSTRUCTIONS

Select a product, one that would be a more significant household purchase (a big ticket item) than an everyday product. Describe the consumer buying process covered in module readings as it relates to this purchase.

Using a table, as the sample in the assignment instructions in Module 4 Content shows , fill in the table to demonstrate how basketball shoe models are marketed to different target market segments, including how the marketing strategies (price, place, and promotion) are tailored to reach that segment.

Include a paragraph summary explaining how the marketing mix differs for each segment in the chart.

NOTE: Market segments break down a larger market into smaller, more homogenous groups using demographic (age, gender, education, income), geographic, psychographic (consumer based interests or activities), and behavioral (usage, buying habits) characteristics. The purpose for segmenting a market is to allow your marketing/sales program to focus on the subset of prospects that are "most likely" to purchase your offering.

Market Segment	Product	Pricing (Strategies and Tactics)	Place	Promotion	Notes
	Air Jordan Trophy Room 23
	Nike Kobe A.D.
	Adidas Originals Pro Model
	Boy’s S Sport by Sketchers Lapse Athletic Shoes

Be sure to:

Use the Assignment 4 Word Document Table Template to help you complete this assignment.

Incorporate in-text citations and correctly formatted reference(s), to properly document your resources. Relate to Module 4 Course Readings.

Use proper grammar, spelling, and formatting.

what is the difference between these two procurement method; open international competitive bidding and negotiating with
reputable companies.
Also their advantages and disadvantages

answer this question after reading the below post

Which of these five management styles do you prefer when dealing with conflict and why?

Recognizing that conflict and conflict resolution will be a skillset that every manager should be prepared for, having a variety of conflict management techniques that are appropriate for a given scenario will always be advantageous; however many conflict management specialists will develop their own preferences of style based upon experience.

Here are the five conflict management styles according to Thomas, K.W., and R.H. Kilmann:

1.Accommodating – This is when you cooperate with a high-degree, and it may be at your own expense, and actually work against your own goals, objectives, and desired outcomes. This approach is effective when the other party is the expert or has a better solution. It can also be effective for preserving future relations with the other party.
2.Avoiding – This is when you simply avoid the issue. You aren’t helping the other party reach their goals, and you aren’t assertively pursuing your own. This works when the issue is trivial or when you have no chance of winning. It can also be effective when the issue would be very costly. It’s also very effective when the atmosphere is emotionally charged and you need to create some space. Sometimes issues will resolve themselves, but “hope is not a strategy”, and, in general, avoiding is not a good long-term strategy.
3.Collaborating – This is where you partner or pair up with the other party to achieve both of your goals. This is how you break free of the “win-lose” paradigm and seek the “win-win.” This can be effective for complex scenarios where you need to find a novel solution. This can also mean re-framing the challenge to create a bigger space and room for everybody’s ideas. The downside is that it requires a high degree of trust and reaching a consensus can require a lot of time and effort to get everybody on board and to synthesize all the ideas.
4.Competing – This is the “win-lose” approach. You act in a very assertive way to achieve your goals, without seeking to cooperate with the other party, and it may be at the expense of the other party. This approach may be appropriate for emergencies when the time is of the essence, or when you need quick, decisive action, and people are aware of and support the approach.
5.Compromising – This is the “lose-lose” scenario where neither party really achieves what they want. This requires a moderate level of assertiveness and cooperation. It may be appropriate for scenarios where you need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important goals. The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out when collaborating would produce a better solution.