An admission office at a university is processing freshman applications which fall into three groups: in-state, out-of-state, and international. The male–female ratios for in-state and out-ofstate applicants are 1:1 and 3:2, respectively. For international students, the corresponding ratio is 8:1. The ACT score is an important factor in accepting new students. The statistics gathered by the university indicate that the average ACT scores for in-state, out-of-state, and international students are 27, 26, and 23, respectively. The admission committee has established the following desirable goals in priority order for the new freshman class:

1. The incoming class is at least 1200 freshmen.

2. The average ACT score for all incoming students is at least 25

3. International students constitute at least 10% of the incoming class.

4. The female–male ratio is at least 3:4.

5. Out-of-state students constitute at least 20% of the incoming class.

a) Solve this problem using Excel Solver, label the sheets appropriately and use short comments for describtion.

Formulate a Goal Programming model to meet these goals presented, define your decision variables, constraints and objective(s)

Identify key areas of potential operational risk for a hospital.

Londonderry Company’s Widget Plant produces widgets for industrial use. The plant uses a standard cost system with the following standard variable cost per widget.

                                                                                                Standard Qty                      Standard Price                  

                                                                                                   or Hours                              or Rate                             

Standard Cost

Direct Materials…………………………                               4.0 pounds                         $2.50 per pound              

Direct Labor……………………………….                              0.6 hours                             $9.00 per hour                 

During April, the plant produced 5,000 widgets and incurred the following costs:

a. Purchased and used 20,000 pounds of materials at a cost of $2.95 per pound.

b. Worked 3,600 direct labor hours at a cost of $8.70 per hour.

Required: (use the variance analysis template, if desired)

1.       Compute the following variances for April:

a.       Direct materials price and quantity variances.

b.       Direct labor rate and efficiency variances.

2.       Pick out the two most significant variances that you computed above (there are four in total). Explain possible causes for these variances.

Article review

1. What kind of problem is being investigated?

2. Who are the participants (the Executive Leadership team, for example)?

3. What were their challenges that the Executive Leadership faced; how were they overcome?

4. What was the outcome? Was it considered successful or not? Why or why not?

5. Discussion based on your personal experience, knowledge, and skills on Organizational Leadership

With roots dating back to the early 20th century, nutrition services and training in the US developed alongside MCH services and training [1]. Federal responsibility for both, especially since the passage of the Title V legislation in 1935, has been that of the MCHB, currently part of the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and its predecessors.1

This commentary will briefly recap the milestones of this history, and focus on the importance of the investment of the MCHB in promoting and supporting the development of MCH nutrition services as well as leadership training for public health nutrition professionals. The authors also address recent challenges to maintaining Title V nutrition services, the need to increase MCH nutrition leadership due to changes in the health care system as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is implemented, as well as the need to address nutrition conditions such as pediatric obesity and those associated with children with special health care needs. It is expected that these challenges, coupled with the MCHB paradigm shift to strategic implementation of the life course perspective, will lead to a concomitant shift toward an emphasis on upstream disease prevention and health promotion where nutrition will play a significant role.

Importance of Nutrition

Over a century ago, the parallel development of MCH services and nutrition services was a natural outgrowth of the fact that nutrition is key to optimal growth and development, beginning with pre-conception and affected by the nutritional status of prior generations [2]. This was recognized well before we clearly understood the underlying mechanisms related to nutrition and early development, which are still the focus of intense research and have contributed to the concept of life course health development. In the late 1800s and the beginning of the 20th century, good early nutrition was known to be critical for infants and children, with one of the first public health efforts being the “milk stations” of Rochester, NY in 1897 [3]. Today, in addition to the nutrition concerns engendered by the obesity epidemic and the persistence of associated chronic diseases, there are indications of a renewed interest in nutrition due to scientific advances that have begun to elucidate the biochemical and physiological mechanisms, and the underlying genetics, by which nutrients, and other components of food, promote health and prevent disease. A number of new medical textbooks highlight the importance of nutrition in health and development [4, 5]. The Life Course Perspective provides a new framework with which to view these largely epigenetic phenomena and their intergenerational transmission [6]. For example, the biochemical mechanisms by which the vitamin folate is protective of neural tube defects are now at least partially understood to be epigenetic. Also, preliminary findings from a “natural experiment” in The Gambia, suggest that maternal diet during the preconception period can permanently alter the function of a child’s genes [7]. Further research may define these nutrition-related, preventable, phenomena, some of which may contribute to the etiology of neurodevelopmental disabilities.

The Development of MCH Nutrition Services and Training

MCH Nutrition Services

In the beginning of the 1900s, nutrition services for mothers and children were largely the purview of voluntary organizations, with the notable exception of one federal agency, the Children’s Bureau, established in 1912. The Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921 led to federal support for development of MCH entities in state health agencies. With the passage of Title V of the Social Security Act in 1935, and federal grants to the states to provide MCH services, a major source of funding for nutrition services was secured, and by 1945 the vast majority of states had employed one or more nutrition consultants [1]. In the 1960s, with the advent of the Maternal and Infant and Children and Youth projects, nutritionists moved into the direct delivery of nutrition services, and nutritionist pioneers in MCHB-funded interdisciplinary training programs took the lead in developing clinical protocols to address the nutritional needs of children with more complex nutrition needs in special populations [1].

As described by Mary Egan, MS, MPH, RD (former Associate Director and Chief Nutritionist at MCHB), during the 1960s and 1970s other significant sources of federal funding were initiated as part of the War on Poverty (Head Start, Medicaid), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (US Department of Education), and the Special Supplemental Food (now Nutrition) Program for Women, Infants and Children2 (WIC) (US Department of Agriculture) [1]. However, the implementation of the WIC program and its documented success in improving birth outcomes [8] has led to unintended consequences for the provision of MCH population-based nutrition services more broadly speaking, as we discuss below.

MCH Nutrition and Leadership Training

Historically, training in public health nutrition has also been linked to the development of MCH. Dating back to the Children’s Bureau, training of professionals of all MCH-related disciplines, including nutrition, has been an integral part of the MCH vision, and so it remains today in the current (2012–2020) Strategic Plan of the Division of MCH Workforce Development (DMCHWD) [9]. Federal funds through the Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921 and Title V in 1935 allowed states to use grant funds to train nutritionists [1], and the Children’s Bureau hired the first nutrition consultant in 1936 [10]. Additional support for the training of MCH nutritionists came in 1943 from Title V, and in 1963 from Title VII of the Public Health Service Act (Health Professions Education), created in response to a shortage of health care providers in underserved communities [1, 11, 12]. Nutrition consultants from the central and regional MCHB agencies took the lead, working with universities and professional organizations to develop graduate training programs. To this day, MCHB’s investment in nutrition training through the MCH Nutrition Leadership Training grants, and for nutrition as a discipline receiving support through other MCH-funded interdisciplinary training grants,3constitutes the majority of federal funding for pre-service training in MCH nutrition and specialty training for nutritionists in pediatrics and neonatal centers.

In addition to supporting graduate level nutrition training, the six currently-funded MCH Nutrition Leadership Training Grantees conduct on-going leadership continuing education for public health nutritionists in states across the nation. Examples include the Western MCH Nutrition Leadership Network [13] and the Emerging Leaders in MCH Nutrition Training Institute [14].

Leadership Challenges and Opportunities for MCH Nutrition

While the leadership challenges for continuing to provide service and training in MCH nutrition are many and multi-faceted, the following three groupings cover the major issues and opportunities faced today. A more detailed description of the critical need for federal to local Title V programs to continue to support the development and maintenance of MCH nutrition services, as well as the training and leadership development of the MCH nutrition workforce, is outlined in a brief developed by the MCH Nutrition Council of the Association of State Public Health Nutritionists (ASPHN) [15].

The MCH Nutrition Workforce is Decreasing

In spite of the current rates of pediatric and adult obesity, arguably the number one preventable public health problem in the US, and the growing understanding of the importance of nutrition for optimal development, the last 10–15 years has seen a decrease in public health nutrition services and personnel in state Title V programs. The 2006–2007 ASPHN census enumeration of all public health nutrition personnel in the US, who worked in public health nutrition programs or services funded or contracted by official health agencies, found that US DHHS funded fewer than 5 % of full-time equivalent nutritionist positions (FTEs) and of these, the Title V MCH block grant funded only 1.6 %. In contrast, USDA funded 83 % of all nutritionist FTEs, demonstrating the dominance of the WIC program [16]. Given the reduction in the MCH nutrition workforce funded by Title V, we can assume that Title V directors, facing overall reductions in block grant funding, are choosing other funding priorities. Influencing this decision is the widespread, but false, assumption that WIC, and other USDA-funded nutrition services can replace those of Title V [15]. While the WIC program is certainly important, it has a limited mandate to provide nutrition education, referrals to health care, breastfeeding promotion and support, and benefits to purchase foods prescribed to correct identified nutrition risks [17]. The WIC program serves only low-income pregnant, post-partum and breast-feeding women; infants, and children through 5 years. What happens after children reach five and are of school-age? What services are available for the intra-partum woman, and for pre-conception care? How does WIC address the needs of special populations? What about the role of MCH nutrition in adolescent health, or in supporting a positive life course approach, especially during key developmental periods? The much broader Title V mandate, enabled through more flexible block grant funding, is to address infrastructure and population-based comprehensive MCH nutrition services at a state level [18].

More importantly, WIC was never intended to perform all primary prevention or public health functions known to be important in the provision of MCH services [15, 19]. Over two-thirds of the WIC workforce provides direct client services at least 75 % of their time, while 52 % of the non-WIC workforce spends less than 25 % of their time in this way [16]. Although a number of publicly-funded nutrition programs (USDA, CDC) also focus on the MCH population, none covers it entirely.

Finally, there also appears to be a lack of understanding of the unique role of public health nutrition, leading to a belief that other professionals can fully address the MCH nutrition needs and nutrition-related performance measures; this has reduced the visibility of nutrition within MCH programs [15]. Sometimes there is a perception that public health nutritionists only have expertise in nutrition, without understanding that they also have unique and diverse skills in public health, food and food systems, planning and collaboration, and the professional relationships to work with partners in other publically-funded nutrition programs [20]. In some cases, other health professionals, particularly physicians and nurses, may feel qualified to address nutrition issues due to their own personal experience, interest and/or limited coursework [15]. Public health nutritionists have unique and valuable knowledge and skills, including the biological and social determinants of health, primary prevention and population-based environmental and policy interventions, life course initiatives, and the linking of epidemiology with public health practice [6]. As an example, obesity may be seen by some as simply a question of energy imbalance, rather than a complex issue that includes food insecurity, poverty, and even suboptimal nutrition as well as possible underlying metabolic causes and their intergenerational and genetic/epigenetic impacts [21, 22]. Without this full understanding, policies, programs and surveillance can be flawed.

Recommendations

Maintain/create MCH nutrition services at the state and local level by considering new models, for example blending WIC and Title V funding streams as has been done in Oregon (to fund a full FTE in nutrition working in both programs) and California (to support data collection) [23]. This also would create new partnerships between agencies focused on MCH.

Maintain/increase MCHB’s investment in the leadership training of nutritionists as future MCH leaders, public health experts, advocates for MCH nutrition, policy makers, service providers, researchers, and teachers.

Support training of additional public health nutritionists to meet the emerging need for population-based preventive services. Training funds could be made available under Title VII of the Public Service Act as well as Title V.

MCH Nutrition Leadership Roles at All Levels Are Being Eroded, Potentially Curtailing the Historically Strong Advocacy for MCH Nutrition Initiatives

The threat to MCH nutrition leadership is further aggravated by the anticipated retirement of a large proportion of the experienced public health nutrition workforce. The 2006–2007 ASPHN workforce census found that of those 45 years and older who participated in the census, nearly half (47 %) intended to retire within 10 years [24].

As the number of state MCH nutrition consultants has eroded over the years, MCHB nutrition consultants have provided leadership at the federal and regional levels, often working with nutrition faculty in the MCHB-funded leadership training programs. One example of this leadership is the sponsorship of a national workshop held in December, 1990, entitled Call to Action: Better Nutrition for Mothers, Children and Families [25], resulting from the vision of Mary Egan, then a consultant to the National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health. A collaborative approach was used in the creation of the MCH Inter-organizational Nutrition Group (MCHING), consisting of representatives from nine organizations,4 to identify needs, build consensus around priorities, and recommend strategies to improve the nutritional status of children, including those with special needs and their families [26]. Many of these strategies are still relevant today. For example, recommendation #6 “Increase awareness of the importance of preconceptional care….” (p.19, reference 25) has an even stronger evidence base today [7]. More recently, the MCHB nutritionists, were instrumental in obtaining funding to support the development of “Cornerstones of a Healthy Lifestyle: Blueprint for Nutrition and Physical Activity” [21, 22], working in collaboration with ASPHN and the MCH-funded nutrition leadership training grantees.

Since the 1990s, federal MCHB nutrition positions, as well as those of other MCH disciplines at the federal and regional levels, have been eliminated, and the remaining nutritionists are being phased out due to retirements. Seeing these changes, the current federal MCHB nutrition leaders have been working to move their advocacy role more and more to professional organizations such as ASPHN [15], where a MCH Nutrition Council has recently formed. It is worth noting that all five chairs of this MCH Nutrition Council have benefited from leadership training, either pre-service, continuing education, or both, provided by one of the MCHB nutrition leadership grantees.

Recommendations

Re-establish the role of MCHB nutrition professionals, or make an effort to recruit public health professionals with a nutrition background, in both the central and regional offices. These individuals have proven, through the successful implementation of collaborative national nutrition initiatives, to be essential in providing needed leadership at the federal level.

Encourage, through Title V Block Grant Guidance, the reestablishment of MCH/CSHCN nutrition consultant positions at the state level.

Although Both the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Life Course Approach Adopted by MCHB Highlight the Need for Nutritionists as Team Members in Health Care and Public Health Settings, Nutritionists are Often not “at the Table” to Participate in Addressing These Challenges

In August, 2014, ASPHN, informed by the MCH Nutrition Council, submitted public comments to MCHB concerning the upcoming Guidance for the Title V Block Grant to States, in which they presented arguments against the decision not to include nutrition, or obesity prevention, within the performance measures proposed, and noted that “over time there has been erosion in public health nutrition’s ability to engage in population-based activities to improve the health of women and children” [26]. Why is this happening, given the epidemic rates of pediatric obesity, due to a number of causes [21, 22] that clearly call for an interdisciplinary approach to solutions, as do the mandates and new opportunities afforded by the ACA? Instead, with the declining MCH nutrition workforce and leadership, it becomes more difficult to address both existing and emerging mandates.

Unique to nutrition as a discipline, is the important role of nutrition in both treatment and prevention of obesity and chronic disease as well as promotion of health across the life course, coupled with the small number of trained professionals relative to the magnitude of these issues. And, nutrition professionals, not all of whom are trained to be leaders who can operate in both health care and public health settings, are many times not able, available, or invited to participate in strategic planning and policy-making activities. One of the reasons for this omission has already been mentioned—the belief that nutritionists are not “needed” to plan for, or provide, nutrition services. Another reason is that that up until recently, the national professional organization (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, formerly the American Dietetic Association) was focused on “medical nutrition therapy” in health care rather than the emerging need for preventive services. Another is the “silo-ing” of many health professionals, including nutritionists, which results in a failure in others to recognize their unique, as well as broad-based, skills. The MCHING collaboration, for example, involved mainly nutritionists (26/30 participants). Since that time, and recognized by the MCHING participants, was the need for interdisciplinary leadership training, beginning early, so that developing leaders see themselves as members of the “team” [25]. There is also the need to make nutrition “everyone’s business” by increasing the awareness and relevance of nutrition issues through public health planning. The interdisciplinary and disciplinary leadership training of nutritionists in MCHB-funded programs has been key to developing nutritionists who can perform in higher-level positions, applying both clinical and public health leadership skills in a broader context, and influencing the direction taken by policy-makers. However, with small numbers trained and fewer MCH nutritionists in key positions at the state and federal levels, the leadership gap is getting wider.

On a policy and systems level, the ACA presents opportunities and challenges related to nutrition services which can be linked to all ten Essential Health Benefits, outlined in the legislation [27]. With the establishment of clear reimbursement streams, Registered Dietitian Nutritionists (RDN) play a critical role on interdisciplinary intervention teams for CSHCN and patient-centered medical homes [28]. The ACA also establishes Preventive Services and Community Preventive Services Task Forces, which should include nutritionists, and contains language regarding nutrition education and services, such as in the provisions for school-based health clinics, medical homes and home health care. Although RDN are mentioned as possible providers, rarely is there more than a recommendation for these professionals to be included in the mandated teams [27, 29], nor have many state-level nutritionists been involved in ACA planning in their states [30]. Currently, the MCHB DMCHWD, MCH Public Health and Nutrition Leadership Training Program grantees are working together to assure that appropriate nutrition services be provided as part of the Essential Health Benefits and integrated into health delivery systems [31].

The MCH leadership issue is confused by the split in federal responsibility and funding for “MCH” nutrition between the DHHS (CDC, Medicaid, MCHB-Title V) and the USDA, and even the Department of Education. One of the Surgeon General’s National Prevention Strategies is Healthy Eating [32], and the ACA—mandated Community Transformation Grants awarded by the CDC target, among other strategies, increasing access to healthy foods by supporting local farmers and developing neighborhood grocery stores [33]. The USDA and DHHS develop the US Dietary Guidelines every 5 years; this has functioned as the cornerstone of US nutrition policy, providing guidance for all Americans ages two and older; guidelines from birth to age two are currently being developed [34]. There are other efforts to improve health by changing our dietary patterns and improving our access to healthy food, of course, but these are examples of the current “shot-gun” approach. Ideally these efforts would work together to develop a comprehensive “nutrition policy” for the US which crosses departmental boundaries seamlessly. As the key agency, historically, for assuring public health nutrition services and training nutritionists in MCH, MCHB could play a critical role in developing such a policy.

Recommendations

Continue or expand MCHB’s successful partnership with the ASPHN’s MCH Nutrition Council to increase the visibility of MCH nutrition.

Include a stronger emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration, and policy/advocacy training in all nutrition leadership training programs in order to raise the level of awareness of the importance of nutrition and nutrition services across all health professions.

Work within the professional nutrition organizations to increase the emphasis on prevention in the training of nutritionists/dietitians to prepare them for the changes engendered by the ACA.

Provide comprehensive MCH nutrition services in state Title V Block grant funding, especially as the health care system moves toward an increased emphasis on prevention under the ACA.

Ensure inclusion of nutritionists on the ACA-mandated Preventive Services and Community Preventive Services Task Forces.

Utilize primary prevention programs through community and public health agencies funded by the ACA to support nutritionists and nutrition programs nationally.

Develop policies to ensure that the several governmental agencies responsible for the nutritional health of the population, particularly the most vulnerable, work together in a seamless fashion for the most effective impact on the populations they serve.

The nutrition leaders being trained today will be the ones identifying training needs for the future workforce, and guiding/supporting interdisciplinary training programs to assure that nutrition is included in curricula for all health professionals, with additional nutrition expertise for those serving CSHCN. The leadership challenge for MCHB will be to continue the ongoing efforts to help ensure a nutrition workforce for diverse clinical, community and public health settings to match the demographics of, and to meet the emerging nutrition needs of the entire MCH population.

Conclusion

This commentary has briefly shown the historical importance of leadership from the MCHB federal and regional offices both in training nutritionists and providing nutrition services through state Title V programs as an important component of population-based public health services. Today, there is an erosion of that national leadership, and a decline in the public health nutrition workforce in Title V programs, at a time when the need to increase efforts in planning for and providing nutrition services, as well as training MCH nutritionists, both future and current is increasing. Arguably, the erosion in the national leadership could be one of the root causes of the decline, along with others outlined under the last issue above.

Finally, this commentary, and the recommendations for the challenges being faced, is based not solely on a review of the literature and currently-available public documents. It echoes the voices of other experts in MCH and nutrition who have recently repeated a “Call to Action” [6, 15, 27] and also represents the collective experience of the authors, each of whom has benefited from MCHB leadership training and/or support during serial and multiple roles as long-term nutrition trainees, MCH Nutrition Leadership training program directors, LEND directors, and state Title V MCH nutrition consultants.5

what are some beneficial communication methods?

Research current change models used by organizations to facilitate change. Compare and contrast two models. Describe the overall approach and goal of each model. What are the similarities and differences?

Complete the following table by briefly describing out the different retail formats could use each of the areas listed to enhance the store's image and atmosphere.

The Farr-Kroger Classic is a women’s professional golf tournament played each year in Ohio. Listed below are the total purse winnings (the amount of money that is distributed to the top golfers) and the prize for the winner for the 15 years from 1991 through 2005. The operators of this golf tournament believe that there is a relationship between the purse winnings and the prize and the prize is related to the purse winnings. In addition to the data provided, some of the possible linear regression relationships are provided.   These might be of help in your analysis.

Using linear regression relationships, answer the questions a) through c) below and on the following page.

a) Develop a projection for the amount of the prize for the winner for the year 2008 if the purse winnings for that year are projected to be $996,430. As part of your answer, include the independent and dependent variables and the accompanying linear regression relationship.

b) Now let’s suppose that we believe the prize for the winner is a function of time (dependent on time). Given this belief, develop a projection for the amount of the prize for the winner for the year 2008 and discuss your results compared to what you found in part a)

c) Would you recommend using the forecasts you found in parts a) and b) based on the strengths of the relationship? Why?

QBO

What steps need to be followed to add a new product or service?

What steps need to be followed to record a new sales receipt?

What steps need to be followed to record a new invoice?

What steps need to be followed to record a new payment from a customer?

What steps need to be followed to record a new deposit to the bank?

What steps need to be followed to record a new product and adding a new service?

What is the differences between adding a new product and a sales receipt and a sales invoice?

What types of job-related stress have you personally experienced or witnessed? How did you manage or help manage it to an effective resolution?

WRITTEN CASE ANALYSIS SECTIONS At a minimum, the following sections are to be included in each written case analysis. Full discussions, explanations, reasoning, and support are to be included as to demonstrate to the reader the student’s complete understanding, knowledge, and competencies of all areas of business.

Complete SWOT Analysis

Competitors –direct and indirect

CHRISTOPOHER A. BARTLETT

Microsoft: Competing on Talent (A)

In the summer of 1999, a front-page Wall Street Journal article was attracting attention on the

Redmond campus. Under the headline “As Microsoft Matures, Some Top Talent Chooses to Go Off

Line,” the article reported: “Tired of grueling deadlines, frustrated by the bureaucracy that has

accompanied Microsoft’s explosive growth, or lured away by the boom in high-tech start-ups, dozens

of the company’s most capable leaders, all around 40, have opted out—at least temporarily . . .”i (See

Exhibit 1 for the article’s list of senior level departures.)

Steve Ballmer, the company’s recently appointed president and COO, was quoted as saying that

some of the departures were voluntary and some were not, opening opportunities for fresher,

smarter replacements. “We have a bench that is very deep,” he said. “We have people who are fired

up—driven—to lead the next generation.”ii Yet despite the positive outlook, Ballmer clearly

recognized that Microsoft had to change or adapt some of the human resource practices that had

allowed it to assemble and retain what CEO Bill Gates proudly called “the best team of software

professionals the world has ever seen.” Just six weeks before the WSJ article was published, Ballmer

had announced a package of changes that sweetened salaries, allowed more frequent promotions,

and softened some of the pressures that had long been part of the” hard-core” Microsoft culture.

Still, there were some who wondered if the rumblings in the senior management ranks reported

by the WSJ were not the signs of larger looming problems for Microsoft. It was a question taken very

seriously by Gates and Ballmer who understood very well that the company’s enormous success was

largely due to its ability to recruit, motivate, and retain extraordinary talent.

the company’s growth led to changes in the way such policies were managed in the 1990s—and

sometimes to changes in the policies themselves. (See Exhibit 2 for Microsoft’s growth profile.)

Recruiting: Attracting the Best and Brightest

Gates had long recognized that it took exceptional people to write outstanding software. His

preference for hiring extremely intelligent, not necessarily experienced, new college graduates dated

from Microsoft’s start-up days, when he and co-founder Paul Allen recruited the brightest people

they knew from school—their “smart friends.” In subsequent years, the importance of recruiting well was constantly reinforced by Gates, who considered helping his managers hire the best of all possible

candidates as his greatest accomplishment. “We’re in the intellectual property business,” he told

them. “It’s the effectiveness of our developers that determines our success.” Underlining the

importance of hiring and retaining superior talent, in 1992 Gates acknowledged: “Take our 20 best

people away, and I will tell you that Microsoft will become an unimportant company.”iii

For Gates, acquired knowledge was less important than “smarts”—the ability to think creatively;

and experience was less important than ambition—the drive to get things done. Above all, however,

he wanted to use recruiting to continually raise the bar. “I’d have to say my best business decisions

have had to do with picking people,” he said. “Deciding to go into business with Paul Allen is

probably at the top of the list, and subsequently, hiring a friend—Steve Ballmer—who has been my

primary business partner ever since.” As Fortune magazine once observed, “Microsoft has been led

by a man widely recognized as a genius in his own right, who has had the foresight to recognize the

genius in others.”iv Almost from the day he was hired as assistant to the president in 1980, one of Steve Ballmer’s

primary responsibilities was to act as recruiting coordinator. It was an assignment he particularly

relished. According to one senior manager, “Steve’s mantra was, ‘We want people who are smart,

who work hard, and who get things done.’ That simple mantra is something that people still talk

about today.” And once the smartest, most driven were identified, Ballmer and his team were

relentless in getting them on board. “There’s a standing policy here,” said Ballmer, “whenever you

meet a kick-ass guy, get him. . . . There are some people you meet only once in a lifetime. So why

screw around?” In Fortune’s assessment, “The deliberate way in which [Gates] has fashioned an

organization that prizes smart people is the single most important, and the most consistently

overlooked aspect of Microsoft’s success.”v

Although the need for experienced managers led the company to recruit some key people from

other companies, in the early days Microsoft’s favorite recruiting grounds were elite educational

institutions, particularly Harvard, Yale, MIT, Carnegie-Melon, Stanford, and a few highly targeted

others. As growth increased recruiting needs, the net spread wider, eventually targeting 15

universities in the United States, four in Canada, and six in Japan. Microsoft recruiters made visits to

each of these schools in search of the most brilliant, driven students—“once-in-a-lifetime” people—

paying little attention to prior experience. Indeed the company preferred people who didn’t have to

unlearn different company values, work habits, or technological approaches.

Before being hired, however, every candidate had to survive an intense interview process that

many found quite harrowing. Each candidate was interviewed by at least 3, and sometimes up to 10,

Microsoft employees. During the interview, the candidates were tested more on their thought

processes, problem-solving abilities, and work habits than on specific knowledge or experience. And

because developers played such an important role in Microsoft—writing the lines of code that were

Microsoft products—their recruiting process was particularly rigorous.

Technical interviews typically focused on programming problems that candidates were expected

to answer by writing code. Some managers posed scenarios with key information missing to see if

the candidate would ask for data or just move straight to a solution. Then they might throw in an

oddball question like, “How many times does the average person use the word ‘the’ in a day?” meant

to test the candidate’s deductive reasoning, creative problem solving, and composure. If a candidate

gave such questions 30 seconds of thought and said they didn’t know, the interview was effectively

over. If they were incapable of creative problem solving, they were not an appropriate candidate.

Next, an unfamiliar but practical problem—for example, describe the perfect TV remote control—

might be thrown in to see how the candidates broke down the problem, how simple or complex they

made the solution, and if that solution solved customer needs.

As soon as the interview was over, each interviewer would send e-mail to all other interviewers,

starting with the words “Hire” or “No Hire,” followed by specific feedback and suggestions for

follow-up. There was no “gray area”—a good candidate who just cleared the bar was a “No Hire.”

Based on earlier e-mails, people interviewing later in the afternoon would refine their questions to

drill down in areas where the earlier interviewers thought the candidate was weak. The purpose of

the interviews was to push the candidates until they failed, to get a full understanding of both their

strengths and their limitations. (See Exhibit 3 for an interview feedback email.)

After all the input was in, the hiring decision had to pass two screens. If the reviews were

favorable overall, a final, end-of-the-day interview with the candidate’s prospective manager was

scheduled. Based on his or her own impressions and the comments from other people in the group,

the prospective manager then made the hire/no hire recommendation. But to assure that only top

candidates were hired, a so-called “as appropriate” interviewer was also involved in the interviewing

process. A senior manager explained:

Very often, the “as appropriate” interviewer is a person who is outside the hiring group, a

person really solidly grounded in Microsoft culture and committed to making sure that we hire

only those who are going to be good Microsoft people, not just good people for specific jobs.

That person has veto power, which puts a system of checks and balances in, because the hiring

manager may feel a lot of pressure to fill a job, while the “as appropriate” interviewer doesn’t.

Microsoft’s tight control on headcount further reinforced the pressure to resist settling for the

merely satisfactory candidate. Even in the early days, when the company was growing extremely

rapidly, Gates and Ballmer insisted on hiring fewer employees than were actually required to carry

out the work. The internal code for this philosophy was “n minus 1,” where n was the number of

people really needed. Said one senior HR manager:

[Beyond hiring smart, driven people] the second principle Steve Ballmer was preaching was

that the default decision on a candidate is “no-hire.” In other words, unless you can identify a

clear reason why we should hire this person, we should not hire him or her. . . . That principle

has been really important in keeping the bar high and our selection ratio very low.

The company’s credo was that an adequate but not outstanding new employee was worse than a

disastrous appointment. “If you have somebody who’s mediocre, who just sort of gets by on the

job,” Gates explained to Microsoft managers, “then we’re in big trouble.” The “big trouble” Gates

saw was that, while poor performers were quickly weeded out, a mediocre employee might continue

to occupy a place that could be filled by someone brilliant.

Create a Pivot Table to compile the following information:

1. The total revenue for each salesperson

2. For each salesperson, the total revenue by product

3. Total revenue generated by each salesperson broken down by location

Please provide excel formulas and solutions

https://drive.google.com/open?id=16kL_VoQlIsOCaioggkjnGBFR_GvCrSGM

Case Study In December 2016, Arshad Ali joined Imperial Computers Ltd. (ICL) as a Senior Programmer, with a handsome pay. Prior to this job, he worked successfully as an assistant programmer in Gem Computers (Gem). Arshad felt that ICL offered better career prospects, as it was growing much faster than Gem, which was a relatively small company. Although Arshad had enjoyed working there (at Gem), he realized that to grow further in his field, he would have to join a bigger company, and preferable one that handled international projects. He was sure he would excel in his position at ICL, just as he had done in his old job at Gem. ICL had international operations and there was more than a slim chance that he would be sent to USA or the UK on a project. Knowing that this would give him a lot of exposure, besides looking good on his resume, Arshad was quite excited about his new job. Arshad joined Gunjan’s five-member team at ICL. He had met Gunjan during the orientation sessions, and was looking forward to working under her. His team members seemed warm and friendly, and comfortable with their work. He introduced himself to the team members and got to know more about each of them. Wanting to know more about his boss, he casually asked Rehman, one of the team members, about Gunjan. Rehman said, “Gunjan does not interfere with our work. In fact, you could even say that she tries to ignore us as much as she can.” Arshad was surprised by the comment but decided that Gunjan was probably leaving them alone to do their work without any guidance, in order to allow them to realize their full potential. At Gem, Arshad had worked under Sultan and had looked up to him as a guide and mentor – always guiding, but never interfering. Sultan had let Arshad make his own mistakes and learn from them. He had always encouraged individual ideas, and let the team discover the flaws, if any, through discussion and experience. He rarely held an individual member of his team responsible if the team as a whole failed to deliver – for him the responsibility for any failure was collective. Arshad remembered telling his colleagues at Gem that the ideal boss would be someone who did not interfere with his/her subordinate’s work. Arshad wanted to believe that Gunjan too was the non-interfering type. If that was the case, surely her non-interference would only help him to grow. In his first week at work, Arshad found the atmosphere at the office a bit dull. However, he was quite excited. His team had been assigned a new project and was facing a few glitches with the new software. He had thought about the problem till late in the night and had come up with several possible solutions. He could not wait to discuss them with his team and Gunjan. He smiled to himself when he thought of how Gunjan would react when he will tell her that he had come up with several possible solutions to the problem. He was sure she would be happy with his having put in so much effort into the project, right from day one. He was daydreaming about all the praise that he was going to get when Gunjan walked into the office. Arshad waited for her to go into her cabin, and after five minutes, called her up, asking to see her. She asked him to come in after tem minutes. When he went in, she looked at him blankly and asked, “Yes?” Not sure whether she had recognized him, Arshad introduced himself. She said, “Ok, but why did you want to meet me?” Arshad started to tell her about the problems they were having with the software. But before he could even finish, she told him that she was busy with other things, and that she would send an email with the solution to all the members of the team by the end of the day, and that they could then implement it immediately. Arshad was somewhat taken aback. However, ever the optimist, he thought that she had perhaps already discussed the matter with the team. Arshad came out of Gunjan’s cabin and went straight to where his team members sat. He thought it would still be nice to bounce ideas off them and also to see what solutions others might come up with. He told them of all the solutions he had in mind. He waited for the others to come up with their suggestions but not one of them spoke up. He was surprised, and asked them point-blank why they were so disinterested. Aftab, one of the team members, said, “What is the point in our discussing these things? Gunjan is not going to have time to listen to us on discuss anything. She will just give us the solution she thinks is best, and we will just do what she tells us to do; why waste everyone’s time?” Arshad felt his heart sink. Was this the way things worked over here? However, he refused to lose heart and thought that maybe, he could change things a little. But as the days went by, Arshad realized that Gunjan was the complete opposite of his old boss. While she was efficient at what she did and extremely intelligent, she had neither the time nor the inclination to groom her subordinates. Her solutions to problem were always correct, but she was not willing to discuss or debate the merits of any other ideas that her team might have. She did not hold the team down to their deadlines not did she ever interfere. In fact, she rarely said anything at all. If work did not get finished on time, she would just blame her team, and totally disassociate herself from them. Time and again, Arshad found himself thinking of Sultan his old boss, and of how he had been such a positive influence. Gunjan, on the other hand, even without actively doing anything, had managed to significantly lower his motivation levels. Arshad gradually began to lose interest in his work – it had become too mechanical for his taste. He didn’t really need to think; his boss had all the answers. He was learning nothing new, and he felt his career was going nowhere. As he became more and more discouraged, his performance suffered. From being someone with immense promise and potential Arshad was now in danger of becoming just another mediocre techie.

Question2: What should Arshad do to resolve his situation?

If you were a COE of a rebuilding organization what steps would you take to rebuild it?