ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

(2) Considering that the mechanic claimed that the ThyssenKrupp culture contributed to such behaviour, in your opinion, does ThyssenKrupp need to change its corporate culture? If not, why not?   

(3)  You have to take one side, either the company ThyssenKrupp or the fired employee. If you decide to represent ThyssenKrupp, then you are the defense lawyer. If you decide to represent the fired mechanic, you are the Plaintiff’s Lawyer. Present your arguments with evidences and supporting matter to the Judge.

How a Welsh jeans firm became a cult global brand

With a look of concentration on her face, a worker guides the sheet of denim through the sewing machine, and a pair of jeans starts to take shape.

As the needle goes up and down in a blur of movement and rattling noise, a line of stitching starts to form a neat trouser leg.

When most people think about the global fashion industry it is safe to say that a sleepy town in far west Wales does not immediately spring to mind.

Yet Cardigan, on Wales' Irish Sea coast, has for the past five years been home to a high-end jeans-maker - the Hiut Denim Company.

Beloved by a growing number of fashionistas from New York to Paris, and London to Melbourne, Hiut ships its expensive jeans around the world.

As orders arrive via its website, Hiut's workforce of just 15 people gets to work hand-cutting and sewing the trousers from giant rolls of indigo-coloured denim that the company imports from Turkey and Japan.

Despite only making around 120 pairs of jeans a week, founder and owner David Hieatt has big ambitions to expand.

While it may seem a little incongruous that a posh jeans business is based in west Wales, Cardigan (population 4,000) actually has a long history of jeans-making.

For almost 40 years the town was home to a factory that made 35,000 pairs of jeans each week for UK retailer Marks & Spencer. But in 2002 the facility closed with the loss of 400 jobs when production was moved to Morocco to cut costs.

Fast forward 10 years, and when Mr Hieatt - a proud Welshman - was looking to open a factory to start making jeans, he chose Cardigan. The company name is a combination of the first two letters of Mr Hieatt's surname and the word "utility".

"Where better to locate ourselves than in a town with a history of jeans-making, where the expertise remains?" he says.

Employing machinists who had previously worked in the old factory and not lost their years of jeans-making skills, Mr Hieatt says he was confident that Hiut could be successful if it concentrated on selling directly to consumers around the world via its website.

"Without the internet we'd have been dead within 12 weeks," he says. "But the internet has changed only everything. The internet allows us to sell direct and keep the [profit] margin... it enables us to compete."

Now exporting 25% of its jeans, it takes Hiut about one hour and 10 minutes to make one pair, compared with 11 minutes at a highly mechanised jeans industry giant.

And rather than staff doing just one part of the manufacturing process, such as sewing on the pockets, each machinist at Hiut makes a pair of jeans from start to finish.

Mr Hieatt refers to the workers as "grand masters". This is in reference to the fact that some of them have more than 40 years of jeans-making experience, and new joiners have to train for three years before they can start making jeans for customers.

In running Hiut Mr Hieatt and his co-owner, wife Clare, have benefited from their experience of previously owning a clothing firm called Howies, which they sold to US firm Timberland for £3.2m in 2011.

But what has also been invaluable is Mr Hieatt's previous career working in advertising.

This advertising nous has enabled him to very effectively market and promote Hiut, from its snazzy website, to its extensive use of social media; both adverts in people's Facebook feeds and arty photos of people wearing its jeans.

"The interesting thing about social media for me is that up until Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat you had to have a huge budget in order to tell your story," he says.

"In effect you were locked out of telling that story because the costs [of advertising and wider marketing] were too high. But social media has actually allowed the smaller maker [small firms that manufacture things] to go and tell his story.

"And actually, if David wants to beat Goliath, the best tool in the world is social media."

Mr Hieatt also sends out free jeans to what he calls "influencers", either fashion bloggers or famous people, in the hope that they will write or talk positively about the brand.

Successful examples of this have been an increase in orders from Denmark after Hiut sent a pair of its jeans to celebrated Danish chef Rene Redzepi, and also UK TV presenter Anthony McPartlin of the duo Ant & Dec tweeting about the company.

As Hiut continues to win overseas orders for its jeans costing up to £230 ($300) a pair, Mr Hieatt admits that one negative issue the company has to deal with is a return rate of "about 14%" - people sending them back because they don't fit.

To counter this problem Hiut is exploring using technology that can accurately tell from a photo a person's perfect jeans size.

Dr Natascha Radclyffe-Thomas, fashion marketing course leader at London College of Fashion, says that if Hiut wants to expand its overseas sales it needs to "have the website in different languages" and consider partnerships that will see its jeans listed on other websites.

Back at Hiut's small factory on the edge of Cardigan, Mr Hieatt says the long-term aim remains to recreate 400 jeans-making jobs in the town.

"Our aim is to get 400 people their jobs back. If you ask me when is that going to happen, the honest answer is I don't know.

"But I believe in compound interest. Small things over time gather huge numbers."

QUESTION:

What international marketing strategy would you recommend to the firm?

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behavior. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humor. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however, it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labor relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behavior. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package. THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principal offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanic's grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

Questions

(3) Are there any Tort issues involved here? What other legal issues are involved here? Explain.

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

Question 5. If this case goes to court, what arguments the Plaintiff’s Lawyer, representing the fired worker, would present before the court?

Question 6. What would be the line of Defense for the Lawyer of Thyssen Krupp Elevator?

Each question may be answered in about 150 to 200 words.

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

1. Considering that the mechanic claimed that the ThyssenKrupp culture contributed to such behaviour, in your opinion, does ThyssenKrupp need to change its corporate culture? If not, why not?

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behavior. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humor. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however, it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labor relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behavior. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package. THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principal offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanic's grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).

(4) Did the Ontario Labour Relation Board (OLRB) accept the defense that organizational culture contributed to the employee behavior? Explain their reasoning. Considering the company’s work environment, what factors need to be considered while updating the company’s health & safety policy?

CASE STUDY ON LEADERSHIP/

Aidensfield hospital currently faces major problems with staff, management, general performance and service quality. It is conceivable that these problems are related to the ‘leadership’ styles adapted by those in charge. The senior management have proposed some changes within the organisation to hopefully make improvements but making such decisions requires an in-depth understanding of what is going wrong and why.

Leadership as a concept is often considered in isolation when in reality, it is coherent with management. Their amalgamation gives rise to the term ‘managerial leadership’ – a combination of Mullins’(2007) task and maintenance functions. In simpler terms, good managers do not view workers as machines artlessly pumped with fuel (or money) to produce output (the job) like Henry Ford. More appropriately, they are considered, for lack of a simpler expression, like horses that besides given food must also be pampered and directed to maximise productivity. Therefore, managerial leadership is characterised, along with task-oriented behaviour, by motivation, attention, communication and interest in the worker as these are the principles that agglutinate leader and subordinate (Buchanan & Huczynski 2010). Several leadership style classifications parade in general knowledge but the problem is they are usually considered  in vacuo. It is impossible to simply adapt one classified style because, like Castell (2010) argued, it will be unreasonable not to scrutinise the epistemology behind this rigid taxonomy. He stated that;

“Managers cannot adopt neutral stances with an air of scientific detachment because such detachment cannot exist ... the knowledge that managers bring to management is constructed situationally ... in the present and in relation to the context” (2010, pg. 234);

The key word here is ‘constructed’. Delving into real life applications of managerial leadership, contingency theorists argued that selective combination of relevant elements within styles to fit whatever circumstance that presents itself is ideal (Mckenna, 2012). Hence, this essay aims to critically cull ideas from the distinct styles and theories, explaining how they may coalesce into academically supported explanations of issues in Aidensfield’s unique context. Firstly considering motivation, which is apparently the most pressing issue, relevant traditional theory will be discussed extensively. The discussion will then move on to how motivation can be determined by perception and the psychological contract. Prompted by perception, communication concepts will follow before finishing with leader-member relationships, trust and group dynamics. Throughout, these determinant factors will be linked to various leadership styles and supported with examples from the Aidensfield case.

Although the theory that performance is directly affected by leadership is supported by some empirical evidence, critics like Porter and McLaughlin (2006) argue that majority of research has been anecdotal. Therefore, concluding that there is a direct relationship between performance and leadership is probably an “act of faith” (Currie & Lockett, 2011, pg. 292). Nevertheless, one certainty is leadership style determines motivational levels which predetermine morale levels which in turn regulates performance. Therefore, motivation is the key link between leadership and performance.

McGregor (1987) conceived two approaches to motivation; Theory X, which only occurs at the physiological and security levels in Maslow’s (1943) needs hierarchy, and Theory Y, which focuses on higher level needs (Buchanan & Huczynski 2010). Noticeably, the lower levels have been satisfied in workers at Aidensfield based on the fact that sixty per cent of employees have been on the same job for a decade.. This statistic indicates that the leaders adopt the Theory X approach – a common behaviour within autocratic practices. As a result, staff are not discontent with their work. Unfortunately, Maslow (1943) warned that once a need has been satisfied, it might no longer serve as a motivator. So, even though low turnover may be interpreted as a positive, it is actually linked to the reason workers lack motivation. Herzberg’s (1987) theories explain that having only lower needs (hygiene factors) satisfied will result in no dissatisfaction (Latham & Ernest, 2006) but create a lack of motivation because higher level needs (growth factors) have been ignored (Shuck & Herd, 2012). This lack of motivation is demonstrated by the falling quality of service reported e.g. Drivers making patients wait. From De Cremer’s (2006) point of view, quality of service can only be improved using intrinsic motivation i.e. the Theory Y approach – common in democratic leadership.

This direct relationship between motivation and performance is elucidated in Mullins’(2010) formula; Performance = function (ability X motivation). Considering that function and ability are relatively constant, and motivation is the only variable, then low motivation equates low performance. One must note that this formula, although still viable, fails to consider emotional factors like trust (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2009), happiness and well-being – which will be discussed later – as factors that also determine motivational levels. At Aidensfield, the attempt to extrinsically motivate through bonus rewards systems seem to be failing as it has only short term effects. On the other hand, intrinsic motivation, even though more desired, might be equally ineffective because the jobs have little variety or challenge. According to Porter and Lawler’s (1968) expectancy model, employee performance in jobs like this will hardly be improved by intrinsic rewards. Further proving this, the jobs have a low Motivating Potential Score (MPS). According to Hackman and Oldman’s (1980) formula MPS can be calculated thus

MPS = (skill variety + task variety + task significance)/3  X autonomy  X feedback

Since autonomy and feedback stand alone as non-averaged variables, they have a more significant effect on the MPS Score (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2007). It was reported that employee empowerment is a problematic issue at Aidensfield (lack of autonomy) and that it suffers from a slack reporting structure which may result in a lack of clear channels for information on performance effectiveness (feedback), therefore there is minimal opportunity within the job design for motivation. Brytting & Trollestad (2000) and Van Vugt et al (2004) support this with their arguments that employees starved of responsibility tend to react with passivity rather than interest, and is apparent when the Aidensfield security staff display nonchalant attitudes to customers – Another negative aspect of autocratic leadership. With the absence of an effective feedback system mentioned earlier, expectancy theorists may argue that it signifies there is no clarified procedure for performance evaluation. Hence the staff may not ‘perceive’ any equitable rewards for their effort.

This leads on to the idea of perception as a factor that affects motivation and behaviour. An employee’s level of engagement is built around their perception of the work environment and unique encounters with leadership (Shuck, Rocco & Albornoz, 2011). It determines their expectations of the employer and what they think their obligations are – like an invisible contract drawn-up mentally – the ‘psychological contract’ (Conway & Coyle Sharpio, 2011). Guest et al (2003) advised that breaches can be avoided if employees adopt effective people management practices but as highlighted in the report, the supervisory grades at Aidensfield abdicate said people management responsibilities. Conway, Guest and Trenberth’s (2011) research on psychological contract breach suggests that this begotted the reported lack of commitment, poor employee engagement and the perceived job insecurity.

There seems to be a psychological contract breach between the line managers and senior management as well. The delegation of HR practices to them may have been perceived as excess work outside their obligations. It is evident that this delegation has been done without their proper consultation – an autocratic method of decision-making. The senior management may have done this in an attempt to empower them because according to Rich, LePine & Crawford (2010), more intellectual work creates a higher level of engagement and may in turn, result in increased performance. Apart from the possible breach, this empowerment may not have been successful because the reported slack reporting structures and weak lines of communication. This suggests that the line managers did not have the required support to take on such work in the first place. If the job descriptions had been properly ‘communicated’, possibly through a more democratic method of constant dyadic exchange (Felfe & Schyns, 2010; Conway & Coyle Sharpio, 2011), this problem may not have occurred.

This brings us to communication, as a leadership tool. Adensfield’s organisational structure diagram suggests a chain communication network amongst the senior management. This centralised system is common within authoritative leadership where all information is routed through a predetermined channel (Mullins, 2007). It is questionable because even though it may be appropriate for simple tasks, the accumulated complexity of the entire ancillary operations may need to be handles within a decentralised network – a more participative approach to communication (Restubog et al, 2010). On the other hand, the simplicity of the tasks at lower levels where the charge hands’ teams operate may require a more centralised network to be optimally efficient. Even though it may be more effective, pressure might built up on the charge hands who do not feel qualified to do the job and is possibly the reason they abdicate responsibility as reported.

Having a centralised communication network amongst charge hands’ groups does not necessarily mean their adapted leadership style must be authoritative in nature. Decisions can be made centrally to maintain speed and effectiveness but according Restubog et al (2010) it is still possible maintain high quality Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) along the same centralised communication lines. High LMX is more common within democratic or transformational leadership settings. It is evident that there is low level LMX amongst senior management, charge hands and group members at Aidensfield because when the breaches in psychological contract mentioned earlier occurred, it had significant detrimental effect on the in-role performances of staff. Zhao et al (2007), speaking from a ‘social support’ perspective, argue that if high quality LMX is present in an organization, the leaders will easily help their subordinates manage and recover from the breach. On the contrary, the ‘betrayal’ perspective argues that the effect on staff may be too much to handle (Restubog et al, 2010). They argued that high LMX begets greater expectations and trust in leaders and therefore when the inevitable breach occurs, the staff will feel highly betrayed or for lack of a better word, ripped- off (2010). Besides this highlighted disadvantage, many social identity theorists, including Felfe, Schyns (2010) and Turner (2005) still encourage high LMX because, even though breach is inevitable, it will be less likely. This is supported by the fact that similar people, reason similarly and are less likely to have conflicting perceptions.

To facilitate LMX it is necessary for leaders to share common values or represent the collective identities of their subordinate groups (Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This is referred to as ‘leader-group prototypicality’ and is part of Social Identity theory commonly practiced amongst transformational leaders. Considering that there have been close knit informal groups developed within the charge hands’ formal groups, the presence of high leader-group prototypicality can be deduced, despite the low LMX environment. Hogg et al (2004) explained that the collective values of group members determine the group norms and behaviour. Therefore, a group-prototypical leader will behave in a similar way as group members. This explains why charge hands and operational staff at the hospital share common characteristics of lack of motivation and passivity towards work. Though transformational in nature, these values are not aligned with those of the organisation at all.

This commonality in personal characteristics invokes mutual trust within team members (Tanghe, Wisse and Flier, 2010). This in turn makes a strong cohesive group but does not necessarily mean improved productivity. Kelly and Barsade (2001) and Smith et al (1995) argue that members of a group may work well together but performance is only improved when their group values are in line with that of the organization .The small groups of five appear to share high levels of intra-group trust that have propagated an equally high level of inter-group distrust which explains why they are reported to have highly demarcated traditions and work very independently. Mullins (2007) states that these strongly cohesive Informal groups may experience low staff turnover but are notorious for low productivity, inter-group conflict and neglect of organizational functions for more social activities – all of which are reportedly present within staff at Aidensfield. The aforementioned role ambiguity is another reason for informal group formations. Cicero, Pierro and van Knippenberg (2010) support this possibility by suggesting that role uncertainty in a job tends to make workers rely more on group social memberships for identity than on organisational descriptions. Understanding this complex ‘trust – uncertainty – behaviour’ relationship explains why staff are doing the things they are.

Not just group dynamics, but all the factors discussed, from motivation down to trust, are clearly very important in understanding staff behaviour and deciding a leaders approach to his subordinates. As mentioned in the introduction, it is impossible to classify Aidensfield’s leaders with one style. For example, there were so many autocratic characteristics identified earlier but yet, the reported lack of managerial control suggests a laissez-faire approach. Therefore, instead of rigid classification, the consideration of these little details are what shape managers’ or leaders’ responses – like the numerous tiny screws, nuts and bolts that enable a complex machine to work. They are necessary to create a competitive workforce in Aidensfield’s sector of service and to prevent being left behind by competitors who strive to attain higher levels of service.

Q1. Explain the relationship between motivation and performance as explained in the case.

Q2.Discuss how employee empowerment can be used as a development tool with reference to the case.

An Emerging Threat: Ransomware

The attack, expertly planned, was insidious. For six weeks or more, cybercriminals purportedly from either North Korea or Russia wormed their way into Monroe College’s computer systems, maneuvering undetected as they sought out weak points. Then, in July 2019, they pounced. Using an IT staffer’s pilfered password across platforms, hackers infected every server on Monroe’s two New York City-area campuses with a virus, effectively locking down administrative files, email, learning management systems, and website. “The college was a big house we were all locked out of,” says Marc Jerome, president of Monroe, a for-profit institution with 8,000 students. What’s more, as the campus reeled, hackers held Monroe’s tech infrastructure for ransom. They would restore it, they told the college’s leaders, in exchange for the Bitcoin equivalent of $1.6 million.
As Monroe students became instantly reacquainted with turning in assignments on paper, campus officials sprang into action, working feverishly to restore damaged systems. But without a policy for dealing with such attacks, Monroe was faced with few choices. After a couple weeks of failed attempts to use backup systems (which had also been infected) and with little hope of restoring its online presence, college officials decided to contact the college’s insurance company, as well as hire a law firm and a tech expert to negotiate with the attackers. In the end, Monroe paid them a considerably lesser sum than had been demanded in order to obtain the
T
• •

•   

• •


WITH SUPPORT FROM
decryption keys needed to eliminate the virus and bring the campus’s tech services back online. Monroe had been victimized by a ransomware attack — and it isn’t the only college that has had to face off with international criminal enterprises that have perpetrated such disruptions in recent years. Most attacks start with “phishing” expeditions. Cybercriminals send virus encoded emails in the hope that someone at a college — a professor, a staff member, a student — will open one and set in motion the virus or malware contained therein. The virus then replicates itself throughout a network. Some institutions have fended off ransomware incursions with security software or with the help of enhanced computer-safety training, while others have seen their systems disabled and their daily operations threatened. Some have devised policies for dealing with attacks, while others are in the process of considering them. Several institutions report that they have created policies but are not making them public. Doing so, they argue, might encourage such attacks or give cybercriminals an angle from which to start one. Such secrecy is far from rare. Many ransomware attacks are not reported. Colleges may not want the public to know that they have been successfully targeted. IT experts say such reticence leads some college officials to underestimate the threat. Because criminal enterprises, usually originating in China, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Russia, and Vietnam, typically demand payment in cryptocurrency to protect their anonymity, it has proved difficult to track them down or slow the rate of attacks. Law-enforcement agencies generally offer few answers. The onus on preventing ransomware attacks and policing tech systems falls on the institutions themselves. This, too, can prove difficult, given that colleges provide faculty members and students with wide access to their networks and content. The very openness that many institutions point to with pride can often become a security headache. While there is some question as to whether the threat of ransomware at colleges and universities is growing or flattening out, there is evidence that more higher-ed institutions are stepping up protection. More colleges now carry
insurance policies designed to pay them for the lost revenue and repairs that can result from cyberattacks. Several institutions have stepped up training of computer users and shored up security to forestall invasive tactics. And some have invited outside experts to look for potential vulnerabilities in their systems. Facing their seemingly built-in disadvantages, many colleges are devising policies that will make their campuses and systems safer, experts say, whether by preventing attacks, dissuading criminal enterprises from attempting them, or protecting themselves against loss. This Trends Snapshot outlines the latest efforts.   
The very openness that many institutions point to with pride can often become a security headache.
“No-Pay” Policies The FBI, among other law-enforcement agencies, urges colleges to refuse to pay ransoms. Many institutions, especially larger ones, have heeded the advice, devising a “just say no” strategy to deter criminals and make themselves less of a target. At the University of California at San Diego, two recent ransomware incidents did some temporary damage. But the university refused to cave in to demands for cash. Three years ago, the university lost access to its data during an attack, but because it had backed up both its data and its systems, it was able to recover them on its own within a week. About 18 months ago, a targeted breach centered on the work of one research faculty member. The researcher lost some data, though the loss wasn’t considered catastrophic. San Diego has since made strong efforts to persuade its research faculty members to back up their data in a safe place. The university created a website with instructions on how to do that. It also started a separate datamanagement plan for researchers to follow. Still, officials at some institutions who
an emerging threat : ransomware 3
have promised never to pay criminals admit that there may be some circumstances in which that stance becomes less absolute, such as when students’ medical information has been stolen and a threat has been made to publish it online. Even among institutions that have pledged never to give in to demands, there is a belief that there might, one day, be a particular case that offers a reason to pay out, especially if a college lacks insurance against ransomware attacks.
Many colleges have gotten the word out that, no matter how far down in the tech hierarchy staff members or students might be, they should be on the lookout for nefarious online schemes.
Training and Communications At several colleges, IT staffers run tabletop exercises for academic department members and students as well as administrators. The goal is to learn how much they know about the threat of ransomware, and to test their reactions to simulated ransomware-borne denial-of-service attacks. The websites of the University of Michigan and Pennsylvania State University offer examples of phishing expeditions, so that students know what to look for and how to respond. The Penn State site also includes videos of what people on campus can do to avoid allowing ransomware hackers to enter a system. Many colleges have gotten the word out that, no matter how far down in the tech hierarchy staff members or students might be, they should be on the lookout for nefarious online schemes. A chain of communication following an attack is also important, and has become a part of many institutions’ hacker-response strategies. Some colleges maintain an “escalation policy” that lays out in detail which campus officials should be contacting others, who receives certain kinds of messages, and in what order. Colleges
have also made contingency plans for when their email is down, such as using automated phonecalling, text alerts, and social-media blasts to reach staff members and students when a campus system is held hostage by ransomware.
Improving Security Several institutions report working harder to make their IT systems safe from attacks. At the University of California at Berkeley, a virtual private network was created with several safeguards. To remotely access it, Berkeley users must authenticate their credentials to get through several firewalls. Such measures, the university hopes, will make it much tougher for attackers to get through. Other colleges are doing something similar by expanding requirements that people on campus use multifactor authentication to gain access to networks. Larger universities frequently employ system patches, antivirus software, and common decryption keys that can free a system from ransomware. Others are beefing up their backup systems so they can replicate their main systems if ransomware takes them down. Many institutions report that they regularly test their systems against attacks. And some have taken the step of removing their campus directories, or at least parts of them, from webpages to make it harder for ransomware attackers to send infected emails en masse. Still, IT experts warn that many colleges, particularly smaller ones, aren’t availing themselves of modern cybersecurity solutions. Tech offices at institutions with budget trouble are especially vulnerable — something that could intensify as Covid-19 forces colleges to cut costs further, including by eliminating some security personnel.
Insurance While not protecting institutions against attacks, insurance policies typically can offer institutions a way back after one. After a college uses money from an insurance claim to pay off ransom demands, attackers usually remove the virus, freeing up an institution’s network. By law, if an insurance policy covers damage by
an emerging threat : ransomware 4
ransomware, insurers must respond to a college’s claim, even if that means paying it for damages. Cyber insurance companies have mushroomed in the past decade, according to one IT expert, who adds that more than $2 billion has been paid out in ransomware claims of all types (including colleges) in recent years. Purchasing a cyber insurance policy is the most common way colleges deal with possible ransomware, according to a survey of chief information officers and chief information security officers conducted by the Leadership Board of CIOs (LBCIO). The survey also found that 76 percent of higher-ed institutions now carry insurance against ransomware disruptions, up from 63 percent in 2018. Though such policies can offer a way out of danger, some experts worry that they also bring some peril. Cyberattackers who learn that an institution is insured might see it as a better opportunity. Buying insurance presents other caveats as well. For one, there is no guarantee that paying a ransom will result in the full return of an IT system. Colleges that negotiate with criminal enterprises are relying on them to be honest about the delivery of decryption keys, or the extent to which such keys will actually restore control of their original systems.
Outside Audits While most colleges rely on their chief
information officers and chief information security officers to make the technical calls to fend off ransomware attacks, some have opted to invite outside experts to assess their systems or provide continuing oversight. While on-campus professionals can develop plans and policies that make it harder for cybercriminals to commandeer a college’s computing and data systems, issues of campus culture can prevent those officials from creating and enforcing rules on how faculty and staff members and students should behave online. Some CIOs are regularly frustrated by faculty members who download unsafe software or who don’t report such actions to the IT office. Having an outside check on the system can lead to stronger, more enforceable policies, some college leaders believe. Outside experts can feel freer to monitor weak points in a system and make suggestions as to how to keep stakeholders in line with IT-security goals. In the past decade, the proportion of college-IT officials who have contracted with outside tech auditors has grown from 55 percent to 71 percent, according to the LBCIO survey. Among those institutions now planning to make third-party IT audits a regular part of their security regimen is Monroe College, which will soon retain an outside vendor in the hope that it can avoid the embarrassment and expense it suffered one year ago.

1. You are a consultant in charge of creating a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) for UALR. Based on the article what will be your focus, given the prevalent of cyber-attacks at institutions of education. Identify an area that you will focus on to prevent ransomware attacks and devise a plan so that when it happens you have a strategy to recover. Explain the reason for focusing in this area/ Explain why that area is important to institutions of education such as UALR (30 points)

2. Using paper and pen technology to store records and document process poses threats to Personally Identifiable Information (PII) . Identify 2 examples of PII and use the template below to perform a risk assessment of Personal Identifying Information (PII) stored by institutions of education, such as UALR. Using the template provided evaluate, and assess threats, vulnerabilities, risks, and Maximum Tolerable Downtime (when these PII will be inaccessible) (40 Points)
Threats : What an organization is defending itself against, e.g. a natural disaster, man-made disasters.
Vulnerabilities : The gaps or weaknesses in the IT infrastructure that undermine an organization’s IT security efforts, e.g. a firewall flaws that lets hackers into a network. Lack of employee training, ineffective BCP, flawed processes etc.
Risks : Calculated assessment of potential threats to an organization’s security and disruption of operations and the vulnerabilities within its information systems infrastructure.




Risk Assessment Template

Type of PII Threats Vulnerabilities Risks MTD

3. Based on your risk assessment and recommended Maximum Tolerable Downtime (MTD), make recommendation for Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Alternate Processing Sites ( Cold, Hot, Warm, Mobile) to achieve the RTO . Explain why you selected that alternate processing site

Refresher on Variables:

Classifying variables as independent or dependent:

The independent variable is the one being manipulated or grouped in the study for comparison. A tip to remember this is to think that independent starts with “I” and I, the researcher, manipulate that variable or have control over who is grouped in the study. The way we will be using independent variables in this course is in terms of between group analysis, so our focus will be on groups being compared. Note that the participants are not the independent variable! Rather, the independent variable is the concept by which you group the participants.

*Do not forget to include the levels (groups) for the independent variable when you type up your lab answers. The levels are the groups being compared.

The dependent variable is the outcome, the variable on which the groups are being compared. This variable is measured for all participants.

Example: If the goal was to compare Caucasian to African Americans to see whether they differ on salary, ethnicity is the independent variable, with Caucasian and African Americans being the two IV groups. Salary is the dependent variable.

Measurement scales (modified from Cozby, 2013)

This classification system categorizes the variables as being measured on a nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio scale. A variable’s measurement scale has implications for the types of statistical analysis used; certain statistical tests are appropriate for certain measurement scales. As such, classifying variables correctly is a necessary step before one can run the appropriate statistical tests. You will have to classify variables in subsequent labs as well as for your research project, so it is important to master these concepts. Here is a reminder of the scales:

Nominal: There is no relative ordering of the levels for the variable; the different levels are simply different from each other but not in order. In other words, the levels reflect different categories of the variable, but there is no order to them. The assignment of numeric scores to each level (e.g., 1 for Caucasian, 2 for African American) is arbitrary. For example, in terms of ethnicity: Caucasian is not more, higher, better, less, lower, or worse than African American. It is simply a different category than African American.

Ordinal: There is an order to the levels, but the distance between the levels is unknown because you assigned values to the different levels given the variable’s levels are not already in quantified form. The assignment of values to the levels is somewhat arbitrary and meaningless, and there is no way to know whether the difference is equal between levels. Again, you assign numbers to the various levels, but the numbers are meaningless and somewhat arbitrary. For example, you may assign 1-5 to the levels, and you know that 5 is more or higher than the lower levels, but you do not know whether the magnitude of difference between level 5 and 4 is the same as between 4 and 3.

Interval: The variable’s levels are in quantified form. As such, there is an order to the levels, which is meaningful, and the distance between levels is equal over all levels of the scale. However, there is no absolute or true zero point. For example, the difference between level 1 and 2 is the same as between 2 and 3, but there is no true zero point. NOTE that the textbook mentions extraversion as a personality measure that could be an example of interval. Personality measures are NOT true interval variables, but researchers in social sciences may argue that some measures of psychological concepts have been standardized and as such, those measures can be considered interval. They are not true interval variables, but classifying them as such allows researchers to use more advanced statistical analysis. For this course and assignment, we are using the true definition of interval variable as described in this paragraph. Psychological measures for which values are arbitrarily assigned are ordinal, not interval!

Ratio: This is similar to interval in that the distance between levels is meaningful and equal over all levels of the scale, but there is also a fixed and true zero point. If you are measuring a variable and there is equal distance between the levels, think about whether it makes sense that there is a true 0 point for the variables. Ask yourself could the variable cease to exist if the value was 0. If so, the variable would be ratio.

Many students find these concepts confusing, so take your time Although the categories are not listed for the variables in the measurement scales section of the lab, there is enough information there for you to determine its measurement scale.

Independent vs Dependent Variables (1.5 points each = IV is worth 1 point, DV is worth .5 point)

For each of the following four descriptions of studies, identify the independent and dependent variables. When typing in your answers, follow the example below. For the independent variable, be sure to include in parentheses the groups being compared.

Example: Students watched a cartoon either alone or with others and then rated how funny they found the cartoon to be.

            IV: Cartoon (alone and others)

            DV: Funniness

An adolescent egocentrism questionnaire was given to male and female college students.

IV:

DV:

Women suffering from PMS volunteered to participate in a study about a drug to alleviate the symptoms of PMS. The women were randomly spilt: half received the drug and the other half received a placebo. Severity of PMS symptoms was recorded during their next premenstrual cycle.

IV:

DV:

After watching a love movie or a horror movie, a romanticism questionnaire was given to a group of adults.

IV:

DV:

Parents were classified into the type of parenting style (e.g., authoritative, authoritarian, or permissive) they use. The parents were asked to rate their perception of how much discipline they use with their children.

IV:

DV:

Measurements of Scale (1 point each)

For each the following descriptions of variables, identify whether a nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio scale is being used.

Example: An item measuring Ethnic group categories of people in a neighborhood, with options being White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian. = nominal

A check box item measuring gender, with male or female as options. =

An item measuring the wife’s household income, with income filled in the blank. =

Items measuring self-esteem on a disagree to agree scale. =

An item where preschool children participants must check their favorite color, with blue, red, yellow, green, purple, or pink as options. =

An item measuring number of times a preschooler says the word “love,” with the number filled in the blank. =

An item measuring the parenting style of teen mothers, with authoritative, authoritarian, uninvolved, or permissive as options. =

An item measuring the high temperature on each day of the week, with temperature filled in the blank. =

A check box item measuring the religious affiliation of the Presidents of the United States, with Christian, Jewish, Mormon, Islam, or Muslim as options. =

An item measuring the math SAT scores of Sand Creek High School seniors, with options ranging continuously from 200-800. =

An item measuring the social competence score for adolescents who spend more than 3 hours per day on social networking sites, with options ranging from low competence to high competence. =

Assignment on Multiple Linear Regression

The Excel file BankData shows the values of the following variables for randomly selected 93 employees of a bank. This real data set was used in a court lawsuit against discrimination.

Let

= monthly salary in dollars (SALARY),

= years of schooling at the time of hire (EDUCAT),

= number of months of previous work experience (EXPER),

= number of months that the individual was hired by the bank (MONTHS),

= dummy variable coded 1 for males and 0 for females (MALE).

Let um = the mean salary for all male bank employees, and uf = the mean salary for all female bank employees. Using the t-test studied in Section 10.2, you could find some evidence of um > uf and provide some support for a discrimination suit against the employer. It is recognized, however, that a simple comparison of the mean salaries might be insufficient to conclude that the female employees have been discriminated against. Obviously there are other factors that affect the salary to which the relation um > uf might be attributed. These factors have been identified as x1, x2 and x3 defined above.

Assume the following regression model,

y = B0 + B1x1 + B2x2 + B3x3 + B4x4 + E

and apply Regression in Data Analysis of Excel to find the estimated regression equation

1. Clearly show the estimated regression equation. Assuming that the values of x1, x2 and x3 are fixed, what is the estimated average difference between the salaries of all male and female employees?

2. What salary would you predict for a male employee with 12 years educations, 10 months of previous work experience, and with the time hired equal to 15 months? What salary would you predict for a female employee with 12 years educations, 10 months of previous work experience, and with the time hired equal to 15 months? What is the difference between the two predicted salaries? Compare this difference with that found in Task 1.

3. Is there a significant difference in the average salaries for male and female employees after accounting for the effects of the three other independent variables? Use a 5% level of significance to answer this question. Clearly show the null and alternative hypotheses to be tested, the value of the test statistic, the p-value of the test, your conclusion and its interpretation.

     The detailed example of using Regression in Data Analysis of Excel is shown on pages 312 – 314.

     Use Microsoft Word to write a managerial report with your name shown on the first page. The report should include your Excel output from Regression (copy and paste it), so do not attach any separate Excel file.

SALARY EDUCAT EXPER MONTHS        MALE

4620      12          11.5       22                        1

5040      15          14          3                          1

5100      12          180        15                        1

5100      12          315        2                          1

5220      12          29          14                        1

5400      12          7            21                        1

5400      12          38          11                        1

5400      12          113        3                          1

5400      15          17.5       8                          1

5400      15          359        11                        1

5700      15          36          5                          1

6000      8            320        21                        1

6000      12          24          2                          1

6000      12          32          17                        1

6000      12          49          8                          1                        

6000      12          56          33                        1

6000      12          252        11                        1

6000      12          272        19                        1

6000      15          25          13                        1

6000      15          35.5       32                        1

6000      15          56          12                        1          

6000      15          64          33                        1

6000      15          108        16                        1          

6000      16          45.5       3                          1

6300      15          72          17                        1

6600      15          64          16                        1

6600      15          84          33                        1

6600      15          215.5    16                        1

6840      15          41.5       7                          1

6900      12          175        10                        1

6900      15          132        24                        1

8100      16          54.5       33                        1

3900      12          0            1                          0

4020      10          44          7                          0          

4290      12          5            30                        0

4380      8            6.2         7                          0

4380      8            7.5         6                          0

4380      12          0            7                          0

4380      12          0            10                        0

4380      12          4.5         6                          0

4440      15          75          2                          0

4500      8            52          3                          0

4500      12          8            19                        0

4620      12          52          3                          0

4800      8            70          20                        0

4800      12          6            23                        0

4800      12          11          12                        0

4800      12          11          17                        0

4800      12          63          22                        0

4800      12          144        24                        0

4800      12          163        12                        0

4800      12          228        26                        0

4800      12          381        1                          0

4800      16          214        15                        0

4980      8            318        25                        0

5100      8           96          33                        0

5100      12          36          15                        0

5100      12          59          14                        0

5100      15          115        1                          0

5100      15          165        4                          0

5100      16          123        12                        0

5160      12          18          12                        0

5220      8            102        29                        0

5220      12          127        29                        0

5280      8            90          11                        0

5280      8            190        1                          0

5280      12          107        11                        0

5400     8            173        34                        0

5400      8            228        33                        0

5400      12          26          11                        0

5400      12          36          33                        0

5400      12          38          22                        0

5400      12          82          29                        0

5400      12          169        27                        0

5400      12          244        1                          0

5400      15          24          13                        0

5400      15          49          27                        0

5400      15          51          21                        0

5400      15          122        33                        0

5520      12          97          17                        0

5520      12          196        32                        0

5580      12          132.5    30                        0

5640      12          55          9                          0

5700      12          90          23                        0

5700      12          116.5    25                        0

5700      15          51          17                        0

5700      15          61          11                        0

5700      15          241        34                        0

6000      12          121        30                        0

6000      15          78.5       13                        0

6120      12          208.5    21                        0

6300      12          86.5       33                        0

6300      15          231        15                        0