Due in 12 hours

Course

Date

Reflection on the Articles

Article One

The article is named "Exchange," and it is written by Jeffrey Pfeffer from Stanford University. The article talks about the changes that young employees experience and how fast they adjust to those changes compared to older employees. These changes have brought about organization theories that explain this reality. The article states that these days, the old ideas about something are not considered as they were back in the day, and they are considered irrelevant. The world has changed in many different ways that everything that used to be done for one to gain power and influence in the past has been abandoned since new strategies have come up, and people in the current world are using them. Jeffery asks some questions regarding the organization theory. These questions are asked to try and find out if the change in people and work can affect the opinions of power and influence in the current world.

The article also explains why younger employees adjust to change quickly. Jeffrey states that the younger employees are brought up in less competitive environments, and influences are many compared to the older employees. On the other hand, although the world has changed along with the people and strategies they use to gain power and influence, some organizational dynamics are still relevant, and they are never changing from the past. These dynamics cannot always be seen as desirable by society, but they help to understand human behavior and how they change in different organizations. The dynamics that interested me include hierarchy whereby the control that comes with it encourages creativity and employee engagement in the organization. Even though the invention of social networks and technology has overtaken hierarchy, it is still there, and it can never end. Another dynamic is the self-enhancement motive whereby an individual has the freedom to motivate themselves by thinking positively and seeing ourselves as capable beings in the organization. It also includes never having the urge to give up even if the going gets tough. Individuals with self-enhancement motives always end up on top since they motivate themselves, and they do the things they have set the goals for, hence, working hard to reach the top and stays there. Others even drive others to believe in themselves and work hard to achieve their goals. The behavior never changes since every individual working for an organization, whether young or old.

Another dynamic behavior is us versus them and the importance of similarity whereby an individual tries to mimic the practices of the people who are on top by reading their books or listening to what they did before they made it to where they are now, among others. The mimicking shows that these individuals want to be like the mentors or role models, do what they did to gain the power they have now. Hence, whether the world is changing or not, trying to do similar things or have identical behaviors like one's role model will never change, and it is there to stay.

In conclusion, there is always going to be something new every day in this world since it is always changing, and no one can predict what happens in the future. However, some behaviors will never change, no matter how the world changes because they are constant, and they are inside all individuals.

Work Cited

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. "You're still the same: Why theories of power hold over time and across contexts." Academy of Management Perspectives 27.4 (2013): 269-280.

Article Two

The article is about Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance, written by Sebastian Raisch, Julian Birkinshaw, Gilbert Probst, and Michael L. Tushman, 2009. The article states that, for an organization to gain success, it has to depend on its ability to take advantage of its available capabilities and also taking advantage of essential new capabilities on its display. These organizations are referred to as ambidextrous organizations. The ambidexterity concept has increased over the years, from less than ten percent to more than eighty percent in the current world.

However, four tensions have to been addressed because, according to research, the ambidexterity concept can somehow be vague, ambiguous, and unexplored. The first tension is differentiation vs. integration whereby differentiation includes the partition of exploitative and explorative exercises into unmistakable organizational units, while integration involves the mechanisms that empower associations to address exploitative and explorative activities inside the equivalent hierarchical unit. Until this point, the two methodologies have regularly been positioned as totally unrelated arrangements; in any case, scholars have indicated different weaknesses inborn in both. Further progress around there may rely upon a wager for comprehension of the strains and complementarities between the two approaches. The second tension is individual or organizational tension, whereby the question is asked if ambidexterity can be seen in either. The ability to use both hands looks into generally portrays hierarchical components to empower ambidexterity, for example, formal structures or horizontal coordination components. Alternately, a few investigations show that the ability to use both hands is established in a person's capacity to investigate and misuse. Hierarchical components might be required to empower the ability to use both sides at the individual level, what's more, able to use both hands people might be fundamental to the helpfulness of hierarchical systems. There is, in this way, a requirement for hypotheses that catch the ability to use both hands crosswise over multiple levels of investigation.

Thirdly, static versus dynamic perspectives are discussed on whether they relate to ambidexterity. Albeit some examination proposes that consecutive consideration ought to be paid to abuse and investigation, most of organizational ability to use both perspectives in research displays a scope of arrangements that empowers associations to at the same time seek after the two exercises. These investigations take a static view on authoritative conduct: Organizations become able to use both perspectives by embracing specific designs. Given the dynamism of business sectors and associations, it is essential to create speculations that consolidate static components with a progressively dominant view of the ability to use both perspectives. Lastly, the article states whether ambidexterity can be external or internal. Research on authoritative ability to use both hands has concentrated on how organizations address misuse and investigation inside. Related research on the development and learning forms stresses the significance of the external securing of new learning for study. Concentrates on unique capabilities portray interrelations among inner and outer information forms that assume a significant job in corporate re-establishment. There is a need to investigate the interchange among internal and external procedures in the creation, what's more, safeguarding of authoritative ability to use both perspectives.

In conclusion, the article provides the essential strategies and procedures of how some ambidextrous organizations succeed in the end, even though there are some challenges and the tensions that they go through in the long run.

Work Cited

Raisch, Sebastian, et al. "Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance." Organization science 20.4 (2009): 685-695.

Article Three

The article’s title is “What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money," and it is written by Herman Aguinis, Harry Joo, and Ryan K. Gottfredson. The article talks about how employees work when they are rewarded with money and what the monetary reward cannot do to change the way employees work. When employees are offered financial rewards by their employers, it motivates them to work hard even more to gain the award and to live the life they have always wanted. It’s because the money reward saves the employees a lot of costs that they incur with their average salaries and allowances. Hence they feel if they earn the monetary award given to them by their employers, they will live more comfortably. Therefore, the employees will become more motivated and willing to do anything to earn that monetary reward provided by their employers. The monetary reward has a compelling impact on the employees, and they work hard to receive it. It is the highest form of motivation an employee can get from his/her employer. The employees who are paid higher are the most sought after individuals since they bring about exceptional work performance, therefore, leading to the success of the organization. The article explains that monetary reward can be the highest form of motivation because it meets various needs for the employees. Such requirements include food, shelter (rent), and can also afford luxury needs, such as going for a vacation or purchasing a car of the current model. It also enables the employee to fit in particular groups of people at work, such as the top performers, among others.

On the other hand, monetary rewards cannot do certain things for the employees. The article explains that monetary rewards cannot improve an employee's behavior or way of working in the organization. The employee stays the same, and it is only his/her work that gets him/her the monetary reward. Being able to work hard and smart for an organization will depend on the employees even though the monetary reward leads to the increase of the self-motivation of the employee. Also, monetary rewards cannot lead to job satisfaction since there are some decisions that the employers make that the employees do not agree with, but they have to go with it since it has already been decided. Hence, monetary rewards will not affect the decisions made and the duties that the employees have to perform related to the decision.

In conclusion, employers should consider the discussions above and see what monetary does and does not do for the employees. There are also some recommendations that employers need to look at when rewarding employees with money or any other reward. First, they should look at the measure of performance done by the employees, reward the best-performed employees according to the work that is done, reward the employees in an appropriate time whereby right after they have shown excellent performance and behavior, and be fair when choosing the employees eligible for the monetary reward. Finally, they should both rewards, which are monetary and nonmonetary. When they follow these recommendations, the employees can try their best to perform well for them to taste these rewards, whether financial or nonmonetary, as long as they are rewards. Therefore, it will lead to the motivation of the employees to do better and the success of the organization.

Work Cited.

Aguinis, Herman, Harry Joo, and Ryan K. Gottfredson. "What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money." Business Horizons 56.2 (2013): 241-249.