Essay Help

For this discussion forum please look up the case of J. TAIKWOK YUNG WEBADVISO-v.- BANK OF AMERICA CORP., MERRILL LYNCH, 448 Fed. Appx. 95; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21648 via the Lexis/Nexis database accessed via our online library. Do not google the case as you will want to read the case itself. For your initial posting please identify the legal issues as well as the holding and explain how the appellate court reached its decision and state whether you agree with the decision explaining your position. Your initial posting should be no less than 500 words.

Essay2:

The Authority and Influence textbook provided a model regarding influence in the six chapters read in Week 2 and 3. The Making the Team book has some content too. Assume that you have the objective of instituting change across multiple locations, with persons from multiple divisions of your organization over a two-year period. What are the values of this model and other techniques to ensure success when you have to compete for the delivery of promised resources - people, time, and money. This is your reputation on the line, however, do not forget dignity, and professionalism, and ethics.

· 450 words of detail,\

EXAMPLE (DO NOT COPY THIS)

Instituting organizational change over multiple locations and throughout multiple divisions does require influence. Any systematic modification will be received with some animosity or reluctance and aligning strategic, corporate allies is a quintessential necessity to any evolving, integral enterprise policy.

            Upon the definition of change and after key modified policies have been metabolized by the controlling factors, communication holds precedent. When committing to a major capital investment, crystal clear comprehension of new concepts, products, or operations will promote internal ownership. This acceptance of the corporate vision is the opening volley to earning inter-organizational currency. Promoting the concepts of change also develops capable allies and can potentially reveal dissenters.

            Discovery of any relevant dissention may disrupt clarity moving forward. Cohen notes two forms of negative exchange: implicit or explicit threats and negative retaliation (Cohen, 2005). Circumstantial resolutions to these threats may include quid pro quo, increased corporate support, or monetary dividends, all forms of motivational currency designed to permeate and dispel any disbelief in the corporate direction. Harmonies in vision, communication, purpose, economies of scale, and assured feasibility creates value and promotes sanctity toward the mission.

            What would provoke such dissention with organizational change? Why would reluctance to change exist? Thompson argues the Abilene Paradox (Thompson, 2000) as a resistor to change. Critical interpretation of this concept, a consensus to avoid conflict, suggests that established, well-oiled paradigms are risk-adverse to any lifestyle adjusting force. Manifestation of any alteration in a singular or group reality of existence is a frightening proposition for some and avoidance at all costs may prove a legitimate alternative to any contemplation of change. Employees or teams of established concerns are comfortable and adjusted through repetition, expertise and expectations; moreover, any significant deviation from this actuality can prove disconcerting.

            To institute policy changes calmly and equitably, a leader must exhaust all possible informational utilities available. In the aforementioned communication necessity, a culture of open, relevant input throughout the organization, at all affected levels, is essential for building trust in change. Subsequent failure to inform employees may undermine and destroy trust in leadership and annul performance motivation. Not to long ago, I remember Steve Ballmer, CEO of Apple, practically losing his marbles at an Apple conclave and continually shouting, “DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!” in effort to motivate teams not to settle on Apple’s success and continue to pursue cutting edge innovations for the IPhone. This transparent revelation from Ballmer, “I can’t program or develop these things”, essentially instills a responsibility of perpetual growth among Apple staff. Ballmers candid admission of weakness, although perhaps in jest, levels the playing field, deconstructs perceptions of leadership, and supplants cohesive, innovative strategies.

            An important consideration when implementing change over multiple platforms is sequential ease of transition. Within this two-year window, well-timed, gradual materialization of change could be afforded. This would allow participants to gain knowledge, discovery inefficiencies, perfect processes, and incrementally achieve expertise. These timely, dependent solutions would inevitably evolve into a cohesive, operational norm; moreover, the derived demand of this gradual progression of phases could accommodate any prevailing dissention or hesitation among labor.

            In conclusion, introducing new processes into well-established organizations is a tactful balancing exercise. Equilibrium and compatibility are indisputably crucial however, binding capital investment sits perched on the other side of the scale. In an instance of non-conformity toward corporate goals and vision combined with inherent resistance to shifting practices, capital will undoubtedly win the day. Conform or be cast out would be the assured resolution.

References

Thompson, L. (2000). Making the team: A guide for managers (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cohen, A., & Bradford, D. (2005). Influence without authority (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.