check

At Pepsi, cultural differences are a huge factor in the hiring process. Due to how diverse the company is, the management team saw fit to initiate a cultural inclusion committee to train and employees on cultural sensitivity and promote acceptance. I think that initially Pepsi considered personality factors and higher and lower level needs when designing jobs. Currently it seems that relying on professional and personal references to get a better idea of personality factors, and the same for higher and lower level needs are a more frequent practice.

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a general approach to human motivation and personality that addresses the quality of motivation in addition to the quantity or intensity of motivation. SDT differentiates between several types of behavioral regulation that reflect either self-determination or control (Guntert S.T., 2014).  At Pepsi, a few years ago we implemented a new position. The position was for a supply chain operations associate.  The job task for this position was to oversee the loading of the morning loaders.  This position has had many obstacles however; through trial and error it is successfully today. The onset of the job description, did not clearly measure outcomes of success nor did it offer proper engagement (Nelson & Quick, 2013). It was not until six months into the position that the outcomes were amended into the duties.   Currently the outcomes are outlined so that the supply chain operations associate supervisor is aware of all expectations.

Pepsi has always been guided by the company’s handbook, in which all employees are provided a hardcopy on their first day of employment. The processes, in which the human resources share changes in company policies are formalized, centralized and specialized. For instance, due to the fact that we have several satellites warehouses, all serving different purposes. The human resources staff often visits the satellites locations to thoroughly review any policy changes that would directly affect that particular office

Sound 102

While the university does not consciously use factors such as the MBTI type, conscientiousness, locus of control, hardiness, satisfying higher or lower level needs, or cultural differences into account when we are designing or filling our positions, those aspects are taken into account on a subconscious level for our positions. Take for example our Residential Coordinator/Coordinator of Student Activities position currently posted online. This position attempts to focus the incumbents on the higher order needs by meeting the lower order needs, including a competitive salary, “a furnished apartment (including utilities), access to free student laundry services, local telephone service, cell phone allowance, ethernet connection, and a block meal plan in the dining hall” (Residential Coordinator/Coordinator of Student Activities, 2017). Further, more, while the position does not identify a MBTI type preferred and applicants are not required to take an MBTI test, the position does describe the personality required for the position, such as having strong social skills, ability to work with a culturally diverse population, understanding and desire to engage in modern social justice issues, team player, sense of humor, and a “go-getter” (Residential Coordinator/Coordinator of Student Activities, 2017).

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that as an institution, we do enough to design our jobs to be as successful as they possibly can. For example, we tend to focus on scientific management – your job is your job and you focus on performing that job to the best of your abilities. There are positions that have grown out of the initial job descriptions, but that tends to be because they are filling a University need, rather than as a result of any job enlargement, rotation, or enrichment initiatives. However, through our new performance management and compensation program, we are attempting to improve our core job dimensions. The purpose of performance management is to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability (Morris, Stanton, & Young, 2007). Through goals that tie directly to the University’s strategic initiatives, we hope help define the meaningfulness in employee’s everyday work efforts. Through a rating and review process, we ensure that employees are held responsible for their work outcomes. Finally, through the same rating and review process, we encourage managers to create an environment of ongoing feedback so that employees are aware of their effect on the success of University initiatives.

The six basic design dimensions for an organization are formalization, centralization, specializations, standardization, complexity, and the hierarchy of authority. In regards to formalization, the University always takes care to ensure that the requirements of each position is defined through position descriptions. While it was not always careful in ensuring that these position descriptions were kept up to date, it has recently placed more emphasis on doing so due to a new compensation program which requires market reviews. The decision making authority at the University is very centralized. Almost all decisions must go through the top of the organization before they can be acted on. While not all positions are specialized, many do rely on expertise that is not easy to find in this area. Recently, the University has placed more emphasis on standardization. This is because, as we grow, the administration needs processes to be more uniform in order to ensure proper organization. When it comes to complexity, I don’t believe you would find a more complex micro culture than a university campus. It ranges from educational, to housing, to sports, to almost resort-style living support, and everything in between to help support that environment. Finally, the Hierarchy of Authority is fairly narrow – there are no large gaps and the structure is much defined. (Cengage Learning, 2015).