A634.3.4.RB - The Harder They Fall

Using concepts from the Kramer (2003) article as a baseline, share your insights on dilemmas that happen in society, work, and in your life.

We all have weaknesses, but it is better to acknowledge them and learn to use them as a strength, or, at the very least, be keen to how they appear in certain situations.
I am a very determined person and I am never satisfied in the moment; I am always thinking about the next thing I am going to accomplish. I struggle with appreciating what I have right now - people, things, experiences - everything is a means to an end, but there really is no end. One way of helping me stay grounded is that I constantly look back to where I have come from and realize how thankful I am for the people and experiences that helped me get to where I am.

When I read about our fictional executive Marjorie Peel, I was inspired by her. Peel is everything I thought I would be as a teenager - the head of class at a top university, the corporate up and comer who was quick-witted and thorough in thought, the next in line for CEO – these are not easy accomplishments (Kramer, 2003). However, I cannot imagine how could someone mess that up with cheating the system and forgetting the skills that people lauded her for (being quick with praise and slow to spite)? Perhaps, if I heard this story with minimal detail, I’d presume Peel fell off because of something tragic, like becoming an alcoholic or becoming addicted to prescription or recreational drugs (a la The Wolf of Wall Street). I suppose I could also imagine (though it is difficult) that Peel decided that the rat race is not for her and she settled down to start a family. Who knew that power could make someone so focused, so uncalculated and careless?

The story notes that Peel “the self-deprecating style that had been her trademark seemed to fade, replaced by a sudden desire to be in the limelight.” I believe I am the type of person that does seek recognition quite often – a flaw that comes along with my woo (“winning other over” [Strengthsquest] personality) – but I also enjoy giving credit, compliments and mentorship. The story discusses how Peel was also this type of leader to her employees – “generous with praise, quick to recognize others’ achievements” – yet as she ascended the corporate ladder, she “became more demanding of her subordinates and devoted little time to mentoring them.” She crossed the wrong people and did unethical things with the finances she was entrusted with.

Here was where Pell fell. If you keep people happy and do the right thing, I believe anyone can be successful, as long as you actually have the talent to take advantage of the doors people open for you. Film producer Lynda Obst said it best: “nerve, not talent, is the one necessary and sufficient trait for success […] if you lean back on your ropes and […] ponder the risks, the moment may be gone.”
Throughout my life, I have never felt that I needed to stop growing my supervisees to devote more time to my own success. In fact, I see my employees as the reason why I am successful. They do good work, and it makes me look good, so I treat them well and I grow them to be creative, thoughtful leaders. I can only hope that through my influence, they do the same to their employees, because their employees are direct contacts to our clients. If our employees are happy, then the service they provide will make our clients happy, which also reflects positively on me.

One fatal flaw of mine is putting in the work with other things falling to the wayside. "I’ve been successful, but never satisfied" (Rookwood, 2012). At first I just thought I was losing connection because people did not want to see me "shine". I thought that if they could not deal with me putting 100 percent into work, they did not need to be around. I'd see doors open, opportunities to shine, and I run for them with a flashlight, and this has left my loved ones in a dark corner at times. What is success if there's no one to share it with? I have failed monstrously at the work/life-balance decision. However, I have tried to involved the people affected in keeping me on par. My godmother calls me every Sunday if we have not talked during the week, as to say, "I only expect one hour from you, missy, by Sunday!" My partner calls me frequently to reminds me what time I get off so we can have dinner together. There's been times that I slept at the office. I've left the office at midnight. These are the days my partner really grinds me over. He will come over to my office and and lay on the floor until I pack my things. Every once in a while he will nudge me to take a Wednesday off to explore the free parks in the area, or a Friday so we can escape town. We'll stay at a hotel and have an amazing dinner at a place we find on a Food Channel episode. It always delights me to take photos of plates and review places like I used to do before I came back to students affairs from journalism. There is something so freeing about these days that reminds me that life is not just the weekend. I have tried my best to realize that I do not work to live, but I work to have a life.

References

Kramer, Roderick M. (2003). Harvard Business Review.
The Harder They Fall. Accessed at https://hbr.org/2003/10/the-harder-they-fallRookwood, D. (2012). Put Your Career Second. GQ. Accessed at http://www.gq.com.au/lifestyle/editors+pick/put+your+career+second,18251

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

In Chapter 2, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories.

Consequentialists claim as cited by LaFollette (2009) “that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (p.23). He continues that in seeking a decent act,
“consider available actions" and "trace the likely consequences of each for all affected". The ends justify the means in consequentialism, no matter how gory the process may be. War, for instance, in the eye of a consequentialist, may or may not be moral. The reasoning for involvement is key. Where a consequentialist may say that the United States involvement in WWII was in response to millions being slaughtered in Nazi camps, one may note that the Civil War was fought on one end to keep slavery in existence. Havel (1995) takes a more
deontologist approach to the subject:

Given its fatal incorrigibility, humanity probably will have to go through many more Rwandas and Chernobyls before it understands how unbelievably shortsighted a human being can be who has forgotten that he is not God.

Deontology theory is that “we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and that these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 22). Deontology is rule or duty-based ethics. There are acts that are right, and there are acts that are wrong, and there is no middle ground or special circumstance in which the act may shift. Therefore, a deontologist believes that lying, stealing and murder are wrong; however, they do not consider whether the truth hurts people. Whereas a utilitarian would say that the consequence is the best way in determining the good or evil within an act, if either the motive, means or result is wrong, everything is immoral about the act from the deontologist eye. How does one get at a moral act?

Kant doubted if eternal truths (natural law) were real in and of themselves, since they are always drawn through a biased foci. He believed we could only act in ways we believed to be in line with universal law. Categorical imperative, or a (self-defined) necessary determination, is a user-friendly way of determining right or wrong. All moral judgements are rationally supported.

There are three maxims within the categorical imperative (O'Neill, 1990):
All actions must have universality, which means that an action is only moral if you believe that it would be right to do if everyone did it all of the time. For instance, if you believe that murder is wrong (an example in line with eternal truths), then all war is wrong, and even killing a murderer is wrong.
Every human must be treated as an end, not a means to an end. Manipulation of people and lives is wrong. Whereas consequentialism states that the greater good trumps the individual,
deontology states that every person's individual welfare matters and that people cannot use others to achieve their own selfish goals. the emphasis is on respect for each person and their moral rights.
Individuals should act as moral authorities for others. We are always responsible for alerting others of their immorality and should thwart their plan to commit evil acts.

The holes in Kant's argument lie within cultural relativity: How can we know whether our perceptions are correct? What justification/reasons do we have for a belief? Kant's law are set to be utilized by those who deem themselves to be moral authorities and who will, though their own selfishness and egocentrism, will take it upon themselves to punish those who are inherently immoral by their ruler. This was the justification of slavery; John C. Calhoun said, "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually" (Independence Hall Association, n/d).

Velasquez et al states (2011):

Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.

In situations where the overall dilemma is not life threatening or incredibly crucial to the overall duties and responsibilities of the populace, I find that consequentialism can be beneficial; “right” or “wrong” are relative based on upbringing, which is what makes deontology flawed. One should always consider how those around them will be affected, before trying to decide what natural law solidifies.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub.

Independence Hall Association. (n/d). The Southern Argument for Slavery. Accessed at http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

Havel, Vdclav. (1995). Forgetting That We Are Not God, 51 FIRST THINGS 47, 49-50. Accessed at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9503/articles/havel.html 

O'Neill, Onora. (1990). Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical Philosophy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Velasquez, M., Claire, A., Shanks, T., S.J., Meyer, M.J. (2010). What is ethics? Accessed at https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/

MSLD 634 - 1.4.CM: The Train Dilemma

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing.

Will you throw the switch?

I would not throw the switch. A switchperson attends the switch in a railroad yard, switching trains from one track to another. It is safe to assume that all of the children standing on the track are not tied down and are standing on the track of their own volition. If so, I would have been present to see this occur and would have access to radio to alert the engineer and conductor to stop the train. However, the situation assumes that the children are on the tracks right before my role as a switchperson would come into play. I am going to do my due diligence to yell or use a loudspeaker to alert them of their folly, but my job will not be changed by their actions. If they are in the way of a moving train, the same logic (or lack thereof) they used to stand on the track should be used to sense impending danger and urge them to swiftly relocate. Perhaps the five children are anticipating the train and have strategically placed themselves there. The child on the other track must have chosen to stand on the track where the train is unexpected, knowing he or she would not be impacted by the train coming. I do not believe I should change the fate of such expectation. To allow fate to occur results in not being a murder.

Same scenario except:

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the

train and all the children will be saved.

Will you push him?

I would not push the elderly man. Once again, the man has not placed himself in the line of danger, and it would be criminal to kill him. Once again, to allow fate to occur results in not being a murder. However, the children, no matter immature their decision, have placed themselves in the line of danger. I do not feel any responsibility to save them from their poor decision, particularly if it means risking another life to do so. However, if one would be so inclined to save the children, why not fling themselves into the track?

Same scenario except:

The one child on the side track is your child.

Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

I would not save the five children. It is not about the quantity of life, but the quality. One who would stand on the tracks where an active train occasionally passes is already taking a mighty risk of being electrocuted or hit by the train. 

In reflection of all of the situations, I would perhaps had different answers if those on the tracks were tied down. However, it also depends on what I know or can perceive to know about the persons. Perhaps if the five were tied down, and the lone person was jumping up and down, excited for the coming of the train, I would choose to divert due to the freewill of the one versus the entrapment of the five. However, in a situation where all six were tied down and the five were dressed as neo-Nazis or KKK members, I would spare the life of the lone person without the apparent terrorist affiliation! However, as the stories stand, There are several internal questions that aided in my decision-making.

• Who can say that saving these children once will not result in them returning to the tracks once again? 
• Who is to say they have not already been saved and have not learned their lesson? 
• How many elderly men and lone children must have their existences questioned before this child collective meets their fate?

References

Anderson, Thomas. (n/d). Case Western Reserve University. Accessed at https://erau.instructure.com/courses/32985/files/4883974/download?wrap=1.

A631.9.2.RB - Video Debrief of Team MA

After watching the video above, write a well-written reflection blog, discuss how your characteristics would have fit with the makeup and culture of the NeXT startup team. Your reflection should be very specific to the environment that you witness in the video. Make sure that you use your MA results as the basis for your discussion.

Steve Jobs founded NeXT as he was pushed out of Apple. His goal was to develop a new culture for his team, which encompasses 11 young mavericks that had followed him from the conglomerate.

In the first 30 days of the new launch of NeXT everyone is super excited to launch this new product and you can see it in their faces and hear it in their voices. Ideas and grandiose goals are being set and it seems everyone is thrilled and ready to go. As times goes on and the team approaches the 90-day mark, the team is not as excited and pumped up as they were. The goal to have a product in 18 months has not progressed; at the six-month mark, there is not yet a model. The team is in their storming phase: the honeymoon phase is gone, people are stressed, there is no model and no one wants to take the responsibility for the lack of productivity, not even Steve!

As a leader, I like to assure that people are inspired, that they feel free, and that they know that they can communicate with me and receive non-judgmental feedback. I believe that with enough excitement, inspiration and support, a storming phase like the one at NeXT can be either

As a logistical leader, I think about what resources I have and how
I can use those resources to solve issues. I do not invest much
time into figuring out where the problem came from or who to blame.

circumvented or plowed through rather briefly. I do not see a benefit in pointing fingers, so I do not. I believe success can be achieved with one person or with 400, but if someone is not doing their part, the work should still get done (they just should not partake in the benefit). The Management Assessment Profile stated I am relatively aggressive in goal-setting, and I believe in achieving goals on a weekly basis.

Tom Labrecque notes in regards to my Management Assessment Style:"With their team-oriented
leadership approach, logistical team
members are also good at establishing lines of communication, and are often a stabilizing influence in organizations by creating rules and structure for the organization and its people."

I believe Steve was probably like this as well, but perhaps more tactical. Each week, there would be a model presented by someone to look at. It need not be entirely completed, but seeing development inspires new creativity, questioning that can help improved designs, etc. I understand what is to look at a project/new effort and look at the balance of benefits and setbacks from successes and failures. I believe that if Steve Jobs came to me and said, "Sydney, I need you to present a design for a database in three days," I would be excited to see what I can come up with. When asked to do something, my next step is to get the job done; then, in the long view, I am dedicated to creating a structure to allow it to be more repeatable. I enjoy beating timelines and being able to review my work with my supervisor. I want to show I care about the work they give me as much as I enjoy developing better ways to do things, but I must do both. I can't just do one thing at a time. I get very, very bored, quite quickly.

The self-confident employee who knows what she's doing but can take
good advice, and is not afraid to quit if the environment is too rigid. 

I am highly internally driven. The person in the mirror has a lot of to with my goal-setting and how I measure success. I believe I have all of the information to go get the task done, which is driven by my internal drive. This can also be a liability, if I am wrong in my assumptions. I am highly driven by challenges. Though I would prefer to have a strong relationship with my supervisors before we communicate in a way that could come off as less than supportive, I love it when someone says, "I bet you can't". Steve was the type of boss with a confrontational and critical style, and I could see him saying something like this to inspire. My internal response then, is "Oh, watch me, I'll show you what I can't do."

I would have had some contention with the concepts of structure, recognition and multitasking.
I like people to appreciate my work, and I enjoy working with other people and growing people. To do this, I really need to be in an established organization or one that I lead.

According to the NextSteps evaluation, startups may not yet have enough structure for me to feel comfortable. Though I would love to own my own large business (I actually did run a small business at one point, but I was a sole proprietor) I believe I would also have had problems with Steve Jobs, since he seems like an autocratic leader, one who pushes his preferences, and limits the amount of meaningful interactions and contributions of  the team. I cannot work somewhere where the owner believed that his ideas were the only ones that counted. What do you need me for then?

The driver to any job that makes me happy is that I need to be challenged; the minute I am not challenged in a job is the minute the job is not fun anymore. I need an evolving, dynamic and changing environment and NeXT may have been one I could have flourished in.

References

Nathan, J. (1989). Steve Jobs Brainstorms with NeXT Team. Nathan/Tyler
Productions. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM&feature=related

A631.8.4.RB - Reflective Analysis

Explore the Internet for information based on your own Myers-Briggs personality type. If you have never taken the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI), you can access a free personality type test at the HumanMetrics website (Links to an external site.).

It is important to understand that Jungian types and the MBTI relate to personal preferences for how people interact in the world. No type is better than another type and every type has its own unique ways of being. And, sometimes the assessments do not correctly describe the personality type of the person who took the test. If you feel that the descriptions of your personality type preferences are not accurate, then you probably were mistyped by the test.

Develop a reflection blog describing how the MBTI might be useful to you as you develop your leadership capacity. In your blog, touch on your own self-awareness and also your knowledge and awareness of others.

The Myers Briggs Type Indicator is a 16 categories alignment of personalities based on four contrary traits:

Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I)

Sensing (S) or Intuition (N)

Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)

Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)

My Myers Briggs Type Indicator growing up was an ENTJ, but I believe I sit comfortably as a ENTP now (my opinion: as a Gemini, it's have several personalities that overlap, but this one is the most constant). As much as I enjoy being alone when working, my reactions and temperament are based on the happenings of the world. Macro problems stress out more than my own specific ones, and I tend to tie personal issues to theories (no money = the economic battle of the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat). I can come off as an introvert to people I do not particularly enjoy :-). I thrive through conversations, particularly with strangers. I enjoy listening to people talk about themselves, as long as they are upbeat. New experiences are cherished, so I love traveling and trying new activities, but I am a Jill-of-All-Trades. I hate living in the same place for long periods, and I have a goal of visiting each state (I am at 30) and living in each of the quadrants of the US (I only have one left, the Northwest). I love information; I enjoy using it to debate, and can see the strengths and weaknesses in just about every argument. I also ask a lot of questions, which may not necessarily be because I disagree with someone. In fact, a lot of the time I am asking questions is when I am deeply interested in someone's ideas and plans. 

My goal is always to fill my bucket of intrigue. I learn new things everyday. I like to be on the same page as others, but I also want them to have the same information I do. I can see things from many perspectives, even when I completely disagree with them. This all seems to go in line with the ENTP personality, But there are some things about me that do not quite fit into this dynamic. I am creative, and I like to make things better. However, instead of only enjoying the part of conceptualizing ideas, I also enjoy seeing them come to fruition, I like to be a part of that. In fact, I enjoy working on my big ideas by myself. I can be introverted at times like that, particularly when I do not have a lot of support. I like proving that things can be done that people say cannot be done, so in line with the ENTP personality, I do appreciate being the underdog.

I pride myself on my honesty, but that virtue is a double-edged sword. I believe that being a millennial gives me a sense of equality through hierarchical institutions. I respect the janitors much as I respect the CEO; perhaps I even care for the janitors more, because I interact with them more often. I see their work, and I know immediately when it does not get done, so I appreciate that they do it. However, the CEO has so many people under them, they can blame shortcomings on just about anyone. But I can't say that! I am learning the way of organizational politics, and though I still feel dirty participating in them, I know they are survival skills. This means that I must be aware of speaking too much of my mind to the wrong people. I try to be overwhelmingly agreeable, but the spirit of the INFJ - the “help me help you” / “live to fight another day” type - is how this restriction is displayed. Much like am INFJ, "passion of their convictions is perfectly capable of carrying them past their breaking point and if their zeal gets out of hand, they can find themselves exhausted, unhealthy and stressed" (16 Personalities Staff, n/d).
“ENTPs are open-minded and flexible managers, not just granting but also expecting the same freedom of thought that they themselves enjoy” (16 Personalities Staff, n/d).

I really appreciate the opportunity to lead people, because I am a leader that wants to develop other leaders... not develop followers. I believe that hiring the right people is more than half the job; My favorite quote regarding work is by actress Tina Fey: "In most cases, being a good boss means hiring talented people and then getting out of their way." I am confident in my employees and I trust them, I keep lines of communication open, so they trust me and they come to me when they need help. I am collaborative and open-minded, and I do not need all of the glory if the job was done well. I give credit where and when credit is due. I care more about the result than the process (as long as the means was ethical). I don't mind being disagreed with, as long as the disagreement is backed by logic. It’s a benefit to work with logical, left-brained students in the STEM field, because It's rare that I get someone who says, “I feel,” or, “I have an inkling” to rationalize their actions. I also don't micromanage people, as it is a huge no-no in my book. Micro-managers drive me crazy - destroying trust by hovering and not having enough work to do themselves - so I show a lot of respect to my employees and care about their opinion.

I am a straight-shooter, so I do not appreciate people who are indirect in language. I appreciate when my mentors are hard on me, because I know they are trying to make me a better leader. I welcome their critiquing. I do not want to decipher thoughts; give it to me straight! However, I was once told by a supervisor that I am intimidating to some people (someone even more direct than I) and I find this is typical double-speak for the assertive women. A man’s assertiveness is welcome, but women are to be passive (Goman, 2010). I am 5'2. I suppose I should hunch over and look smaller? There is a fine line between being a doormat and being understanding in my position. I am flexible; deadlines can be changed sometimes, but I

A leader is best when people barely know he exists,
when his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
they will say: we did it ourselves. -Lao Tzu

want the agreed upon deadlines and quality met. I want to help my workers and students, but I will not continuously offer my assistance; though I want to, I want people to do alone, or ask for help. I cannot become a crutch, or I am developing dependents. As my mother says, don’t ask, don’t get. Of course, there is a limit to how much directness people can take. I am learning to use questions to understand people’s actions if I sense we are not on the same page, instead of stating my opinion of their actions; this is one of my greatest personal challenges. I have learned over the past year to cherish my words and guard my thoughts, because sadly, most of those in power want compliance; they know all and have little time for dissidence (but I see this phasing out with the better-trained). Sadly, I do see some younger bosses who are learning  the do what I say because I’m the boss mantra of the past, but they tend to do it because they are unprepared to lead and are hoping to intimidate with their title. It's sad, because it builds resentment and begin to make workers despise their workplace as a whole. I do believe there is impact in speaking less so people pay attention when you do speak, and I enjoy the respect that comes with thoughtfully placed sharing. I find that it's also easier for people to remember what you need from them and your last conversations, because the communication is not muddied by daily conversations about cat videos and how the family's doing.

I sometimes come off as abrasive to the people I care about the most. Instead of just listening to people's problems, I always want to help them solve them, not considering that they may just need a shoulder to lean on. Likewise, if I am approaching someone at work, it's usually because I have a question or problem. If I want help, I ask for it. I am bad at making small talk (not bad at it, but I fail to look engaged) as it usually does not provide me with any useful information. I also have a really bad time hiding my facial reactions. They are the only emotions I can not control in public; it is another facet of the overly-honest persona. Most follow up about it, but I have been able to find new avenues before explaining reactions. I believe that diversion is my only saving grace as a leader who may be too forward.

I enjoy people, and I like being happy. I lose respect for people who always publicize their problems (the “woe is me”/”Debbie Downer” folk) and spread negativity. I have distanced myself from these people - even close friends and family - believing that time is better utilized fixing issues than complaining about them. It was not until I became a resident assistant as a college student that I began to challenge this absence of care. Before I came into this career, people would come to me all of the time with their issues, and I feigned care well. I would listen to people, but I would always think, “is this really the worst thing that has happened to them? Can they really be this angry over this? Why do people share with me so much?” (Perhaps there’s a little ENTJ that comes out every now and then). I now realize that tragedy is defined differently for all of us and I cannot use my experiences as a gauge of severity for others. I actually care. Working in Student Affairs has really helped me in terms of developing empathy, while still allowing me to utilize my problem solving abilities.

References

16 Personalities Staff. (n/d). 16 Personalities. ENTP IN THE WORKPLACE.
 Accessed at http://www.16personalities.com/entps-at-work
Goman, Carol. (2010). Assertive women perceived negatively. Accessed at      http://www.troymedia.com/2010/01/05/assertive-women-perceived-negatively/

A631.7.4.RB - Future of OD

Given what you have learned over the past two courses, what do you see as the future of the OD discipline?

Organization Development (OD) is the process by which behavioral science knowledge and practices are used to help organizations achieve greater effectiveness, including improved quality of work life and increased productivity (Cummings, & Huse, 1989).

In terms of a practitioners, OD has the goals of:
Being aware of systems wanting to change
Being known to those needing you
Matching skills with potential client profile
Conveying qualifications in a credible manner
Quickly grasping the nature of the system
Determining appropriate decision makers
Determining appropriate processes (Sullivan, Rothwell and Worley, 2001)

Some have noted that OD is nothing new; in fact, it has been criticized as, "the same kind of nonsense that saw training become 'learning & development' without any noticable (sic) improvements in addressing strategic issues" (Morrison, 2007). OD is not a fad; OD has, will and should always be present in organizations, though the modeling may transform to suit needs. In the past, the terminology Organizational Behavior (OB) studied and applied the knowledge of how people, as individuals and as groups, act within organizations (Newstrom & Davis, 1993). As Brown states (2011), OD is a “long-term contribution to management and organization theory” (p. 425). As leaders and emerging leaders evolve and develop, some may not take take formal or drastic approaches as others, but they will in some way shape and form always be moving forward. In addition organizations have so many different attributes, cultures, employees, motivators, goals, etc. to impact, it would be unfair to assume each leader will identify the same issues and plan to progress the condition the same way. Within higher education, the field is dynamic and ever-changing, and the techniques and tools used five years ago would not work now, even through thorough survey of

This could be me, but I don't have a telecommuting job.

aspects.

Brown states that "OD presents the technology for creating and seeking organizational excellence,which is the underlying goal of the modern manager and organization". As a group we recently completed a paper on how social media has developed individuals an d companies,making networking and learning a viable option. Free resources give us this power. As an individual, I have been able to develop friendships and mentorships through Facebook, LinkedIn, MOOCs (free online courses) and email. I can (and have) designed sites that simply promote my experience and skills. In my office, I lead our social media presence to create a reputation for the department that is active, student-centered and highly communicative. Our workers are the same way, and they aid in creating better ways to connect with their people. We realize that less students are getting their information from posters and fliers. They sit on their computer all day; we need to be on computers. The millennial populace is tech-savvy, demanding, educated, and talented. To better serve the campus, local and prospective community, and to gain more direct and honest feedback, and create a digital history of our accomplishments, we've integrated technology into our identity.

Organization Development is a continuously growing field, and is expanding to include global adaptability through web-based and mobile-based platforms, and is converting organizations into high-performance organization on wheels and in the air. This serves to save companies a lot of money by getting people out of brick-and-mortars and into places where they feel more apt to be productive. I see this leading to longer-term assignments, fighting against the ageist stereotyping of younger workers. If organizational development programs are fully integrated, organizations can improve effectiveness in the future global business economy.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.
Cummings, T. & Huse, E. (1989). Organization Development and Change. St Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. (Pp. 5-13).Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. (p. 293).

Morrison, M. (2007). OD - Fad or competitive advantage? Accessed at http://www.hrzone.com/community-voice/discuss/od-fad-or-competitive-advantage