Class Summary

Even though this class was a lot of work, I actually really enjoyed the class.  First of all, it was pretty awesome that we had no exams.  While we did have several other assignments instead, I thought they were a lot better than studying for an exam.  I also thought Dr. Goates did a great job of making the material interesting.  Normally, the subject matter of the class seems like it would be really dry, but the various articles we read put it into a real-life perspective, which makes it more interesting because we can see the material being used.  He also gave great examples which made me think in ways I never did before.  For example, I never thought that the design of a building would say something about the culture of that institution.  The example he gave of the business schools of Vanderbilt and Shippensburg really put his idea into perspective. For about a week after that example, I found myself analyzing the design of many of the accounting firms' offices when I went for office interviews.  I also liked how he incorporated activities into the class as well.  They definitely kept the class interesting, and I feel that I remember the concepts the activities emphasized better than those that were not the subjects of activities. 

I think that many of the concepts we learned about in class will also be very useful outside of the classroom as well.  For example, the negotiation tactics we learned will be very useful to everyone when they start full-time employment and have to negotiate an offer with the company/firm.  Since we know how to properly negotiate, we have the potential to start at a drastically higher salary than someone who doesn’t know what we know.

It's been a great class, but I'm definitely glad it's over.  Hope everyone has a great break, and good luck next semester!

Group Presentations

After watching all of the presentations, I thought they were all really interesting.  I really liked the video at the beginning of the BP presentation.  I thought the video did a great job of visualizing just how devastating the spill was.  The group also made the video themselves, which I think shows how creative they were.  I think using videos in a presentation is a great way to emphasize points.  We had a video for the end of ours, but unfortunately we did not get to use it due to time constraints.  I also never knew that Steve Jobs was involved with Disney/Pixar.  I assumed that his whole life revolved around Apple, so I thought that fact was very interesting.  I also really enjoyed the presentation about the accounting scandals.  Since I'm an accounting major, I found this presentation to be especially interesting.  Like I said, I think all of the presentations went really well, and it showed how hard all of the groups worked to put them together.  Both days went really well, and I think everyone will join me in saying thank god the presentations are over with! 

The "Inside" Scoop for the Slogan Activity

So I don't think I missed any blog posts, but just in case I did I'll do this one extra one.  I just wanted to briefly comment again on the in class slogan activity now that we have discussed it in class.  One thing that I thought was really interesting about the activity now that I look back at it was how the connections you have with others in the workplace can be very important.  No one really brought this point up in class, so I thought this would be the perfect place to discuss it.  Just like in a real company, I felt that there was some significance put on the connections that individuals in the activity had with each other.  For example, I noticed individuals in the bottom group texting their friends in the top group and the NMBL to try and figure out what was going on.  Based on these connections these individuals had, they were able to gain information that no one else knew.  I feel that the same kind of thing exists within real companies as well.  Certain employees will obviously know information about things such as promotions, company policies, or client information.  Obviously, other employees who have a strong connection with these individuals will be the only ones among their co-workers that will know this information, ergo giving them an advantage over those who do not know this "insider" information.

My Role as a Have-not in the Class Activity

While we were doing the slogan activity a few weeks ago, it didn't occur to me that the activity was so closely related to the Alinsky article about the haves and have-nots.  As a member of the lower group, one would automatically assume that we were the have-nots simply because we were at the bottom of the food chain.  However, it turns out that we ended up having most of the power in the exercise.  The top group, who was considered by most to be the haves, relied on us for the slogans that would make them money.  Since they relied on us for the slogans, we had the power to influence their success.  During the activity, I feel that the top group tried to show us how powerful they were by not communicating with the lower group very much because they saw us as having no power.  As a result, they found out the hard way who actually held the power in that exercise.  When the majority of the lower groups decided to under-cut the top group and go straight to the customer, they realized that they were the ones that were more like the have-nots because without the slogans of many of the lower groups, they made very little money.

Power Eilte

For this blog post, I wanted to discuss the Power Elite that we discussed in class on Wednesday.  I heard about the Power Elite during my freshman year in my sociology class, but I didn't really understand the concept back then.  Now that I hear about it now, I can completely wrap my head around the concept.  I think it is very interesting how a certain group of business executives, military officials, and political figures can have such a sphere of influence over all aspects of the world.  I think that these individuals deserve the power they have acquired, as I'm sure they had to work very hard to get where they are today.  However, it does worry me that such a small group can easily make such critical decisions that will affect everyone without much question or opposition.  I also thought it was interesting that these individuals get their power from the institutions they represent.  I never thought of power this way, but when Dr. Goates gave the example that Obama isn't powerful because he is Obama, but rather because he is the president, I took a liking to the concept since it is universally true for any member of the Power Elite.

Book report part 5

            For this section of my book report on “Liar’s Poker” by Michael Lewis, I will discuss chapters nine, ten, and eleven.  I chose to group these three chapters because they all deal with how Solomon brothers crumbled.  Again, I also feel that these chapters relate to the organizational behavior topics of culture and motivation that we have discussed in class.

            In chapter nine, we find the author on a major client who loved to take risk.  As a result of this desire for risk, the author and another individual created a call option, which basically means that other investors who were risk-averse would sell their risk to Solomon.  In this situation, the investors were selling high-risk German bonds to the author.  This transfer of risk put Solomon in an ideal position, because since they were merely the middleman who was transferring the risk from the sellers to the client, Solomon brought no risk upon themselves.  Of course, due to the cut-throat competitive culture that exists within Solomon, this success the author was having caught the interest of another individual within the firm.  Once this individual became aware of this transaction, he decided that he would get a piece of the action in any way he could.  This individual, whom the author called “the opportunist,” pulled the rug right out from underneath the author, and stole all the credit for the extremely successful deal the author made.  Enraged by this, the author succumbed to the cut-throat Solomon culture and sought revenge.  As a form of retaliation, the author put together another very successful deal involving the sale of Japanese government bonds.  The author knew there was no way the opportunists could steal the credit for this deal, because he was not able to explain the deal to his peers and superiors.  This angered the opportunist, and he then sought revenge and threatened to have the author fired.  In defense, the author outsmarted the opportunist by going to the syndicate manager, who handles the deals the author makes.  The syndicate manager knew that the author and his partner was responsible for the deal, and with a few phone calls, the opportunist’s opportunity success had been squashed.

            I think this chapter provides another good look at the culture that exists within Solomon Brothers.  This firm is one of the most competitive in the business world, and this chapter proves it. In comparison to the employee-friendly culture we read about within SAS, Solomon’s culture is the polar opposite.  At any given time, an employee is willing to throw a fellow co-worker under the bus so that they would be the only one that would reap the reward.  Also, if one is thrown under the bus by another, their main goal becomes revenge, which is a good indication of the cut-throat, conceited culture that exists within Solomon Brothers.  I personally do not know how someone could work in such an environment when such positive environments such as SAS’s exist.

            In chapter 10, Solomon Brothers became the target of Drexel Burnham, a long time rival of Solomon Brothers on Wall Street.  Drexel Burnham had gained an abundance of success as of late because of their sly leader, Michael Milken.  Michael created a new way to finance corporate take-over’s.  He decided to start financing these take-over’s by issuing junk bonds.  Since the firm Michael ran was targeting to take-over Solomon Brothers, he planned on financing this acquisition with junk bonds.  The leaders of Solomon wanted to avoid this situation at all costs, but the deal materialized as Solomon’s executives were too ignorant to realize what was actually going on.  As a result, Solomon management had to cut a deal with Warren Buffet to avoid being taken over by Michael and Drexel Burnham.  Of course, Warren Buffet does nothing for free, so he performed his services at the expense of the shareholders.

            This chapter again reinforces the greedy, self-centered culture of Wall Street.  First, Michael was executing shady junk bond financing techniques, which were frowned upon in the investment banking world.  However, he did not care how moral his actions were.  The only thing he was concerned about was how much money he was going to make as a result of his shady transactions.  Also, no one else around him cared about his new financing strategy.  Solomon executives didn’t want to believe that he was using junk bonds because they were concerned about their reputation, and not loosing client revenue as a result of a tarnished reputation.  In the end, Solomon’s own greed came back to bite them when they had to pay a huge expense to Warren Buffet to avoid the take-over.

            In chapter 11, Solomon Brothers reaches the climax of its demise.  The stock market crashed in the winter of 1987.  This occurrence resulted in the firing of a thousand employees and the shutting-down of several departments.  As a result, Solomon could not operate at the level it once did because they lost some of the departments that used to earn revenue for the firm.  This means that the firm will earn less revenue in general, and this is like the end of the world to Solomon executives.  Due to this fact, management lost their vision because of the amount of money they would no longer make.  The firm did not completely shut down.  It continued to operate, but it did not earn anywhere close to what it did when it was in its prime.  The author ended up leaving the firm, but not because his paycheck was going to suffer due to the downsizing of Solomon Brothers.

Case 2

As a junior who was evaluating which company I wanted to inter with this spring, I had a special interest in the SAS case.  As I realized, a company's culture and management are a major factor to consider in terms of employer evaluation.  If I was an employee and SAS was one of my potential employers, I would choose them in a heartbeat.  While reading the case, I found numerous employee-friendly benefits such as a campus that offers several amenities such as fitness and healthcare facilities, job autonomy, and constant interaction with other employees (and activities to encourage this).  The company also has an extremely low turnover ratio, which is very encourage to any individual who is considering the company for employment.  As I was evaluating firms for internships, I found myself looking for many of the same amenities that SAS offers (except for the thing like fitness and childcare centers).

Book Report Part 4

            For this section of my book report on “Liar’s Poker” by Michael Lewis, I will discuss chapters six, seven, and eight.  I chose to group these three chapters because they all deal with the rise and fall of the mortgage bond market.  I also feel that these chapters provide insight on what motivated Solomon Brothers’ employees to do the work they do, which relates to the our class discussion on motivation.

            In chapter six, interest rates rose to an all-time high, and those savings and loan banks (thrifts) that made mortgage loans to individuals found themselves on the verge of bankruptcy because their borrowers were not able to pay the increased interest.  As a result, Congress passed a tax break to save these thrifts from going under.  In order to take advantage of this tax break, the thrifts had to sell their mortgage loans at a significantly lower price, which resulted in dynamic losses for the thrifts.  These losses, however, were a more attractive option than bankruptcy.  This sale of mortgage loans drastically increased the mortgage loan market, which was a godsend to Solomon Brothers because they were the only firm on Wall Street with a brand new, fully staffed mortgage loan department.  Solomon Brothers took full advantage of the mortgage loan market, and bought and resold mortgage loans like crazy, which resulted in mind-blowing revenues for the firm.  The main goal of mortgage loan traders was to make as much revenue as possible from trading these mortgage loans, which resulted in a “ready, fire, aim” philosophy.  Normally, the philosophy is “ready, aim, fire,” but to the traders, all they cared about was the profit to be made, so they saw a profit-yielding trade opportunity (ready), and often made decisions (fire) without actually thinking about or planning them (aim). The author then went on to relate this hunger for money to their physical hunger, and how they ate so much food every day that it was considered borderline gluttony.  Finally, several mortgage traders left the firm because they felt there was a huge discrepancy between what they earned for the firm, and what the firm paid them.  One individual made $20 million for the firm, but was only paid $90,000 for that year because it was the most his earnings bracket would allow.  This individual, along with many of the others who left, assumed a new role with another firm that offered to guarantee at least $1 million in compensation a year.

            In chapter seven, times got even worse for Solomon Brothers.  Since employees chose to leave the firm in chapter six, executives had to hire new employees to replace them.  These new hires were motivated to work for Solomon Brothers for the same reason (money) as the employees who left, but lacked the experience and training of those before them.  This resulted in constant disputes between employees, which lead to such events as taking screws out of the swiveling chairs of others, to dumping numerous trash cans on a certain individual’s desk.  This also led to employees taking actions to steal profits from other traders. 

            Money is clearly the key motivational factor for any employee in the mortgage trading department at Solomon Brothers.  Each individual does not get out of bed in the morning and look forward to work because they love the job or the firm they work for.  Instead, they only think about how much money they will make that day for both the firm, and themselves.  A video we watched in class explained that money is not one of the three key motivating factors.  In addition, the video mentions that those who are motivated by money will not have a very long-lived and enjoyable career in their field of employment.  This is represented in the book by the traders who left their jobs at Solomon because they were not getting paid enough.  They clearly did not like the work they did for any other reason other than their compensation, so when they realized how little they were getting paid, they had no motivation at all to continue doing what they were doing, which resulted in them taking higher-paying positions with other firms.  Again, they made their new employment choice based solely on money, which I feel will result in the same situation they just went through.  If employees were motivated by factors other than money, they would not have left when they found out how little they were being paid in relation to the amount they were making for the firm.  If the employees never left, the turmoil that occurred in chapter seven would have been less likely to occur.  In essence, you can say the lack of motivation led to the beginning of the end of Solomon Brothers Mortgage Department.

            Finally in chapter eight, the author deviates from the New York office and finds himself as a corporate bond salesman in the London Office.  The author was motivated by factors other than money, and felt that he was not a fit for the greedy New York office culture.  In the London office, employees were more focused on establishing relationships with clients, as opposed to getting the most money they could out of them.  Once he arrived in London, the author was taken under the wing of two of the best salespeople in the office.  These individuals instilled in him confidence in himself that the New York office had previously crushed.  With this new confidence, he executed a deal where he sold $86 million worth of Olympia and York bonds (Olympia and York was a property development company).  As a result, everyone benefited from the deal.  Solomon Brothers made money from the sale, and Olympia and York (the customer) also made money, which was a very rare occurrence.

            This chapter shows that the author was motivated by factors other than money.  If he was just motivated by money, he would not have had the desire to leave the New York office.  However, he was motivated to do his work by the fact that if everything was done in a fair and proper manner, everyone could benefit from the sales and trades he makes.  This was his purpose as a bond salesman, and according to the video we watched in class, purpose is one of the three factors that best motivate an individual, and the author is living proof of that.    

Lincoln as a Leader

In his letter we discussed in class, Lincoln discussed how he his leadership is characterized by him acting to satisfy those he represents.  He states that he is merely an agent for the people he represents, and that his actions a direct result of the interests of those he represents.  Compared to the other two leadership styles, I feel that Lincoln's is the most practical.  Plato's style is ideal, but it is way too impractical.  Also, I feel that Machiavelli's style is not sufficient enough to stand on its own.  Instead, I think that it is a part of Lincoln's style. By acting as an agent for those a leader represents, the leader's self- interest is to satisfy the interests of those he or she leads, which incorporates Machiavelli's style into Lincoln's.  I also think that Lincoln's leadership style is the most common in both the business and non-business worlds.  In the corporate world, CEO's act as an agent to the shareholders (owners of the corporation), and makes decisions based on the shareholders’ best interests.  In the non-corporate world, doctors and attorneys act as agent to their clients, and makes decisions that are to their clients' best interests.  Even here at Shippensburg University, club presidents act as an agent to their club members, making decisions that are for the good of the club members.

Magic Cable Case

I thought the Magic Cable case we discussed in class was very interesting, and that a lot can be learned from it.  I thought the case presented a situation that is a very common occurrence in the working world.  Gary Roberts was not satisfied with his current position at Tile-Elite, and therefore frantically started to search for other means of employment.  The main reason he chose to do this was because he was looking for something that provided future opportunities for advancement; where he could be promoted to a higher, more managerial position.  This motivational factor showed that he was focused more on the long-term than the short-term.  He then took a job with Magic Cable, and everything was going very well for him in the early stages of his employment with magic cable (short-term).  However, things quickly crumbled, and he eventually became disgusted with Magic Cable and left for another company.  I feel that when he chose to work at magic cable, he ignored his goal of focusing on the long-term as opposed to the short-term.  He was so worried about finding another job and getting away from Tile-Elite, that he did not evaluate the future pros and cons of working at Magic Cable.  As a result, the spur-of-the-moment decision he made to join Magic Cable put him right back in the situation he was in before he joined Magic Cable.

I think this same mistake is also very common in the business world.  Individuals are so motivated to find a job just so they have a steady source of income that they forget to evaluate their future with the company.  Sure getting a job will suffice for the short-term, but usually the individual becomes miserable in the long-term because he or she did not consider the long-term effects when they took the job, which is the same mistake Gary made.

"It Could be Worse" video

After watching the video about how a CEO handled complaints, I can totally relate to how that executive handled these complaints.  I do not in any way condone his tactics, but I can see how they have a practical application.  He handle's mostly every problem by saying "It could be worse."  In a sense, he is right.  While his employees did not have the optimum work conditions, they could have had headsets that did not function at all.  By handling complaints this way, he is cutting the costs of having to replace the headsets.  In this economy, this saved amount could be the difference between life and death of his company.  If he keeps applying his complaint-handling tactics, his employees are going to eventually get frustrated to the point where they may quit.  Since the position seemed like a basic call center position, he should not have a problem bringing in a new employee to do the job; one who is less likely to complain as much because he or she just started and does not want to start off on the wrong foot by making a negative first impression.  Again, I would never use such tactics as the CEO did, but I can understand why he chose to act like that.

Google Video

I found the Google motivational video that we watched in class on Monday to be very interesting and informative.  I really never thought about how giving employees a day to work on whatever they want could impact their motivation.  Many individuals seem to be motivated by money, which in my eyes is the wrong thing to be motivated by.  Yes while money may be a means of encouragement in the short term, its effect will eventually wear off.  However, is one is motivated by the fact that occasionally he or she can go to work and work on whatever they want, I feel they are being motivated by a better reason.  Individuals who use this as motivation will get more enjoyment out of their job, which is something money can't provide.  Also, using a free day as a means of motivation is also very beneficial to Google as well.  If employees work on whatever they want, who knows what kinds of new ideas or projects will arise.  Google can then implement these ideas and end up using them as a source of profit; and it's because they know how to motivate their employees.

Book Report Part 3

                For this section of my book report on “Liar’s Poker” by Michael Lewis, I will be focusing on the fourth and fifth chapters of the book.  I chose to pair these two chapters together because once again, I felt that they discussed the culture of Solomon Brothers, and are easily relatable to what we have discussed in class regarding culture.

                Chapter four, which is entitled “Adult Education,” talks about what the author has learned so far in his training group at Solomon Brothers.  The group of trainees regularly has employees of the firm come in as guest speakers.   These speakers are all members of higher management, and their main goal in speaking with the group of trainees is to show them what the culture at Solomon Brothers is really like.  Since these guest speakers are all very high-ranking individuals within the company, they are all rude, ignorant, and conceited by nature.  During these presentations, they make sure they really push these characteristics so the trainees know exactly how they need to act in order to survive as a bond trader at Solomon.  One speaker distinguished between a bond trader and a bond salesman, by saying that salesmen are ruled by the traders, and that bond salesmen compare in no way to bond traders.  As the author was listening to this presentation, he accepted the fact that he was destined to be a bond salesman, because he felt that he did not have the rough and tough personality that bond traders needed.  This thought was solidified when a newly hired bond trader came to speak to them in the final weeks of training.  Richard O’Grady told of an experience where he needed to obtain a sheet of bond prices for a client from another employee within the company.  When O’Grady asked nicely for what he needed, the trader told him that he was busy and told O’Grady to go pound sand.  After this reaction, O’Grady responded by hovering over the employee and screaming at him for the papers he needed (this screaming included a copious amount of swearing).  Surely enough, the employee gave O’Grady the papers he needed not two minutes after O’Grady took the aggressive route.  Again, the author realized that he could never act like this, and knew he was going to have to settle for the bond salesman position.

                I think this chapter is a nice compliment to what we discussed about culture in class.  Obviously, culture is a huge part of any company.  Likewise, the company wants to hire individuals that it feels will be a perfect match for the culture that the company has already established.  In this chapter, this is why the company sent some executives of the company to talk to the new trainees.  These executives have been with the company the longest, and know the culture better than any other.  If there was anyone who could show how cut-throat and crude the culture within Solomon Brothers is, it was one of the company’s executives.  Also, I think this chapter shows the process of deselction that we previously discussed in class.  Deselection is the process of removing oneself from the employment selection process because the individual does not blend well with the culture of the position or company.   Once the author saw the personality comparison between bond traders and salesmen, he immediately knew that he did not fit the job description, and deselected himself from the bond trader recruitment and focused instead on the bond salesman recruitment.

                Chapter 5 discusses the creation of a mortgage bond department within the company.  Bob Dall, a partner of Solomon Brothers,  was the lead advocate in the creation of this department.  He felt the creation of a mortgage bond department would greatly benefit the company because he predicted that there was going to be a drastic increase in the demand for mortgage bonds.  Not long after the formation of the department, Bob Dall was replaced by Lewie Ranieri, who was considered more energetic and popular within the company.  In the beginning stages of the department, not much trading took place, which resulted in minimal profits.  This department was also highly discriminatory when it came to recruiting employees.  Almost all of the employees in this department were Italian or Jewish, and Ranieri worked hard to keep it that way.  As a result, tensions arose between the mortgage bond department and other departments within the company.  As a result,  the mortgage bond department no longer targeted Wall Street as its enemy, but Solomon Bothers itself.

                Again, this chapter coincides well with the subject of company culture.  The company as a whole has a very snobbish culture, where everyone thinks they are better than everyone else.  This new department is no exception.  This department took the snobbish culture of Solomon Brothers to a new level, and actually targeted the company as its enemy.  It is understandable that Lewie wanted his new department to be up-to-speed  with the company’s culture, but he took it one step too far by stating that the company is the enemy of his department.

Deselection in the Accounting World

At the end of Wednesday's class we briefly talked about deselection, which is the process where a candidate for a job takes them self out of the recruitment process because after being exposed to the company and its employees.  Some candidates choose to deselect themselves because they feel that they do not fit in with the company culture.  This past month, as I have had second round interviews/office visits with many accounting firms, I realized just how important culture is to accounting firms, and witnessed deselection first-hand.  When I went to PricewaterhouseCooper's Harrisburg office for my second round interview, it was blatantly obvious they were trying to see how well the candidates coincided with the very laid back and social culture of the Harrisburg office.  Each candidate had a "host" that took you on a tour of the office, where the company strategically placed groups of individuals all around the office so while on the tour, you were forced to interact with them.  Also, the firm took us to lunch at a very fancy restaurant across the street.  Here, the candidates dined with several employees, who were seeing how well the candidates engaged in conversation with the employees.  At the end of the office visit, one of the candidates, who appeared to be very shy, told me that he was taking himself out of the recruitment process because he felt that he was not social enough to fit it with the culture of the Harrisburg office.  I did not realize it then, but I now know that individual engaged in the process of deselection.

Wal Mart Greeter Wearing a Suit?

In class this past Wednesday we spent the majority of time talking about Wal Mart, and how they implemented new uniforms for their employees.  The company eliminated the traditional blue smock that employees had to hear, and replaced it with a blue polo and khakis.  The article that discussed this issue said that Wal Mart did this so that it would appear more "classy," as it is now priding itself on more expensive items such as high-end consumer electronics.  By doing so, they can better compete with stores such as Best Buy, since it’s newly dressed employees look like they know about the high end electronics that Wal Mart is now selling. 

This article was particularly interesting to me because while I was in State College last weekend, I noticed the greeter at the Wal Mart there was dressed in a full suit, complete with a shirt and tie.  This was the first time I ever saw a Wal Mart greeter that dressed up, and I was utterly confused by this.  Once I read this article, seeing the greeter dressed like that started to make more sense.  If Wal Mart switched to polo’s and khakis to become more classy, maybe they wanted to look even more classy by having their greeters dress in professional attire.  Since the greeter is the first thing a customer sees when they enter the store, maybe Wal Mart executives thought that if customers see this greeter dressed in a fancy suit, they will think that the store, and the company in general, are just as classy.  On the other hand, the guy may have just loved his job and did that on his own.  Let me know what you think!

NFL Lockout

For my team's project, we chose the NFL lockout.  We decided upon this topic because it covers a great deal of organizational behavior topics that were previously discussed in class.  For example, conflict is obviously the key focal point because the league and the players union were pitted against one another.  With the conflict also comes negotiation, and how the conflict can be resolved.  Communication is our second key focal point, as both groups had to find ways to effectively communicate with each other.  Individuals of each group had to also effectively communicate with the others members of their group.  Finally, our third focal point is leadership, and the different relationships between representatives and members of each side.

So I chose to blog about this because I feel that even though the project is in its very beginning stages, our teamwork can already be linked to several past readings.  We had to all agree on this topic, so that tested our ability to stand up to groupthink.  Next, we established a common goal among all group members, which distinguished us from a working group.  Finally, during class in the library on Wednesday, we had to designate individuals to search for articles in each of the three areas we want to focus on for our paper.  By doing so, this eliminated the conflict of group members finding and summarizing the same articles as another group member.  Finally, at the end of the class it appeared as though leaders arose, as they were responsible for the designation of research areas.  All in all, these signs are very promising, and I feel that they are an accurate representation that my team will have no problem working together to complete the project.

Heuristics and the Headache of Choosing Professors

  

For this post, I wanted to briefly comment on the "quiz" we took at the beginning of Monday's class.  At first, I thought the quiz was really pointless.  However, once we started discussing the questions, it became obvious to me that the exercise was actually a good lesson in how to, and how not to make decisions.  The central idea of the quiz was how heuristics effect the decision making process.  Having had a psychology class last spring, I have heard of heuristics before, but did not even think to relate them to the in-class quiz.  After discussing the results, I learned just how prevalent heuristics are in an individual’s decision making process, and how biased a person's decision can be because of them.  I feel the availability heuristic is the most prevalent in my life at the moment, as I am deciding which professors I want to take for my classes next semester.  I have talked to many friends who have had the available professors, and have read reviews online to try and ease my decision making process.  Utilizing a tool such as online reviews and ratings brings the availability heuristic into play.  For example, if I am looking for a professor who is very structured, and decide not to choose a professor because of the negative reviews and ratings he or she received, I am a victim of the availability heuristic.  The professor may be very structured, but received the negative reviews as a result of some other factor, such as not being available outside of the classroom.  Ergo, if I do decide not to take this professor, I am making that decision for the wrong reasons. As scheduling is rapidly approaching, I'm sure many of you are in the same boat with me.  Hopefully now that we know about the presence of heuristics in decision making, we can refine our decision making process and arrive at the right decision with greater ease. 

Book Report Part 2

For this section of my book report on “Liar’s Poker” by Michael Lewis, I will be focusing on the second and third chapters of the book.  I chose to pair these two chapters together because I felt that they both discussed the culture of Solomon Brothers that Michael was exposed to. 

                Chapter 2, which is titled “Never Mention Money,” starts out with Michael telling how exactly he was first introduced to Solomon Brothers.  While finishing a master’s degree in economics in London, he received an invitation to dine with the Queen Mother.  Once he arrived at the dinner, he realized that he was seated between the wives of two Solomon Brother’s managing directors.  Throughout the course of dinner, one of the wives discovered that Michael was about to begin searching for a job in the investment banking field.  After this point, she turned the rest of the dinner into a round-about interview.  At the conclusion of the dinner, the managing director’s wife promised she would talk to her husband about getting Michael a job, and sure enough he was later invited by her husband to the London Solomon Brothers Office.  He had a successful office visit, and was later invited to a business breakfast with the managing director later in the week.  Despite how successful both of these events were for Michael, he was astounded by the fact he did not receive a formal job offer.  Eventually, Michael learned that Solomon did not make formal offers.  Instead, they gave hints that they wanted to hire an individual.  Knowing this, Michael called the managing director, and told him that he accepts, and the managing director replied with, “Glad to have you on board.”  Michael loved the fact that many bankers at Solomon brothers were crude, rude, and socially unacceptable.  In the later part of the chapter, he tells how he previously interviewed with Lehman Brothers.  During the interview, he said the only reason he wanted to become an investment banker was because of the money, and the Lehman Brothers interviewer said that money was not the driving force behind the investment banking industry.  Consequently, Lehman Brothers went out of business years later, and Michael felt that it may have been caused by the firm not admitting that its sole purpose was to make money.  For this reason, he named the chapter “Never Mention Money.”

                As I am going through the internship interview process, I can definitely relate to the boldness that Michael exhibited during his Solomon Brothers interviewing days.  If it was not for him boldly calling the managing director and saying he accepts their offer based on the hints they were giving, he would have never got hired by the firm.  I can relate this to a similar situation I was in when interviewing for an internship position for the spring of 2012.  After forty minutes of intense conversation and countless questions, the interviewer asked me if I had any final questions.  I responded by basically asking for the position by asking what else I could do to help secure my internship for the spring of 2012.  Impressed by my boldness, the interviewer responded by saying that I could help secure the position by attending the final round of interviews, and then proceeded to give me the when and where of the final interviews.  I then attended the final interview, and received the spring internship offer that I wanted.  If I did not act boldly at the end of my first round interview, much like Michael did after his meetings with the managing director, I do not know if I would have gotten the position I wanted, just as Michael would not have gotten the position he wanted if he had not called and said that he accepted.

                Chapter three is entitled “Learning to Love Your Corporate Culture,” and discusses Michael’s first days with the firm in regards to the training sessions he was required to attend.  It was at these sessions that he learned what the corporate culture of the investment banking world was really like.  The chapter starts with Michael giving an overview of why Solomon Brothers was so successful in the 1980’s, and how exactly they operated to achieve this success.  He then goes on to describe the training he and 127 other new hires had to endure.  He described the training room in a way that relates to a typical classroom, where there were the very attentive individuals in the first few rows, followed by those less attentive individuals in the back row.  He then went on to say that the training process was the equivalent of being beaten by the neighborhood bully every day.  Also, the leader of the training denounced each trainee by saying that once they hit the trading floor, they will be at the bottom of the food chain, regardless of how much of a big shot they think they are.  At the end of the training, a diagram was posted on the board that showed which individuals were assigned to which office.  Once this chart was posted, the trainees immediately attempted to befriend a managing director, so that they could be traded to the office they truly wanted to work at.  At the end of the chapter, Michael discussed how Solomon brothers relied on its training program to make the trainees more like the rest of the employees, ergo establishing a common culture.  Michael, along with the rest of the trainees, was constantly told that he was not nearly as special as he thought he was, and that on the trading floor, he was the absolute bottom.  This “brainwashing” helped establish the rude and crude common culture that is shared among employees of Solomon Brothers.

                This idea of corporate culture is relatable to the subject of organizational behavior.  IF a new hire does not fit the established culture of a company, conflict will arise between the individual and the employer.  This is represented by the Wal-Mart discrimination case that we read about in class earlier in the semester.  Many women were upset because they felt that they were not given the same opportunities for advancement as the men were.  Whether Wal-Mart was guilty of this or not, they have gained a reputation over the years of discriminating against certain employees.  Prior to this, the company was in trouble for pay and benefit discrimination against certain minorities.  Now, they are discriminating against women in terms of advancement opportunities.  It can be said that Wal-Mart has developed a discriminating culture over the years, whether they want to admit it or not.  With that being said, employees should be aware of this fact before seeking employment with the company.  If they do not like this culture, as many women in the reading did not, conflict will arise, which is shown in the reading by the lawsuits that resulted from the cultural differences between the company and certain employees.

Using Integrative Negioation to Solve the Pemberton Prisoners Dilemma

For this blog post, I wanted to touch on two concepts discussed during Wednesday's class, and relate them to the Pemberton activity done in class a few weeks ago.  First, we received a more detailed description of the prisoners’ dilemma diagram.  We discussed a new chart that shows how well we understand the other party to the game bases on our decisions to compete or cooperate.  In the Pemberton stores activity, my group and the group representing the other store both chose to cooperate by remaining closed every Sunday.  According to the new prisoners’ dilemma chart we discussed in class, this means that both groups understood each other, which resulted in joint problem solving.  I feel this is accurate because we realized early what the goals of the opposing were, and coincidently, they were the same as the opposing group.  We understood that each store wanted to make as much as they could in the safest way possible, which led us to jointly solve the problem by agreeing to remain closed every Sunday, which resulted in a $20,000 profit every round.  This understanding of each other also led us to engage in integrative negotiation, where we had to focus on the interests of the other group in order to reap the best results for ourselves.  Similar to the orange example in class, each group wanted to make the most money in the safest ways possible.  We invented an option to achieve this desired mutual gain by deciding to remain closed very round.  As a result, both groups received a very hefty profit, while other groups who did not engage in integrative negotiation received much smaller profits.

Pemberton In Class Activity

For this blog post, I wanted to briefly comment on the Pemberton activity where we assumed the role of owners of a local general store, and had to negotiate with another general store on which store, if any, was going to be open for business on Sundays.  Previously, town ordinances prevented any store from being open on Sundays.  Due to increased competition from a nearby mall, the thought of being open became a primary concern for both local stores.  During the activity, my partner and I noticed that many of the competing groups wanted to agree to remain closed for all remaining rounds, so both stores could earn a profit of $20,000.  While most of the agreements to stay closed help up, a few teams decided to betray the other store by switching to open in the last round, resulting in them receiving a substantially high profit, while the other team suffered a substantial loss.  During negotiation, my team, and the team we were matched up with, devised a solution to this problem.  Both of our teams also decided to remain closed to benefit each other. To ensure each team stayed loyal, we filled out our score sheets for the remaining rounds during the negotiation, so that way no team could go against their word of remaining closed.  This prevented the other team from quickly changing their sign during the revealing period, because their score sheet already had closed for every round.  If a team wanted to take the safe route of remaining closed every round after negotiation, I think if they would have used the same strategy, they would have been guaranteed they outcome they wanted.

AccelMedia In Class Activity

For this blog post, I would like to elaborate on the in class project involving Accelmedia and GTechnica.  As soon as I read my part of the article, I couldn't wait to start the negotiation in class the next day.  I assumed the part of an Accelmedia employee, whose job was to negotiate an offer for a crucial component for one of our products.  My goal was to get the lowest price per unit, while not going above $35 per unit.  My boss was then going to evaluate my performance based on the negotiated price per unit.  Going into the negotiation, my plans was to come out low, and if necessary, raise my offer in small increments.  Once I met with the other side of the negotiation, I made an initial offer of $22 per unit, which was countered by an offer around $60.  Once I realized he wanted to play hardball, I knew I had to be much more aggressive in my negotiations.  We battled back and forth, making threats of ending the negotiation with no deal.  After a great deal of haggling, we reached a price per unit of $28.  This price was reasonable for me because it was under my boss's limit of $35.  I learned a great deal from this exercise.  I learned that if you are the seller in the situation, you want to make an extremely high first offer.  If one uses this approach, they will either create the "ballpark" and gain authority in the negotiation, or set the floor high for negotiation.  If you end up creating the ballpark, you might even get you initial extreme offer.  On the other hand, your extreme offer could be completely ineffective.  On the other hand, if you are the buyer, you want to make an extremely low first offer.  I think this idea of extreme initial offers is a key strategy in the television shoe Pawn Stars on The History Channel.  When someone brings an item to the shop that they want to sell, he or she usually says they want to receive an amount that is extremely high, thus trying to create the ballpark.  The pawn shop employee will then counter with an extremely low offer to get the seller to cooperate, and essentially lower the negotiation. When all is said and done, the seller usually gets paid an amount way under what they asked for, thus benefiting the pawn shop because they can resell the item at the price the seller initially wanted, and make a grotesque profit.

Book Report 1

For my book report, I am reading “Liar’s Poker,” written by Michael Lewis.  For my first part of my book report, I will be summarizing and analyzing the first chapter of the book.  While the chapter is short, it pretty much describes the subject of the rest of the book, and I feel that it is necessary for it to have its own report.  The rest of the chapters are more inter-related, and ergo will be the subject of later reports.  The first chapter of the book is entitled “Liar’s Poker,” and starts by introducing the setting of the chapter, which was Wall Street in Ney York City in 1986.  The author, who is an employee of Salomon Brothers, one of New York’s biggest investment banks, tells a story he will never forget; a story of what exactly liar’s poker is.  The author gives the profile of John Gutfreund, the chairmen of Salomon Brothers.  One day he decided to challenge John Meriwether to one hand of a game called Liar’s poker.  Meriwether was considered the cream-of-the-crop in terms of bond salesmen within the company, and in the entire city of New York.  In addition to this prestigious title, he also served on the board of Solomon Brothers, and was considered the king of Liar’s Poker.  He made hundreds of millions of dollars for the firm from trading bonds.  His astounding success can be credited to his daring personality, and ability to hide his state of mind. 

The author then describes what exactly Liar’s Poker is.  Each participant would hold a dollar bill against their chest, and try to fool the other players as to what the serial numbers on the dollar are.  A player would start by making an initial bid by saying something like “three fives.”  This means that every bill that is being held has at least three fives in the serial number.  The next bidder can either bid higher by saying something like , “three eights, or five fives,” or challenge the pervious player’s bid.  Bidding persists until all players agree to challenge one individuals bid (Liar’s Poker 17). Ultimately, players want to bluff others into believing  they have don’t have a good hand, when they actually do, or bluff that they have a good hand when they really don’t.   Players have to determine probabilities, risks, and profitability when making decisions during the game.

 Gutfreund entered Meriwether’s office and challenged him to a hand of Liar’s Poker, with the loser to pay $1 million to the winner.  Meriwether was quite shocked by Gutfreund’s offer, since Gutfreund was always an outsider to the game.  Meriwether decided to subliminally  play Liar’s Poker with Gutfreund by raising the stakes of Gutfreund’s offer from $1 million to $10 million.  Clearly Meriwether was bluffing, but since Gutfreund was an amateur Liar’s Poker player, he was quickly defeated by Meriwether and decided to reject his offer.

As I read this chapter, I could not help but think that the game of Liar’s poker possesses many characteristics that the Carter Racing Case had.  In the game, players have to calculate probabilities of winning, just as we had to calculate probabilities of certain outcomes such as obtaining the tire sponsorship, or retaining the oil sponsorship.  We evaluated the probability of success fully obtaining the desired results.   We also had to decide if out decisions were smart risks, just as players of Liar’s poker have to.  Players of Liar’s Poker also have to decide who is bluffing, and who isn’t, much like how we had to decide which information in the case was reliable, and which was not.  In the case, each team had to decide whether the mechanic’s data relating to his prediction as to why our engine had previously blown up was legitimate or not.  Most groups determined that data was irrelevant, which would represent a bluff in Liar’s Poker.  I would venture to say that even the choice to play Liar’s Poker is similar to the decision we had to make in the racing case.  If one chooses to play Liar’s Poker, he or she is risking a sum of money in hopes to earn even more money.  If one chooses not to play, they are taking the safe route and are comfortable with the fact that they will not make any extra money.  Similarly, in the racing case each team had to decide whether to negate the possibility of engine failure by risking everything and racing, or decide to  play it safe by not racing and accepting their current financial situation.  I feel that in terms of my group, we would all choose to accept Meriwether’s new Liar’s Poker offer because we all decided that the best decision the team in the racing case could make was to risk everything and race

In Class Case Analysis

For this post, I would like to provide feedback on the racing case we worked on in class.  I also found this analysis very beneficial and interesting.  I found it interesting because it related to a sport, which motivated me to go into the deepest form of analysis I could.  I also found it interesting because I thought it related in a way to gambling, in the sense that if they raced they put their reputation and sponsorships on the line, and if they did not race they chose not to gamble and had very little risk.  I can relate personally to this article because I am an avid Texas Hold Em poker player, and find myself going through the same analysis very often throughout the course of the game.  Every time I get dealt a hand, I have to decide whether I want to play my cards, or fold my hand.  Before I do so, I go through a cost/benefit analysis very similar to what we did in class for this assignment.  I take into account how much money I could make, and how much money I could lose if things should not go my way.  I evaluate the variables that can have an effect on my outcome, just like we did for those that could have had a possible effect on the racing teams' outcome. 

I found this article beneficial because it gave me the opportunity to sharpen my decision making skills.  With sharper decision-making skills, I can benefit at the poker tables, in the class room, and in the business world.  Also, I feel that this exercise helped us to become a better and stronger team.  We had to consider everyone's opinion when making decisions, which again I feel will be very beneficial when working on the major group project.

Analyzing the Case Assignment

For this blog, I would like to briefly comment on the case analysis project that we had to complete.  The article was about a corporate CEO who came into a new company with the intent of rejuvenating its sub-par operations.  To do so, he developed a super team, which brought him and the company success for a few years.  Eventually, however, this success ended and his team was in shambles.  At this point, he had to make the executive decision of whether to pick up the pieces and put his team back together, or jump ship completely and search for a new team.  This dilemma was the subject of our paper, and we chose that he should attempt to save his team.

I do not want to copy my essay for this post, so I decided to talk about my opinion of the assignment instead.  I thought the assignment was very interesting and beneficial.  I found it interesting because it highlighted key issues we heard about in the classroom and presented them in a real life scenario that we all may relate to at one point or another in our future business careers.  I also found the assignment because we had to incorporate ideas as a team, which was the subject of the article.  I found the assignment beneficial because after reading about the problems within Peter's team, we had to think critically and devise solutions that we think will mend his broken team.  If we were able to think of solutions for his teams' problems, we will have no trouble handling the solving of problems within our own final project teams.  In my mind, this will make working with my team, and the project in general, much easier to manage and complete.  These problem solving skills that we utilized in this assignment will also be very beneficial when we enter the corporate world, and make us that much more valuable to our employers.

Real team(work)

.
After reading the article that discussed the team performance curve, I totally agree with the characteristic of the different types of teams that were described on the curve, and I thought it would be interesting to relate the curve to the spaghetti and gum drop project we did in class.  After reading the part of the article that described the different types of teams, I wanted to categorize the team I was on into one of the teams on the curve.  I knew we were more than a working group because we all shared a common goal or objective, and that was to receive extra credit for the class.  Similarly, we shared another goal of developing a structure that would hold a decent amount of weight, and looked aesthetically pleasing.  We were not really concerned about the height of the structure.  After carefully analyzing the characteristics of each type of team in the article, I came to the conclusion that our team from class fit the "real team" classification.  This type of team is a small group of individuals committed to a common purpose and working approach, and holds themselves mutually accountable for the result.  In our team, the goal was to get extra credit.  Also, we all had a very similar working approach in that we needed to build some form of square object that had as many crossing sections as possible so it could hold the most weight.  Also, each member took acceptedaccountability if something did not turn out right.  For example, we wanted to put a steeple type design on the top of our structure, but unfortunately it did not stay attached and that portion crumbled.  Once this happened, no one pointed the finger at anyone.  The person who designed the piece held themselves accountable because they felt they could have built the piece better.  The rest of the group held themselves accountable for reasons such as: I should have given the person building the piece a pile of materials to use to make it easier for them, or I should have helped more in attaching the piece, or I should have switched chairs with the person making the steeple so they could have been closer to the main project.

Although we did not win the competition, signs of positive teamwork were prevalent.  I think these signs are more important than the extra credit because if we worked well as a team for this first assignment, I'm convinced that the same will occur when we work on the real project.  Who knows, maybe our team will even climb the ranks to the level of "high-performance team" by the time the final project is complete

rethinking groupthink

So for this post I am going to briefly comment on the article entitled "Groupthink."  This article describes this term as a type of conformity in which members of the group abandon their own beliefs and ideas to conform to those of their leader or colleagues.  The author states that the main reason the members of the group do this is to avoid being too harsh in their judgments of others' ideas.  The author then gives a laundry-list of examples in which he takes a decision that went wrong in the past, and credits the negative outcome to groupthink.  Once I read one of his examples, I began to disagree with the remainder of what he had to say in the article.

The example I am pertaining to is under the "morality" section, where he criticizes the members of President Johnson's cabinet of ignoring their own individual ethical and moral values in order to adhere to those of the group when selecting targets for bombing in Vietnam.  Johnson's cabinet had a protocol for selecting the targets, in which they considered the military advantage, the risk to aircraft and pilots, the danger of forcing other countries into fighting, and the danger of heavy Vietnamese civilian casualties.  The author claims groupthink is present in this situation because everyone followed this procedure, instead of individually deciding based on their own morals.  Let me first start by saying that this is probably the biggest stretch of an argument I've read so far this semester.  Later in the paragraph, the author admits that the evidence supporting his claim is "scant", so even he knows his argument is not legitimate.  Next, let me say that since this article was written in the early 1970's, it is easy to point the finger and place the blame on his cabinet because the article is written in hind-sight.  If the author was sitting in the room making the bombing target decisions, his groupthink theory would not have even crossed his mind because he would agree to follow the procedure.  However, since Vietnam was, and still is a very controversial topic, he saw the overall failure of the war and any decisions made during the war as supposed support to his groupthink theory .  It was a good attempt, but personally I did not buy it.  Finally, the four step procedure Johnson's cabinet used to select bomb targets seemed pretty legitimate to me.  They considered the safety of their own troops, the inhabitants of other countries, and the civilians in Vietnam.  I'm not sure about you, but this sounds pretty moral to me.  If individual members were to follow their own morals in making decisions, I'm pretty sure these four factors would have been their main concerns anyway, so I do not see why it was a big deal that the group as a whole felt the same way.  If you ask me, I think the author was immoral for trying to use Johnson's cabinet as a scapegoat for his theory when he even admits there was very little evidence to support his groupthink claim.

Dealing with Failure

So for this blog, I decided to discuss the Harvard Business Review article about handling failure in the workplace.  In today’s fast-paced world, failure is bound to happen to everyone at some point.  I don't know about you, but I have never met a perfect person who has never failed at anything.  In summary, this article breaks humans down into three main categories, based on how they handle failure.  The first category is extrapunitive, where individuals can be found blaming others for their failure.  For example, if a partner of an accounting firm takes a vacation during busy season, and does not complete his client's audit on time, he may blame his staff accountants for the failure.  The second category is those who are intropunitive, who blame themselves for their failures.  The final category is impunitive, who just denies the blame all together.  The three categories are then broken down into subcategories, but I won't bore you with those details as you have most likely already read the article and are perfectly aware of what they are.

Let me first start off by saying that I like how the article gives tips on how to better cope with failure.  I think they are very useful in helping an individual improve their personality.  I also like how they developed the categories of how people react (which I mentioned in the first paragraph).  Also, I think it is important that individuals be aware of which category they fall into, because it might not be the one they think they should be in.

I chose to blog about this article because I wanted to quickly relate it to my psychology class from last semester.  Last spring, we took a personality test that identified what kind of locust of control we possessed.  With this test, one could receive either an internal locust of control, meaning they take responsibility for their own actions, or an external locust, meaning  they do not take responsibility for the outcome of their actions.  I took this test, and my results showed I had an internal locust of control, which I found very accurate because I do not usually blame others for my own failures.  I think this relates to the failure article we had to read because how individuals react to failure, as represented by the three categories in the article, is a direct representation of their locust of control.   The extrapunitive and impunitive categories would have external locusts of control, because they either blame others, or deny blame completely.  The intropunitive category would have an internal locust of control, because they end up blaming themselves for their failures.

Well that's it for this blog.  Once again, I hope you enjoyed it.  If you were in the honors psychology with me last spring, I hope I didn't bring up any bad memories!

Is a high G.P.A the only way to get hired?

As a freshman accounting major, one of my ultimate goals is to go into my senior year already have a confirmed job as a result of an internship from the summer of my junior year.  Now that I am actually a junior, it is time to turn my dream into reality.  If I want to land an internship for the summer of my junior year, resumes, recruitment, and interviews are three areas that will become repeated themes of my junior year.  With that being said, two of the readings really sparked my attention. 

The first was the New York Times article about the role one's G.P.A plays in the employment recruitment process.  In this article, Mr. Johnny C. Taylor, senior vice president of HR IAC/InterActiveCorp, claims that in his mind, a student's G.P.A. is the single-most important factor in evaluating job-seekers.  He also claims that an applicant's G.P.A will be the best indicator of that person's performance in his or her beginning stages with the organization.  Granted that not all companies are like this, the number of companies who are is steadily increasing as times passes on.  According to the article, among those in favor of Mr. Taylor's idea are public accounting firms.  As an accounting major, this immediately raised a red flag, and I gained an even deeper interest in what this article had to say.

To start off, I completely disagree with Mr. Taylor's belief that a student's G.P.A. is the most important factor when evaluating that individual for employment.  I also disagree with his claim that no factor will predict early job performance than one's G.P.A.  First off, while I do believe that G.P.A is important, it is not nearly as important as it is being made out to be in the beginning of this article.  A G.P.A., in my mind, tells very little about a person.  A person with a high G.P.A is thought-of as smart, which is not always the case.  The recruiter does not know how an individual's grade point average got that high.  For all the recruiter knows, the student could have cheated on his or her work to get their G.P.A. that high.  Also, while intelligence is a big part of employment, it is not everything.  This is especially true for the accounting industry.  This field is one where the accountants have to constantly interact with clients to perform their necessary duties.  In order to do so, a person needs to have social skills.  Also, the accounting profession requires top notch organizational and time management skills.  If an employer bases their decision solely on a student's G.P.A, they do not know how the student ranks in terms of communication, organization, and time management.  A brilliant individual who possesses no social skills will be useless in the world of public accounting.  Instead, if an employer took into account other factors such as campus involvement, previous work experience, and leadership, they will have a clearer picture of the employee they are hiring.  These areas will show employers who a person really is.  By looking at these areas, a recruiter could learn about a person's social skills based on campus involvement, or about one's leadership abilities based on leadership positions they held in college.  Also, I feel that if intelligence and grade point average were the main points in the recruitment process, why does every accounting firm send you to training for the first few weeks?  If a person has a high G.P.A, shouldn't they know how to do what they're supposed to?

For the reasons I just mentioned, I disagree with Mr. Taylor.  Instead, I feel as though a student's G.P.A is their way of "getting their foot in the door" with the company they are interested in, especially since it is near the top of a resume.  Regardless of what the G.P.A is, it should spark an interest with the recruiter.  If it is high, they will want to read on to see the other areas of your resume.  Also, if one has a low grade point average and chooses not to put it, an employer will be curious to discover why, just as the article says.  The latter part of that statement alone is evidence that G.P.A is not everything when it comes to recruitment.  If it was, and a resume had no G.P.A listed, why would the article mention individuals who got interviews without listing their G.P.A. because it was sub-par?

 Finally, the beginning of the second article I wread also supports my claim that G.P.A should not be the only factor a recruiter considers when evaluating potential employees.  This beginning of this article, entitled "Personality Plus," tells the story of Alexander Nininger, a member of the 57th Infantry of the United States Army in the Philippines during World War II.  He graduated at the top of his West Point Class (obviously a high G.P.A), and enjoyed sipping tea in front of a fireplace. The article then goes on to say that Alexander becomes a "Rambo" type figure on the battle field; killing many enemies while suffering from several different wounds.  The article then gives a hypothetical example about assembling a ferocious fighting team that I think is great support for my beliefs that I stated earlier in this post.  If a general wanted to have the best fighters together on a team, he would not be concerned about what their G.P.A was at West Point, which contradicts Mr. Taylor's beliefs.  Instead, he may consider Alexander's G.P.A, but ultimately he would look at his previous military experience.  Alex's G.P.A may get his recruiters attention, but it certainly does not say enough about him for the recruiting general to make a decision.

Now I realize the context of article two is completely different from the context of article 1, and the relationship I made between the two is kind of a stretch, but I feel that the concept is still the same.  G.P.A does not tell everything about a person that a recruiter needs to know.  Ergo, it is not the most important criteria in the recruitment process.

Ok, well that is it for this post.  I could ramble about this subject for hours, and occupy a portion of your life that you will never get back, but I'll be considerate and stop here (haha). This is my first blog ever, so I hope I nailed it.  More importantly, I hope you enjoyed reading it!