Benefits Of Minimum Wage - 1014 Words

Minimum wage is a struggle for many Americans and I believe it needs to be raised. The minimum wage of the United States is $7.25 an hour. It is a rate that isn’t letting many Americans live life comfortably. If the minimum wage was changed even a merely $3.75 it would change people’s lives and will let many people get by. The minimum wage of $7.25 has stayed the same since 2009 and there hasn’t been any effort by the government to change it. Many states have increased their minimum wage, but I hope that the minimum wage rises nationwide and not individually as states. One of the many groups of people that struggle on minimum wage are college students. Many people avoid going to college because their minimum wage job will not allow them†¦show more content†¦Another reason why the minimum wage needs to be increased because of single parents or even families in general. Many single parents or families rely on the minimum wage to live day by day. Although some may say that living alone with a child doesn’t cost much, but I disagree. Having a child cost a lot of money. These parents often do not raise their children because they must dedicate their life to working most of the hours of the week and must leave their children in a daycare or in the home of a close family relative. In between buying necessities for the child and having to raise them, they have to work long hours of the week because the minimum wage is too low to allow them to take a break. This is something that effects millions of families in the United States. Gould, senior economist at EPI tells NBC News, â€Å"Even in Tennessee, a state with some of the most affordable cities in the country, minimum wage workers cannot cover the cost of basic necessities such as housing, food and other expenses.† Families should also have the opportunity to thrive off the minimum wage. Furthermore people cannot pay the bills and take care of themselves on minimum wage. Minimum wage often cannot pay adult bills. Although in the past the minimum wage was way below what is it today, consumer prices have increased a total of 482%. Even college tuition has gone up 994% in pricing than in 1970, and that’s onlyShow MoreRelatedMinimum Benefits Of Minimum Wage1359 Words   |  6 PagesMinimum wage is described as  Ã¢â‚¬Å"the minimum amount of remuneration that an employer is required to pay wage earners for the work/services performed during a given tenure, which cannot be reduced by collective agreement or an individual contract†. Minimum wage can be established by statute, competent decision authority, a wage board, a wage council, or by industrial or labour courts.   The significance of minimum wage is to shield workers against disproportionately low pay. They help safeguard an equitableRead MoreMinimum Benefits Of Minimum Wages1399 Words   |  6 PagesMinimum wages are described as  Ã¢â‚¬Å"the minimum amount of remuneration that an employer is required to pay wage earners for the work/services performed during a given tenure, which cannot be reduced by collective agreement or an individual contract†. Minimum wages can be established by statute, competent decision authority, a wage board, a wage council, or by industrial or labour courts.   The significance of minimum wages is to shield workers against disproportionately low pay. They help safeguard anRead MoreBenefits And Benefits Of Minimum Wage1568 Words   |  7 Pagespoverty wages and provide few if any benefits (Low, 2015). The lowest income bracket has been getting increasingly poorer and since 1968, the real value of the minimum wage has progressively declined (Dietrich, 2004). Most low-wage employers do not offer health insurance to their employees and if they do, premiums are too high for employees to afford. Sick pay and retirement benefits are not likely to exist in these types of jobs. Due to a lack of training or continuing education benefits, most workersRead MoreThe And Benefits Of A Minimum Wage2730 Words   |  11 Pages The Affects and Advantages of a Minimum Wage 180 Hour 3 Shakopee High School A common saying known throughout the business world, â€Å"time is money†, which applies to every aspect of every work place, yet a something is missing from that saying. The missing element is just how much your time is worth. Recently with new raises in minimum wage the United States is taking steps to come more closely to the equilibrium of how much employees should be paid. With the many, many issues inRead MoreThe Benefits Of The Minimum Wage2000 Words   |  8 PagesThe advantages of the Minimum wage law outweigh its disadvantages. Introduction Minimum wage law is the lowest salary that employers need to pay to workers and United Kingdom legislate the minimum wage law in 1998. It is a way to improve the living condition of those low-income workers by raising their wage and also assure they can afford their daily consumption. The rate of the minimum wage is not fixed, it will increases as the living rate increases. The idea of minimum wage law is usually regardedRead MoreThe Benefits Of Raising The Minimum Wage1656 Words   |  7 Pagesto be should the minimum wage be raised or should it be lowered or eliminated altogether. From where I stand minimum wage should be raised. Everyone is more successful when people are paid a living wage. Changes to the minimum wage would strengthen the economy and business, Lift Americans out of poverty, and will be unlikely to significantly impact prices. The only way to grow the economy in a way that benefits 90% is to change the structure of the economy. Paying people a fair wage is a sign of respectRead MoreBenefits Of Minimum Wage Law990 Words   |  4 Pageshave a law in order to complete the bare minimum to afford a decent living condition, food for their families and even to put on decent clothes to keep themselves warm. The minimum wage law was set so employees have a decent living wage and are not in complete ruins after working rough conditions. There are many benefits towards the minimum wage law that was set in 1938 by President Roosevelt. It helps laborers who work in rough rugged conditions have a minimum set salary and have them able to affordRead MoreThe Benefits Of Raising The Minimum Wage706 Words   |  3 Pages Minimum wage is a difficult number to decide on because it affects different income earning citizens in different ways. According to Principles of Microeconomics, by N. Gregory Mankiw, minimum wage is a law that establishes the lowest price for labor that and employer may pay (Mankiw 6-1b). Currently, the minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 per hour. For many years politicians and citizens have argued on what should be the minimum wage that would benefit the economy and society in generalRead MoreBenefits Of Raising Minimum Wage1291 Words   |  6 Pages In recent years, the demand for an increased minimum wage has erupted across the nation. During the ongoing debate, a few states, cities, counties, and companies have taken the initiative to raise the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour to the varying wages of $7.50-$11.50 per hour. According the United States Labor Department, 29 states and the District of Columbia pay above the minimum federal level of $7.25 per hour. The raisi ng of the minimum wage has numerous supporters; however, there are individualsRead MoreBenefits Of Raising The Minimum Wage908 Words   |  4 PagesIn our modern society one of the seemingly least controversial topics is the minimum wage. The popular opinion wants to raise the minimum wage, but is the popular opinion always right? Throughout recent years, politicians have made promises to raise the minimum wage to help low-income earners live a better life. Contrary to popular belief, raising the minimum wage actually hurts low-income earners and low-skilled workers. We must first define a low-skilled worker. A low-skilled worker does not mean

Managing with the Brain in Mind Free Essays

string(59) " of this neural dynamic is often visible in organizations\." strategy+business Managing with the Brain in Mind by David Rock from strategy+business issue 56, Autumn 2009 reprint number 09206 Reprint features special report 1 by David Rock Naomi Eisenberger, a leading social neuroscience Managing with the Brain in Mind researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), wanted to understand what goes on in the brain when people feel rejected by others. She designed an experiment in which volunteers played a computer game called Cyberball while having their brains scanned by a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine. Cyberball hearkens back to the nastiness of the chool playground. We will write a custom essay sample on Managing with the Brain in Mind or any similar topic only for you Order Now â€Å"People thought they were playing a ball-tossing game over the Internet with two other people,† Eisenberger explains. â€Å"They could see an avatar that represented themselves, and avatars [ostensibly] for two other people. Then, about halfway through this game of catch among the three of them, the subjects stopped receiving the ball and the two other supposed players threw the ball only to each other. † Even after they learned that no other human players were involved, the game players spoke of feeling angry, snubbed, or judged, as if the other avatars excluded them because they didn’t like something about them. This reaction could be traced directly to the brain’s responses. â€Å"When people felt excluded,† says Eisenberger, â€Å"we saw activity in the dorsal portion of the anterior cingulate cortex — the neural region involved in the distressing component of pain, or what is sometimes referred to as the ‘suffering’ component of pain. Those people who felt the most rejected had the highest levels of activity in this region. † In other words, the feeling of being excluded provoked the same sort of reaction in the brain that physical pain might cause. (See Exhibit 1. ) Eisenberger’s fellow researcher Matthew Lieberman, lso of UCLA, hypothesizes that human beings evolved 2 features special report Illustration by Leigh Wells Neuroscience research is revealing the social nature of the high-performance workplace. SPECIAL REPORT: THE TALENT OPPORTUNITY this link between social connection and physical discomfort within the brain â€Å"because, to a mammal, being socially connected to caregivers is necessary for survival. † This study and many others now emerging have made one thing clear: The human brain is a social organ. Its physiological and neurological reactions are directly and profoundly shaped by social interaction. Indeed, as Lieberman puts it, â€Å"Most processes operating in the background when your brain is at rest are involved in thinking about other people and yourself. † This presents enormous challenges to managers. Although a job is often regarded as a purely economic transaction, in which people exchange their labor for financial compensation, the brain experiences the workplace first and foremost as a social system. Like the experiment participants whose avatars were left out of the game, people who feel betrayed or unrecognized at work — for example, when they are reprimanded, given an assignment that seems unworthy, or told to take a pay ut — experience it as a neural impulse, as powerful and painful as a blow to the head. Most people who work in companies learn to rationalize or temper their reactions; they â€Å"suck it up,† as the common parlance puts it. But they also limit their commitment and engagement. They become purely transactional employees, reluctant t o give more of themselves to the company, because the social context stands in their way. Leaders who understand this dynamic can more effectively engage their employees’ best talents, support collaborative teams, and create an environment that fosters productive change. Indeed, the ability to intentionally address the social brain in the service of optimal performance will be a distinguishing leadership capability in the years ahead. Triggering the Threat Response One critical thread of research on the social brain starts with the â€Å"threat and reward† response, a neurological mechanism that governs a great deal of human behavior. When you encounter something unexpected — a shadow seen from the corner of your eye or a new colleague moving into the office next door — the limbic system (a relatively primitive part of the brain, common to many animals) is aroused. Neuroscientist Evian Gordon refers to this as the â€Å"minimize danger, maximize reward† response; he calls it â€Å"the fundamental organizing principle of the brain. † Neurons are activated and hormones are released as you seek to learn whether this new entity represents a chance for reward or a potential danger. If the perception is danger, then the response becomes a pure threat response — also known as the fight or flight response, the avoid response, and, in its extreme form, the amygdala hijack, named for a part of the limbic system that can be aroused rapidly and in an emotionally overwhelming way. Recently, researchers have documented that the threat response is often triggered in social situations, and it tends to be more intense and longer-lasting than the reward response. Data gathered through measures of brain activity — by using fMRI and electroencephalograph (EEG) machines or by gauging hormonal secretions — suggests that the same neural responses that drive us toward food or away from predators are triggered by our perception of the way we are treated by other people. These findings are reframing the prevailing view of the role that social drivers play in influencing how humans behave. Matthew Lieberman notes that Abraham Maslow’s â€Å"hierarchy of needs† theory may have been wrong in this respect. Maslow proposed that strategy + business issue 56 features special report 3 David Rock (davidrock@workplacecoaching .com) is the founding president of the NeuroLeadership Institute (www. neuroleadership .org). He is also the CEO of Results Coaching Systems, which helps global organizations grow their leadership teams, using brain research as a base for self-awareness and social awareness. He is the author of Your Brain at Work (HarperBusiness, 2009) and Quiet Leadership: Six Steps to Transforming Performance at Work (Collins, 2006). Exhibit 1: Social and Physical Pain Produce Similar Brain Responses Physical hysic cal Pain ain solving; in other words, just when people most need their sophisticated mental capabilities, the brain’s internal resources are taken away from them. The impact of this neural dynamic is often visible in organizations. You read "Managing with the Brain in Mind" in category "Essay examples" For example, when leaders trigger a threat response, employees’ brains become much less efficient. But when leaders make people feel good about themselves, clearly communicate their expectations, give employees latitude to make decisions, support people’s fforts to build good relationships, and treat the whole organization fairly, it prompts a reward response. Others in the organization become more effective, more open to ideas, and more creative. They notice the kind of information that passes them by when fear or resent- Illustratio n: Sam tion: Samuel Valasco muel Valasco Source: Eisenberger, Lieberman, and Williams, Science, 2003 (social pain images); Lieberman et al. , â€Å"The Neural Correlates of Placebo Effects: A Disruption Account,† : Lieberman, Science, (social Lieber rman â€Å"The N Neuroimage, May 2004 (physical pain images) mage, 4 features special report Social cial Pain ain Brain scans captured through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) show the same areas associated with distress, whether caused by rejection or physical pain. cingulate (highlighted social rejection or physical pain. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (highlighted at left) is associated with the degree of distress; the right ventral distress. prefrontal cortex (highlighted at right) is associated with regulating the distre ntal ess. humans tend to satisfy their needs in sequence, starting with physical survival and moving up the ladder toward self-actualization at the top. In this hierarchy, social eeds sit i n the middle. But many studies now show that the brain equates social needs with survival; for example, being hungry and being ostracized activate similar neural responses. The threat response is both mentally taxing and deadly to the productivity of a person — or of an organization. Because this response uses up oxygen and glucose from the blood, they are diverted from other parts of the brain, including the working memory function, which processes new information and ideas. This impairs analytic thinking, creative insight, and problem Neuroscience has discovered that the brain is highly plastic. Even the most ntrenched behaviors can be modified. Status and Its Discontents Research into the social nature of the brain suggests another piece of this puzzle. Five particular qualities enable employees and executives alike to minimize the threat response and instead enable the reward response. These five social qualities are status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness: Because they can be expressed with the acronym SCARF, I sometimes think of them as a kind of headgear that an organization can wear to prevent exposure to dysfunction. To understand how the SCARF model works, let’s look at each characteristic in turn. eatures special report 5 ment makes it difficult to focus their attention. They are less susceptible to burnout because they are able to manage their stress. They feel intrinsically rewarded. Understanding the threat and reward response can also help leaders who are trying to implement large-scale change. The track record of failed efforts to spark higher-perfomance behavior has led many managers to conclude that human nature is simply intractable: â€Å"You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. † Yet neuroscience has also discovered that the human brain is highly plastic. Neural connections can be reformed, new behaviors can e learned, and even the most entrenched behaviors can be modified at any age. The brain will make these shifts only when it is engaged in mindful attention. This is the state of thought associated with observing one’s own mental processes (or, in an organization, stepping back to observe the flow of a conversation as it is happening). Mindfulness requires both serenity and concentration; in a threatened state, people are much more likely to be â€Å"mindless. † Their attention is diverted by the threat, and they cannot easily move to self-discovery. In a previous article (â€Å"The Neuroscience of Leadership,† s+b, Summer 2006), brain scientist Jeffrey Schwartz and I proposed that organizations could marshal mindful attention to create organizational change. They could do this over time by putting in place regular routines in which people would watch the patterns of their thoughts and feelings as they worked and thus develop greater self-awareness. We argued that this was the only way to change organizational behavior; that the â€Å"carrots and sticks† of incentives (and behavioral psychology) did not work, and that the counseling and empathy of much organizational development was not fficient enough to make a difference. strategy + business issue 56 As humans, we are constantly assessing how social encounters either enhance or diminish our status. Research published by Hidehiko Takahashi et al. in 2009 shows that when people realize that they might compare unfavorably to someone else, the threat response kicks in, releasing cortisol and other stress-related horm ones. (Cortisol is an accurate biological marker of the threat response; within the brain, feelings of low status provoke the kind of cortisol elevation associated with sleep deprivation and chronic anxiety. Separately, researcher Michael Marmot, in his book The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity (Times Books, 2004), has shown that high status correlates with human longevity and health, even when factors like income and education are controlled for. In short, we are biologically programmed to care about status because it favors our survival. As anyone who has lived in a modest house in a high-priced neighborhood knows, the feeling of status is always comparative. And an executive with a salary of US$500,000 may feel elevated. . . until he or she is A Craving for Certainty he skills they have acquired, rather than for their seniority, is a status booster in itself. Values have a strong impact on status. An organization that appears to value money an d rank more than a basic sense of respect for all employees will stimulate threat responses among employees who aren’t at the top of the heap. Similarly, organizations that try to pit people against one another on the theory that it will make them work harder reinforce the idea that there are only winners and losers, which undermines the standing of people below the top 10 percent. 6 features special report ssigned to work with an executive making $2. 5 million. A study by Joan Chiao in 2003 found that the neural circuitry that assesses status is similar to that which processes numbers; the circuitry operates even when the stakes are meaningless, which is why winning a board game or being the first off the mark at a green light feels so satisfying. Competing against ourselves in games like solitaire triggers the same circuitry, which may help explain the phenomenal popularity of video games. Understanding the role of status as a core concern can help leaders avoid organizatio nal practices that stir ounterproductive threat responses among employees. For example, performance reviews often provoke a threat response; people being reviewed feel that the exercise itself encroaches on their status. This makes 360degree reviews, unless extremely participative and welldesigned, ineffective at generating positive behavioral change. Another common status threat is the custom of offering feedback, a standard practice for both managers and coaches. The mere phrase â€Å"Can I give you some advice? † puts people on the defensive because they perceive the person offering advice as claiming superiority. It is the cortisol equivalent of hearing footsteps in the dark. Organizations often assume that the only way to raise an employee’s status is to award a promotion. Yet status can also be enhanced in less-costly ways. For example, the perception of status increases when people are given praise. Experiments conducted by Keise Izuma in 2008 show that a programmed status-related stimulus, in the form of a computer saying â€Å"good job,† lights up the same reward regions of the brain as a financial windfall. The perception of status also increases when people master a new skill; paying employees more for When an individual encounters a familiar situation, his or her brain conserves its own energy by shifting into a kind of automatic pilot: it relies on long-established neural connections in the basal ganglia and motor cortex that have, in effect, hardwired this situation and the individual’s response to it. This makes it easy to do what the person has done in the past, and it frees that person to do two things at once; for example, to talk while driving. But the minute the brain registers ambiguity or confusion — if, for example, the car ahead of the driver slams on its brakes — the brain flashes an error signal. With the threat response aroused and working memory diminished, the driver must stop talking and shift full attention to the road. Uncertainty registers (in a part of the brain called the anterior cingulate cortex) as an error, gap, or tension: something that must be corrected before one can feel comfortable again. That is why people crave certainty. Not knowing what will happen next can be profoundly debilitating because it requires extra neural energy. This diminishes memory, undermines performance, and disengages people from the present. Of course, uncertainty is not necessarily debilitating. Mild ncertainty attracts interest and attention: New and challenging situations create a mild threat response, increasing levels of adrenalin and dopamine just enough to spark curiosity and energize people to solve problems. Moreover, different people respond to uncertainty in the world around them in different ways, depending in part on their existing patterns of thought. For example, when t hat car ahead stops suddenly, the driver who thinks, â€Å"What should I do? † is likely to be ineffective, whereas the driver who frames the incident as manageable — â€Å"I need to swerve left now because there’s a car on the right† — is well equipped to respond. All of life is uncertain; it is the perception of Relating to Relatedness given more control over decision making lived longer and healthier lives than residents in a control group who had everything selected for them. The choices themselves were insignificant; it was the perception of autonomy that mattered. Another study, this time of the franchise industry, identified work–life balance as the number one reason that people left corporations and moved into a franchise. Yet other data showed that franchise owners actually worked far longer hours (often for less money) than they had in corporate life. They nevertheless perceived themselves to have a better work–life balance because they had greater scope to make their own choices. Leaders who know how to satisfy the need for autonomy among their people can reap substantial benefits — without losing their best people to the entrepreneurial ranks. features special report 7 The Autonomy Factor too much uncertainty that undercuts focus and performance. When perceived uncertainty gets out of hand, people panic and make bad decisions. Leaders and managers must thus work to create a perception of certainty to build confident and dedicated eams. Sharing business plans, rationales for change, and accurate maps of an organization’s structure promotes this perception. Giving specifics about organizational restructuring helps people feel more confident about a plan, and articulating how decisions are made increases trust. Transparent practices are the foundation on which the perception of certainty rests. Breaking complex projects down into small steps can also help create the feeling of certainty. Although it’s highly unlikely everything will go as planned, people function better because the project now seems less ambiguous. Like the driver on the road who has enough information to calculate his or her response, an employee focused on a single, manageable aspect of a task is unlikely to be overwhelmed by threat responses. strategy + business issue 56 Studies by Steven Maier at the University of Boulder show that the degree of control available to an animal confronted by stressful situations determines whether or not that stressor undermines the ability to function. Similarly, in an organization, as long as people feel they can execute their own decisions without much oversight, stress remains under control. Because human brains evolved in response to stressors over thousands of years, they are constantly attuned, usually at a subconscious level, to the ways in which social encounters threaten or support the capacity for choice. A perception of reduced autonomy — for example, because of being micromanaged — can easily generate a threat response. When an employee experiences a lack of control, or agency, his or her perception of uncertainty is also aroused, further raising stress levels. By contrast, the perception of greater autonomy increases the feeling of certainty and reduces stress. Leaders who want to support their people’s need for autonomy must give them latitude to make choices, especially when they are part of a team or working with a supervisor. Presenting people with options, or allowing them to organize their own work and set their own hours, provokes a much less stressed response than forcing them to follow rigid instructions and schedules. In 1977, a well-known study of nursing homes by Judith Rodin and Ellen Langer found that residents who were Fruitful collaboration depends on healthy relationships, which require trust and empathy. But in the brain, the bility to feel trust and empathy about others is shaped by whether they are perceived to be part of the same social group. This pattern is visible in many domains: in sports (â€Å"I hate the other team†), in organizational silos (â€Å"the ‘suits’ are the problem†), and in communities (â€Å"those people on the other side of town always mess things up†). Each time a person meets someone new, the brain automatically makes quick friend-or-foe distinctions and then experiences the friends and foes in ways that are colored by those distinctions. When the new person is perceived as different, the information travels along eural pathways that are associated with uncomfortable feelings (different from the neural pathways triggered by people who are perceived as similar to oneself). Leaders who understand this phenomenon will find many ways to apply it in business. For example, teams of diverse people cannot be thrown together. They must be deliberately put together in a way that minimizes the potential for threat responses. Trust cannot be assumed or mandated, nor can empathy or even goodwill be compelled. These qualities develop only when people’s brains start to recognize former strangers as friends. This equires time and repeated social interaction. Once people make a stronger social connection, their brains begin to secrete a hormone called oxytocin in one another’s presence. This chemical, which has been linked with affection, maternal behavior, sexual arousal, and generosity, disarms the threat response and We now have reason to believe that economic incentives are effective only when people perceive them as supporting their social needs. The perception that an event has been unfair generates a strong response in the limbic system, stirring hostility and undermining trust. As with status, people perceive airness in relative terms, feeling more satisfied with a fair exchange that offers a minimal reward than an unfair exchange in which the reward is substantial. Studies conducted by Matthew Lieberman and Golnaz Tabibnia found that people respond more positively to being given 50 cents from a dollar split between them and another person than to receiving $8 out of a total of $25. Another study found that the experience of fairness produces reward responses in the brain similar to those that occur from ea ting chocolate. The cognitive need for fairness is so strong that some people are willing to fight and die for causes hey believe are just — or commit themselves wholeheartedly to an organization they recognize as fair. An executive told me he had stayed with his company for 22 years simply because â€Å"they always did the right thing. † People often engage in volunteer work for similar reasons: They perceive their actions as increasing the fairness quotient in the world. In organizations, the perception of unfairness creates an environment in which trust and collaboration cannot flourish. Leaders who play favorites or who appear to reserve privileges for people who are like them arouse a threat response in employees who are outside their circle. The old boys’ network provides an egregious example; those who are not a part of it always perceive their organizations as fundamentally unfair, no matter how many mentoring programs are put in place. Like certainty, fairness is served by transparency. Leaders who share information in a timely manner can keep people engaged and motivated, even during staff reductions. Morale remains relatively high when people perceive that cutbacks are being handled fairly — that no one group is treated with preference and that there is a rationale for every cut. Putting on the SCARF If you are a leader, every action you take and every ecision you make either supports or undermines the perceived levels of status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness in your enterprise. In fact, this is why leading is so difficult. Your every word and glance is freighted with social meaning. Your sentences and gestures are noticed and interpreted, magnified and 8 features special report Playin g for Fairness further activates the neural networks that permit us to perceive someone as â€Å"just like us. † Research by Michael Kosfeld et al. in 2005 shows that a shot of oxytocin delivered by means of a nasal spray decreases threat arousal. But so may a handshake and a shared glance over something funny. Conversely, the human threat response is aroused when people feel cut off from social interaction. Loneliness and isolation are profoundly stressful. John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick showed in 2008 that loneliness is itself a threat response to lack of social contact, activating the same neurochemicals that flood the system when one is subjected to physical pain. Leaders who strive for inclusion and minimize situations in which people feel rejected create an environment that supports maximum performance. This of course raises a hallenge for organizations: How can they foster relatedness among people who are competing with one another or who may be laid off? strategy + business issue 56 features special report 9 combed for meanings you may never have intended. The SCARF model provides a means of bringing conscious awareness to all these potentially fraught interactions. It helps alert you to people’s core conc erns (which they may not even understand themselves) and shows you how to calibrate your words and actions to better effect. Start by reducing the threats inherent in your company and in its leaders’ behavior. Just as the animal brain is wired to respond to a predator before it can focus attention on the hunt for food, so is the social brain wired to respond to dangers that threaten its core concerns before it can perform other functions. Threat always trumps reward because the threat response is strong, immediate, and hard to ignore. Once aroused, it is hard to displace, which is why an unpleasant encounter in traffic on the morning drive to work can distract attention and impair performance all day. Humans cannot think creatively, work well with others, or make informed decisions when their threat responses re on high alert. Skilled leaders understand this and act accordingly. A business reorganization provides a good example. Reorganizations generate massive amounts of uncertainty, which can paralyze people’s ability to perform. A leader attuned to SCARF principles therefore makes reducing the threat of uncertainty the first order of business. For example, a leader might kick off the process by sharing as much information as possible about the reasons for the reorganization, painting a picture of the future company and explaining what the specific implications will be for the people who work there. Much will be unknown, but being clear about what is known and willing to acknowledge what is not goes a long way toward ameliorating uncertainty threats. Reorganizations also stir up threats to autonomy, because people feel they lack control over their future. An astute leader will address these threats by giving people latitude to make as many of their own decisions as possible — for example, when the budget must be cut, involving the people closest to the work in deciding what must go. Because many reorganizations entail information technology upgrades that undermine peo- ple’s perception of autonomy by foisting new systems on hem without their consent, it is essential to provide continuous support and solicit employees’ participation in the design of new systems. Top-down strategic planning is often inimical to SCARF -related reactions. Having a few key leaders come up with a plan and then expecting people to buy into it is a recipe for failure, because it doe s not take the threat response into account. People rarely support initiatives they had no part in designing; doing so would undermine both autonomy and status. Proactively addressing these concerns by adopting an inclusive planning process can prevent the kind of unconscious sabotage hat results when people feel they have played no part in a change that affects them every day. Leaders often underestimate the importance of addressing threats to fairness. This is especially true when it comes to compensation. Although most people are not motivated primarily by money, they are profoundly de-motivated when they believe they are being unfairly paid or that others are overpaid by comparison. Leaders who recognize fairness as a core concern understand that disproportionately increasing compensation at the top makes it impossible to fully engage people at the middle or lower end of the pay cale. Declaring that a highly paid executive is â€Å"doing a great job† is counterproductive in this situation because those who are paid less will interpret it to mean that they are perceived to be poor performers. For years, economists have argued that people will change their behavior if they have sufficient incentives. But these economists have defined incentives almost exclusively in economic terms. We now have reason to believe that economic incentives are effective only when people perceive them as supporting their social needs. Status can also be enhanced by giving an employee reater scope to plan his or her schedule or the chance to develop meaningful relationships with those at different levels in the organization. The SCARF model thus provides leaders with more nuanced and cost-effective ways to expand the definition of reward. In doing so, SCARF principles also provide a more granular understanding of the state of engagement, in which employees give their best performance. Engagement can be induced when people working toward objectives feel rewarded by their eff orts, with a manageable level of threat: in short, when the brain is generating rewards in several SCARF-related dimensions. Leaders themselves are not immune to the SCARF and cognitive problem solving reside in the lateral, or outer, portions of the brain, whereas the middle regions support self-awareness, social skills, and empathy. These regions are inversely correlated. As Lieberman notes, â€Å"If you spend a lot of time in cognitive tasks, your ability to have empathy for people is reduced simply because that part of your circuitry doesn’t get much use. † Perhaps the greatest challenge facing leaders of business or government is to create the kind of atmosphere that promotes status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. When historians look back, their judgment of this period in time may rise or fall on how organizations, and society as a whole, operated. Did they treat people fairly, draw people together to solve problems, promote entrepreneurship and autonomy, foster certainty wherever possible, and find ways to raise the perceived status of everyone? If so, the brains of the future will salute them. + Resources Reprint No. 09306 John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick, Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection (W. W. Norton, 2008): A scientific look at the causes and effects of emotional isolation. Michael Marmot, The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity (Times Books, 2004): An epidemiologist shows that people live longer when they have status, autonomy, and relatedness, even if they lack money. David Rock, Your Brain at Work: Strategies for Overcoming Distraction, Regaining Focus, and Working Smarter All Day Long (HarperBusiness, 2009): Neuroscience explanations for workplace challenges and dilemmas, and strategies for managing them. David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz, â€Å"The Neuroscience of Leadership,† s+b, Summer 2006, www. strategy-business. om/press/article/06207: Applying breakthroughs in brain research, this article explains the value of neuroplasticity in organizational change. David Rock, â€Å"SCARF: A Brain-based Model for Collaborating with and Influencing Others,† NeuroLeadership Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, December 2008, 44: Overview of research on the five factors described in this article, and contains bibliographic re ferences for research quoted in this article. Naomi Eisenberger and Matthew Lieberman, with K. D. Williams, â€Å"Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion,† Science, vol. 302, no. 643, October 2003, 290–292: Covers the Cyberball experiment. Naomi Eisenberger and Matthew Lieberman, â€Å"The Pains and Pleasures of Social Life,† Science, vol. 323, no. 5916, February 2009, 890–891: Explication of social pain and social pleasure, and the impact of fairness, status, and autonomy on brain response. NeuroLeadership Institute Web site, www. neuroleadership. org: Institute bringing together research scientists and management experts to explore the transformation of organizational development and performance. For more business thought leadership, sign up for s+b ’s RSS feeds at www. trategy-business. com/rss 10 features special report dynamic; like everyone else, they react when they feel their status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fair treatment are threatened. However, their reactions have more impact, because they are picked up and amplified by others throughout the company. (If a company’s executive salaries are excessive, it may be because others are following the leader’s intuitive emphasis, driven by subconscious cognition, on anything that adds status. ) If you are an executive leader, the more practiced you are at reading yourself, the more effective you will e. For example, if you understand that micromanaging threatens status and autonomy, you will resist your own impulse to gain certainty by dictating every detail. Instead, you’ll seek to disarm people by giving them latitude to make their own mistakes. If you have felt the hairs on the back of your own neck rise when someone says, â€Å"Can I offer you some feedback? † you will know it’s best to create opportunities for people to do the hard work of self-assessment rather than insisting they depend on performance rev iews. When a leader is self-aware, it gives others a feeling f safety even in uncertain environments. It makes it easier for employees to focus on their work, which leads to improved performance. The same principle is evident in other groups of mammals, where a skilled pack leader keeps members at peace so they can perform their functions. A self-aware leader modulates his or her behavior to alleviate organizational stress and creates an environment in which motivation and creativity flourish. One great advantage of neuroscience is that it provides hard data to vouch for the efficacy and value of so-called soft skills. It also shows the danger of being a hard-charging eader whose best efforts to move people along also set up a threat response that puts others on guard. Similarly, many leaders try to repress their emotions in order to enhance their leadership presence, but this only confuses people and undermines morale. Experiments by Kevin Ochsner and James Gross show that when som eone tries not to let other people see what he or she is feeling, the other party tends to experience a threat response. That’s why being spontaneous is key to creating an authentic leadership presence. This approach is likely to minimize status threats, increase certainty, nd create a sense of relatedness and fairness. Finally, the SCARF model helps explain why intelligence, in itself, isn’t sufficient for a good leader. Matthew Lieberman’s research suggests that high intelligence often corresponds with low self-awareness. The neural networks involved in information holding, planning, strategy+business magazine is published by Booz Company Inc. To subscribe, visit www. strategy-business. com or call 1-877-829-9108. For more information about Booz Company, visit www. booz. com Looking Booz Company Inc.  © 2009 for Booz Allen Hamilton? It can be found at at www. boozallen. com How to cite Managing with the Brain in Mind, Essay examples

Integration of Corporate Sustainability †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Integration of Corporate Sustainability. Answer: Introduction: Strategic management can be defined as the process of identification as well as description of the strategies which the managers can adapt and carry forward. This would help in achieving better performance and at the same time provide competitive advantage over the other rival organizations. In other ways, it can be defined as the bundle of decisions as well as activities which a manager usually undertakes and which decides the result of the firms performance (Hill, Jines and Schilling 2014). In most cases, managers usually have a thorough knowledge and thereby conduct proper analysis if the general as well as the competitive environment of the organization in order to take the most promising decisions of the organizations. Therefore this type of management mainly focuses on the planning for both the predictable as well as the unfeasible contingencies. This is adapted by both small and large organizations where professionals formulate and implement appropriate strategies. This is don e to attain sustainable competitive advantage (Peppard and Ward 2016). The most conventional form of strategic management mainly depended upon the linear strategy which has been adapted by firms for a long period of time. This approach mainly focuses on the idea that the result for the strategic management is the goals and the different ways to achieve the goals successfully. By the statement it means, the leaders will first provide the strategies based upon which the girl and the ways to reaching the goals will be finalized (Barney 2014). The leaders mainly plan how they will deal with the competitors so that organization can achieve the objectives. Here the phases are dependent on each other and they are executed in a sequential order with no feedback loops. This model of strategic management only produces solution at the end phase. Benefits of linear model: Such a model has number of benefits as well as a number of disadvantages also. The advantages are that the project remains under control and the different milestones set are known and tracked. Moreover other benefits of this model are that here the resources are known and also there is proper work distribution (Wheelen and Hunger 2017). They are very helpful for workers who are inexperienced developers. The different disadvantages are often found with this model which had cause many other strategists to think beyond the linear structure model. The main disadvantage is that the model is highly inflexible and often requires a long period of development. Moreover this model is also found to bring in no proper business value until it is late in the development. Moreover, it also requires heavy documentation procedure with little or no focus on customer value. In this model, the managers have to look over all the functioning like stating form recruiting to settling of wages, evaluations and planning and therefore a manager with a vast and extensive knowledge is required which may not be always possible to find. Managers need to tackle so much which may result in stress and might not always be successful (Slack 2015). This model also faces problem when adapting to new and changing operating conditions which include introduction of new legislations. Moreover, it is also seen to promote the centralization of power which actually limit the suggestions and initiatives of the workers. Moreover another negative factor which also may be included is increasing risk of immobilization of the company which may take place mainly due to interruption of business routes mainly during the absence of the managers. As the model gives the scope for very few flexibility it causes problems during changes (Carroll and Cuchholtz 2014). Disadvantages of linear model: As a result of these disadvantages, many alternative strategies are proposed out of which the stakeholder approach is one such model which is not fo1llowed by many managers. The stakeholder approach to strategic management mainly provides the idea that every managers should develop and implement plans which would result in satisfaction of all the stakeholders who are involved in the business. The main focus of this approach mainly remain on the fact that it is important to manage as well as integrate the relationship as well as the interests of employees, shareholders, customs and communities as well as other groups (Grant 2016) . This should be done in a way which would help in insuring the long term success of the organization. In altogether, this approach mainly emphasizes the active management of the business environment as well as the relationships and the promotion of the shared interest. There are many important groups in an organization who have a stake or are contributors to the success of the firm. Many traditional views of strategic management had for long avoided the interest of the stakeholders and marginalized others. It also constantly traded off the interest for others against favored stakeholder groups. Such traditional strategic management approach like the linear model may work well in a stable environment but in the world of turbulence as well as in the times of accelerating changes, the limitation of the traditional approaches become prominent (Tantalo and Priem 2016). It is very much important for the managers into include the stakeholders interest in the purpose of the firm. This approach would also help in maintaining the stakeholder relationship to be managed in the coherent and strategic fashion. Benefits of Stakeholder approach: There are benefits of this approach. Firstly, this approach is intended to provide a particular strategic framework which is very much flexible. It helps to deal with the environmental shifts without requiring managers to search and monument for new strategic paradigms. This helped to avoid the confusing and time consuming circle of facing an environmental shift, resulting in new strategic problem, developing new framework, adopting new strategic practices, again resulting in new environmental shift and gain new problem (Vogel and Guttel 2013). Secondly this approach is mostly a strategic management process and goes far beyond a strategic planning process. The later mainly focuses on the developing of plans for the organization to develop its position in compassion to a strategic management process which not only provides new direction but also show how the firm affect the environment and vice versa. Thirdly, it is seen that unlike the traditional method it rejects the very idea of m aximizing the single objective function as the useful way of thinking about the strategic management procedures. Rather it mainly believes that the strategic management is a never ending task of balancing and integrating multiple relationships and multiple objectives (Helfat and Peteraf 2015). Fourthly, this approach also ensures that development of strategies take place by inverting in all the relationships which ensure long term success by setting a proper perspective for values and value based management within their business strategy. Diverse stakeholders can only collaborate over a long run is they share common values and therefore this approach provides importance to values as a key empathy for strategic management. Fifthly, it is seen that this approach suggests that stakeholders relationship can be created or influences and not be simply taken or given (Kor and Mesco 2013). Unlike the other models, it does not believe on the process of adapting the firm to managements best g uess of the future environment. Disadvantages of Stakeholder approach: There are certain disadvantages of this model which must be also discussed. These are that they are best done on the continuous basis. Moreover another negative point is that the assessment so analysis may be subjective. Moreover, it might also happen that all the stakeholders interests may be different and there might be situation when all the interest may not meet at the same time. Selecting particular ones view may result in biasness (Beske, Land and Seuring 2014). In such a situation, management may face difficulty and therefore then they have to focus on most important stakeholders which thought to lead to dissatisfaction among others. There is often also need to balance and also reconcile all interests according to importance for urgency. Another important approach of strategic management is called the dynamic capability approach. The author Teece mainly describes it as the organizations capability to integrate, build and thereby reconfigure both external as well as internal competencies to address the rapidly changing environments in the organization. It is different from the other approaches in the strategic management which follows operational capabilities, pertaining to different current operations of the organization. This approach mainly differs from the other due to the capacity of the organization to purposefully create and then extend and modify the resource base (Schaltegger and Wagner 2017). While other approaches do not pay importance to the core competencies but this strategy mainly focuses on the fact that core competencies should be used for modification of the short term competitive positions which can be used to build linger tem competitive advantage. Unlike the other approaches, this approach influences the organization as well the employees working for them to develop the capability to learn quickly and build totally new type of strategic assets which include developing capability, technology as well as customer feedback which remain integrated in the company. Corporate agility is also promoted by this approach in comparisons to that of the other approaches. This includes sensing and shaping the different threats and opportunities, seizing opportunities and also maintains competitiveness. This can be done through enhancing, combining, protecting and also when necessary, this also influences to reconfigure the business enterprises intangible and tangible assets. This approach introduces the concept of routines which are patterns of interactions that provide good solutions to particular approaches. These patterns of interactions are resident in good forms in group behaviors. They also help in providing sub routine which are import ant in individuals behavior (Beske and Seuring 2014). Collaboration as well as partnership help in group learning. Similar to learning, building strategic assets is another dynamic capability. This includes effective as well as efficient internal coordination as well as integration of strategic assets. This also determines a firms performance. This helps in gathering as well as in processing of information as well as linking the customer experiences of engineering choices. They also coordinate factories and component suppliers. it also influence transformation of existing assets. This approach helps to keep in pace with the changing environment and the mw time fast changing markets require the ability to reconfigure the firms assets structure and accomplish different internal and external transformation (Scalteger and Burrit 2014).. This approach also puts importance to co specialization. Here with time firm assets may become co-specialized were they become uniquely valuable in comb ination like where physical assets, human resources and intellectual property altogether provide a synergistic combination of complementary assets. Therefore this is different from other approaches as it helps in finding a predetermined idea and governance of the asset system of the organization so that it bring the best benefit been in time of crisis. Disadvantages of Dynamic capability approach: However there have been many criticisms that have been found to be associated with the dynamic capability approach. Dynamic capability can take a variety of forms and can also involve a large number of different functions. They often include marketing, product development, development of process. however the main disadvantage is that they are higher level capabilities which provide opportunities for knowledge gathering and sharing, continuous updating of operational process , interaction with environment and decision making evaluations. These higher level capabilities may not be possessed by new managers or new start ups or has those who have less experiences (Engert et al. 2015). This means that the approach is not easier to be adopted by new firms or novice managers making them take a long time to be prepared to follow this approach. Moreover this is beneficial for dynamic companies like those of biotechnology or semiconductor industry but is not enough beneficial for traditional c ompanies. Moreover there are also not clear linkages in the approach about how dynamic capabilities include the utilization of resources and the implementation of new processes. Moreover there is also requirement for proper linking between dynamic capabilities and more micro issues, such as managerial cognition and search processes. Lastly there remains conceptual problems such as distinguishing between operational and higher order capabilities and also between capabilities which rely on incremental learning processes and those that presuppose dramatic new knowledge trajectories. Sustainable approach in strategic management has been given attention by Business all over the world scenes people realise the importance of environment in business systems point business sustainability can be defined as the management of mainly the triple bottom line which mainly comprises of the process by which different organisations take part in the management of their environmental social as well as his financial risk. This also help in managing obligations as well as meeting all the opportunities (Sancjez 2015). There are three main impacts of this approach which are referred as the people profit and the planet. Recent researches are of the opinion that changes in climate are adding a new layer of complexity in the development of sustainability. Different types of environmental factors such as warming temperatures changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels are all having impacts on natural and human systems. This is directly threatening the success of business as well as the productivity produced by people working in such organisations. Benefits of Sustainability approach: Sustainability approach of strategic management is one of the successful medium of any business strategic plan which impacts positively by how effective the organisation is able to address the sustainability as well as the climatic risks. This approach is found to have a direct connection to the bottom line performance which mainly comprises of cost reduction as well as margin and also the brand value that determines the sales of the organisation. This approach has a comprehensive procedure for sustainable development and maximization of revenue and for this Business professionals are now taking an immediate interest in sustainability management by starting from carbon management or Greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers believe that this approach is mainly done by carbon management as the kickoff step to get into the temple of sustainability (Formentini and Tatichhi 2016). This Temple usually has three pillars with are environmental protection, social development and economic growth. This in turn supports the roof of sustainability which is the highest School of Business sustainable profitability. There are many benefits of this approach. The main are that the sustainable practices are resulting in cost savings as well as increase sales point projects. Well structured environmental project protection has resulted in the reduction of consumption of a particular type of resource which has resulted to the saving of operation cost. This is not only developed from advanced Technologies but also from the change of different behaviours of humans, employees, customers as well as suppliers. Secondly this is also resulted in increase sales. Sustainability approach in strategic management can bring out higher levels of products as well as help in getting service quality giving customers richer experiences. This in turn helps in higher levels of customer loyalty that overall leads to sustainable branding and brings out tangible increases in business sales and profits.. The main disadvantages which this type of approach has in comparison to the other approaches are that it results in huge flow of resources and finances while implementing the sustainability strategies. The projects developed to maintain the stability of the environment often requires huge amount of money which might not be redeemable by the company and therefore the small and medium organisations try to save the cost by not taking this approach. Many companies have to pay for environmental programs (Gianniakis and Papadopolulos 2016). More employees training are required and also programs of waste management are to be introduced point. All this requires huge amount of money at the beginning which might not be in stock for many organisations who starting their business. Conclusion: From a large period of time it was the linear structure of strategic management which was implemented by a large number of organizations. Over the years it has been found that there are many disadvantages of this approach. The first one is that it is quite inflexible and requires a long time for development. Moreover it is not suitable to match up to the expectations of the organization when there is a certain environmental change. Therefore many other approaches have been proposed by different researchers overtime, the first one is the stakeholder approach which mainly concerned of involving all the stakeholders into business so that each and everyone's concern can be incorporated while developing different interventions for the organization .This approach is quite flexible and helps to face many obstacles when there is any environmental shift. One of the main disadvantage of this is that it sometimes may result in delay in implementing strategies because the interest of all the sta keholders might not meet at a particular point which results in dissatisfaction among different people point. The next form of strategic management is the dynamic capability approach which mainly gathers information and helps them to process them with internal coordination and integration of strategic assets. Billing customer experiences with each of their aspects and coordinates with the fast changing market to reconfigure the forms and accomplish different internal and external transformations. However this approach is not possible to be taken by all companies because of its dynamic characteristics which requires large amount of training as well as finances to set up the strategies in the working environment. Researchers are also of the opinion that they do not form clear linkages in the approach about how dynamic capabilities include the utilization of resources and implementation of new processes. And other important approach that has been stated is the sustainable approach wher e the organization should develop strategic plans for environmental sustainability for cost savings as well as increase sales. Also results in increasing reputation of the organization and helps in sustainable branding and brings out tangible increases in business sales and profits. In this case also, it has been found that many small and medium size countries have to spend huge amount of money for the environmental programs and this might not always be possible for those organizations who have low financial strength. This approach requires huge expenditure of money at the beginning which might not be possible for all the companies. Therefore researchers have to come up with more approaches or develop a new model which would help to overcome all the disadvantages of these models for betterment of business. References: Barney, J.B., 2014.Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Pearson Higher Ed. Beske, P. and Seuring, S., 2014. Putting sustainability into supply chain management.Supply Chain Management: an international journal,19(3), pp.322-331. Beske, P., Land, A. and Seuring, S., 2014. Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature.International Journal of Production Economics,152, pp.131-143. Carroll, A., Buchholtz, A. (2014).Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. Nelson Education. Engert, S., Rauter, R. and Baumgartner, R.J., 2016. Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: a literature review.Journal of cleaner production,112, pp.2833-2850. Formentini, M. and Taticchi, P., 2016. Corporate sustainability approaches and governance mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management.Journal of cleaner production,112, pp.1920-1933. Giannakis, M. and Papadopoulos, T., 2016. Supply chain sustainability: A risk management approach.International Journal of Production Economics,171, pp.455-470. Grant, R.M., 2016.Contemporary Strategy Analysis Text Only. John Wiley Sons. Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A., 2015. Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities.Strategic Management Journal,36(6), pp.831-850. Hill, C.W., Jones, G.R. and Schilling, M.A., 2014.Strategic management: theory: an integrated approach. Cengage Learning. Kor, Y.Y. and Mesko, A., 2013. Dynamic managerial capabilities: Configuration and orchestration of top executives' capabilities and the firm's dominant logic.Strategic Management Journal,34(2), pp.233-244. Lin, Y. and Wu, L.Y., 2014. Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework.Journal of business research,67(3), pp.407-413. Peppard, J. and Ward, J., 2016.The strategic management of information systems: Building a digital strategy. John Wiley Sons. Snchez, M.A., 2015. Integrating sustainability issues into project management.Journal of Cleaner Production,96, pp.319-330. Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R., 2014. Measuring and managing sustainability performance of supply chains: Review and sustainability supply chain management framework.Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,19(3), pp.232-241. Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. eds., 2017.Managing the business case for sustainability: The integration of social, environmental and economic performance. Routledge. Slack, N., 2015.Operations strategy. John Wiley Sons, Ltd. Tantalo, C. and Priem, R.L., 2016. Value creation through stakeholder synergy.Strategic Management Journal,37(2), pp.314-329. Vogel, R. and Gttel, W.H., 2013. The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review.International Journal of Management Reviews,15(4), pp.426-446. Wheelen, T.L. and Hunger, J.D., 2017.Strategic management and business policy. pearson.